Alegeri prezidențiale SUA live

Donald Trump va fi noul președinte al SUA

03:11 Incident armat care a suspendat votul în 2 secții de votare din California

Man Shoots 4, 1 Fatally, Near Polling Stations Outside Los Angeles

02:35: Un subiect pe care cei doi candidați sunt de acord

Presidential elections offer a brief but critical window to examine the different and often competing visions over which direction the country should take regarding the economy, foreign policy, and key domestic issues. The 2016 presidential elections are perhaps the most divisive in the country’s modern history, a probable consequence of the extreme polarisation between the Republican and Democratic parties.

What will be the implications of a Trump or Clinton administration on Palestine and the Palestinians?

Despite these rising tensions, in the realm of foreign policy, the approach to Israel, Palestine and the Palestinians is arguably one of the most inflexible and entrenched positions in Washington.

While there are differences between the parties’ beliefs on how to achieve their objectives, Democrats and Republicans share a common vision: Israel is to be provided with unconditional financial, military and diplomatic support, Palestine is a word that is rarely (if ever) articulated publicly or addressed substantially, and the Palestinians – their lives, concerns, and rights – are invisibilised and, if recognised, only so in the shadow of Israel’s security interests.

Nevertheless, the current race to the Oval Office has been one that has defied most expectations and understandings of the workings of US politics. Against the backdrop of a US that is reorienting its strategic gaze from the Middle East, what will be the implications of a Trump or Clinton administration on Palestine and the Palestinians?

A shared vision: Trump, Netanyahu and the GOP

In February, Donald Trump attracted much attention when he broke from decades of zealous Republican commitment to Israel by promising to be a “neutral” negotiator in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. As Trump’s popularity kept rising regardless of taking such an atypical stance on Palestine and Israel, he caught the attention of key Republican donors like Sheldon Adelson, a longtime supporter of America’s special relationship with Israel.

In December 2015, in the heat of the primary battle, Adelson and Trump met privately. Soon after, Trump eagerly told Reuters, that “Sheldon knows that nobody will be more loyal to Israel than Donald Trump.”

Trump continued to fall back in line with traditional Republican positions on Israel and Palestine when in March 2016, during his address to AIPAC, he referred to Hamas as the “Palestinian ISIS”, denounced the United Nations as not being “a friend to freedom” or a capable intermediary, promised to immediately invite Netanyahu to the Oval Office and swiftly move the American embassy to “the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem.”

02:10 La fix, o criză în Balcani și un Clinton la Casa Albă

War Crime Arrests May Fuel Bosnian Croat Separatism

The arrests of ten Bosnian Croats on war crimes charges is likely to further encourage Bosnian Croat demands for their own entity, experts warn.

Bosnian presidency member Dragan Covic. Photo: Anadolu.

The visit to Zagreb by Bosnian Croat presidency member Dragan Covic on Monday was overshadowed by the reports of the recent arrest for war crimes of ten Bosnian Croats – prompting analysts to warn that the tension could well strengthen Bosnian Croat calls for a third, Croat-led entity in Bosnia.

“Many who have been calling for [the third entity], but not in a direct and straightforward manner, are now much more open because they think that this arrest … is final proof that Croats are not protected, are unequal, and are discriminated against in Bosnia,” Senada Selo Sabic, a Zagreb-based analyst at the Institute for Development and International Relations, told BIRN.

Defence minister cancels visit

Croatia’s Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister, Damir Krsticevic, on Monday cancelled a visit to Sarajevo which was planned for Tuesday.

The Bosnian prosecution confirmed last week that it is investigating Krsticevic’s own role in crimes allegedly committed by Croatian forces in October 1995, in which 181 Serbs from Mrkonjic Grad were killed.

Kristicevic claimed he cancelled his Sarajevo trip because he was busy working on the state budget, and would reschedule it.

But the Croatian daily newspaper Jutarnji List reported that Croatian intelligence agencies had advised him not to go to Bosnia because they could not guarantee his security.

