Volitve v ZDA 2020

zmaugy je 30. okt 2020 ob 11:26 izjavil:

Obama je uspel s TPP, ki bi povezal daljnevzhodne nacije proti Kitajski etc., Trump je od tega odstopil in s tem dal darilo Kaitajcem. Trump je butelj. Nam Trump odgovarja, če se hočemo rešiti vpliva države, ki jo vodi ta butelj.

Ta skrivni sporazum, ki bi korporacijam dal moč nad državami... res se mi solza utrne, ko se spomnim, da ga je Trump skenslal.

Biden laže , enkrat skarjnim levičarjem, enkrat zmernim, ker bi rad oboje prinesel okoli in dobil njihov glas:

To je laganje. To ni neodločenost.

Za Trumpa smo že videli, da mu ne znate dokazati nobene laži.

Mate v sredo dopust, da boste lahko v živo preštevali elektorje?

Video, dobra minuta. Senator Perdue je odpovedal zadnjo debato. Razumljivo.

https://twitter.com/JoshuaHol/status/13...
Seriously, this is the most West Wing moment I’ve ever seen in real life. Just brutal.

Poldi112 je 30. okt 2020 ob 15:18 izjavil:

Pacman, evo ti še original Glenn članek, ki ga je Intercept zavrnil.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/articl...

Mi lahko razložiš, zakaj ni vreden objave? Razen tega, da kritizira propagandiste, ki se izdajajo za novinarje?

Zato, iz članka:

Beyond that, the Journal's columnist Kimberly Strassel reviewed a stash of documents and "found correspondence corroborates and expands on emails recently published by the New York Post,"

Kimberley Strassel @ Wikipedia

By October 2019, President Trump had tweeted about Strassel or retweeted her commentary more than 20 times, including calling for a Pulitzer Prize for her.[9] Shortly before the November 2020 election, Strassel pushed unverified claims about Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.[10] Strassel's claims, published in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, were contradicted by the Wall Street Journal's own reporting arm.[11][12][13][14]


Dodaj še, da dokumente "porivata" Rudi in Bannon, zgodbica s pozabljenimi prenosniki močno smrdi. Povej s kom se družiš in povem ti kdo si.

Pri Rudiju se zatakne tako z avtentičnostjo kot javnim interesom.

Poreklo je neznano in vse kar dokumenti dokazujejo je, da politikov sin, zdravljen odvisnik, sklepa posle na podlagi družinskega imena. Kar je jasno vsem.
Ni pa drugega dela, da bi politik imel kaj zraven.

Pac-Man je 30. okt 2020 ob 18:48 izjavil:

Pri Rudiju se zatakne tako z avtentičnostjo kot javnim interesom.

Poreklo je neznano in vse kar dokumenti dokazujejo je, da politikov sin, zdravljen odvisnik, sklepa posle na podlagi družinskega imena. Kar je jasno vsem.
Ni pa drugega dela, da bi politik imel kaj zraven.

Koga briga za interes Rudija ali poreklo dokumentov? Dejstvo ostaja, da mediji, ki so za demokrate, veselo cenzurirajo zgodbo, ki meče slabo luč na njihovega kandidata. Si sploh prebral članek?

Ja, ni direktnega dokaza, da je imel Joe kaj zraven, je pa precej posrednih. Efektivno je prisilil Ukrajino da je zamenjala tožilca s precej bolj nesposobnim/korumpiranim, ki je potem ovrgel vse preiskave firme, ki je njegovemu sinu plačevala 50k/mesec.

Čisto ko suza.

Medtem ko se ti in komplet demokratsko nagnjeni MSM mediji derejo "Rusija". S takim retardiranim odnosom se jim zna ponoviti 2016, ko se je Hillary drla rusi, namesto da bi se soočila z dejstvi. Kar je jasno kazalo na to, da se z dejstvi ne more soočiti, tako kot se z njimi ne more soočiti Biden.

Cenzura rečem temu, da socialna omrežja brišejo linke na NY Post. Ter jasno temu, da MSM namesto da bi postavljali težka vprašanja raje iščejo razloge, kako zaščititi svojega kandidata pred slabimi novicami.

