![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Выборы в США
Mar. 7th, 2016 03:37 pmО том, как в США прямо в эти минуты уничтожают Дональда Трампа. pic.twitter.com/AMQ5zvGa5x
— Ехидные новости (@FakeMORF) March 5, 2016
Mar. 7th, 2016
"I realized that I like what he's saying," the American Freedom Party chairman said.03/05/2016
Christina Wilkie National Political Reporter, The Huffington Post
Dana Liebelson Staff Reporter, The Huffington Post
WASHINGTON -- Robert Whitaker, a lifelong segregationist who says racial diversity will lead to “white genocide,” is frustrated. He's worked hard to promote his candidacy for president on the white nationalist American Freedom Party ticket. He wrote robocall scripts, sold bumper stickers, and vainly tried to get “White Self-Hatred Is SICK!!!” posted on a billboard in Nevada.
But the leaders of Whitaker's party have been neglecting his campaign so they can back a rival candidate: Republican front-runner Donald Trump.
Whitaker said he's not mad that his allies are backing Trump -- he offered in December to quit the race if Trump "sticks to his guns." He's just upset that they're doing it without him.
American Freedom Party
The American Freedom Party, or AFP, is one of more than 40 minor political parties in the U.S. Many of them nominate a candidate for president every four years. In 2012, the AFP nominee appeared on the ballot in three states, and received a total of 2,716 votes.
The chairman of AFP is Los Angeles-based attorney William Johnson, a soft-spoken corporate lawyer and vehement white nationalist. Last fall, Johnson launched The Daily Trump, a website that blends news about Trump's campaign with thinly veiled white supremacist messages.
White nationalists have a history of using dog-whistle messaging to try to influence mainstream politics. When former Alabama Gov. George Wallace ran for president in 1968, he talked up the importance of "states' rights." But his supporters knew those "rights" meant Jim Crow segregation.
More recently, Trump has proposed a ban on Muslims entering the United States. For white nationalists, Trump's blend of populism and xenophobia has given the movement a rare opportunity to see its dominant themes reflected on the national stage.
Johnson's activities are not affiliated with Trump in any way, and Trump said last month that he would return a $250 donation that Johnson made to his campaign.
The Daily Trump
Around the time he launched the website, Johnson created the wholesome-sounding American National Super PAC to support Trump, funded exclusively by Johnson. He brought in a Yale-educated white nationalist with a patrician voice, Jared Taylor, to help write and record pro-Trump robocalls.
Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance, a pseudo-intellectual journal that imagines a war against "white America." His diction is formal and self-assured (think William F. Buckley), and he uses sciency-sounding words to make white nationalist arguments.
Within the insular world of organized white supremacist groups, Taylor is admired for how respectable he looks and sounds. He "wears coat and tie very well," Whitaker said ruefully. “They suddenly decided the smart boys like them would take over," he later added.
In an email to HuffPost from his Yale account, Taylor asked to be referred to as a "white advocate," and not a white supremacist.
“A white supremacist is defined as someone who thinks that whites are the superior race," Taylor said. "I do not believe that at all. East Asians are objectively superior to whites.”
American Renaissance
The robocalls that Taylor voiced made national news. But asked about Whitaker's AFP presidential campaign, Taylor said he had no opinion. "I don't know about Mr. Whitaker's campaign."
Reached at his Los Angeles law firm, Johnson, who once proposed a constitutional amendment to revoke citizenship of non-white Americans, said he never planned to back a candidate from outside the American Freedom Party.
“When Donald Trump first announced he would run for president, my view of Trump was 'he's a scoundrel.' But then he started talking, and I realized that I liked what he was saying. I decided to tailor my approach to promote Donald Trump."
Early this year, Johnson and Taylor recorded a pro-Trump robocall that was sent to voters in Iowa. "We don't need Muslim [immigrants], Taylor said on the robocall, "we need smart, well-educated white people."
After Iowa, Johnson kept at it, paying for calls in New Hampshire, Vermont, Minnesota and North Dakota. A round of calls went out this week to Idaho, which holds a GOP primary on March 8, and to Utah, where voters caucus on March 22.
"We are promoting Donald Trump and populism and white nationalism," Johnson said of the robocall campaign. But he still supports Whitaker, he said, and if given a choice between Trump and Whitaker, he'd pick Whitaker.
Almost as soon as the robocalls were launched, Trump denounced them -- an outcome that Whitaker sees as a failure.
The calls weren't moderate enough for Whitaker. "They went too far," he said. "They didn’t use their words right. They could have talked free speech. They could have done some of the things they needed to do, which was not to give out probes that people like Huffington could use to label them racist."
Like Whitaker, Johnson said getting people to embrace pro-white views is just a matter of finesse. He worries that white nationalists "have such a bad reputation" that mainstream political candidates feel pressured to denounce them. But he has a plan to change that, and Trump plays a central role.
American Freedom Party
For all the media coverage they've received, the white nationalist robocalls are surprisingly homespun. Johnson puts his cellphone number at the end of the recording, "so after the robocall goes out, I'll sit down and I'll get hundreds of calls over several hours.
"A good 50 percent of them are saying things like, 'I don't recognize this number, who is this?'" Johnson said. "Of the rest of them, 70 percent were negative and 30 percent were positive.”
He added that “after all this time, I've become inured to the negative calls."
Johnson pays for the calls himself. He plans to spend at least $5,000 on his robocalling campaign, or "as much as my wife will let me."
AFP isn’t the only white supremacist group suiting up for Trump. On Saturday, another pseudo-intellectual white nationalist group, the National Policy Institute, will hold its annual Washington dinner at the Ronald Reagan building. This year's subject: Donald Trump.
Whitaker, meanwhile, is continuing his campaign, but more to keep Trump "honest,” he said, than to actually win the presidency. He doesn't trust that Trump will stick to some of the most nativist parts of his platform.
But certain words and phrases that are familiar code to white nationalists, like "reverse racism" and "European-Americans," could take on new significance if uttered by a mainstream presidential candidate. One phrase that Whitaker is particularly keen on is "white genocide."
"If and when Trump endorses the deadly heresy of White Genocide in so many words, I will be the happiest man who was ever mistaken,” he wrote on his blog.
In January, Trump shared a tweet with his 6.7 million followers from a Twitter user who claimed to be tweeting from "Jewmerica."
Christina Wilkie National Political Reporter, The Huffington Post
Dana Liebelson Staff Reporter, The Huffington Post
WASHINGTON -- Robert Whitaker, a lifelong segregationist who says racial diversity will lead to “white genocide,” is frustrated. He's worked hard to promote his candidacy for president on the white nationalist American Freedom Party ticket. He wrote robocall scripts, sold bumper stickers, and vainly tried to get “White Self-Hatred Is SICK!!!” posted on a billboard in Nevada.
But the leaders of Whitaker's party have been neglecting his campaign so they can back a rival candidate: Republican front-runner Donald Trump.
Whitaker said he's not mad that his allies are backing Trump -- he offered in December to quit the race if Trump "sticks to his guns." He's just upset that they're doing it without him.
American Freedom Party
The American Freedom Party, or AFP, is one of more than 40 minor political parties in the U.S. Many of them nominate a candidate for president every four years. In 2012, the AFP nominee appeared on the ballot in three states, and received a total of 2,716 votes.
The chairman of AFP is Los Angeles-based attorney William Johnson, a soft-spoken corporate lawyer and vehement white nationalist. Last fall, Johnson launched The Daily Trump, a website that blends news about Trump's campaign with thinly veiled white supremacist messages.
White nationalists have a history of using dog-whistle messaging to try to influence mainstream politics. When former Alabama Gov. George Wallace ran for president in 1968, he talked up the importance of "states' rights." But his supporters knew those "rights" meant Jim Crow segregation.
More recently, Trump has proposed a ban on Muslims entering the United States. For white nationalists, Trump's blend of populism and xenophobia has given the movement a rare opportunity to see its dominant themes reflected on the national stage.
Johnson's activities are not affiliated with Trump in any way, and Trump said last month that he would return a $250 donation that Johnson made to his campaign.
The Daily Trump
Around the time he launched the website, Johnson created the wholesome-sounding American National Super PAC to support Trump, funded exclusively by Johnson. He brought in a Yale-educated white nationalist with a patrician voice, Jared Taylor, to help write and record pro-Trump robocalls.
Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance, a pseudo-intellectual journal that imagines a war against "white America." His diction is formal and self-assured (think William F. Buckley), and he uses sciency-sounding words to make white nationalist arguments.
Within the insular world of organized white supremacist groups, Taylor is admired for how respectable he looks and sounds. He "wears coat and tie very well," Whitaker said ruefully. “They suddenly decided the smart boys like them would take over," he later added.
In an email to HuffPost from his Yale account, Taylor asked to be referred to as a "white advocate," and not a white supremacist.
“A white supremacist is defined as someone who thinks that whites are the superior race," Taylor said. "I do not believe that at all. East Asians are objectively superior to whites.”
American Renaissance
The robocalls that Taylor voiced made national news. But asked about Whitaker's AFP presidential campaign, Taylor said he had no opinion. "I don't know about Mr. Whitaker's campaign."
Reached at his Los Angeles law firm, Johnson, who once proposed a constitutional amendment to revoke citizenship of non-white Americans, said he never planned to back a candidate from outside the American Freedom Party.
“When Donald Trump first announced he would run for president, my view of Trump was 'he's a scoundrel.' But then he started talking, and I realized that I liked what he was saying. I decided to tailor my approach to promote Donald Trump."
Early this year, Johnson and Taylor recorded a pro-Trump robocall that was sent to voters in Iowa. "We don't need Muslim [immigrants], Taylor said on the robocall, "we need smart, well-educated white people."
After Iowa, Johnson kept at it, paying for calls in New Hampshire, Vermont, Minnesota and North Dakota. A round of calls went out this week to Idaho, which holds a GOP primary on March 8, and to Utah, where voters caucus on March 22.
"We are promoting Donald Trump and populism and white nationalism," Johnson said of the robocall campaign. But he still supports Whitaker, he said, and if given a choice between Trump and Whitaker, he'd pick Whitaker.
Almost as soon as the robocalls were launched, Trump denounced them -- an outcome that Whitaker sees as a failure.
The calls weren't moderate enough for Whitaker. "They went too far," he said. "They didn’t use their words right. They could have talked free speech. They could have done some of the things they needed to do, which was not to give out probes that people like Huffington could use to label them racist."
Like Whitaker, Johnson said getting people to embrace pro-white views is just a matter of finesse. He worries that white nationalists "have such a bad reputation" that mainstream political candidates feel pressured to denounce them. But he has a plan to change that, and Trump plays a central role.
American Freedom Party
For all the media coverage they've received, the white nationalist robocalls are surprisingly homespun. Johnson puts his cellphone number at the end of the recording, "so after the robocall goes out, I'll sit down and I'll get hundreds of calls over several hours.
"A good 50 percent of them are saying things like, 'I don't recognize this number, who is this?'" Johnson said. "Of the rest of them, 70 percent were negative and 30 percent were positive.”
He added that “after all this time, I've become inured to the negative calls."
Johnson pays for the calls himself. He plans to spend at least $5,000 on his robocalling campaign, or "as much as my wife will let me."
AFP isn’t the only white supremacist group suiting up for Trump. On Saturday, another pseudo-intellectual white nationalist group, the National Policy Institute, will hold its annual Washington dinner at the Ronald Reagan building. This year's subject: Donald Trump.
Whitaker, meanwhile, is continuing his campaign, but more to keep Trump "honest,” he said, than to actually win the presidency. He doesn't trust that Trump will stick to some of the most nativist parts of his platform.
But certain words and phrases that are familiar code to white nationalists, like "reverse racism" and "European-Americans," could take on new significance if uttered by a mainstream presidential candidate. One phrase that Whitaker is particularly keen on is "white genocide."
"If and when Trump endorses the deadly heresy of White Genocide in so many words, I will be the happiest man who was ever mistaken,” he wrote on his blog.
In January, Trump shared a tweet with his 6.7 million followers from a Twitter user who claimed to be tweeting from "Jewmerica."
Donald Trump’s affront against the Latino community reached new heights last week after Mexican-American journalist Jorge Ramos was forcibly removed from the presidential candidate's Iowa press conference. But it wasn’t the first time Trump has offended Latinos.