Zarko Puhovski, a Zagreb-based political analyst, told BIRN that the Croatian government feared “the prosecution of its members for crimes committed [in October 1995] in Mrkonjic Grad”, a town in western Bosnia.

The 1995 Dayton Agreement that ended the war in Bosnia of 1992 to 1995 provided for the creation of two sub-state entities – a Serb-led entity, Republika Srpska, which occupies about 49 per cent of Bosnian territory, and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which occupies the other 51 per cent and is primarily inhabited by Bosnian Muslims and Croats.

But many Croats would prefer their own entity, and Covic has been calling for years for the formation of one – an initiative taken up again in 2014 when Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic won the Croatian presidency on a ticket that urged holding an international conference to reorganise Bosnia.

Grabar-Kitarovic belongs to the Croatian Democratic Party, HDZ, while Covic is head of the HDZ’s sister party in Bosnia.

“My visit to Zagreb, although it was previously planned, was to be about the European path and economic cooperation between our two countries. Now it will unfortunately be primarily dedicated to events in [the northeastern Bosnian town of] Orasje,” Covic said, according to the Banja Luka-based news site Nezavisne Novine.

01:35 Încep să apară primele rezultate. Acestea se pot urmări live pe multe situri, inclusiv aici

00:25 Variante de lucru pentru pentru candidați de îndată ce încep să se anunțe rezultatele.

23:54 În așteptarea primelor rezultate, o știre din seria panicardă

Race riots, terrorist attacks and martial law: Oath Keepers warn of post-election chaos

It might start with an executive order delaying today’s election, manufactured riots, or even a series of terrorist attacks designed to allow the president to invoke emergency powers.

What’s likely to follow, according to the militia group known as the Oath Keepers, could be the most perilous period in U.S. history since the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

The question posed on the group’s YouTube channel isn’t whether you’re prepared to vote during this year’s presidential election — it’s whether you and your family are prepared to survive it.

“No doubt we’re all concerned about this election,” Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes said during a three-hour webinar devoted to the election.

The Army veteran, speaking with an eye patch over his left eye, added that it’s “become a crazy roller-coaster ride of an election, and we’re all concerned about the possibility of civil unrest or violence either on Election Day or shortly after.”

The Oath Keepers, a group of former military and law enforcement officers who came together in 2009, have been gearing up for the election for months.

In October, the group urged its members to “blend in” with voters and do “incognito intelligence gathering and crime spotting” at polling places across the country on Nov. 8. Members were instructed to report unseemly activities to police.

23:00 Zi de vot cu probleme, dacă se întâmpla în altă parte, ieșea cu scandal

Election Day In NYC Plagued With Long Lines, Broken Scanners, Misinformed Poll Workers

It would not be Election Day in New York without serious problems at the polls, and today’s Trump-Clinton contest is no exception. Emails have streamed into Gothamist since the polls opened describing long lines, broken scanners, and egregious poll worker errors.

At PS 92 on Parkside Avenue in Brooklyn, one reader reported a 2 hour 45 minute line due to broken scanners—a figure down from the 4 hours it took to vote there in 2008, but still extremely long. At PS 154 on West 127th Street, another voter said that the poll site was down to one scanner from at least 8 a.m. until about 10:30, and that it took two and a half hours to vote. On Roosevelt Island, the poll site was down to one scanner at 8 a.m., and zero by 9:20, according to voters, sending the line coiling around the room. The scanners were back up by 11, according to one reader.

Here’s a dispatch from Trump’s polling place, on East 56th Street, which shut down so Trump could vote.

And here’s footage of an extremely long line to vote elsewhere on the Upper East Side:

22:00 În afară de alegerea președintelui, americanii decid azi și pe câteva alte subiecte sensibile. Unul dintre ele, medicamente mai ieftine:

Legalizing Pot and 10 Other Ballot Issues to Watch on Election Day

The presidential race and legislative offices aren’t the only things on voters’ ballots on Tuesday. Around the country, voters will also get to decide ballot measures that could change the lives of millions of Americans — offering them access to cheaper prescription drugs, for instance, or legalizing the sale of recreational marijuana, or changing the system by which they vote altogether.