Insinuacija, da so objavili trditve na prvo žogo, je pa v skladu s propagando, ki te prepričuje, da gre za ruse. Oz. kot ti Glenn lepo napiše:

With an archive of this size, one can never independently authenticate every word in every last document unless the subject of the reporting voluntarily confirms it in advance, which they rarely do. What has been done with similar archives is journalists obtain enough verification to create high levels of journalistic confidence in the materials. Some of the materials provided by the source can be independently confirmed, proving genuine access by the source to a hard drive, a telephone, or a database. Other parties in email chains can confirm the authenticity of the email or text conversations in which they participated. One investigates non-public facts contained in the documents to determine that they conform to what the documents reflect. Technology specialists can examine the materials to ensure no signs of forgeries are detected.

This is the process that enabled the largest and most established media outlets around the world to report similar large archives obtained without authorization. In those other cases, no media outlet was able to verify every word of every document prior to publication. There was no way to prove the negative that the source or someone else had not altered or forged some of the material. That level of verification is both unattainable and unnecessary. What is needed is substantial evidence to create high confidence in the authentication process.

The Hunter Biden documents have at least as much verification as those other archives that were widely reported. There are sources in the email chains who have verified that the published emails are accurate. The archive contains private photos and videos of Hunter whose authenticity is not in doubt. A former business partner of Hunter has stated, unequivocally and on the record, that not only are the emails authentic but they describe events accurately, including proposed participation by the former Vice President in at least one deal Hunter and Jim Biden were pursuing in China. And, most importantly of all, neither Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign has even suggested, let alone claimed, that a single email or text is fake.

Why is the failure of the Bidens to claim that these emails are forged so significant? Because when journalists report on a massive archive, they know that the most important event in the reporting's authentication process comes when the subjects of the reporting have an opportunity to deny that the materials are genuine. Of course that is what someone would do if major media outlets were preparing to publish, or in fact were publishing, fabricated or forged materials in their names; they would say so in order to sow doubt about the materials if not kill the credibility of the reporting.

The silence of the Bidens may not be dispositive on the question of the material's authenticity, but when added to the mountain of other authentication evidence, it is quite convincing: at least equal to the authentication evidence in other reporting on similarly large archives.

Sicer pa še en lep primer cenzure. Ko ti CNN sprašuje Kamalo, kako kaj njena čustva po napadu Tulsi, namesto da bi jo spraševal po vsebini obtožb (ki so kar konkretne). In mirno pusti, da Kalala izvede hit job na Tulsi po klasičnem guilt by association (ko je šla v Sirijo osebno preverit stanje, in je zdaj uradno "Assad supporter" zgolj zato, ker se je srečala z njim).

Kaj je to drugega kot šolski primer propagande? Pometanje grehov pod preprogo ter zlivanje gnojnice na osebo, ki si je drznila kritizirati tvojo opcijo?

Min 7



>Pravi novinarji trdijo, da je NY Postov članek spisal nekdo, ki je želel ostati anonimen.

A bejž no. V klimi, kjer je vse, kar ni tuljenje v rog, efektivno konec kariere novinarstva na MSM, je to recej racionalno.

Kaj, če bi se raje ukvarjal z vsebino, namesto da iščeš 1000 in 1 razlog, da bi diskreditiral prinašalca slabih novic?

A se delaš neumnega? Lahko začneš s tem, da je očka zamenjal tožilca v Ukrajini z bolj korumpiranim, ki je nato ovrgel preiskavo firme, ki je sinčku leta izplačevala $50.000 na mesec.

50k hunter posnifa mesečno

Mednarodna skupnost je zgolj propagandmo ime za zahteve USA. Glede argumenta, zakaj ga je bilo treba zamenjati, je pa razlaga Glenna neprimerno bolj verjetna. Če zamenjaš korumpiranega tožilca z bolj korumpiranim, korupcija verjento ne bo vzrok zamenjave...

Third, the media rush to exonerate Biden on the question of whether he engaged in corruption vis-a-vis Ukraine and Burisma rested on what are, at best, factually dubious defenses of the former Vice President. Much of this controversy centers on Biden's aggressive efforts while Vice President in late 2015 to force the Ukrainian government to fire its Chief Prosecutor, Viktor Shokhin, and replace him with someone acceptable to the U.S., which turned out to be Yuriy Lutsenko. These events are undisputed by virtue of a video of Biden boasting in front of an audience of how he flew to Kiev and forced the Ukrainians to fire Shokhin, upon pain of losing $1 billion in aid.

But two towering questions have long been prompted by these events, and the recently published emails make them more urgent than ever: 1) was the firing of the Ukrainian General Prosecutor such a high priority for Biden as Vice President of the U.S. because of his son's highly lucrative role on the board of Burisma, and 2) if that was not the motive, why was it so important for Biden to dictate who the chief prosecutor of Ukraine was?