His anti-Latino remarks have cost him several business partners since the launch of his campaign in June, including NBCUniversal, which aired Trump's reality show "The Apprentice" and co-owns the Miss Universe Organization. Several prominent figures in the Latino community have also spoken out against Trump; actress America Ferrera and singer Ricky Martin published scathing op-eds condemning Trump’s actions and rallying Latinos to unite against him.
Even though only 18 percent of Hispanics take Trump seriously as a presidential candidate, the Republican has vowed that he “will win the Latino vote” if nominated.
If Trump wants to win the Latino vote, he might want to learn from past mistakes. Here are 9 of the most outrageous things the presidential candidate has said about Latinos.
9 He Called Latino Immigrants "Criminals" And "Rapists"
Getty
In Trump's speech when he announced his candidacy for president, he began by comparing Mexican immigrants to "rapists" and then decided to broaden the scope of his insult to all Latinos. Shortly after his initial "rapists" remark in his speech, the candidate expanded his comments beyond Mexico. "It's coming from more than Mexico," he added. "It's coming from all over South and Latin America..."
8 He Said Mexicans (And Other Immigrants) Were "Killers" Too
Getty
After his anti-Latino remarks, Donald Trump was asked to clarify his comments on CNN's "State of the Union". Instead, he decided to call Mexicans "killers", as well.
7 He Insisted The Mexican Government Intentionally Sends Their Criminals To The U.S.
Getty
In an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, Trump responded to his previous claims that the Mexican government was purposefully sending undocumented criminals over the border.
6 He 'Provided Evidence' That Latino Immigrants Were Rapists
Getty
When asked to provide evidence for his claim that Latino immigrants crossing the border were rapists on CNN's "The Situation Room," Trump told host Don Lemon he got his information from a Fusion article. When Lemon corrected him -- explaining that article actually said 80 percent of women and girls from Central America are raped by human smugglers, gang members other migrants or government authorities while immigrating to the U.S. -- Trump shot back dismissing the victims and suggesting Latino immigrants were the ones raping the victims.
5 He Took A Jab At Jeb Bush Over His Mexican-Born Wife
Donald Trump retweeted (and then deleted) a comment meant as a jab to fellow GOP candidate Jeb Bush. The tweet suggested that Bush would have more lenient views on immigration reform because of his Mexican-born wife, Columba.
4 He Brought Up Jeb Bush's Wife Again Less Than Two Months Later
Trump retweeted another follower that said Jeb Bush was crazy and spoke "Mexican" -- which is not a language but a reference Bush's Wife's roots.
3 He Said His Followers Were “Passionate” After Being Told Two Men Beat A Hispanic Man In His Name
Getty
Two brothers reportedly attacked a 58-year-old Hispanic homeless man in Boston, breaking his nose and urinating on him, in mid-August. They alegedly told police they targeted the man because of his ethnicity and added, “Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported.” After the GOP candidate was told of the attack, instead of denouncing the act Trump said his followers were "passionate." Later the presidential candidate tweeted about the incident, saying he would "never condone violence."
2 He Kicked Jorge Ramos Out Of A Press Conference
Getty
When award-winning Hispanic journalist Jorge Ramos attempted to ask Trump questions about his immigration stance during a press conference in Iowa, the presidential candidate refused to respond because he said Ramos had spoken out of turn. As Ramos attempted to finish his question, security approached him and physically removed him. Right before he was ejected from the conference, Trump told Ramos: "Go back to Univision." On the way out a Trump supporter confronted the journalist, a U.S. Citizen, and said: "You were very rude. It's not about you. Get out of my country." Ramos was eventually allowed back into the press conference to ask his question.
1 He Blamed Blacks And Hispanics For Violent Crime Across The Country
Trump first tweeted statistics that broke down New York City shooting suspects by race and ethnicity, citing Fox's Bill O'Reilly as a source. Minutes later he tweeted again, correlating race and ethnicity with violent crime across the country. In response, media critic Eric Deggans wrote in the Tampa Bay Times: "There is no doubt that violent crime is a serious problem in communities of color. But connecting it to race in such a blunt and unfair fashion seems more about blaming certain kinds of people than solving the problem."
His anti-Latino remarks have cost him several business partners since the launch of his campaign in June, including NBCUniversal, which aired Trump's reality show "The Apprentice" and co-owns the Miss Universe Organization. Several prominent figures in the Latino community have also spoken out against Trump; actress America Ferrera and singer Ricky Martin published scathing op-eds condemning Trump’s actions and rallying Latinos to unite against him.
Even though only 18 percent of Hispanics take Trump seriously as a presidential candidate, the Republican has vowed that he “will win the Latino vote” if nominated.
If Trump wants to win the Latino vote, he might want to learn from past mistakes. Here are 9 of the most outrageous things the presidential candidate has said about Latinos.
9 He Called Latino Immigrants "Criminals" And "Rapists"
Getty
In Trump's speech when he announced his candidacy for president, he began by comparing Mexican immigrants to "rapists" and then decided to broaden the scope of his insult to all Latinos. Shortly after his initial "rapists" remark in his speech, the candidate expanded his comments beyond Mexico. "It's coming from more than Mexico," he added. "It's coming from all over South and Latin America..."
8 He Said Mexicans (And Other Immigrants) Were "Killers" Too
Getty
After his anti-Latino remarks, Donald Trump was asked to clarify his comments on CNN's "State of the Union". Instead, he decided to call Mexicans "killers", as well.
7 He Insisted The Mexican Government Intentionally Sends Their Criminals To The U.S.
Getty
In an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, Trump responded to his previous claims that the Mexican government was purposefully sending undocumented criminals over the border.
6 He 'Provided Evidence' That Latino Immigrants Were Rapists
Getty
When asked to provide evidence for his claim that Latino immigrants crossing the border were rapists on CNN's "The Situation Room," Trump told host Don Lemon he got his information from a Fusion article. When Lemon corrected him -- explaining that article actually said 80 percent of women and girls from Central America are raped by human smugglers, gang members other migrants or government authorities while immigrating to the U.S. -- Trump shot back dismissing the victims and suggesting Latino immigrants were the ones raping the victims.
5 He Took A Jab At Jeb Bush Over His Mexican-Born Wife
Donald Trump retweeted (and then deleted) a comment meant as a jab to fellow GOP candidate Jeb Bush. The tweet suggested that Bush would have more lenient views on immigration reform because of his Mexican-born wife, Columba.
4 He Brought Up Jeb Bush's Wife Again Less Than Two Months Later
Trump retweeted another follower that said Jeb Bush was crazy and spoke "Mexican" -- which is not a language but a reference Bush's Wife's roots.
3 He Said His Followers Were “Passionate” After Being Told Two Men Beat A Hispanic Man In His Name
Getty
Two brothers reportedly attacked a 58-year-old Hispanic homeless man in Boston, breaking his nose and urinating on him, in mid-August. They alegedly told police they targeted the man because of his ethnicity and added, “Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported.” After the GOP candidate was told of the attack, instead of denouncing the act Trump said his followers were "passionate." Later the presidential candidate tweeted about the incident, saying he would "never condone violence."
2 He Kicked Jorge Ramos Out Of A Press Conference
Getty
When award-winning Hispanic journalist Jorge Ramos attempted to ask Trump questions about his immigration stance during a press conference in Iowa, the presidential candidate refused to respond because he said Ramos had spoken out of turn. As Ramos attempted to finish his question, security approached him and physically removed him. Right before he was ejected from the conference, Trump told Ramos: "Go back to Univision." On the way out a Trump supporter confronted the journalist, a U.S. Citizen, and said: "You were very rude. It's not about you. Get out of my country." Ramos was eventually allowed back into the press conference to ask his question.
1 He Blamed Blacks And Hispanics For Violent Crime Across The Country
Trump first tweeted statistics that broke down New York City shooting suspects by race and ethnicity, citing Fox's Bill O'Reilly as a source. Minutes later he tweeted again, correlating race and ethnicity with violent crime across the country. In response, media critic Eric Deggans wrote in the Tampa Bay Times: "There is no doubt that violent crime is a serious problem in communities of color. But connecting it to race in such a blunt and unfair fashion seems more about blaming certain kinds of people than solving the problem."
WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential hopeful and real estate mogul Donald Trump is calling for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" following deadly terror attacks involving Islamic extremists in California and France.
"Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension," Trump said in a statement emailed to reporters on Monday.
"Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life," he continued.
Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager, told The Associated Press that the ban would apply to "everybody," including Muslims seeking tourist visas. Last month, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of Trump's rivals for the GOP presidential nomination, introduced a similar proposal that would prevent refugees from obtaining tourist and immigration visas if they are from one of about 30 countries with a "significant jihadist movement."
Trump's call to bar Muslim immigration into the U.S. is just the latest in a series of anti-Islamic statements. He previously suggested shuttering certain mosques in the U.S. and claimed he saw footage of American Muslims cheering after the 9/11 attacks -- footage that no television network has been able to dig up.
There is some evidence that such anti-Muslim rhetoric has support among GOP primary voters. According to Public Policy Polling, which has regularly polled voters on their attitudes toward Muslims, a significant portion of GOP primary voters in North Carolina believe Islam should be outright illegal in the United States.
Over and over again, Trump's outlandish statements have pressured Republican candidates and party leaders to respond. Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus will likely face calls to do so ahead of a scheduled fundraiser with Trump in New York City this week.
On Monday, Trump touted his new proposal on his favorite medium -- Twitter.
"Just put out a very important policy statement on the extraordinary influx of hatred & danger coming into our country," he wrote. "We must be vigilant!"
Other Republican presidential candidates condemned Trump for his plan:
Syed Farook, one of the suspected shooters in last week's attack in San Bernardino, California, was an American citizen. The other suspect is his wife, Tashfeen Malik, who reportedly pledged allegiance to the so-called Islamic State on social media. Malik entered the U.S. on a K-1 "fianceé visa."
Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez, the shooter who allegedly killed four Marines earlier this year in Chattanooga, Tennessee, was also a naturalized U.S. citizen. In an address to the nation Sunday night, President Barack Obama cited the Chattanooga shooting as an act of terrorism.
"But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans -- of every faith -- to reject discrimination," Obama said. "It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It's our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim-Americans should somehow be treated differently."
"Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension," Trump said in a statement emailed to reporters on Monday.
"Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life," he continued.
Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager, told The Associated Press that the ban would apply to "everybody," including Muslims seeking tourist visas. Last month, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of Trump's rivals for the GOP presidential nomination, introduced a similar proposal that would prevent refugees from obtaining tourist and immigration visas if they are from one of about 30 countries with a "significant jihadist movement."
Trump's call to bar Muslim immigration into the U.S. is just the latest in a series of anti-Islamic statements. He previously suggested shuttering certain mosques in the U.S. and claimed he saw footage of American Muslims cheering after the 9/11 attacks -- footage that no television network has been able to dig up.
There is some evidence that such anti-Muslim rhetoric has support among GOP primary voters. According to Public Policy Polling, which has regularly polled voters on their attitudes toward Muslims, a significant portion of GOP primary voters in North Carolina believe Islam should be outright illegal in the United States.
Over and over again, Trump's outlandish statements have pressured Republican candidates and party leaders to respond. Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus will likely face calls to do so ahead of a scheduled fundraiser with Trump in New York City this week.
On Monday, Trump touted his new proposal on his favorite medium -- Twitter.
"Just put out a very important policy statement on the extraordinary influx of hatred & danger coming into our country," he wrote. "We must be vigilant!"
Other Republican presidential candidates condemned Trump for his plan:
Syed Farook, one of the suspected shooters in last week's attack in San Bernardino, California, was an American citizen. The other suspect is his wife, Tashfeen Malik, who reportedly pledged allegiance to the so-called Islamic State on social media. Malik entered the U.S. on a K-1 "fianceé visa."
Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez, the shooter who allegedly killed four Marines earlier this year in Chattanooga, Tennessee, was also a naturalized U.S. citizen. In an address to the nation Sunday night, President Barack Obama cited the Chattanooga shooting as an act of terrorism.
"But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans -- of every faith -- to reject discrimination," Obama said. "It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It's our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim-Americans should somehow be treated differently."
Yes, this man is running for president.08/19/2015 05:35 pm ET | Updated Aug 24, 2015 Nina Bahadur Women Deputy Editor, The Huffington Post
Donald Trump claims to "cherish" women, but his actions -- and words -- suggest otherwise.
Fox News' Megyn Kelly called him out on his sexist behavior during the GOP debate on August 6, reminding him: “You have called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs’, ‘dogs’, ‘slobs’, and ‘disgusting animals."