Here are 11 issues on state ballots that could change America:

    1. Cheaper Pharmaceutical Drugs and True Universal Health Care (California and Colorado): California’s Proposition 61 could potentially dramatically lower the prices of pharmaceutical drugs for many in the state, as it would mandate state agencies to purchase medicine at a price no higher than what the Department of Veterans Affairs pays for them (it negotiates prices to lower them considerably). The big drug companies have spent over $100 million trying to stop the initiative. Meanwhile, in Colorado, voters will have a chance to enact a truly universal health care system with Amendment 69, which would direct the state to adopt a single-payer plan. The health insurance industry has hired Democratic consultants to try to stop the push.
    2. A Different Way to Vote That Busts Up the Two-Party Duopoly (Maine): In Maine, voters will have an opportunity to enact a ranked-choice voting system — becoming the first state to do so statewide. Under this system, voters choose not just one candidate at the ballot, but rank their preferences between different parties and candidates — empowering voters to vote for third-party and independent candidates without worrying about viability. If no candidate receives the majority of first-preference votes, then the candidates who finished last are eliminated each round until the winning candidate has the majority of votes. Maine, a state where independent candidates are popular, is a great place to start with such a system — the current Republican Governor Paul LePage has never received a majority of votes thanks to three-way vote splitting, something that is not possible under a ranked-choice system.
    3. Curtail the Influence of Money in Politics (South Dakota, Missouri): Voters in South Dakota will decide the fate of Initiated Measure 22, the South Dakota Government Accountability and Anti-Corruption Act. Currently, South Dakota is the only state in the country where lobbyists can give an unlimited number of secret gifts to lawmakers. The measure would, among other things, limit the gifts an individual lobbyist can give a lawmaker to a value of $100 a year. In Missouri, candidates can rake in virtually unlimited contributions from megadonors, and the governor’s race is the nation’s most expensive, topping $50 million in spending. With Amendment 2, voters can change that. It would enact rules that cap donations to individual candidates to $2,600.
    4. Boost the Minimum Wage, or Lower it for the Young (Arizona, Colorado, Maine, South Dakota, Washington): Four states — Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and Washington — will have initiatives on the ballot to raise the minimum wage. But one state, South Dakota, is asking voters for permission to lower the state minimum wage from $8.50 to $7.50 for workers under age 18.
    5. Expand Charter Schools and School Takeovers (Massachusetts, Georgia): Massachusetts voters will decide the fate of Question 2, which would lift the state’s charter school cap and allow up to 12 independent charter schools to be established each year. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who represents the state, came out against the initiative in late September, raising concerns that it would help drain funding away from traditional public schools. In Georgia, Amendment 1 would empower the state to take over what it deems to be failing schools and potentially shut them down or convert them into charter schools. The amendment has faced fierce opposition from teachers, who see it as a way of undermining local control of public education.
    6. Legalize Marijuana (California, Massachusetts, Maine, Arizona and Nevada): Five states are looking at legalizing recreational marijuana. The ballot measures would allow for states to regulate marijuana sales and generate tax revenue. A 15 percent California sales tax would go toward drug research and law enforcement, and a 10 percent Maine sales tax would to to a general fund. People age 21 or older would be allowed to possess a limited amount of weed in these states, though in Arizona and Nevada they would be fined if caught smoking in public view. The pharmaceutical industry, alcohol industry, police and prison guard groups and billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson have bankrolled the opposition to these measures. Jerry Brown of California is the only governor of the five states who has not spoken against the measures; he has declined to take a position. Three other states — Montana, Florida, and North Dakota — are looking at legalizing medical marijuana.

20:00 5 posibile scenarii pentru alegerile de azi și câteva lucruri utile pentru în seara asta:

The Clinton crush

In which Donald Trump loses every state with even a hint of Democratic flavor and drops a few big Republican ones too – the fantasy scenario for every American who yearns for his/her sense of shock and offense at Trump’s candidacy to be reflected in the electoral result.