The standard answer to the question about Biden's motive -- offered both by Biden and his media defenders -- is that he, along with the IMF and EU, wanted Shokhin fired because the U.S. and its allies were eager to clean up Ukraine, and they viewed Shokhin as insufficiently vigilant in fighting corruption.

"Biden's brief was to sweet-talk and jawbone Poroshenko into making reforms that Ukraine's Western benefactors wanted to see as," wrote the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler in what the Post calls a "fact-check." Kessler also endorsed the key defense of Biden: that the firing of Shokhin was bad for Burima, not good for it. "The United States viewed [Shokhin] as ineffective and beholden to Poroshenko and Ukraine's corrupt oligarchs. In particular, Shokin had failed to pursue an investigation of the founder of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky," Kessler claims.

But that claim does not even pass the laugh test. The U.S. and its European allies are not opposed to corruption by their puppet regimes. They are allies with the most corrupt regimes on the planet, from Riyadh to Cairo, and always have been. Since when does the U.S. devote itself to ensuring good government in the nations it is trying to control? If anything, allowing corruption to flourish has been a key tool in enabling the U.S. to exert power in other countries and to open up their markets to U.S. companies.

Is it remotely convincing to you that Biden would have accepted someone like Lutsenko if his motive really were to fortify anti-corruption prosecutions in Ukraine? Yet that's exactly what Biden did: he personally told Poroshenko that Lutsenko was an acceptable alternative and promptly released the $1 billion after his appointment was announced. Whatever Biden's motive was in using his power as U.S. Vice President to change the prosecutor in Ukraine, his acceptance of someone like Lutsenko strongly suggests that combatting Ukrainian corruption was not it.

Poldi112 je 30. okt 2020 ob 20:16 izjavil:

Zahteva je bila po zamenjavi, Lutsenko je na papirju deloval legit. Imenovan je bil maja 2016. Ko se je izkazal za kukavičje jajce, enkrat po avgustu 2016, je bilo že prepozno, bili so v finalu predvolilne kampanje. BTW, tole je pravo novinarstvo, ne delanje škandalov iz mailov neznanega izvora, ko srkaš Cuba Libre v Riu.

Kdor ni na tekočem z Ukrajino - Mustafa je z objavo na FB sprožil euromaidan, Daria je ena bolj znanih protikorupcijskih aktivistk.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019...

Lutsenko liked politics, and two years later he moved to Kyiv, where, in 1999, he became the Socialist Party’s press secretary. That same year, he launched Grani, a weekly opposition newspaper that published articles by muckraking journalists, among them Georgiy Gongadze, a harsh critic of Leonid Kuchma, Ukraine’s second post-Soviet leader, who was seen as corrupt.
In September, 2000, Gongadze disappeared. A few months later, his headless body was found in a forest outside Kyiv. A leaked tape recording suggested that Kuchma was indirectly responsible for the murder—a charge he adamantly denied—and protesters gathered on the streets of Kyiv to call for a new government. (...) At thirty-six, he became a protest leader, and coined the famous slogan “Ukraine Without Kuchma.”

...

In November, 2004, reports of vote-rigging in favor of Yanukovych emerged. Public anger prompted another wave of protests, which took place on the Maidan, Kyiv’s main square. Lutsenko again became one of the primary organizers in the movement, which became known as the Orange Revolution. In December, 2004, Yushchenko won the Presidency, and in February, 2005, he appointed Lutsenko his Interior Minister.

...

In those years, U.S. officials generally viewed Lutsenko favorably, and gave him meetings with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and, briefly, with Robert Mueller, the F.B.I. director at the time; a photo from the Mueller meeting was displayed outside his office.

...

Lutsenko was known as a prodigious drinker, and in 2009 he was detained at the Frankfurt airport after consuming several beers at a bar there and throwing punches at security guards. (...) At home, a television show by the popular Ukrainian comedy troupe Evening Kvartal featured a skit in which an actor playing Lutsenko wakes up in a haze at the airport, surrounded by bandaged German border guards. (One of the Germans was played by a young comedian named Volodymyr Zelensky.) Lutsenko, who was in the studio audience when the skit was performed, was shown laughing on camera.

...

Soon after Yanukovych’s inauguration, Lutsenko was walking his dog when masked policemen surrounded him. He was charged with several spurious crimes, including the misuse of state funds by “illegally celebrating” a holiday in honor of the police force. (...) Before he stood trial, Lutsenko went on a monthlong hunger strike, during which he lost fifty pounds. (...) Later, a young journalist named Mustafa Nayyem published a series of interviews with him, titled “On Both Sides of the Barbed Wire.”

