Trumpsteru su se u zadnjim anketama šanse znatno poboljšale.
Nadam se njegovoj pobjedi, odnos SAD prema bh. muslimanima bi se mogao jako, jako promijeniti.

Trumpsteru su se u zadnjim anketama šanse znatno poboljšale.
Nadam se njegovoj pobjedi, odnos SAD prema bh. muslimanima bi se mogao jako, jako promijeniti.

Cemu se ti nadas... Jasta ce, cim Trump pobjedi odma salje proposal o vaspostavi treCeg i relociranju Bosnjaka u Tursku. Ali,

Cemu se ti nadas... Jasta ce, cim Trump pobjedi odma salje proposal o vaspostavi treCeg i relociranju Bosnjaka u Tursku. Ali,

Academy Award-winning actor and ardent Bernie Sanders campaigner Susan Sarandon, spoke out against Hillary Clinton, saying that her presidency could prove “more dangerous” than Donald Trump’s.

In an appearance on The Young Turks, Sarandon criticised Ms Clinton on her foreign policy positions. She also conveyed that she does not take seriously Mr Trump’s sensational promises to build a wall along the southern border and bar Muslim immigration into the US.

“I believe in a way she is more dangerous,” Sarandon suggested, responding to questions about the Clinton campaign calling her Republican rival “dangerous”.

“She did not learn from Iraq, and she is an interventionist, and she has done horrible things … and very callously. I don’t know if she is overcompensating or what her trip is.

“I think we’ll be in Iran in two seconds.”

She continued: “I’m not worried about a wall being built. He is not going to get rid of every Muslim in this country. ... I don’t know what his policy is. I do know what her policies are, I do know who she is taking money from, and I do know that she is not transparent, and I do know that nobody calls her on it.”

Sarandon also appeared on MSNBC Thursday night deriding the lack of media coverage that is critical of Ms Clinton, calling the federal indictment of the former secretary of state “inevitable”.

“Nobody’s even talking about this indictment. What happens with that?” Sarandon said. “Besides the trust issue of catching her in so many lies.”

When reminded that there has not been an indictment, Sarandon responded: “No, but there’s going to be. There’s going to be. I mean, it’s inevitable.”

"I think Bernie would probably encourage people (to support Clinton) because he doesn't have any ego in this thing. But I think a lot of people are, 'Sorry, I just can't bring myself to do that,"

Sarandon said of voting for Clinton in the general election. "I don't know. I'm going to see what happens."

An incredulous Hayes asked Sarandon if that meant she would vote for Trump.

"Some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately, if he gets in. Then things will really, you know, explode," Sarandon said, referring to the political "revolution" Sanders preaches about on the trail.

Hayes clarified that Sarandon was referring to the Marxist concept of revolution, in that Trump would create such a split in America that the upheaval would result in dramatic change.

Asked if that was dangerous, Sarandon trashed Clinton's pitch that she's a pragmatist, saying that the current situation in the country is unsustainable.
"If you think that it's pragmatic to shore up the status quo right now, then you're not in touch with the status quo," Sarandon said. "The status quo is not working ... I think it's dangerous to think that we can continue the way we are."

Sarandon later clarified on Twitter that she was not saying she would ever vote for Trump.

Sanders told CNN's Erin Burnett on "OutFront" Tuesday night that Trump has been encouraging violence with his campaign. He nodded to battery charges filed against Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

"Let's see what happens in the legal process. He has been charged and we don't find people until you go through a process. But my campaign manager does not assault female journalists, let me just say that," Sanders said.

Asked about the comments from Sarandon -- a surrogate for the Sanders campaign who has introduced him at events -- top Sanders aide Tad Devine said while the actress has "got every right" to her opinion, he would still vote for Clinton if she beats Sanders.

"Me personally? Yeah, of course I would," Devine told CNN's Pamela Brown on Tuesday. "And listen, Bernie Sanders ... is someone who respects and admires Hillary Clinton, her service and her leadership, and the differences between the two of them pale in comparison to differences between Republicans."

CONTRIBUTORS
May 10, 2016 - 07:30 AM EDT
How Trump could make American foreign policy great again

How Trump could make American foreign policy great again


It is into an amorphous environment of American confusion, denial and weariness of global leadership that presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump has surprisingly stormed his way.

