Military Review

There is no two-party system in the USA

181

Nancy Pelosi



The situation in the United States has shown that there is no two-party system in this country. By and large, there is one party in the United States that brutally cracks down on those who decide to go against the laws imposed by it and against its interests. The meaning of this system is one thing - to obey blindly and do what is considered to be the norm of this "Republican Democratic Party". Trump tried to violate this "norm", for which now not only representatives of the Democratic Party, but also his (de jure) party members, are trying to deal with him.

Donald Trump himself clearly hoped that on January 6, Republicans in Congress would take advantage of the people's exit to the Capitol building and would already actively demand a recount of votes cast during the elections. But nothing of the kind happened. Trump miscalculated. Now the American deep state is trying to settle scores with the still incumbent president, threatening with impeachment. The goal of all this is this: not only to remove Trump from the political landscape of the United States, to ban him from running for president in 2024, but to show others who are considered "political upstarts" that they have no chance of overcoming this system.

In addition, all those Americans who sympathize with Trump have already begun to be labeled "internal terrorists", dismissed from their jobs - in every possible way to defeat their rights. And all this looks like the formation of real fascism with segregation not on racial or ethnic grounds, but on the basis of attitudes towards a single person, towards the political system.

The Day TV channel published a video stating that the dispersal of demonstrators near the Capitol on January 6 and the statements of Pelosi and the company about "internal terrorists" are a "gift to the Kremlin." It is stated that now the Kremlin has a transatlantic example of how to act against the "Maidan people" - to disperse and declare them enemies of democracy and the people.

The said channel says that the globalists will create a new world from the "dust of America".

Photos used:
Facebook / Nancy Pelosi
181 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 11 January 2021 11: 42
    25
    There is no two-party system in the USA
    There is no democracy there either.
    1. Machito
      Machito 11 January 2021 11: 49
      22
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      There is no two-party system in the USA
      There is no democracy there either.

      The bipartisan system of the United States was long mocked in the satirical novel by Jonathan Swift Gulliver's Journey: The difference between the two parties Republicans (pointed) and Democrats (blunt) is which side to break a chicken egg. It is very characteristic that during the Civil War, the Republicans used blacks against the Democrats, and now, on the contrary, the Democrats are champions of colored and other minorities.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 11 January 2021 11: 52
        10
        Quote: Bearded
        The bipartisan system of the United States was long ridiculed in the satirical work of Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Journey
        Isn't it about the Tories and the Whigs?
        1. Machito
          Machito 11 January 2021 12: 06
          +9
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Quote: Bearded
          The bipartisan system of the United States was long ridiculed in the satirical work of Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Journey
          Isn't it about the Tories and the Whigs?