Trump laughed off the question, claiming he doesn't "have the time for total political correctness." Later, Trump called Kelly a "bimbo" and said that he "didn't recognize" the remarks she was referencing.
Well, we recognize them.
Trump has consistently insulted, belittled, sexualized and stereotyped women. He has also taken the time to personally insult individual notable women like Sarah Jessica Parker, Rosie O'Donnell, Cher, Bette Midler, and others.
Here are 18 of the most outrageous things Trump has said about women:
1 That giving your wife "negotiable assets" is a terrible mistake.
Vanity Fair
“I would never buy Ivana any decent jewels or pictures. Why give her negotiable assets?” Trump is quoted as saying of his then-wife in a 1990 Vanity Fair piece.
2 That women are essentially aesthetically-pleasing objects.
Amazon
In his 2006 book Trump 101: The Way to Success, Trump wrote: "Beauty and elegance, whether in a woman, a building, or a work of art, is not just superficial or something pretty to see."
3 That sexual assault in the military is totally expected.
Because what else could possibly happen when you put men and women together?
4 That women on "The Apprentice" need to rely on sex appeal.
Facebook/The Apprentice
"It's certainly not groundbreaking news that the early victories by the women on 'The Apprentice' were, to a very large extent, dependent on their sex appeal." -- How To Get Rich, 2004
5 That bad press doesn't matter as long as you have a sexy girlfriend.
Getty/AFP
"You know, it doesn't really matter what [the media] write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass." -- from an interview with Esquire, 1991
6 That a woman MUST be hot in order to be a journalist.
"I mean, we could say politically correct that look doesn't matter, but the look obviously matters," Trump said to a female reporter in a clip featured on "Last Week Tonight." "Like you wouldn't have your job if you weren't beautiful."
7 That pumping breast milk is "disgusting."
When a lawyer facing Trump in 2011 asked for a break to pump breastmilk for her infant daughter, The Donald reacted very poorly. "He got up, his face got red, he shook his finger at me and he screamed, 'You're disgusting, you're disgusting,' and he ran out of there," attorney Elizabeth Beck told CNN. Trump's attorney does not dispute that his client called Beck "disgusting."
8 That all women hate prenups, because they are gold diggers.
Amazon
“The most difficult aspect of the prenuptial agreement is informing your future wife (or husband): I love you very much, but just in case things don’t work out, this is what you will get in the divorce. There are basically three types of women and reactions. One is the good woman who very much loves her future husband, solely for himself, but refuses to sign the agreement on principle. I fully understand this, but the man should take a pass anyway and find someone else. The other is the calculating woman who refuses to sign the prenuptial agreement because she is expecting to take advantage of the poor, unsuspecting sucker she’s got in her grasp. There is also the woman who will openly and quickly sign a prenuptial agreement in order to make a quick hit and take the money given to her.” --Trump: The Art of the Comeback, 1997
9 That women have a "great act" going on to trick men.
Getty
“Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers. The person who came up with the expression ‘the weaker sex’ was either very naive or had to be kidding. I have seen women manipulate men with just a twitch of their eye — or perhaps another body part.” -- Trump: The Art of the Comeback, 1997
10 That Hillary would be a bad president because of her husband's actions.
twitter
Just... what?
11 That Angelina Jolie has dated too many guys to be attractive.
“[Angelina Jolie’s] been with so many guys she makes me look like a baby... And, I just don’t even find her attractive," he said in an interview with Larry King in 2006.
12 That Bette Midler's "ugly face and body" are offensive.
But don't worry, he's too much of a gentleman to actually say it. Or something.
13 That Rosie O'Donnell is "crude, rude, obnoxious and dumb."
Along with basically every other insult, ever. Ugh.
14 That the best line in any movie is this beautiful gem.
Amazon
“My favorite part [of 'Pulp Fiction'] is when Sam has his gun out in the diner and he tells the guy to tell his girlfriend to shut up. Tell that bitch to be cool. Say: 'Bitch be cool.' I love those lines.” -- TrumpNation: The Art of Being The Donald, 2005
15 That a journalist who offended him had an ugly face.
Getty
New York Times columnist Gail Collins recalled: "During one down period, I referred to him in print as a 'financially embattled thousandaire' and he sent me a copy of the column with my picture circled and 'The Face of a Dog!' written over it."
16 That Cher is 'lonely' and 'a loser' because she doesn't support him.
"Cher is an average talent who's out of touch with reality," he said in a 2012 Fox News interview. "Cher is somewhat of a loser. She's lonely. She's unhappy. She's very miserable."
17 That women fawn all over him because he is rich and powerful.
Getty
"Love him or hate him, Donald Trump is a man who is certain about what he wants and sets out to get it, no holds barred," Trump said about himself one time. "Women find his power almost as much of a turn-on as his money."
18 That the ladies on "The Apprentice" are all super in to him.
Facebook
"All of the women on 'The Apprentice' flirted with me -- consciously or unconsciously. That's to be expected." -- How To Get Rich, 2004
Donald Trump claims to "cherish" women, but his actions -- and words -- suggest otherwise.
Fox News' Megyn Kelly called him out on his sexist behavior during the GOP debate on August 6, reminding him: “You have called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs’, ‘dogs’, ‘slobs’, and ‘disgusting animals."
Trump laughed off the question, claiming he doesn't "have the time for total political correctness." Later, Trump called Kelly a "bimbo" and said that he "didn't recognize" the remarks she was referencing.
Well, we recognize them.
Trump has consistently insulted, belittled, sexualized and stereotyped women. He has also taken the time to personally insult individual notable women like Sarah Jessica Parker, Rosie O'Donnell, Cher, Bette Midler, and others.
Here are 18 of the most outrageous things Trump has said about women:
1 That giving your wife "negotiable assets" is a terrible mistake.
Vanity Fair
“I would never buy Ivana any decent jewels or pictures. Why give her negotiable assets?” Trump is quoted as saying of his then-wife in a 1990 Vanity Fair piece.
2 That women are essentially aesthetically-pleasing objects.
Amazon
In his 2006 book Trump 101: The Way to Success, Trump wrote: "Beauty and elegance, whether in a woman, a building, or a work of art, is not just superficial or something pretty to see."
3 That sexual assault in the military is totally expected.
Because what else could possibly happen when you put men and women together?
4 That women on "The Apprentice" need to rely on sex appeal.
Facebook/The Apprentice
"It's certainly not groundbreaking news that the early victories by the women on 'The Apprentice' were, to a very large extent, dependent on their sex appeal." -- How To Get Rich, 2004
5 That bad press doesn't matter as long as you have a sexy girlfriend.
Getty/AFP
"You know, it doesn't really matter what [the media] write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass." -- from an interview with Esquire, 1991
6 That a woman MUST be hot in order to be a journalist.
"I mean, we could say politically correct that look doesn't matter, but the look obviously matters," Trump said to a female reporter in a clip featured on "Last Week Tonight." "Like you wouldn't have your job if you weren't beautiful."
7 That pumping breast milk is "disgusting."
When a lawyer facing Trump in 2011 asked for a break to pump breastmilk for her infant daughter, The Donald reacted very poorly. "He got up, his face got red, he shook his finger at me and he screamed, 'You're disgusting, you're disgusting,' and he ran out of there," attorney Elizabeth Beck told CNN. Trump's attorney does not dispute that his client called Beck "disgusting."
8 That all women hate prenups, because they are gold diggers.
Amazon
“The most difficult aspect of the prenuptial agreement is informing your future wife (or husband): I love you very much, but just in case things don’t work out, this is what you will get in the divorce. There are basically three types of women and reactions. One is the good woman who very much loves her future husband, solely for himself, but refuses to sign the agreement on principle. I fully understand this, but the man should take a pass anyway and find someone else. The other is the calculating woman who refuses to sign the prenuptial agreement because she is expecting to take advantage of the poor, unsuspecting sucker she’s got in her grasp. There is also the woman who will openly and quickly sign a prenuptial agreement in order to make a quick hit and take the money given to her.” --Trump: The Art of the Comeback, 1997
9 That women have a "great act" going on to trick men.
Getty
“Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers. The person who came up with the expression ‘the weaker sex’ was either very naive or had to be kidding. I have seen women manipulate men with just a twitch of their eye — or perhaps another body part.” -- Trump: The Art of the Comeback, 1997
10 That Hillary would be a bad president because of her husband's actions.
Just... what?
11 That Angelina Jolie has dated too many guys to be attractive.
“[Angelina Jolie’s] been with so many guys she makes me look like a baby... And, I just don’t even find her attractive," he said in an interview with Larry King in 2006.
12 That Bette Midler's "ugly face and body" are offensive.
But don't worry, he's too much of a gentleman to actually say it. Or something.
13 That Rosie O'Donnell is "crude, rude, obnoxious and dumb."
Along with basically every other insult, ever. Ugh.
14 That the best line in any movie is this beautiful gem.
Amazon
“My favorite part [of 'Pulp Fiction'] is when Sam has his gun out in the diner and he tells the guy to tell his girlfriend to shut up. Tell that bitch to be cool. Say: 'Bitch be cool.' I love those lines.” -- TrumpNation: The Art of Being The Donald, 2005
15 That a journalist who offended him had an ugly face.
Getty
New York Times columnist Gail Collins recalled: "During one down period, I referred to him in print as a 'financially embattled thousandaire' and he sent me a copy of the column with my picture circled and 'The Face of a Dog!' written over it."
16 That Cher is 'lonely' and 'a loser' because she doesn't support him.
"Cher is an average talent who's out of touch with reality," he said in a 2012 Fox News interview. "Cher is somewhat of a loser. She's lonely. She's unhappy. She's very miserable."
17 That women fawn all over him because he is rich and powerful.
Getty
"Love him or hate him, Donald Trump is a man who is certain about what he wants and sets out to get it, no holds barred," Trump said about himself one time. "Women find his power almost as much of a turn-on as his money."
18 That the ladies on "The Apprentice" are all super in to him.
"All of the women on 'The Apprentice' flirted with me -- consciously or unconsciously. That's to be expected." -- How To Get Rich, 2004
"I don't talk about that anymore."09/23/2015 01:46 am ET | Updated Sep 23, 2015 Ed Mazza Overnight Editor, The Huffington Post
Donald Trump has been coming under fire for refusing to distance himself from the "birther" movement he helped fuel, which claims President Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States. On Tuesday night's "Late Show," host Stephen Colbert offered the GOP frontrunner a chance to put the question behind him once and for all.
"I'm going to throw you a big fat meatball for you to hit out of the park right now," Colbert said. "This is the last time you'll ever have to address this question if you hit the ball."
"I want to hear this one," Trump said.
"Barack Obama, born in the United States?" Colbert asked.
When Trump hesitated, Colbert tempted him with the "meatball."
"It's a meatball, it's hanging out there," Colbert said, mimicking a batter's home-run swing. "Right there -- c'mon."
But for Trump, it was a swing and a miss.
"I don't talk about that anymore," he said.
"You don't talk about it?" Colbert asked.
Trump said he would rather talk about jobs and veterans, but Colbert cut him off.
"The meatball is now being dragged down subway steps by a rat," Colbert said, referring to the now-famous pizza-stealing rat. "You missed the meatball."
The response is in line with what Trump offered on Sunday to a similar question on "Meet the Press."
"I just don't want to discuss it," Trump told host Chuck Todd, calling it a "long, complex issue."
After taping his Colbert appearance, Trump tweeted that the birther movement began with Hillary Clinton:
FactCheck.org reports that while the issue was raised by diehard Clinton supporters in 2008, there is nothing to link Clinton, her campaign or her staff to the issue.
Trump is set to appear on national TV again on Sunday on "60 Minutes."
Don't Miss:
Arianna: The Beginning of the End for Trump: His Sarah Palin Moment
Donald Trump has been coming under fire for refusing to distance himself from the "birther" movement he helped fuel, which claims President Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States. On Tuesday night's "Late Show," host Stephen Colbert offered the GOP frontrunner a chance to put the question behind him once and for all.
"I'm going to throw you a big fat meatball for you to hit out of the park right now," Colbert said. "This is the last time you'll ever have to address this question if you hit the ball."
"I want to hear this one," Trump said.
"Barack Obama, born in the United States?" Colbert asked.
When Trump hesitated, Colbert tempted him with the "meatball."
"It's a meatball, it's hanging out there," Colbert said, mimicking a batter's home-run swing. "Right there -- c'mon."
But for Trump, it was a swing and a miss.