...

In 2013, Yanukovych took part in negotiations with the European Union over a potentially historic pact that would expand Ukraine’s ties with the West (...) Lutsenko was released on April 7, 2013, and soon afterward he met with Kwaśniewski and several European ambassadors in Kyiv.

...

Six months later, on November 21st, Yanukovych balked at signing the E.U. agreement and announced instead a separate pact with Moscow. (...) Lutsenko, who was injured in the protests by riot police, was one of the most energetic participants. “We treated him as an ally at that time,” Daria Kaleniuk, the executive director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, a nonprofit in Kyiv, founded in 2012, recalled. Nayyem, the journalist, added, “Expectations of him were so high not because we thought he was great, or smart, or a Nelson Mandela, but because he himself had suffered under the prosecutor-general system.”

...

Some American officials had reason to suspect that Poroshenko’s pro-reform stance was an example of pokazukha, a Ukrainian term that means “something that is just for show.” The Obama Administration’s doubts about Poroshenko deepened in 2015, when he chose an old-school prosecutor and friend, Viktor Shokin, to be the new prosecutor general.

...

Lutsenko was not a lawyer, and American diplomats and law-enforcement officials had hoped that the job would go to a proven reformer. “The Americans preferred people from their list, and I was not on their list,” Lutsenko said.

...

Before Lutsenko’s appointment was approved, he met three times with George Kent, the U.S. Embassy’s deputy chief of mission. Kent reported back to his colleagues in Washington that he believed the U.S. government could work with Lutsenko.

...

In August, 2016, some of Lutsenko’s men discovered that, as part of an undercover investigation, NABU operatives were surveilling a facility used by the prosecutor general’s office. (..) NABU accused the prosecutor general’s office of “torturing” its staff, and protests broke out in which anti-corruption activists, including Mustafa Nayyem, the journalist who wrote the book about Lutsenko, chanted their support for Sytnyk and denounced Lutsenko. A friend of Lutsenko’s later witnessed a confrontation between him and Nayyem. “It was clear that Mustafa had invested his heart in the relationship and was now angry, and saying, ‘You betrayed me,’ ” the friend recalled.

...

At every level, American officials were frustrated by their Ukrainian counterparts’ refusal to investigate and prosecute corruption and self-dealing among government officials and the business class. In September, 2016, Biden’s team learned that Poroshenko planned to allow the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade to take over a state-owned Ukrainian pipeline company, Ukrtransgaz, a move that was seen by the Americans as “a highly corrupt act,” benefitting a Poroshenko ally.

...

In a separate meeting, according to a Biden aide, the Vice-President lost his temper with Poroshenko. The aide said that, when Poroshenko tried to blame Groysman, “Biden was just, like, ‘Enough. Everything that happens in Ukraine, you know about it. This is bullshit. If you do it again, you’ve lost me. That’s it. I’m done.’ ”

...

Soon after becoming prosecutor general, Lutsenko, seeking tangible results to prove his efficacy, seized on a long-standing tax-evasion case against Burisma. He impounded some of the company’s assets, and later, as part of a settlement, Burisma agreed to pay the state around seven million dollars. Zlochevsky’s representatives celebrated, using the deal to claim that the oligarch no longer had any criminal liability. John Buretta, a former high-ranking Justice Department official, who helped secure the settlement on behalf of a U.S. consulting firm retained by Burisma, said that the decision was “clear evidence of Ukraine’s commitment to the rule of law and due process—twin pillars of democracy.”



Kasneje se je zlizal z Rudijem, mu prodajal čenče o Hunterju in lobiral proti ameriški veleposlanici v Ukrajini, ki je zahtevala trdno protikorupcijsko linijo. Strel v koleno?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics...

Jan. 25 2019: Lutsenko meets with Giuliani, Parnas and others in an office a block from Trump Tower in Manhattan. A summary of the conversation later provided to the State Department indicates that the discussion focused on corruption in Ukraine and allegations of illicit payments from the Ukrainian gas company Burisma to Biden’s son Hunter Biden, a member of Burisma’s board, though details are light.

...