This environment is the result of an American foreign policy elite that unwisely believes that the imposing of universal values is more important than confronting the grimy world of reality, where constraints and opportunities compete in an ever-changing calculus of geopolitical necessity. This ossified consensus is wrong and has led America to squander much of its massive margin for error on quixotic campaigns. In the meantime, looming competitors, especially China, press the limits of the entire American-led global security architecture.

ADVERTISEMENT

Trump is the only major candidate who has dared to challenge thoroughly outdated pillars of U.S. foreign policy. Now that he has effectively secured the GOP nomination, Trump should embrace what this author calls the "Iron Quadrilateral," which consists of four major, and mutually reinforcing, geopolitical imperatives that should be pursued with steely determination.
As Sir Halford Mackinder, a leading British geopolitical thinker in the early 20th century, said, "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World."

That emphasis on the "World Island" of Eurasia lies at the core of U.S. national security in the 21st century, just as much as it did in the 20th century. The Eurasian landmass contains the largest masses of people in the world, the most natural resources, and the most economic potential on a going forward basis. Paramount among all geopolitical challenges is the absolute necessity of avoiding having a hegemonic power, or concert of powers, emerge with the capability of dominating Eurasia militarily or economically. If such a hegemonic power were to arise, it could eventually threaten the U.S. in its own backyard by becoming the only other power to have the capacity to project itself globally. All elements of the Iron Quadrilateral strategy flow from this overarching imperative.

China, not Russia, now appears to be the power with the greatest potential of accomplishing this. China appears to be seeking to push us out of the region economically and setting themselves up as the main arbiters of Eurasia through efforts like the "One Belt, One Road" initiative and a growing naval push.

The Iron Quadrilateral is designed to prevent this from occurring. This is policy is built on foundations of national interest and represents a decisive transition from the present Washington status quo of naively idealistic democratic messianism, whether of the liberal internationalist or neoconservative variant.

Imperative 1: Conduct a "reverse Nixon to China" with Russia

First and foremost, China and Russia should not ally. This would be a geopolitical disaster for the U.S. That it would not happen has been a cornerstone for much of Cold War policy since the Nixon era.

Having the largest country in the world by landmass (that also has the largest nuclear arsenal) working in concert with the second largest (soon to be the largest) economic power in the world to isolate the U.S. is exactly the scenario that Mackinder indicated is imperative to avoid. It is a geopolitical imperative of the highest order to keep Russia as a separate power base, not a little brother to China.

Rather than seeking to confront Russia in a renewed Cold War, it will be necessary to split Russia from China in a way not dissimilar from how President Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger worked to exploit the Sino-Soviet split to counterbalance the Soviets.

To accomplish this will require coming to an understanding with Russia that acknowledges that Russia is a great power with interests in its neighborhood. It will also require a reconceptualization of what has been one of, if not the most, successful alliances in world history: NATO.

Trump is right that too many NATO members are getting close to a free ride on the American taxpayer's dime. As part of this "reverse Nixon to China, NATO's mission should be recalibrated for a post-Cold War world. Anti-terrorism, not an anti-Russian posture, should be its new mission. Further, the U.S. should demand that the Europeans contribute more, commensurate with what they anticipate they will receive as a benefit, on pain of the U.S. exiting the alliance if they fail to do so.

If Russia's western frontiers can be managed, the U.S. should actively encourage Russia to shift its focus toward Central Asia, where both Russia and China have competing interests.

Imperative 2: Embrace a "divide and conquer" strategy in the Middle East

The Middle East no longer matters to the U.S. as it did during the Cold War, Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo or even the immediate aftermath of 9/11. This author has argued for a policy of "divide and conquer" akin to the strategy employed by Cardinal Richelieu during Europe's Thirty Years' War.

Not only should both sides of the increasingly bloody Sunni-Shiite split be allowed to fight amongst themselves; the fight should be leveraged to U.S. advantage. This requires the United States not taking any side in the rivalry between the two major potential regional hegemonic powers: Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Unlike most administrations since the end of World War II, the Trump administration should finally stop offering a blank check to Saudi Arabia. However, unlike the Obama Administration, which has sought to tilt to Iran, the U.S. under Trump should suffer no illusions nor expend much energy working to bring Iran into some sort of regional security architecture. Better for all sides to weaken each other than use American boots on the ground.

Imperative 3: Strengthen Japan

Under no circumstances can Japan be hung out to dry. This is an area where Trump needs to consider our alliance structure in East Asia.

The U.S. should consummate the "pivot to Asia" started under Obama, which is seriously under-resourced. The U.S should also shift the lion's share of our defense investment in Europe toward East Asia. In a nutshell, if Trump wants to reduce our overseas posture and save money, it should come from NATO and Europe, not East Asia.