Trump not only loses the big battleground states of Florida, North Carolina and Ohio, he hemorrhages support everywhere, losing Iowa, losing Colorado, and then – in the stroke that places the election among the all-time routs – losing in states where Republicans have simply never lost in the modern era. African American voters in Georgia turn out in Obama-era numbers to defeat him; Hispanic voters do the same in Arizona. In Texas, second- and third-generation Mexican immigrants unite with educated white voters, including a lot of moderate Republicans, to deliver the first Democratic presidential victory in the Lone Star state since Watergate.

Clinton even beats Trump in Utah, where pious Mormon voters decide at the moment of truth that no, they cannot vote for a candidate who wants to “grab them by the pussy”. Republican leaders get on TV the day after the election and declare that the nomination of Trump was a historic mistake. Thousands of words are spilled haranguing Republicans for nominating a candidate whose appeal to the base may have been strong but who obviously was not a serious contender to lead so great and diverse a nation. Final electoral tally:

The Trump bank shot

In which Trump wins the 270 electoral college votes he needs to grab the keys to the White House with a surprise victory in the upper midwest, despite failing to convert in the more familiar battleground states of Nevada, Colorado, Virginia and Pennsylvania.

In this squeaker scenario, Trump owes his electoral life to white voters – especially rural white voters. As the night grows late, Trump realizes that he has lost Nevada and Colorado, owing to a strong Hispanic vote against him both places. He has lost Virginia because there are too many people in the DC suburbs who have some actual experience of the federal government and who are horrified to their teeth at the idea of his taking the White House. Surprisingly strong turnout among Trump supporters in the white working-class communities of Pennsylvania has failed to push Trump over the Democratic wall of Philadelphia and its suburbs. But Trump has performed strongly all night in the battleground states that count, winning Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Iowa.

And then, luck strikes: Trump picks up a single electoral vote in northern, rural Maine, one of two states that split their electoral votes. Finally, against all odds and the predictions of most polls, he pulls off an upset win in Wisconsin, which has not gone Republican in a presidential election since 1988, but which is more homogeneously white than its neighboring states, where Hillary Clinton ends up having failed to inspire African American voters in Milwaukee to turn up on election day, and where Republican governor Scott Walker’s political machine has once again succeeded. Final electoral tally:

The Clinton cliffhanger

In which Democrats’ blood pressure climbs to 220/140 before Florida finally reports a conclusive win for Clinton at 3am, handing her 29 electoral votes and the White House.

This one won’t be pleasant. Clinton has had some nice, expected victories over the course of the evening, bagging Pennsylvania and Virginia and the states she was supposed to win in the upper midwest, and seeing all the talk of a strong early vote for Democrats in Nevada come true. The people who were supposed to vote for her are voting for her – women, nonwhite voters, educated white voters – and there’s no reason she won’t win. But the night has been interrupted, over and over, by signals that have made Democratic eyes twitch. First, the independent voters of New Hampshire have responded to Trump’s late-race momentum, and concluded that no, they’d really rather not have a Clinton dynasty in American politics. They give Trump four electoral votes. Then Trump wins North Carolina, where there admittedly are plenty of white Republican voters, where Republican efforts to quash voting have succeeded and, let’s be honest, if Barack Obama lost it in 2012, how was Hillary Clinton supposed to win it?

17:05 Raportul interimar al OSCE despre alegerile din SUA. Multe din problemele semnalate acolo în alte locuri ar ridica mari semne de întrebare. De citit cu atenție

17:00 Zizek, clasic, finuț

José Saramago’s Seeing tells the story of the strange events in the unnamed capital city of an unidentified democratic country. When the election day morning is marred by torrential rains, voter turnout is disturbingly low, but the weather breaks by mid-afternoon and the population heads en masse to their voting stations. The government’s relief is short-lived, however, when vote counting reveals that over 70 percent of the ballots cast in the capital have been left blank. Baffled by this apparent civic lapse, the government gives the citizenry a chance to make amends just one week later with another election day. The results are worse: Now 83 percent of the ballots are blank.