"I don't talk about that anymore," he said.
"You don't talk about it?" Colbert asked.
Trump said he would rather talk about jobs and veterans, but Colbert cut him off.
"The meatball is now being dragged down subway steps by a rat," Colbert said, referring to the now-famous pizza-stealing rat. "You missed the meatball."
The response is in line with what Trump offered on Sunday to a similar question on "Meet the Press."
"I just don't want to discuss it," Trump told host Chuck Todd, calling it a "long, complex issue."
After taping his Colbert appearance, Trump tweeted that the birther movement began with Hillary Clinton:
FactCheck.org reports that while the issue was raised by diehard Clinton supporters in 2008, there is nothing to link Clinton, her campaign or her staff to the issue.
Trump is set to appear on national TV again on Sunday on "60 Minutes."
Don't Miss:
Arianna: The Beginning of the End for Trump: His Sarah Palin Moment
A Black Lives Matter protester was reportedly punched and kicked as he lay on the ground at a rally in Alabama.11/22/2015 01:51 pm ET | Updated Nov 22, 2015 Kim Bellware Reporter
Donald Trump approves of the way his supporters responded to a Black Lives Matter protester, reportedly beating him during a Saturday rally in Birmingham, Alabama.
"Maybe he should have been roughed up," Trump said during a Sunday morning call-in appearance on "Fox & Friends." "It was absolutely disgusting what he was doing."
A CNN reporter captured video of the Saturday incident in which a protester was reportedly punched and kicked after he was tackled to the ground by attendees or security at Trump's rally. At least one onlooker yelled, "Don't choke him! Don't choke him!" according to The Washington Post.
Trump is heard in the video yelling, "Get him the hell out of here!"
Eric Schultz/Associated Press A protester is removed by security as Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign stop Saturday, Nov. 21, 2015, in Birmingham, Ala.
Birmingham police removed three protesters following the episode and told The Huffington Post that no incident report was filed after the altercation.
"The man you say was, I don't know, roughed up -- he was so obnoxious and so loud, he was screaming," Trump said Sunday. "I had 10,000 people in the room yesterday and this guy started screaming by himself."
"This was not handled the way Bernie Sanders handled his problem, I will tell you," the Republican presidential hopeful added.
In August, Black Lives Matters protesters commandeered the podium at a Seattle rally where Sanders was scheduled to speak. The incident prompted Sanders to both meet with prominent activists supportive of Black Lives Matter and release a racial justice platform.
Protesters have been a common sight at Trump rallies. In October, a pro-immigration demonstrator was violently dragged out of a campaign rally in Florida.
The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment following the Saturday campaign stop.
"This was a very obnoxious guy who was a troublemaker and he was looking to make trouble," Trump said Sunday, noting he didn't see the actual incident.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-maher-donald-trump_us_56db2fe1e4b03a405678dc08
Donald Trump approves of the way his supporters responded to a Black Lives Matter protester, reportedly beating him during a Saturday rally in Birmingham, Alabama.
"Maybe he should have been roughed up," Trump said during a Sunday morning call-in appearance on "Fox & Friends." "It was absolutely disgusting what he was doing."
A CNN reporter captured video of the Saturday incident in which a protester was reportedly punched and kicked after he was tackled to the ground by attendees or security at Trump's rally. At least one onlooker yelled, "Don't choke him! Don't choke him!" according to The Washington Post.
Trump is heard in the video yelling, "Get him the hell out of here!"
Eric Schultz/Associated Press A protester is removed by security as Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign stop Saturday, Nov. 21, 2015, in Birmingham, Ala.
Birmingham police removed three protesters following the episode and told The Huffington Post that no incident report was filed after the altercation.
"The man you say was, I don't know, roughed up -- he was so obnoxious and so loud, he was screaming," Trump said Sunday. "I had 10,000 people in the room yesterday and this guy started screaming by himself."
"This was not handled the way Bernie Sanders handled his problem, I will tell you," the Republican presidential hopeful added.
In August, Black Lives Matters protesters commandeered the podium at a Seattle rally where Sanders was scheduled to speak. The incident prompted Sanders to both meet with prominent activists supportive of Black Lives Matter and release a racial justice platform.
Protesters have been a common sight at Trump rallies. In October, a pro-immigration demonstrator was violently dragged out of a campaign rally in Florida.
The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment following the Saturday campaign stop.
"This was a very obnoxious guy who was a troublemaker and he was looking to make trouble," Trump said Sunday, noting he didn't see the actual incident.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-maher-donald-trump_us_56db2fe1e4b03a405678dc08
Трамп продолжает ломать Америку
Mar. 7th, 2016 06:42 pmОригинал взят у ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
verola в Трамп продолжает ломать Америку
Большие Деньги США выступили сегодня против Трампа. Enfant terrible американской политики — Дональд Трамп продолжает ломать вековые традиции США.
Кстати, выборы этого года — ещё и лучший ответ всем лжецам, утверждавшим, что в Америке нет настоящей политической борьбы, что голос масс не решает, всё определяется элитой, а между позициями кандидатов нет существенных различий.
( На этих выборах видна борьба элит и народа ... )
[Poll #2039027][Poll #2039027]
verola в Трамп продолжает ломать АмерикуБольшие Деньги США выступили сегодня против Трампа. Enfant terrible американской политики — Дональд Трамп продолжает ломать вековые традиции США.
Кстати, выборы этого года — ещё и лучший ответ всем лжецам, утверждавшим, что в Америке нет настоящей политической борьбы, что голос масс не решает, всё определяется элитой, а между позициями кандидатов нет существенных различий.
( На этих выборах видна борьба элит и народа ... )
[Poll #2039027][Poll #2039027]
Why Republicans will likely hold their noses and vote for Hillary in the 2016 presidential election. By John Kimelman March 5, 2016
On the presidential campaign trail, Hillary Clinton has called out Wall Street for wrecking Main Street during the financial crisis. And her desire to jack up taxes on short-term capital gains isn’t exactly good news for the investor class.
Yet Clinton, the strong favorite to win the Democratic nomination, seems better suited to help the markets than the Republican front-runner, Donald Trump. With a Trump-Clinton race looking more likely after last week’s Super Tuesday voting, Barron’s has sized up each candidate’s positions on taxes, spending, trade, and other issues that directly affect markets.
Our conclusion: Clinton is the more investor-friendly of the two.
Photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg
Her recent rhetoric aside, Clinton’s moderate political instincts and left-center policy goals suggest a president who wouldn’t stand in the way of the financial markets. A fan of compromise and a knowledgeable Washington player, she might even be able to strike a bargain with House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate leaders on tax reform.
Just look at the company she keeps. Many Wall Streeters, including Roger Altman, executive chairman of Evercore; Marc Lasry, chairman of Avenue Capital Group; and George Soros, chairman of Soros Fund Management, are supporting her candidacy and contributing to her campaign and political action committees.
“Hillary would be fairly predictable, and markets like predictability,” says Greg Valliere, the chief strategist of Horizon Investments and a well-known handicapper of the political scene. “She is a bit more moderate than Obama, and despite all the concerns that she would repeat the Obama agenda, she would be more willing to compromise,” particularly on efforts to lower tax barriers that prevent U.S. corporations from repatriating profits made abroad.
Make no mistake. We are not endorsing Hillary Clinton for president of the United States. Nor are we saying that she would be the best president for investors from among the current crop of candidates. We are simply weighing the impact of a President Clinton on the financial markets, based on her stated positions and past actions, against those of her most likely rival, Donald Trump.
Photo: Drew Angerer/Bloomberg
Though some of Trump’s tax-cutting initiatives could potentially help both the economy and markets, those tax cuts coupled with his adamant refusal to address ballooning entitlement costs, such as Medicare and Social Security, would expand the national debt to the breaking point. On top of that, his call for heavy tariffs against China could cause a trade war that would devastate the world economy. In a cover story last fall (“Trump Is Wrong on China,” Nov. 14), we noted that Trump’s tariff plans were reminiscent of the protectionist policies of the 1920s and early 1930s that plunged us into the Great Depression.
Clinton, by contrast, hasn’t offered any ideas that are overly risky for the economy or markets, though her aggressive stance of driving down prescription-drug costs has Big Pharma investors concerned. Like Trump, Clinton has yet to offer a realistic plan to cut spending on entitlements, which make up about two-thirds of federal spending.
Valliere, who advises his firm’s institutional-investor clients, adds that he knows a number of professional investors who are considering “holding their nose and voting for Hillary, because the devil you know is better than the one you don’t know.”
Even David Kotok, a top money manager who doesn’t plan to vote for Clinton, thinks she can please the markets. “As far as being market-friendly, Hillary is a formidable contender,” says the chairman of $2.4 billion Cumberland Advisors. “There is a substantial constituency in the markets that could find her a very acceptable president.” Kotok is a Republican and plans to vote for John Kasich in the coming Florida primary.
Many Americans have trouble voting for Clinton because they are troubled by her reputation for accepting campaign contributions and personal favors from special-interest groups, including the financial-services industry. Six-figure speaking fees, not to mention large contributions to the Clinton Foundation, certainly call her objectivity into question. Then there’s her poor judgement when, as secretary of state and the nation’s top diplomat, she used a private computer server to conduct government e-mail communication.
That has led to a FBI investigation into whether national security was compromised. If Clinton is indicted on charges arising from her e-mail practices, it could destroy her candidacy. It’s difficult to gauge the odds of this happening.
ANY APPRAISAL OF TRUMP must factor in his brash personal style, which is a turnoff to many. Though he gave a restrained speech after his Super Tuesday victories, Trump’s penchant for put-downs, which was much on display at the Republican debate on Thursday night, reveals a personality type that many view as unsuited to the presidency.
His initial failure to strongly repudiate the support of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke has raised questions about his political character. Then there’s a nagging concern that Trump, a career real estate developer and reality-television star, hasn’t properly schooled himself in the myriad issues a president will face.
Enlarge Image
Trump’s refusal to release his recent tax returns to the general public raises the question of what he has to hide. Normally, the failure of a candidate to release his tax returns would be a big deal, says Valliere, “but I think he’ll get away with it because he gets away with everything.” Clinton has posted the past eight years of her returns on her Website.
In recent days, a number of leading Republicans have voiced fears of a Trump presidency, including 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who in a scathing speech called Trump “a phony” and “a fraud” who “has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president.” Indeed, the Republican Party appears to be ginning up a Stop Trump movement, which could throw the nomination open to a vote in a brokered convention come July.
“Trump is not presidential,” says a leading hedge fund manager who requested that his name not be used. “He is appealing to people’s worst instincts. And I can’t stand Hillary Clinton. She is pandering to the 99%. She is not a person of integrity.”
All of that may be true, but the likelihood of a Clinton-Trump matchup in November is growing. A CNN poll of Democrats nationwide conducted on Feb. 24-27 has Clinton leading Sanders 55% to 38%, and a CNN poll of Republicans has Trump with 49%, Marco Rubio at 16%, and Ted Cruz at 15%. If the polling data over the past month is any indicator, Clinton and Trump have both gained steam in recent weeks as they piled up primary victories.
SHOULD CLINTON WIN the presidency, investors can expect a president whose tax, spending, and trade proposals will be easily processed by markets, assuming they make it through Congress.
Clinton plans to encourage long-term investment by raising the short-term capital-gains rate on couples making more than $465,000 per year. She also wants to effectively raise the marginal income-tax rate to 43.6%, from 39.6%, on taxable income of more than $5 million, according to the Tax Foundation.
Her tax-raising agenda focuses on the wealthy and leaves most other Americans untouched. Republicans in Congress will probably oppose such a hike, but some Wall Streeters have spoken favorably of her plans.
By contrast, Trump’s more ambitious and business-friendly agenda cuts the corporate tax rate to 15% from the current 35% and consolidates the seven current tax brackets into four, with a top marginal rate of 25%, according to the Tax Foundation.
He would also create a special repatriation tax of 10% on the foreign profits of U.S. companies to encourage them to invest those funds in the U.S., as part of the effort to spur capital investing and hiring in the U.S.
Cumberland Advisors’ Kotok believes that Trump’s ideas for lowering taxes and bringing U.S. corporate earnings abroad back to the U.S. are appealing and could help spur some economic growth. “I would characterize it as a modernist version of the supply-side argument,” he adds.
But there are questions about whether this plan would create added problems for the economy while creating new jobs. A study of Trump’s polices by the Tax Foundation concluded that while they would cut taxes by close to $12 trillion over the next decade, the costs would also expand the federal debt by more than $10 trillion, a dangerous development.