Working to bolster Japan's regional relationships represents another facet of assurance that Japan is able to provide a robust counter to an increasingly assertive China.

As for the question of Trump's apparent willingness to countenance Japan potentially going nuclear, no less than the late Kenneth Waltz, the father of the neo-realist school of international relations theory, indicated that such proliferation could be an excellent deterrent to war as far back the 1980s.

Eventually, proliferation is going to happen. As this author has long written, the "Golden Age of Proliferation" is already here. We have to realize others may seek their own insurance, as France and Britain did in the Cold War. The threat of a nuclear-armed Japan, while initially destabilizing, could pay dividends over time. It would force China to carefully consider efforts to threaten outward power projection that harms Japanese interests, and should be left as an option on the table.

Imperative 4: Embrace India

One of the most significant foreign policy successes of the George W. Bush administration was the embrace of India. The civilian nuclear deal of 2005 was a watershed for Indian-U.S. relations and should be built upon.

India is already the world's largest democracy. By the middle of the 21st century, it will likely have the world's largest population.

India has natural tensions with China. Though there has never been a recent conflict as significant as the Sino-Indian War of 1962, incidents like the 2013 Daulat Beg Oldi incident illustrates that tensions continue to exist. Should India fulfill its latent economic potential, these tensions vis a vis China are likely to become increasingly important.

India's latent power portends a potential regional superpower that would force China to take India far more seriously than it has had over the last several decades.

Conclusion

It is time for the U.S. to confront its domestic challenges so that it can emerge stronger on the world stage.

This will prove difficult, if not impossible, if a new superpower in Asia consolidates its position and pushes the U.S. out of the key growth arena of the new century. Preventing this from happening is the most urgent task of American foreign policy and should be pursued without illusions and by limiting distractions.

Japan and the U.S. can contain China's naval ambitions eastward. India, with U.S. support, can contain China's influence towards the south. A Russia not focused on perceived Western encroachment can compete with China for regional dominance throughout Central Asia. Cumulatively, this avoids any power dominating Eurasia and threatening the U.S. position at the apex of global power.

If Donald Trump embraces the Iron Quadrilateral, he will have a foreign policy that can truly "make America great again."

Lawson is a contributing analyst at Wikistrat.

Ti nekad baš kao Bošnjak razmišljaš. Svi US predsjednici slali diplomate 5 klase u Bosnu. Prije polaska im samo kažu, pazite da rat ne izbije.

Donald Trump’s Confrontation With Muslim Soldier’s Parents Emerges as Unexpected Flash Point

Donald J. Trump reeled on Sunday amid a sustained campaign of criticism by the parents of a Muslim American soldier killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq and a rising outcry within his own party over his rough and religiously charged dismissal of the couple.

The confrontation between the parents, Khizr and Ghazala Khan, and Mr. Trump has emerged as an unexpected and potentially pivotal flash point in the general election. Mr. Trump has plainly struggled to respond to the reproach of a military family who lost a son, and has answered their criticism derisively — first implying that Ms. Khan had been forbidden to speak at the Democratic National Convention, then declaring that Mr. Khan had “no right” to question Mr. Trump’s familiarity with the Constitution.

And Mr. Trump’s usual political tool kit has appeared to fail him. He earned no reprieve with his complaints that Mr. Khan had been unfair to him; on Sunday morning, he claimed on Twitter that Mr. Khan had “viciously attacked” him. Mr. Trump and his advisers tried repeatedly to change the subject to Islamic terrorism, to no avail.

Instead, Mr. Trump appeared to be caught on Sunday in one of the biggest crises of his campaign, rivaling the uproar in June after he suggested a federal judge, Gonzalo P. Curiel, was biased because of his Mexican heritage. By going after a military family and trafficking in ethnic stereotypes, Mr. Trump once again breached multiple norms of American politics, redoubling pressure on his fellow Republicans to choose between defending his remarks or breaking publicly with their nominee.

Mr. Trump also risked reopening controversies related to religious tolerance and military service: His treatment of the Khans has brought on a new wave of criticism of his proposal to ban Muslim immigration, and of his mockery of Senator John McCain’s time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

Democratic leaders and candidates for Congress began over the weekend to call on Republicans to disavow Mr. Trump. And the top two Republicans in Congress, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan and Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, signaled their strong disagreement with Mr. Trump, but stopped short of condemning him in blunt terms.