Is this an organized conspiracy to overthrow not just the ruling government but the entire democratic system? If so, who is behind it, and how did they manage to organize hundreds of thousands of people into such subversion without being noticed? The city continues to function near-normally throughout, the people parrying each of the government’s thrusts in inexplicable unison and with a truly Gandhian level of nonviolent resistance. The lesson of this thought-experiment is clear: the danger today is not passivity but pseudo-activity, the urge to “be active,” to “participate,” in order to mask the vacuity of what goes on. People intervene all the time. People “do something.” Academics participate in meaningless debates, and so on. The truly difficult thing is to step back, to withdraw. Those in power often prefer even a “critical” participation, a dialogue, to silence, because just to engage us in dialogue, is to make sure our ominous passivity is broken. The voters’ abstention is thus a true political act: it forcefully confronts us with the vacuity of today’s democracies.

This, exactly, is how citizens should act when faced with the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. When Stalin was asked in the late 1920s which deviation is worse, the Rightist one or the Leftist one, he snapped back: They are both worse! Is it not the same with the choice American voters are confronting in the 2016 presidential elections? Trump is obviously “worse.” He enacts a decay of public morality. He promises a Rightist turn. But he at least promises a change. Hillary is “worse” since she makes changing nothing look desirable.

16:45 Un text pe scena9 de la o româncă fără drept de vot de la fața locului, suporter Clinton:

Pe 6 noiembrie, în duminica dinaintea alegerilor prezidențiale, America a trecut la ora de iarnă. A fost o zi lungă înaintea unora din ce în ce mai scurte și mai întunecoase. Pentru mulți dintre noi, climatul politic din America a devenit din ce în ce mai greu de suportat, după o campanie electorală care a durat prea mult timp și care a scos la iveală mult prea multă violență și ură. Sfârșitul campaniei ne găsește epuizați de sondaje și de atâtea revelații ce ar fi trebuit să fie devastatoare și care au fost una după alta uitate cu o rapiditate năucitoare. Nici nu mai știm cât ne motivează frica și cât speranța victoriei, dar chiar și-așa, cu o combinație de disperare și încredere încercăm să ne încurajăm unii pe alții să ne oferim voluntari într-un exercițiu democratic ce ne testează timidatea. Înarmați cu liste de posibili alegători, unii au bătut la uși, iar alții au dat telefoane cu scopul de a convinge oamenii să meargă la vot. Ne trimitem mesaje cu selfies și povești despre oamenii cu care am vorbit. Vorbesc la telefon pentru prima dată cu cineva care îl votează pe Trump, dar, cum scopul meu nu este să îl conving să-și schimbe votul, nu pot decât să îi mulțumesc și îi urez o zi bună. Respir abia când închei apelul, și apoi o iau de la capăt.

Locuiesc și plătesc impozite în America de peste zece ani. Mi-am făcut studiile aici, lucrez legal și fac parte dintr-o comunitate activă de colegi și prieteni. Cu toate astea, abia căsătoria cu un cetățean american mi-a dat posibilitatea unui drum către cetățenie. Deocamdată sunt doar rezident permanent, cu green card, dar fără drept de vot. Lipsită de privilegiul cetățenesc de a lua parte la viața politică a comunițății unde locuiesc, fiecare ciclu electoral îmi aduce aminte că nu sunt suficient de integrată aici, oricât de puternic m-ar afecta rezultatele alegerilor.