And there are no guarantees that most of these repatriated profits will be put to good use. Indeed, past efforts to offer tax breaks or holidays to encourage repatriation haven’t always resulted in companies hiring millions of new workers in the U.S. or building new plants. A study by the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research of the last U.S. tax holiday, in 2004, found that “repatriations did not lead to an increase in domestic investment, employment, or R&D, even for the firms that lobbied for the tax holiday stating these intentions.”
Then there’s the political feasibility of it all. “Our concern with Trump’s 15% corporate tax rate…is not in the policy merits, but in the politics,” wrote David Bahnsen, the chief investment officer of the Bahnsen Group, a wealth management firm, on Forbes.com. “Because Trump has offered no specifics about how to pay for it, and because we think he would face a very challenging relationship with Congress, we cannot be excited for this tax reform because we do not believe it will happen in its present form.”
For all of Trump’s bold talk, much of his plan to “make America great again” could prove to be fiscally impractical. And his aggressive tariff threats could cause turmoil with our trading partners, whether or not those plans see the light of day. The more temperate Clinton is promising less when it comes to revitalizing the U.S. economy and bringing competitors like China to heel. But sometimes less is more.
http://www.barrons.com/articles/trump-or-clinton-whos-better-for-investors-1457157141?mod=BOL_GoogleNews&google_editors_picks=true
On the presidential campaign trail, Hillary Clinton has called out Wall Street for wrecking Main Street during the financial crisis. And her desire to jack up taxes on short-term capital gains isn’t exactly good news for the investor class.
Yet Clinton, the strong favorite to win the Democratic nomination, seems better suited to help the markets than the Republican front-runner, Donald Trump. With a Trump-Clinton race looking more likely after last week’s Super Tuesday voting, Barron’s has sized up each candidate’s positions on taxes, spending, trade, and other issues that directly affect markets.
Our conclusion: Clinton is the more investor-friendly of the two.
Photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg
Her recent rhetoric aside, Clinton’s moderate political instincts and left-center policy goals suggest a president who wouldn’t stand in the way of the financial markets. A fan of compromise and a knowledgeable Washington player, she might even be able to strike a bargain with House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate leaders on tax reform.
Just look at the company she keeps. Many Wall Streeters, including Roger Altman, executive chairman of Evercore; Marc Lasry, chairman of Avenue Capital Group; and George Soros, chairman of Soros Fund Management, are supporting her candidacy and contributing to her campaign and political action committees.
“Hillary would be fairly predictable, and markets like predictability,” says Greg Valliere, the chief strategist of Horizon Investments and a well-known handicapper of the political scene. “She is a bit more moderate than Obama, and despite all the concerns that she would repeat the Obama agenda, she would be more willing to compromise,” particularly on efforts to lower tax barriers that prevent U.S. corporations from repatriating profits made abroad.
Make no mistake. We are not endorsing Hillary Clinton for president of the United States. Nor are we saying that she would be the best president for investors from among the current crop of candidates. We are simply weighing the impact of a President Clinton on the financial markets, based on her stated positions and past actions, against those of her most likely rival, Donald Trump.
Photo: Drew Angerer/Bloomberg
Though some of Trump’s tax-cutting initiatives could potentially help both the economy and markets, those tax cuts coupled with his adamant refusal to address ballooning entitlement costs, such as Medicare and Social Security, would expand the national debt to the breaking point. On top of that, his call for heavy tariffs against China could cause a trade war that would devastate the world economy. In a cover story last fall (“Trump Is Wrong on China,” Nov. 14), we noted that Trump’s tariff plans were reminiscent of the protectionist policies of the 1920s and early 1930s that plunged us into the Great Depression.
Clinton, by contrast, hasn’t offered any ideas that are overly risky for the economy or markets, though her aggressive stance of driving down prescription-drug costs has Big Pharma investors concerned. Like Trump, Clinton has yet to offer a realistic plan to cut spending on entitlements, which make up about two-thirds of federal spending.
Valliere, who advises his firm’s institutional-investor clients, adds that he knows a number of professional investors who are considering “holding their nose and voting for Hillary, because the devil you know is better than the one you don’t know.”
Even David Kotok, a top money manager who doesn’t plan to vote for Clinton, thinks she can please the markets. “As far as being market-friendly, Hillary is a formidable contender,” says the chairman of $2.4 billion Cumberland Advisors. “There is a substantial constituency in the markets that could find her a very acceptable president.” Kotok is a Republican and plans to vote for John Kasich in the coming Florida primary.
Many Americans have trouble voting for Clinton because they are troubled by her reputation for accepting campaign contributions and personal favors from special-interest groups, including the financial-services industry. Six-figure speaking fees, not to mention large contributions to the Clinton Foundation, certainly call her objectivity into question. Then there’s her poor judgement when, as secretary of state and the nation’s top diplomat, she used a private computer server to conduct government e-mail communication.
That has led to a FBI investigation into whether national security was compromised. If Clinton is indicted on charges arising from her e-mail practices, it could destroy her candidacy. It’s difficult to gauge the odds of this happening.
ANY APPRAISAL OF TRUMP must factor in his brash personal style, which is a turnoff to many. Though he gave a restrained speech after his Super Tuesday victories, Trump’s penchant for put-downs, which was much on display at the Republican debate on Thursday night, reveals a personality type that many view as unsuited to the presidency.
His initial failure to strongly repudiate the support of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke has raised questions about his political character. Then there’s a nagging concern that Trump, a career real estate developer and reality-television star, hasn’t properly schooled himself in the myriad issues a president will face.
Enlarge Image
Trump’s refusal to release his recent tax returns to the general public raises the question of what he has to hide. Normally, the failure of a candidate to release his tax returns would be a big deal, says Valliere, “but I think he’ll get away with it because he gets away with everything.” Clinton has posted the past eight years of her returns on her Website.
In recent days, a number of leading Republicans have voiced fears of a Trump presidency, including 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who in a scathing speech called Trump “a phony” and “a fraud” who “has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president.” Indeed, the Republican Party appears to be ginning up a Stop Trump movement, which could throw the nomination open to a vote in a brokered convention come July.
“Trump is not presidential,” says a leading hedge fund manager who requested that his name not be used. “He is appealing to people’s worst instincts. And I can’t stand Hillary Clinton. She is pandering to the 99%. She is not a person of integrity.”
All of that may be true, but the likelihood of a Clinton-Trump matchup in November is growing. A CNN poll of Democrats nationwide conducted on Feb. 24-27 has Clinton leading Sanders 55% to 38%, and a CNN poll of Republicans has Trump with 49%, Marco Rubio at 16%, and Ted Cruz at 15%. If the polling data over the past month is any indicator, Clinton and Trump have both gained steam in recent weeks as they piled up primary victories.
SHOULD CLINTON WIN the presidency, investors can expect a president whose tax, spending, and trade proposals will be easily processed by markets, assuming they make it through Congress.
Clinton plans to encourage long-term investment by raising the short-term capital-gains rate on couples making more than $465,000 per year. She also wants to effectively raise the marginal income-tax rate to 43.6%, from 39.6%, on taxable income of more than $5 million, according to the Tax Foundation.
Her tax-raising agenda focuses on the wealthy and leaves most other Americans untouched. Republicans in Congress will probably oppose such a hike, but some Wall Streeters have spoken favorably of her plans.
By contrast, Trump’s more ambitious and business-friendly agenda cuts the corporate tax rate to 15% from the current 35% and consolidates the seven current tax brackets into four, with a top marginal rate of 25%, according to the Tax Foundation.
He would also create a special repatriation tax of 10% on the foreign profits of U.S. companies to encourage them to invest those funds in the U.S., as part of the effort to spur capital investing and hiring in the U.S.
Cumberland Advisors’ Kotok believes that Trump’s ideas for lowering taxes and bringing U.S. corporate earnings abroad back to the U.S. are appealing and could help spur some economic growth. “I would characterize it as a modernist version of the supply-side argument,” he adds.
But there are questions about whether this plan would create added problems for the economy while creating new jobs. A study of Trump’s polices by the Tax Foundation concluded that while they would cut taxes by close to $12 trillion over the next decade, the costs would also expand the federal debt by more than $10 trillion, a dangerous development.
And there are no guarantees that most of these repatriated profits will be put to good use. Indeed, past efforts to offer tax breaks or holidays to encourage repatriation haven’t always resulted in companies hiring millions of new workers in the U.S. or building new plants. A study by the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research of the last U.S. tax holiday, in 2004, found that “repatriations did not lead to an increase in domestic investment, employment, or R&D, even for the firms that lobbied for the tax holiday stating these intentions.”
Then there’s the political feasibility of it all. “Our concern with Trump’s 15% corporate tax rate…is not in the policy merits, but in the politics,” wrote David Bahnsen, the chief investment officer of the Bahnsen Group, a wealth management firm, on Forbes.com. “Because Trump has offered no specifics about how to pay for it, and because we think he would face a very challenging relationship with Congress, we cannot be excited for this tax reform because we do not believe it will happen in its present form.”
For all of Trump’s bold talk, much of his plan to “make America great again” could prove to be fiscally impractical. And his aggressive tariff threats could cause turmoil with our trading partners, whether or not those plans see the light of day. The more temperate Clinton is promising less when it comes to revitalizing the U.S. economy and bringing competitors like China to heel. But sometimes less is more.
http://www.barrons.com/articles/trump-or-clinton-whos-better-for-investors-1457157141?mod=BOL_GoogleNews&google_editors_picks=true
Кто ведется на безумные проекты Сандерса и Трампа.
Millennials, молодое поколение нынешних избирателей, не голосуют за Хиллари, потому что голосуют за Сандерса, повторяющего снова и снова романтически звучащее для молодых ушей слово "революция." Однако ни его сторонники, ни он сам совершенно не понимают ни смысла, ни значения этого термина. Но для молодых идиотов оно звучит очень романтично и возбуждающе.
Хотя, на самом деле, и Сандерс, и Трамп напевают молодому поколению волшебный сон, уводя его в никуда, как Гамельнский крысолов.
Когда спрашивают Трампа, как Вы будете это делать, ответ один: Вы не поверите, как это будет здорово! - Я и не верю, а чему верить? Ни единого аргумента, никаких обоснований! Верить хвастовству того, кто 4 раза банкротился? Сколько раз он будет банкротить страну?! Банкротить и политически, и экономически, и морально.
Сандерс – это Трамп для тех, кто живет по прежнему в родительском доме и никогда в жизни не платил налоги. Берни обещает обложить 95% налогом тот самый 1%. Результат? Корпорации бегут за рубеж, уводя с собой капиталы, рабочие места, и те налоги, на которые он так рассчитывает. Но для его безумных социалистических проeктов и этого недостаточно, он еще повысит налоги всем остальным и заведет страну в еще большие долги.
Ни Трамп, ни Сандерс не имеют просчитаной реальной программы в отличии от Хиллари, но считать молодым скучно, а верить пустым обещаниям так сладко.
Ольга Виноградова
Га́мельнский крысоло́в (нем. Rattenfänger von Hameln), гамельнский дудочник — персонаж средневековой немецкой легенды. Согласно ей, музыкант, обманутый магистратом города Гамельна, отказавшимся выплатить вознаграждение за избавление города от крыc, c помощью колдовства увёл за собой городских детей, сгинувших затем безвозвратно.
Millennials, молодое поколение нынешних избирателей, не голосуют за Хиллари, потому что голосуют за Сандерса, повторяющего снова и снова романтически звучащее для молодых ушей слово "революция." Однако ни его сторонники, ни он сам совершенно не понимают ни смысла, ни значения этого термина. Но для молодых идиотов оно звучит очень романтично и возбуждающе.
Хотя, на самом деле, и Сандерс, и Трамп напевают молодому поколению волшебный сон, уводя его в никуда, как Гамельнский крысолов.
Когда спрашивают Трампа, как Вы будете это делать, ответ один: Вы не поверите, как это будет здорово! - Я и не верю, а чему верить? Ни единого аргумента, никаких обоснований! Верить хвастовству того, кто 4 раза банкротился? Сколько раз он будет банкротить страну?! Банкротить и политически, и экономически, и морально.