March 5: Lutsenko sends Parnas an update on a speech being given by Yovanovitch in which she calls for the ouster of a questionable prosecutor, Nazar Kholodnitsky. Kholodnitsky was caught on tape coaching witnesses on how to avoid prosecution, which Yovanovitch argued in her speech made it impossible for him to prosecute those same crimes.
March 6: Lutsenko texts Parnas to again offer an update on Yovanovitch’s public anti-corruption statements.

..

March 13: Lutsenko sends Parnas an angry message.
“I’m sorry, but this is all simply b---t,” Lutsenko wrote. “I’m f---g sick of all this. I haven’t received a visit. My [boss] hasn’t received jack all. I’m prepared to [thrash] your opponent. But you want more and more. We’re over.”

...

March 26: Lutsenko claims in a text to Parnas that an investigation of Burisma and its founder, Mykola Zlochevsky, is “progressing well.”
“There is testimony about transfers to B,” he writes.
Shortly afterward, in another message, he adds, “here you can’t even get rid of one fool” — again apparently referring to Yovanovitch.

...

June 21: Lutsenko sends Parnas a tweet from Giuliani focused on the investigations Trump sought. Lutsenko suggests that he should meet with Giuliani since he has “2-2.5 months,” presumably referring to his remaining time in his position.
“I have a plan,” Lutsenko writes.

c3p0 je 30. okt 2020 ob 13:00 izjavil:

zmaugy je 30. okt 2020 ob 11:26 izjavil:

Obama je uspel s TPP, ki bi povezal daljnevzhodne nacije proti Kitajski etc., Trump je od tega odstopil in s tem dal darilo Kaitajcem. Trump je butelj. Nam Trump odgovarja, če se hočemo rešiti vpliva države, ki jo vodi ta butelj.

Ta skrivni sporazum, ki bi korporacijam dal moč nad državami... res se mi solza utrne, ko se spomnim, da ga je Trump skenslal.

A boš ti volil? Ta sporazum je bil dober za ZDA in slab za Džajno, vsekako je z odstopom najbolj profitirala Džajna.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/30/worl...
haha kateri naslov. Ko se človek samo spomni kaosa nobelovega nagrajenca glede tega

Bolj vpliva to, da onemogočajo demokratom, da volijo:

Even with a flood of Covid cases, Texas has successfully fought tooth and nail in federal and state courts to uphold those restrictions. Last month, Texas's governor, Greg Abbott, a Republican, abruptly issued an order that limited each county in the state to offer one ballot drop box. The move meant that Democratic-friendly Harris county, which covers more than 1,700 square miles and is home to 2.4 million registered voters, could only offer one place for voters to return their ballots. The state of Rhode Island, which is smaller than Harris county, will have more drop-off locations this year.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202...

kuall je 31. okt 2020 ob 13:08 izjavil:

Amazon je banal knjigo enega desnega komentatorja, ki sploh ni noben extremist, z naslovom:
"Hollywood Propaganda: How TV, Music, and Movies Shape Our Culture"

Aja?

https://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Propag...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hollywood-Prop...
https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Mark-Dice/dp...

Kolega, kaj bi pravzaprav radi povedali s tem vprašanjem?

Poldi112 je 31. okt 2020 ob 15:02 izjavil:

Kolega, kaj bi pravzaprav radi povedali s tem vprašanjem?

Kolega, IMO to, da so volitve v ZDA interne zadeve. Nekaj, kar sicer zelo rad zagovarjaš.

Zaradi memetov bi bilo zelo OK, da trump zmaga. Ampak zaradi virusa nima šans.

Mene zanima katera stran bo bolj norela če njihov kandidat ne bo zmagal Nočem bit biased ampak mislim da bo kar veselo če Biden zmaga, sploh ob vsej radikalizaciji in namigovanju na goljufanje

Uncle Joe

kuall je 1. nov 2020 ob 02:37 izjavil:

MasterTade je 1. nov 2020 ob 00:43 izjavil:

Mene zanima katera stran bo bolj norela če njihov kandidat ne bo zmagal Nočem bit biased ampak mislim da bo kar veselo če Biden zmaga, sploh ob vsej radikalizaciji in namigovanju na goljufanje

Leva bo norela, tako kot norijo že vsa 4 leta, ker je zmagal Trump. Namigujejo, da je Trump zmagal z Rusko goljufijo in podobne blodnje.

Kolega, Demokrati niso leva stran ali levica ali social-demokrati ali socialisti, so le druga desna stranka v oligarhičnem duopolu ZDA oz. so liberalna stranka. Če si npr. za pravice LGBT skupnosti in za neolib kapitalizem to ne pomeni, da si socialist