În 2016, retorica lui Donald Trump mă exclude dincolo de dreptul la vot. Mai mult ca niciodată, mă simt vulnerabilă din punct de vedere politic. Pentru Donald Trump imigranții sunt criminali, musulmanii teroriști și afro-americanii nu pot fi decât săraci ce locuiesc în ghetouri urbane. Iar femeile sunt pur și simplu ne-oameni. Presa spune că remarcile lui Trump despre femei sunt vulgare, deși ele sunt mai degrabă dezumanizante. Conversațiile în care Trump se mândrește că poate să apuce corpul oricărei femei fără consimțământul ei și doar după voia lui sunt mai mult decât obscene. Cuvintele descriu nu un act vulgar, ci o crimă împotriva unei persoane al cărei corp ar trebui să fie inviolabil. Cuvintele lui Trump au fost urmate apoi de declarațiile mai multor femei care au fost hărțuite sexual de către candidatul republican. Am citit despre fiecare dintre ele cu sufletul greu de necaz. La începutul verii citisem scrisoarea deschisă a unei femei ce fusese violată de un student la Stanford, descris în presă ca un tânăr strălucit și un înotător excelent. Deși găsit vinovat, agresorul a primit doar șase luni de închisoare. Judecătorul și-a explicat decizia spunând că o sentință mai lungă ar fi avut un impact prea mare asupra vieții tânărului înotător. În cazul lui Trump, înregistrarea NBC confirmă acuzațiile femeilor, și, cu toate astea, el continuă să beneficieze de susținerea a mai bine de 40% din electorat. Dincolo de rezultatul alegerilor, mă îngrozește gândul că, chiar dacă Trump va pierde alegerile, misoginia, violența și rasismul în numele cărora vorbește nu vor dispărea.

16:20 Acum că și-a revenit și siteul începem să postăm diverse materiale despre alegerile din SUA. Mai sunt câteva ore până o să înceapă să sosească primele rezultate, apoi o noapte întreagă. Stay tuned.

Mai jos un text scris de Costi Rogozanu mai devreme pe voxpublica

 

“Trump, our national hallucination.”

Don DeLillo

Emailurile. Toată lumea a auzit de scandalul emailurilor lui Clinton. În media mainstream americane bătălia s-a dus mai mult pe proceduri, dacă e bine că a folosit mailul personal, dacă FBI face ceva etc. Dar un întreg tsunami s-a propagat online cu ceea ce conta cu adevărat, conținutul. UN conținut care ne arăta mecanismele puterii așa cum le bănuiam, dar în întreaga lor vulgaritate și forță. Aranjamente de toate felurile, de la business, la joburi lucrative, întrebări aranjate în dezbaterile cu Sanders și multe altele.

Sanders. Lupta cu Sanders dată de Hillary a fost cu adevărat esențială. Și esențial pierdută pentru bună parte din agenda care chiar conta pentru poporul american. Zizek sublinia bine că Trump a spus și el ce trebuie măcar o dată:  să fii susținător al lui Sanders și s-o susții pe Hillary e ca și cum manifestanții de la Occupy ar susține băncile. Establishmentul democrat reprezentat de Hillary a folosit toate armele murdare cu Sanders. Și, da, au devebnit cu atât mai penibili când au început să lupte cu Mr. Dirty himself, Trump.

Campanie murdară. Se tot vorbește despre campanie murdară și despre dezastrul Trump. Nu trebuie să uităm însă din ce companie ”selectă” a venit Trump. Repulicanii au aliniat un întreg batalion de ultraradicali. Credeți că cu unii precum Rubio, Cruz sau Carson ar fi fost totul mai ”curat”? Nu, ar fi fost murdar, poate fără partea de ”știință” a luptei cu rahat, în care Trump excelează. Să ne amintim de Romney și disprețul profund afișat față de ”asistați”? Era de o mie de ori mai violentă decât prosteala lui Trump. Trist e că acel dipreț al elitelor era ceva de acceptat.

Luptă între birocrați bogați și miliardari plini de datorii. Luptă între două tipuri de forțe ale marelui capital. Clinton, nu mai e nevoie să spunem, oricât ar fi strigat în campanie că vrea să-i taxeze pe bogați, nu mai e crezută de nimeni. Clinton însăși spunea esența la o întânire plătită gras de marile bănci: trebuie să-ți ajustezi discursul în funcție de public, chiar dacă ajustarea poate însemna să spui lucruri complet opuse. Trump e mobilizatorul bogat al clasei albe muncitorești (am auzit sintagma asta până la sațietate cu toții), el luptă pentru joburi și pentru ridicarea taxelor. Bogatul birocratic se bate cu bogatul de reality show plin de datorii. Ultimul e imprevizibil și are planuri protecționiste, chestie care se poate anunța dezastruoasă pentru zona financiară. Deci frica Wall Streetului de Trump nu e chiar fără motiv în ciuda promisiunilor sale de scădere a taxelor pentru bogați.