Сандерс – это Трамп для тех, кто живет по прежнему в родительском доме и никогда в жизни не платил налоги. Берни обещает обложить 95% налогом тот самый 1%. Результат? Корпорации бегут за рубеж, уводя с собой капиталы, рабочие места, и те налоги, на которые он так рассчитывает. Но для его безумных социалистических проeктов и этого недостаточно, он еще повысит налоги всем остальным и заведет страну в еще большие долги.
Ни Трамп, ни Сандерс не имеют просчитаной реальной программы в отличии от Хиллари, но считать молодым скучно, а верить пустым обещаниям так сладко.
Ольга Виноградова
Га́мельнский крысоло́в (нем. Rattenfänger von Hameln), гамельнский дудочник — персонаж средневековой немецкой легенды. Согласно ей, музыкант, обманутый магистратом города Гамельна, отказавшимся выплатить вознаграждение за избавление города от крыc, c помощью колдовства увёл за собой городских детей, сгинувших затем безвозвратно.
The Millennials, the younger generation of today's voters, do not vote for Hillary, because they vote for Sanders, who is repeating over and over again the romantic-sounding for young ears word "revolution." However, neither his supporters nor he himself do not understand any meaning or significance of the term. But it sounds very romantic and exciting for young idiots.
Sanders and Trump are singing to the young generation the magical sleep, leading millennials nowhere, as the Pied Piper of Hamelin.
When asked Trump how are you going to do it, the answer is the same: You will not believe, how it would be great! - I do not believe and what to believe? Not a single argument, any justification! Believe boasting one who was 4 times bankrupt? How many times Trump will bankrupt the country?! Bankrupt, politically, economically, and morally.
Sanders is a Trump for those who still live in parental home and never in their life pay any taxes yet. Bernie promises to impose a 95% tax on the same 1%. Result? Corporations are fleeing abroad, taking with them a capital, jobs, and those taxes, for which he hopes. But for his insane socialist projects all of this is not enough, he also will raise taxes on everyone else and would lead the country into even greater debt.
Neither Trump nor Sanders have real calculated program unlike Hillary, but calculating is boring, and believing empty promises is so sweet.
Olga Vinogradov.
The Pied Piper of Hamelin was a rat-catcher, hired by the town to lure rats away with his magic pipe. When the citizens refuse to pay for this service, he retaliates by using his instrument's magic power on their children, leading them away as he had the rats.
Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation or Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates when the generation starts and ends; most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.
Sanders and Trump are singing to the young generation the magical sleep, leading millennials nowhere, as the Pied Piper of Hamelin.
When asked Trump how are you going to do it, the answer is the same: You will not believe, how it would be great! - I do not believe and what to believe? Not a single argument, any justification! Believe boasting one who was 4 times bankrupt? How many times Trump will bankrupt the country?! Bankrupt, politically, economically, and morally.
Sanders is a Trump for those who still live in parental home and never in their life pay any taxes yet. Bernie promises to impose a 95% tax on the same 1%. Result? Corporations are fleeing abroad, taking with them a capital, jobs, and those taxes, for which he hopes. But for his insane socialist projects all of this is not enough, he also will raise taxes on everyone else and would lead the country into even greater debt.
Neither Trump nor Sanders have real calculated program unlike Hillary, but calculating is boring, and believing empty promises is so sweet.
Olga Vinogradov.
The Pied Piper of Hamelin was a rat-catcher, hired by the town to lure rats away with his magic pipe. When the citizens refuse to pay for this service, he retaliates by using his instrument's magic power on their children, leading them away as he had the rats.
Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation or Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates when the generation starts and ends; most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.
Операции по отмазыванию Путина начались
Mar. 7th, 2016 10:52 pmОригинал взят у verola в Операции по отмазыванию Путина начались
Он родной как бы под арестом всё время...
Как оправдать 16 лет чудовищного провала? Полного пролёта? Когда после 16 лет подъёма с колен страна откатилась на уровень 2004-2005, а теперь катится дальше. Очень просто — всем миром управляют невидимые Кланы — "без поддержки этих кланов, каждого выскочку ждут очень жёсткие подзатыльники. В.В.П. попытался повыпендриваться, но ему очень быстро указали на его место.". Только шизоидный этот бред надо приводить со ссылкой на "разговоры с разведчиками из СВР", и всё будет хорошо.
Путину кланы совсем не давали ничего делать до 2012 года! Сидел как кукла. А Ротенберги-то и не знали про трудные обстоятельства своего собутыльника и покровителя. Они спокойно гребли доллары бульдозерами.
Но и после 2012 не стало легче — кланы не дают развернуться. Обычно плохой танцор не говорит "кланы не давали мне танцевать", а упоминает наличие неудобных предметов пониже спины, которые не дали ему показать мастерство. Но у нас серьёзнее — кланы не дают проявлять минимальную честность и смекалку.
( Могучие кланы скрутили нашего самого доброго и справедливого президента )
verola в Операции по отмазыванию Путина началисьОн родной как бы под арестом всё время...
Как оправдать 16 лет чудовищного провала? Полного пролёта? Когда после 16 лет подъёма с колен страна откатилась на уровень 2004-2005, а теперь катится дальше. Очень просто — всем миром управляют невидимые Кланы — "без поддержки этих кланов, каждого выскочку ждут очень жёсткие подзатыльники. В.В.П. попытался повыпендриваться, но ему очень быстро указали на его место.". Только шизоидный этот бред надо приводить со ссылкой на "разговоры с разведчиками из СВР", и всё будет хорошо.
Путину кланы совсем не давали ничего делать до 2012 года! Сидел как кукла. А Ротенберги-то и не знали про трудные обстоятельства своего собутыльника и покровителя. Они спокойно гребли доллары бульдозерами.
Но и после 2012 не стало легче — кланы не дают развернуться. Обычно плохой танцор не говорит "кланы не давали мне танцевать", а упоминает наличие неудобных предметов пониже спины, которые не дали ему показать мастерство. Но у нас серьёзнее — кланы не дают проявлять минимальную честность и смекалку.
( Могучие кланы скрутили нашего самого доброго и справедливого президента )
Оригинал взят у olga_den_f в 3 секретных фрукта на ночь восстановят позвоночник и добавят сил.
olga_den_f в 3 секретных фрукта на ночь восстановят позвоночник и добавят сил.*
Секреты прибавления сил и уменьшения нагрузки на мышцы и позвоночник сохранились с давних времен.
Раскрыть их удалось тренерам спортсменам и самим олимпийцам. С тех пор они передаются из поколения в поколение. Сегодня мы раскроем еще одну тайну, позволяющую эффективно и быстро восстановить силы, уменьшить боль в спине после интенсивной тренировки. Для этого понадобится всего 3 фрукта.
( Read more... )
Секреты прибавления сил и уменьшения нагрузки на мышцы и позвоночник сохранились с давних времен.
Раскрыть их удалось тренерам спортсменам и самим олимпийцам. С тех пор они передаются из поколения в поколение. Сегодня мы раскроем еще одну тайну, позволяющую эффективно и быстро восстановить силы, уменьшить боль в спине после интенсивной тренировки. Для этого понадобится всего 3 фрукта.
( Read more... )
Оригинал взят у olga_den_f в Как изменение времени приёма пищи влияет на вес и обмен веществ.
olga_den_f в Как изменение времени приёма пищи влияет на вес и обмен веществ.*
Многие люди хотят питаться с пользой для здоровья, однако изменить свой рацион не так-то просто.
Но что если внести изменения не в рацион, а во время принятия пищи?
Известно, что изменение времени приёма пищи может повлиять на ваш вес и обмен веществ. По крайней мере, если вы – мышь.
Исходя из исследований на мышах, можно сказать, что секрет улучшения здоровья заключается в ограничении временного интервала, в течение которого вы принимаете пищу, и, как следствие, увеличении времени, на протяжении которого вы обходитесь без еды.
( Read more... )
Многие люди хотят питаться с пользой для здоровья, однако изменить свой рацион не так-то просто.
Но что если внести изменения не в рацион, а во время принятия пищи?
Известно, что изменение времени приёма пищи может повлиять на ваш вес и обмен веществ. По крайней мере, если вы – мышь.
Исходя из исследований на мышах, можно сказать, что секрет улучшения здоровья заключается в ограничении временного интервала, в течение которого вы принимаете пищу, и, как следствие, увеличении времени, на протяжении которого вы обходитесь без еды.
( Read more... )
15 мужских заблуждений о женщинах
Mar. 7th, 2016 10:59 pmОригинал взят у grimnir74 в 15 мужских заблуждений о женщинах
grimnir74 в 15 мужских заблуждений о женщинах15 мужских заблуждений о женщинах
1. Женщина сама не знает, чего хочет.
Это заблуждение. Женщина отлично знает, чего хочет, она вчера это видела в магазине.
2. Для женщины главное в жизни – семейный очаг.
Это не совсем так. Без семейного очага женщина, худо-бедно, но может жить годами. Без новых сапог может обходиться месяцами, а вот без кислорода – не дольше минуты. Так что главное в жизни женщины – это кислород.
3. Если женщина начнёт собираться раньше, то она сможет выйти из дома вовремя.
Ничего подобного! Если она будет собираться дольше, то на сборы просто уйдет больше времени.
4. Если женщина пошла «налево», значит ей дома чего-то не хватает.
Опять-таки неверно! Дома всегда всего полно. В частности, полная мойка. И вообще полно дел.
Ще Більше Російського Капіталу в Уряді
Mar. 7th, 2016 11:16 pmОригинал взят у atytarenko в Ще Більше Російського Капіталу в Уряді
atytarenko в Ще Більше Російського Капіталу в УрядіНемає необхідності пояснювати, що відбувається з корупцією в Україні. Нині відставка прем'єр-міністра Арсенія Яценюка видається неминучою; це тепер швидше питання "коли", ніж "якщо". Реальне питання тепер: А хто ж наступний?
Ім'я, яке все частіше з"являеться - це міністр фінансів Наталія Яресько. Так, саме та, що не зміогла подати проект державного бюджету до кінця грудня, і силою протягла його у самий останній момент, без розгляду. Саме вона. пані Яресько дуже вправно створює нові борги і нав'язує незбагненні тарифи, але це тільки перша частина історії.
Друга частина є те, що пані Яресько є, по суті, інвестиційним банкіром з помітним впливом російського ринку. Цей вплив уважно приховано, але до цих пір він достовірно простежується. Ще в 2006 році вона заснувалап Horizon Capital Fund (http://www.horizoncapital.com.ua/). Сайт "знаходиться в стадії технічного обслуговування. Ми повинні повернутися найближчим часом" з кінця 2012 року, проте Фонд працює цілком порядно, можна перевірити по Bloomberg, наприклад. Є способи, щоб побачити історію сайту. Можна знайти в 2012 що: "31 жовтня: Horizon Capital інвестує в Банк Тінькофф Кредитні Системи". Повний прес-реліз тут: https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2012/11/01/501773/0/en/Horizon-Capital-Invests-in-TCS-Bank.html , Не так щоб багато, але, безумовно, не дрібниці: інвестиції були на $40 млн. Даних про вихід з пані Яресько з російського ринку нема. Ці інвестиції зросли у вартості, і цілком можливо, зараз знаходиться в тій же ваговій категорії, що і Ліпецький "Рошен" пана Порошенко.Тінькофф Bank (https://www.tinkoff.ru/eng/) також згадує Horizon Capital в своїх звітах за 2013 і 2014 роки.
Це означає, що гучна боротьба з корупцією в Україні фактично використовується, щоб підняти статус ще одного бюрократа, який має гігантський конфлікт інтересів, і де-факто співпрацює зі ворогом. Чи буде Яресько гірше або краще, ніж Яценюк? Час покаже, але, принаймні, Яценюк не має ніякого бізнесу в Росії.
Ім'я, яке все частіше з"являеться - це міністр фінансів Наталія Яресько. Так, саме та, що не зміогла подати проект державного бюджету до кінця грудня, і силою протягла його у самий останній момент, без розгляду. Саме вона. пані Яресько дуже вправно створює нові борги і нав'язує незбагненні тарифи, але це тільки перша частина історії.