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, sternly reprimanded Mr. Trump on Sunday morning, saying at a church in Cleveland that he had answered the Khan family’s sacrifice with disrespect for them and for American traditions of religious tolerance.

“Mr. Khan paid the ultimate sacrifice in his family, didn’t he?” Mrs. Clinton said. “And what has he heard from Donald Trump? Nothing but insults, degrading comments about Muslims, a total misunderstanding of what made our country great.”

Mrs. Clinton chastised Mr. Trump again on Sunday in Ashland, Ohio, calling his comments part of a disturbing pattern. “He called Mexicans rapists and criminals,” Mrs. Clinton said. “He said a federal judge was unqualified because he had Mexican heritage — someone born in the neighboring state of Indiana. He’s called women pigs. He’s mocked a reporter with a disability.”

Mr. and Ms. Khan stiffened their denunciation of Mr. Trump on Sunday, saying that he lacked the moral character and empathy to be president. Mr. Khan, who addressed the Democratic National Convention on Thursday, said on “Meet the Press” on NBC that Mr. Trump had shown disrespect to his wife, and he accused Mr. Trump of running a campaign “of hatred, of derision, of dividing us.”

In a direct appeal to voters inclined to support Mr. Trump, Mr. Khan pleaded with them to reject his brand of politics.

Addressing “patriotic Americans that would probably vote for Donald Trump,” Mr. Khan said, “I appeal to them not to vote for hatred, not to vote for fear-mongering. Vote for unity. Vote for the goodness of this country.”

And Ms. Khan, in an opinion article published in The Washington Post, rebuked Mr. Trump for suggesting earlier in the weekend that she had not been permitted to speak at the Democratic convention. Ms. Khan said she did not speak because she did not believe she could remain composed while talking about her son.

“All the world, all America, felt my pain. I am a Gold Star mother. Whoever saw me felt me in their heart,” Ms. Khan wrote, using the term for surviving family members of those killed in war. “Donald Trump has children whom he loves. Does he really need to wonder why I did not speak?”

Ms. Khan said Mr. Trump was “ignorant” of Islam and criticized him for offering his business career as evidence that he had sacrificed for his country. “Donald Trump said he has made a lot of sacrifices,” Ms. Khan said. “He doesn’t know what the word sacrifice means.”

It is too soon to say how severe the damage to Mr. Trump might be, but the clash has already entangled him in a self-destructive, dayslong argument with sympathetic accusers who are portraying him as a person of unredeemable callousness. Still, he has proved remarkably resilient, getting past controversies that might have sunk other candidates.

Several prominent Republicans have condemned Mr. Trump’s treatment of the Khans, calling his behavior outside the bounds of political discourse. But Republican congressional leaders responded cautiously to Mr. Trump. Mr. Ryan and Mr. McConnell released statements stressing their admiration for the Khan family; Mr. McConnell called Capt. Humayun Khan an “American hero.” And both said they firmly opposed banning Muslim immigration, though neither mentioned Mr. Trump, whom they have endorsed, by name.

“Many Muslim Americans have served valiantly in our military, and made the ultimate sacrifice. Captain Khan was one such brave example,” Mr. Ryan said. “His sacrifice — and that of Khizr and Ghazala Khan — should always be honored. Period.”

Mr. Trump’s clash with the Khan family threatens to unwind any progress he may have made at moderating his campaign and rallying his party at the outset of the general election. He has sought to play down his proposal for banning Muslim immigration, focusing on blocking immigration from specific countries instead, but has never disavowed the idea of a religious test. And he has not apologized to the Khans for his comments about Ms. Khan.

Those comments have deeply unsettled many leading Republicans. Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, and John Kasich, the governor of Ohio, have forcefully expressed disapproval. A spokesman for former President George W. Bush declined to comment directly on Mr. Trump’s behavior, but suggested Mr. Bush takes a different view.

“President Bush remains deeply grateful for the sacrifice of all Gold Star families, as we all should be. He thinks about them and prays for them each and every day,” said the spokesman, Freddy Ford.

Other Republicans went even further in chiding Mr. Trump. Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, who is seeking re-election, said the Khans deserved the utmost respect: “I am appalled that Donald Trump would disparage them and that he had the gall to compare his own sacrifices to those of a Gold Star family.”

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said on Sunday that Mr. Trump had crossed another inviolable line. Like his comments about Judge Curiel, Mr. Graham said, Mr. Trump’s jabs at Mr. and Ms. Khan were unacceptable. “This is going to a place where we’ve never gone before, to push back against the families of the fallen,” he said.