Rasism, sexism. Trump a afișat pe față rasism, sexism cât cuprinde. Multă lume s-a mirat, vai, cum e posibil în America mileniului 3? Dar segmentul de entertainment exploatează din plin toate aceste războaie ”culturale” între minorități. Trump vine de acolo, folosește cu cinism mecanismele care smulg puncte de rating. Asta nu-i face atitudinea mai tolerabilă. Însă, de partea cealaltă, s-o prezinți pe Clinton ca pe o campioană a drepturilor devine destul de trist. Comentatorii de stânga o numesc un pion al corporate feminism. Și asta pentru că prezintă comunitățile LGBT sau minoritățile afroamericane sau hispanice într-o lumină de-a dreptul ireală, curățate de probleme sociale grave. Ce să faci cu drepturile dacă alergi toată ziua pentru supraviețuire, cam asta ar fi esența întrebării venite inclusiv dinspre feministe. La HC, chestiunea apărării drepturilor minorităților sună fix ca un to do list într-o regiune în care implementăm drepturi numai la pachet cu liberalizare și austeritate.

Reality și realitate. Eliminarea lui Sanders a dus la eliminarea unor chestiuni politice și sociale arzătoare. Trump a exploatat nemulțumirea unei pături de lucrători sau a unei clase de mijloc scăpătate. Și nu pot să nu fiu de acord cu Stanley Fish (pe care nu prea pot să-l înghit de obicei) care explica importanța emisiunilor tv din ultimele decenii care nu se putea să nu aibă la un moment dat și un impact politic. Esența unor reality-show-uri este tocmai să atragi public sărac care să se holbeze la nesfârșitele posibilități de penibil al bogăției. Pentru că e nevoie de un anumit tip de bogăție exhibiționistă. Bogații lui Clinton nu participă la reality-show-uri. Există însă și bogăție populistă, nu doar bogăție obsedată de aranjamente în spatele camerelor de luat vederi. Între cele două nu există ”răul cel mai mic”. Reality-Show-ul s-a strecurat în imensul gol lăsat de eliminarea adevăratei lupte politice. Tocmai de aceea democrați precum Clinton nu au de ce să se plângă, e și creația lor. De aia Sanders irita atât de mult.

Vadim și Trump. S-au tot făcut comparații între Vadim și Trump. Și Vadim Tudor era produsul unei ”eliberări” media nouăzeciste în România, dar el de fapt profita de tribunele anilor 80, susținute puternic de regim, ”Săptămâna”, de exemplu. Între cele două tururi, lui CVT i-au tăiat microfonul, ba chiar l-au asaltat cu atacuri sub centură, așa cum a fost ăla cu adevărata confesiune religioasă de care aparține. Trump a avut microfon, a fost transmis cu nesaț. În fond, marea provocare pentru establishment, în afară de orăcăieli rasiste, care era? Iar cu rasismul o fi mare sensibilitatea, dar mai mare-i drama celor împușcați pe străzi de poliție, vorba aia, în vremurile domniei unui președinte de culoare. O glumiță a lui Trump e totuși ceva mai puțin nocivă decât un glonț. Vadim Tudor avea și el tot repertoriul scăpatului de sub control. Dar nu avea bani. El nu era aliatul bogătan al sărăcimii, nu putea obține acest transfer televizat glamouros: te uiți la bogați care cheltuiesc nebunește și trăiești catharsisul visului american. CVT apăra un alt tip de establishment care se surpa în acel moment. Trump călărește un val de populism eficient încă de la primele mișcări tea party.

 

Continuarea aici

 

Comentariile sunt închise.

CriticAtac este o platformă care militează pentru posibilitatea exprimării libere şi în condiţii de egalitate a tuturor vocilor şi opiniilor. De aceea, comentariile care aduc injurii, discriminează, calomniează şi care în general deturnează şi obstrucţionează dialogul vor fi moderate iar contul de utilizator va fi permanent blocat.