Друга частина є те, що пані Яресько є, по суті, інвестиційним банкіром з помітним впливом російського ринку. Цей вплив уважно приховано, але до цих пір він достовірно простежується. Ще в 2006 році вона заснувалап Horizon Capital Fund (http://www.horizoncapital.com.ua/). Сайт "знаходиться в стадії технічного обслуговування. Ми повинні повернутися найближчим часом" з кінця 2012 року, проте Фонд працює цілком порядно, можна перевірити по Bloomberg, наприклад. Є способи, щоб побачити історію сайту. Можна знайти в 2012 що: "31 жовтня: Horizon Capital інвестує в Банк Тінькофф Кредитні Системи". Повний прес-реліз тут: https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2012/11/01/501773/0/en/Horizon-Capital-Invests-in-TCS-Bank.html , Не так щоб багато, але, безумовно, не дрібниці: інвестиції були на $40 млн. Даних про вихід з пані Яресько з російського ринку нема. Ці інвестиції зросли у вартості, і цілком можливо, зараз знаходиться в тій же ваговій категорії, що і Ліпецький "Рошен" пана Порошенко.Тінькофф Bank (https://www.tinkoff.ru/eng/) також згадує Horizon Capital в своїх звітах за 2013 і 2014 роки.
Це означає, що гучна боротьба з корупцією в Україні фактично використовується, щоб підняти статус ще одного бюрократа, який має гігантський конфлікт інтересів, і де-факто співпрацює зі ворогом. Чи буде Яресько гірше або краще, ніж Яценюк? Час покаже, але, принаймні, Яценюк не має ніякого бізнесу в Росії.
История от хама
Mar. 7th, 2016 11:36 pmОригинал взят у flavius_aetius1 в История от хама
Слишком много всякого происходит в последние дни, так что по поводу этого события малость поёрничали, в очередной раз посмеялись, да вроде как и забыли. А зря. В России власть редко говорит с тем, что там называется обществом, напрямую. Она посылает "сигналы". Они тем и хороши, эти "сигналы", как, впрочем, и законы, что задают, так сказать, общее направление, тенденцию, предоставляя каждому на местах, сообразно своему рвению и идиотизму толковать каждое новое веяние. Всё та же тактика - неясность порождает непредсказуемость и извечное русское "лучше перебдеть..."
Прежде чем перейти непосредственно к теме, просто отмечу - закон об "оскорблении чувств" - самая яркая, хотя и не единственная иллюстрация вышесказанному. Невезучий мужик из Ставрополя, с его "боха нет", некстати подвернувшийся под руку ретивым идиотам, преподаватель еврейской гимназии, оказавшийся экстремистом, всего-то на всего преподавая Ветхий Завет, он же Тора, не говоря уже о совершенно феерической истории с запретом сур Корана дальневосточными "мудрецами" - всё это было предусмотрено и не должно никого удивлять. Не эти люди и не те судьи - значит любые другие на просторах страны дураков. На это всё и рассчитано - тоталитарное государство сверху донизу - от мелкой сошки в любом Мухосранске до самого главного бугра в Кремле должны быть загадочны и их карающая длань может настичь любого и совершенно неожиданно. Раз попавшись им под руку, выбрать уже, практически, невозможно. Не "оскорбление чувств верующих", так "оскорбление социальной группы", экстремизм, всё что угодно.
Бывшева кошмарят по любому поводу. Заказал книгу в Интернете - на ковёр в ФСБ. В Питере, историк Кирилл Александров защитил докторскую диссертацию "Генералитет и офицерские кадры вооруженных формирований Комитета освобождения народов России 1943–1946 годах" о генерале Андрее Власове и его соратниках. Директора Петербургского института истории РАН, где проходила защита, Николая Смирнова за неделю до этого вызвали в прокуратуру для профилактической беседы. По словам Смирнова, на него оказывали "беспрецедентное давление" и другие инстанции с целью отменить защиту. Причина? "Диссертация служит уничтожению памяти о великой Победе, 70-летие со дня которой недавно всенародно отметила Россия". То есть определённые исторические факты должны быть отменены, так как "уничтожают память". А это значит, как есть факты "юридически ничтожные", также должны быть и "исторически ничтожные". Напомню бессмертное: "факты сами по себе ничего не значат..."
Всё та же непредсказуемость и неопределённость - не знаешь где и на что нарвёшься. Как показывает опыт одной, отдельно взятой за известное место страны, чтобы кошмарить всё разумное, да и просто нормальное, здравомыслящее, что ещё осталось, власти на местах не нужны свирепые держиморды. Требуются ретивые дураки. Дураки получают сигналы, т.е. направление, в котором надо чморить врагов. История, то бишь, непредсказуемое российское прошлое - тоже поле боя, средство выявления национал предателей, ибо, опять же, так уж повелось, что верность высочайшему взгляду на прошлое, есть свидетельство лояльности. Если же взгляд этот, вполне намеренно, бредов и абсурден - тем лучше. Сомневающиеся-то не нужны. Как в той истории с китайским евнухом, объявившим собаку оленем, а затем казнившего всех, кто по наивности доказывал, что собака, она собака и есть.
Так вот, именно об истории и речь. Точнее, о том, что дуракам поступил новый сигнал. Если уж историческими экзерсисами занялся смотрящий по "вне поребрика" господин Лавров, да ещё и разразился статьёй, да ещё и выводы свои сообщил, значит, следует ждать множества других интересных открытий, а там, следуя логики событий, недалеко и до полной легализации таких титанов исторической мысли, как Чудинов. Не сразу, а постепенно, шаг за шагом. Сегодня Лавров статейку накропал, Пушков высказался, что, мол, у Россиюшки есть чего поважнее всяких там прав человека. Конечно, кто бы сомневался, но, чтобы вот так, без обиняков - это дорогого стоит. Ещё недавно они себя оплотом таковых прав считали. В общем, высочайше подтверждённая информация о том, что пирамида Хеопса - дело рук "зодчих-русичей" не за горами. А так же, много интереснейших судебных процессов об оскорблении, ну скажем, социальной группы "российские историки", или же, оскорбление чувств всего российского народа, тоже, наверное, как социальной группы. А что, звучит - социальная группа "ватники".
Итак, Россия, по утверждению Лаврова, "как уже не раз бывало в истории, оказалась на перекрестке ключевых тенденций, во многом определяющих вектор будущего мирового развития." С этим трудно не согласиться. Пьяный жлоб с "розочкой| в переполненном трамвае неизбежно оказывается "на перекрестке ключевых тенденций, во многом определяющих вектор будущего" пассажиров этого трамвая. Ну а потом, будучи человеком интеллигентным, в очках, и даже в мундире, Лавров улетает мыслию во времена стародавние, а именно, к крещению Руси, а затем и к утверждению, что Киевская Русь была в культурном плане гораздо выше многих западноевропейских государств. Ещё раз указывает на известный факт династических браков с европейскими королевскими домами. Всё так. Да только, вот незадача - ключевым словом здесь является "Киевская Русь". Нет, не то чтобы позднейшие Ростовское или же Владимиро-Суздальское княжества не имели к Киевской Руси отношение, но в том и беда, что именно "отношение". Всё что сказал Лавров на счёт того же Ярослава Мудрого, он же варяг Ярицлейв, совершенно справедливо, но я хочу заметить, для примера, исключительно, что, скажем, те же греки, со временем из народа философов, учёных, путешественников превратились в народ пастухов. Опять же - для примера. Так и здесь, по мере перемещения центра государственности на Северо-восток, связь Руси с Европой хирела и сходила на нет, да, как показали дальнейшие события, не очень и хотели они этой связи. Западнорусские же земли, попали на долгие столетия под контроль сперва Литвы, а потом и Речи Посполитой, а потому, никогда не теряли связей с "внешним" миром.
А потому, возвращение этих земель "домой", возвращением является с чисто московской точки зрения, ибо домом и центром Москва назначила себя исключительно сама, присвоив себе право решать кто на самом деле "её", а кто нет.
Но всё это дела давние, и в который раз - мы не можем мерять тех людей современными мерками. Важна оценка, тем не менее, с позиций сегодняшнего дня. Можем ли мы обвинить мусульман, уничтоживших Александрийскую библиотеку? Вряд ли. Но с нашей, нынешней точли зрения, событие, и правда, было ужасное. Так и тут - ничего хорошего в перемещении центра страны в дикие северные земли не было. Ну а потом, как же без этого, тема спасения Европы от монголо-татар. Ну что тут попишешь - любят они "спасать", а вся история, это одно сплошное спасение. А потому, не особенно заморачиваясь, цитирует Лавров известную сентенцию Пушкина, что де, "Варвары не осмелились оставить у себя в тылу порабощенную Русь и возвратились в степи своего Востока. Христианское просвещение было спасено истерзанной и издыхающей Россией."
Сказано красиво, не спорю, но какой русский не любит красивых слов? И тут же, якобы, противоположное мнение Гумилёва, что монгольское нашествие способствовало формированию обновленного русского этноса. Ну, во первых, одно не противоречит другому, а во-вторых - Гумилёв прав, а Пушкин, всё-таки - нет. Этнос, действительно, обновился, став окончательно азиатским, ибо жили русские князья с ханами, в общем, довольно мирно, как вассал с сюзереном. Оккупация была весьма недолгой, может, первые лет 20, а потом, Россия и монголы существовали, так сказать, в симбиозе. Монголы участвовали в княжеских разборках, а князья в ханских. По мере же ослабления центра в Орде, креп центр в Москве, что и было закреплено окончательно стоянием на Угре. Что же до пушкинской версии, красивой, но ошибочной, хотелось бы спросить, каким образом Россия спасала Европу и христианское просвещение? Послав свои полки завоёвывать Европу вместе с монгольскими туменами? А может тем, что в этих туменах были и русские "нукеры"? Или что эти же тумены прошли всю Европу и передовые отряды Батыя достигли "последнего моря" - Атлантики, и только смерть Великого Хана Угедея заставили монголов повернуть назад. Батый был обязан присутствовать на курултае. Так причём здесь Русь?
Но нет! Спасли, защитили. А иначе, как-то недухоподъёмно выходит, а им без высот горних духа никак не возможно. Не было - прикажем, будет. Вот и приказывают.
Дальше - ещё лучше. Оказывается, Запад так и признал Московию наследницей Византии - здравствуй, Третий Рим. А Сибирью Россия прирастала органично, это Америка прирастала неорганично, истребляя индейцев. Ермак же, истреблял сибирские племена, т.е. "освобождал" Сибирь со всей возвышенной православной духовностью.
Собственно говоря, нет смысла обсуждать тысячу раз говоренное. Здесь и рассказы о величии и роли послепетровской России, и о ответственности Запада, а никак не СССР за сползание ко Второй Мировой войне. Особенно впечатляют утверждения о том, что восточноевропейские страны вовсе не освободились после краха СССР, а лишь сменили хозяина. Союз же сыграл важную роль в крахе колониальной системы. Разумеется, 14 советских республик (кроме России) и соцстраны колониями ни коим образом не являлись. Не забыл Лавров и нынешнюю "позицию" по Украине.
В чём смысл всей этой Лавровской жвачки? Ответ в процитированном им Генри Киссинджере: "Россию следует рассматривать как ключевой элемент любого глобального равновесия, а не как прежде всего угрозу Соединенным Штатам… " Обратите внимание на первую часть фразы, вторая - лишь дань дипломатическому этикету. Всё тот же алкаш в трамвае - он в вагоне, действительно, элемент глобального равновесия. И в этом посыл грустной лошади, вернее, его патрона, мысли которого и зафиксированы в статье. Мы хотим и будем совать свой нос везде. А рассуждая о многовариантности общественного устройства, миру, просто, дают понять - мы не с вами. У нас свой путь, наш бронепоезд, вовсе не на запАсном пути - он несётся во всю дурь навстречу вашему поезду. Кто не спрыгнет, мы не виноваты. Так же теперь, официально приказано видеть себя биомассе, так разуметь своё прошлое. На этот раз приказано официально, с самого верха. Сталин, помнится, озаботился вопросами языкознания, нынешнего - беспокоит история, и пожалуй, он до некоторой степени прав. Должны же у трамвайного хама быть исторические обоснования на руководство вагоном. Ну, если не должны, то очень желательны - сунуть под нос перепуганным пассажирам. А вдруг кто и поверит...
flavius_aetius1 в История от хамаСлишком много всякого происходит в последние дни, так что по поводу этого события малость поёрничали, в очередной раз посмеялись, да вроде как и забыли. А зря. В России власть редко говорит с тем, что там называется обществом, напрямую. Она посылает "сигналы". Они тем и хороши, эти "сигналы", как, впрочем, и законы, что задают, так сказать, общее направление, тенденцию, предоставляя каждому на местах, сообразно своему рвению и идиотизму толковать каждое новое веяние. Всё та же тактика - неясность порождает непредсказуемость и извечное русское "лучше перебдеть..."