He added, “The problem is, ‘unacceptable’ doesn’t even begin to describe it.”

Representative Mike Coffman of Colorado, a Republican who served in combat as a Marine and now represents a crucial swing district in the Denver suburbs, said Mr. Trump had disrespected American troops. “Having served in Iraq, I’m deeply offended when Donald Trump fails to honor the sacrifices of all of our brave soldiers who were lost in that war,” Mr. Coffman said.

The pressure on Mr. Trump and other Republicans is unlikely to relent soon. But so far he has flailed and faltered in response.

He first criticized Ms. Khan for not speaking alongside her husband, implying that she had been prohibited from doing so. Facing mounting criticism from Democrats and Republicans, he released a follow-up statement on Saturday night, describing the Khans’ deceased son as a hero, but insisting that Mr. Khan had “no right” to criticize him the way he did in Philadelphia. He made a third attempt to deflect the Khans’ criticism on Sunday, writing on Twitter that the real issue at stake in the election was terrorism.

The Republican vice-presidential nominee, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, appears to be in a particularly awkward position in the uproar. His son is a Marine, a fact he mentions frequently. Mr. Pence’s ability to navigate a racially charged argument between Mr. Trump and a Gold Star family is emerging as his first difficult test as Mr. Trump’s running mate.

For most of the weekend, Mr. Pence was silent. His aides referred inquiries to Mr. Trump’s staff, and his lone public comment was a Twitter post about getting his hair cut in Indianapolis.

Late Sunday, Mr. Pence issued a statement sidestepping Mr. Trump’s criticism of the Khans. He expressed appreciation for the family’s sacrifice and reiterated his support for blocking immigration “from countries that have been compromised by terrorism.”

Ti nekad baš kao Bošnjak razmišljaš. Svi US predsjednici slali diplomate 5 klase u Bosnu. Prije polaska im samo kažu, pazite da rat ne izbije.

Zakaj misliš da se njima jebe za BiH ?
To bi ti bila priča kao ona montaža rata s Albanijom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog
Samo bi ovdje bilo mrtvih.
Zašto bi se Ameri bojali rata ?

A za ovo s Mošnjacima, alo, kad sam ja tebe ikad uvrijedio ?

Za nas je ovo win-win situacija.
Iako su lud i luđi u igri.

Ako pobijedi luda Hilary (što mi se ne sviđa), lupit će po Srbima.
Možda i po Rusima i Irancima (preko proxya, nadam se).
Sirija će se krvarit, jbg.

Ako pobijedi Trump, ići će na dogovor s Rusima. Što možda znači i konačan raspad BiH.
Na svjetskom planu bar neće biti priče o svjetskom ratu.

Donald J. Trump all but erased his enormous fund-raising disadvantage against Hillary Clinton in the span of just two months, according to figures released by his campaign on Wednesday, converting the passion of his core followers into a flood of small donations on a scale rarely seen in national politics.

Mr. Trump and the Republican National Committee raised $64 million through a joint digital and mail effort in July, according to his campaign, the bulk of it from small donations. All told, Mr. Trump and his party brought in $82 million last month, only slightly behind Mrs. Clinton’s $90 million, and ended with $74 million on hand, suggesting he might now have the resources to compete with Mrs. Clinton in the closing stretch of the campaign.

“She’s been doing this for 20 years,” said Steven Mnuchin, a New York investor who is Mr. Trump’s finance chairman. “We’ve been doing it for two months.” More than two-thirds of the $64 million had come online, Mr. Mnuchin said.

The new figures indicate a major shift in Mr. Trump’s campaign, which until recent months was largely funded by hat and T-shirt sales and by Mr. Trump’s wallet. And they suggest that Mr. Trump has the potential to be the first Republican nominee whose campaign could be financed chiefly by grass-roots supporters pitching in $10 or $25 apiece, echoing the success of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont during the Democratic primary.

And Mrs. Clinton’s own fund-raising operation is rapidly expanding as well. In a Twitter post on Wednesday, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton said that her campaign and a joint fund-raising operation with the Democratic National Committee had $102 million on hand, not including cash held directly by the party.

But Mr. Trump’s announcement suggests that after months of dithering and false starts, he has begun to exploit an opportunity: marrying his powerful credibility among grass-roots Republicans with targeted small-donor fund-raising, particularly online, where Mr. Trump’s website features buttons soliciting $50, $25 and even $10 contributions.