Прежде чем перейти непосредственно к теме, просто отмечу - закон об "оскорблении чувств" - самая яркая, хотя и не единственная иллюстрация вышесказанному. Невезучий мужик из Ставрополя, с его "боха нет", некстати подвернувшийся под руку ретивым идиотам, преподаватель еврейской гимназии, оказавшийся экстремистом, всего-то на всего преподавая Ветхий Завет, он же Тора, не говоря уже о совершенно феерической истории с запретом сур Корана дальневосточными "мудрецами" - всё это было предусмотрено и не должно никого удивлять. Не эти люди и не те судьи - значит любые другие на просторах страны дураков. На это всё и рассчитано - тоталитарное государство сверху донизу - от мелкой сошки в любом Мухосранске до самого главного бугра в Кремле должны быть загадочны и их карающая длань может настичь любого и совершенно неожиданно. Раз попавшись им под руку, выбрать уже, практически, невозможно. Не "оскорбление чувств верующих", так "оскорбление социальной группы", экстремизм, всё что угодно.
Бывшева кошмарят по любому поводу. Заказал книгу в Интернете - на ковёр в ФСБ. В Питере, историк Кирилл Александров защитил докторскую диссертацию "Генералитет и офицерские кадры вооруженных формирований Комитета освобождения народов России 1943–1946 годах" о генерале Андрее Власове и его соратниках. Директора Петербургского института истории РАН, где проходила защита, Николая Смирнова за неделю до этого вызвали в прокуратуру для профилактической беседы. По словам Смирнова, на него оказывали "беспрецедентное давление" и другие инстанции с целью отменить защиту. Причина? "Диссертация служит уничтожению памяти о великой Победе, 70-летие со дня которой недавно всенародно отметила Россия". То есть определённые исторические факты должны быть отменены, так как "уничтожают память". А это значит, как есть факты "юридически ничтожные", также должны быть и "исторически ничтожные". Напомню бессмертное: "факты сами по себе ничего не значат..."
Всё та же непредсказуемость и неопределённость - не знаешь где и на что нарвёшься. Как показывает опыт одной, отдельно взятой за известное место страны, чтобы кошмарить всё разумное, да и просто нормальное, здравомыслящее, что ещё осталось, власти на местах не нужны свирепые держиморды. Требуются ретивые дураки. Дураки получают сигналы, т.е. направление, в котором надо чморить врагов. История, то бишь, непредсказуемое российское прошлое - тоже поле боя, средство выявления национал предателей, ибо, опять же, так уж повелось, что верность высочайшему взгляду на прошлое, есть свидетельство лояльности. Если же взгляд этот, вполне намеренно, бредов и абсурден - тем лучше. Сомневающиеся-то не нужны. Как в той истории с китайским евнухом, объявившим собаку оленем, а затем казнившего всех, кто по наивности доказывал, что собака, она собака и есть.
Так вот, именно об истории и речь. Точнее, о том, что дуракам поступил новый сигнал. Если уж историческими экзерсисами занялся смотрящий по "вне поребрика" господин Лавров, да ещё и разразился статьёй, да ещё и выводы свои сообщил, значит, следует ждать множества других интересных открытий, а там, следуя логики событий, недалеко и до полной легализации таких титанов исторической мысли, как Чудинов. Не сразу, а постепенно, шаг за шагом. Сегодня Лавров статейку накропал, Пушков высказался, что, мол, у Россиюшки есть чего поважнее всяких там прав человека. Конечно, кто бы сомневался, но, чтобы вот так, без обиняков - это дорогого стоит. Ещё недавно они себя оплотом таковых прав считали. В общем, высочайше подтверждённая информация о том, что пирамида Хеопса - дело рук "зодчих-русичей" не за горами. А так же, много интереснейших судебных процессов об оскорблении, ну скажем, социальной группы "российские историки", или же, оскорбление чувств всего российского народа, тоже, наверное, как социальной группы. А что, звучит - социальная группа "ватники".
Итак, Россия, по утверждению Лаврова, "как уже не раз бывало в истории, оказалась на перекрестке ключевых тенденций, во многом определяющих вектор будущего мирового развития." С этим трудно не согласиться. Пьяный жлоб с "розочкой| в переполненном трамвае неизбежно оказывается "на перекрестке ключевых тенденций, во многом определяющих вектор будущего" пассажиров этого трамвая. Ну а потом, будучи человеком интеллигентным, в очках, и даже в мундире, Лавров улетает мыслию во времена стародавние, а именно, к крещению Руси, а затем и к утверждению, что Киевская Русь была в культурном плане гораздо выше многих западноевропейских государств. Ещё раз указывает на известный факт династических браков с европейскими королевскими домами. Всё так. Да только, вот незадача - ключевым словом здесь является "Киевская Русь". Нет, не то чтобы позднейшие Ростовское или же Владимиро-Суздальское княжества не имели к Киевской Руси отношение, но в том и беда, что именно "отношение". Всё что сказал Лавров на счёт того же Ярослава Мудрого, он же варяг Ярицлейв, совершенно справедливо, но я хочу заметить, для примера, исключительно, что, скажем, те же греки, со временем из народа философов, учёных, путешественников превратились в народ пастухов. Опять же - для примера. Так и здесь, по мере перемещения центра государственности на Северо-восток, связь Руси с Европой хирела и сходила на нет, да, как показали дальнейшие события, не очень и хотели они этой связи. Западнорусские же земли, попали на долгие столетия под контроль сперва Литвы, а потом и Речи Посполитой, а потому, никогда не теряли связей с "внешним" миром.
А потому, возвращение этих земель "домой", возвращением является с чисто московской точки зрения, ибо домом и центром Москва назначила себя исключительно сама, присвоив себе право решать кто на самом деле "её", а кто нет.
Но всё это дела давние, и в который раз - мы не можем мерять тех людей современными мерками. Важна оценка, тем не менее, с позиций сегодняшнего дня. Можем ли мы обвинить мусульман, уничтоживших Александрийскую библиотеку? Вряд ли. Но с нашей, нынешней точли зрения, событие, и правда, было ужасное. Так и тут - ничего хорошего в перемещении центра страны в дикие северные земли не было. Ну а потом, как же без этого, тема спасения Европы от монголо-татар. Ну что тут попишешь - любят они "спасать", а вся история, это одно сплошное спасение. А потому, не особенно заморачиваясь, цитирует Лавров известную сентенцию Пушкина, что де, "Варвары не осмелились оставить у себя в тылу порабощенную Русь и возвратились в степи своего Востока. Христианское просвещение было спасено истерзанной и издыхающей Россией."
Сказано красиво, не спорю, но какой русский не любит красивых слов? И тут же, якобы, противоположное мнение Гумилёва, что монгольское нашествие способствовало формированию обновленного русского этноса. Ну, во первых, одно не противоречит другому, а во-вторых - Гумилёв прав, а Пушкин, всё-таки - нет. Этнос, действительно, обновился, став окончательно азиатским, ибо жили русские князья с ханами, в общем, довольно мирно, как вассал с сюзереном. Оккупация была весьма недолгой, может, первые лет 20, а потом, Россия и монголы существовали, так сказать, в симбиозе. Монголы участвовали в княжеских разборках, а князья в ханских. По мере же ослабления центра в Орде, креп центр в Москве, что и было закреплено окончательно стоянием на Угре. Что же до пушкинской версии, красивой, но ошибочной, хотелось бы спросить, каким образом Россия спасала Европу и христианское просвещение? Послав свои полки завоёвывать Европу вместе с монгольскими туменами? А может тем, что в этих туменах были и русские "нукеры"? Или что эти же тумены прошли всю Европу и передовые отряды Батыя достигли "последнего моря" - Атлантики, и только смерть Великого Хана Угедея заставили монголов повернуть назад. Батый был обязан присутствовать на курултае. Так причём здесь Русь?
Но нет! Спасли, защитили. А иначе, как-то недухоподъёмно выходит, а им без высот горних духа никак не возможно. Не было - прикажем, будет. Вот и приказывают.
Дальше - ещё лучше. Оказывается, Запад так и признал Московию наследницей Византии - здравствуй, Третий Рим. А Сибирью Россия прирастала органично, это Америка прирастала неорганично, истребляя индейцев. Ермак же, истреблял сибирские племена, т.е. "освобождал" Сибирь со всей возвышенной православной духовностью.
Собственно говоря, нет смысла обсуждать тысячу раз говоренное. Здесь и рассказы о величии и роли послепетровской России, и о ответственности Запада, а никак не СССР за сползание ко Второй Мировой войне. Особенно впечатляют утверждения о том, что восточноевропейские страны вовсе не освободились после краха СССР, а лишь сменили хозяина. Союз же сыграл важную роль в крахе колониальной системы. Разумеется, 14 советских республик (кроме России) и соцстраны колониями ни коим образом не являлись. Не забыл Лавров и нынешнюю "позицию" по Украине.
В чём смысл всей этой Лавровской жвачки? Ответ в процитированном им Генри Киссинджере: "Россию следует рассматривать как ключевой элемент любого глобального равновесия, а не как прежде всего угрозу Соединенным Штатам… " Обратите внимание на первую часть фразы, вторая - лишь дань дипломатическому этикету. Всё тот же алкаш в трамвае - он в вагоне, действительно, элемент глобального равновесия. И в этом посыл грустной лошади, вернее, его патрона, мысли которого и зафиксированы в статье. Мы хотим и будем совать свой нос везде. А рассуждая о многовариантности общественного устройства, миру, просто, дают понять - мы не с вами. У нас свой путь, наш бронепоезд, вовсе не на запАсном пути - он несётся во всю дурь навстречу вашему поезду. Кто не спрыгнет, мы не виноваты. Так же теперь, официально приказано видеть себя биомассе, так разуметь своё прошлое. На этот раз приказано официально, с самого верха. Сталин, помнится, озаботился вопросами языкознания, нынешнего - беспокоит история, и пожалуй, он до некоторой степени прав. Должны же у трамвайного хама быть исторические обоснования на руководство вагоном. Ну, если не должны, то очень желательны - сунуть под нос перепуганным пассажирам. А вдруг кто и поверит...
Оригинал взят у olga_den_f в Кремль продовжує грубе втручання у внутрішні справи України.
olga_den_f в Кремль продовжує грубе втручання у внутрішні справи України.Роія продовжує свої намагання зламати Україну "через коліно".
Росія продовжує наполягати на виконанні Україною тих вимог у мінських домовленостях, які вигідні Кремлю.
Російський журналіст Павло Шеремет розповів, на яких умовах може завершитися війна в Україні. Про це він повідомив Радіо Свобода : "Я вам хочу сказати, розкрити таку історію: на минулому тижні російський посол, як не дивно, зустрічався з групою журналістів, там було кілька й українських журналістів. Мене там не було, але серед присутніх на зустрічі з паном Зурабовим журналістів були мої хороші знайомі".
( Read more... )
Росія продовжує наполягати на виконанні Україною тих вимог у мінських домовленостях, які вигідні Кремлю.
Російський журналіст Павло Шеремет розповів, на яких умовах може завершитися війна в Україні. Про це він повідомив Радіо Свобода : "Я вам хочу сказати, розкрити таку історію: на минулому тижні російський посол, як не дивно, зустрічався з групою журналістів, там було кілька й українських журналістів. Мене там не було, але серед присутніх на зустрічі з паном Зурабовим журналістів були мої хороші знайомі".
( Read more... )
Общественная собственность и сухая вода.
Mar. 7th, 2016 11:52 pmОригинал взят у verola в Общественная собственность и сухая вода.
verola в Общественная собственность и сухая вода. Крокодил не ловится, не растёт кокос — плачут Богу молятся, не жалеют слёз. Лучше не скажешь про советских людей. Кокос здесь не рос до 1991 года, и после 1991 стало не лучше.
А когда думаешь, сверлишь мозгом — в чём, в чём же главная причина всех жутких траблов этой страны — этого моря лжи, мелкого жульничества, взаимной ненависти, не способности построить хоть мало-мальски работающее государство? Главная причина одна — невероятная темнота и невежество населения.
( 70 лет большевизма не прошли даром — оглупление было направленным )
А когда думаешь, сверлишь мозгом — в чём, в чём же главная причина всех жутких траблов этой страны — этого моря лжи, мелкого жульничества, взаимной ненависти, не способности построить хоть мало-мальски работающее государство? Главная причина одна — невероятная темнота и невежество населения.
( 70 лет большевизма не прошли даром — оглупление было направленным )