          What's the difference? (C) Brother - 2.
          The book deals with the Tories and Whigs in Great Britain, there is no difference with the modern USA. In Great Britain, there is now a third party in parliament - the Laborites (Trudoviks).
          1. Bolt cutter
            Bolt cutter 11 January 2021 18: 38
            +1
            There is still a third party in parliament in the UK
            Third Party Liberal Democrats (libdems). Labor is the followers of the Whigs. This is the top 3. In total, 2019 parties made it to parliament in 11.
            1. Shurik70
              Shurik70 12 January 2021 00: 20
              0
              I told you that a Russian trace will be found in the storming of the Capitol!
              This is a sacred cause for the Americans!
              https://www.facebook.com/russianamericatv/videos/416836412980453
            2. Sergej1972
              Sergej1972 12 January 2021 10: 41
              0
              You are wrong. Labor is a workers' party that emerged at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Whigs were called liberals, whose heirs are Liberal Democrats.
              1. Bolt cutter
                Bolt cutter 12 January 2021 12: 24
                -1
                You're wrong
                Libdem's (modern) were founded on March 3rd, 1988. But the Laborites emerged from the liberals, who in turn emerged from the Whig alliance with the reformists and someone else in the 19th century.
                1. Sergej1972
                  Sergej1972 12 January 2021 12: 52
                  0
                  Once again, you are wrong. The Labor Party (we have been writing the Labourist Party for a long time) arose in 1900 as the Committee of Workers' Representation. The workers', Social Democratic Party, now belongs to the right wing of the world social democracy. In Britain, it is considered center-left. First formed a government in 1924 and soon ousted the Liberal Party from its position as one of the two leading parties in Britain. And the liberals from the 20s and 30s were always third. One of the parties that became part of the new, Liberal Democratic Party, was the Liberal Party.
                  1. Bolt cutter
                    Bolt cutter 12 January 2021 13: 23
                    -1
                    At first it was an independent labor party (1860-1900) that closely cooperated with the liberal party (candidates passed through its spokesmen) - the so-called. Lib-Lab movement. Then the left and the left were in vogue, as a result, several movements merged, gained strength and became Labor in 1900 (after the disaster at the elections of 1895). It turned out that the liberals, the heirs of the Whigs, became the ancestors of both labor and libdems. For more information, I need to wait for the pub to open, where we had battles every second Friday. (I spoke from a right-wing nationalist position).
                    1. Sergej1972
                      Sergej1972 12 January 2021 13: 25
                      0
                      The Laborites themselves never considered themselves the heirs of the Whigs.
                      1. Bolt cutter
                        Bolt cutter 12 January 2021 13: 31
                        -1
                        Well yes. How, according to their lists, to climb into power, so forward laughing And they don't share their successes with anyone. Labor has more of Methodism than Marxism. And liberal ideas are now a little alien to them.
                2. Sergej1972
                  Sergej1972 12 January 2021 12: 55
                  0
                  Now I'm writing from my phone. There will be time, I can send from a computer a dozen links on the history of the Labor and Liberal parties.
      2. Snail N9
        Snail N9 11 January 2021 12: 07
        11
        We live in wonderful times - it's funny to watch how all dermoSMI in Europe are trying to frame events in the United States as a kind of trifle, such as a small "non-consensus". Still, they are all at a loss, before their very eyes the cherished image of "a bright city on a hill", "an image of real democracy and freedom" is crumbling before our eyes ... the gods collapsed "? Well, the problem is so problem - a real "rognarek" of Western civilization .... Nothing, "a new wonderful world" (digital totalitarianism) is already on the way ....
        1. Machito
          Machito 11 January 2021 12: 22
          14
          Quote: Snail N9
          We live in wonderful times - it's funny to watch how all dermoSMI in Europe are trying to frame events in the United States as a kind of trifle, such as a small "non-consensus". Still, they are all at a loss, before their very eyes the cherished image of "a bright city on a hill", "an image of real democracy and freedom" is crumbling before our eyes ... the gods collapsed "? Well, the problem is so problem - a real "rognarek" of Western civilization .... Nothing, "a new wonderful world" (digital totalitarianism) is already on the way ....

          This is not a trifle for your pockets. (C) Good luck gentlemen.
          Air Force veterans were not killed in the parliaments of Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus during coups. Trump supporters tore the fig leaf off Democracy. The bottom is broken. A pathetic attempt at a semblance of a color revolution in the United States was brutally fired by Democratic bullets right in parliament.
          Yanukovych: Why was it possible?
          Lukashenko is a teddy bear compared to Biden.
      3. businessv
        businessv 12 January 2021 14: 51
        0
        Quote: Bearded
        It is very characteristic that during the Civil War, the Republicans used blacks against the Democrats, and now, on the contrary, the Democrats are champions of colored and other minorities.

        Duc crap all blacks outbid during the Civil War, when they organized and paid for their performances and uprisings in the rear of the southerners!
    2. Pavel73
      Pavel73 11 January 2021 11: 50
      +4
      It can't be. The people cannot rule by themselves, just as a platoon cannot command itself. Nevertheless, democratic institutions are necessary as a means of feedback between the people and the authorities.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 11 January 2021 11: 53
        +3
        Quote: Pavel73
        It can't be. The people cannot rule by themselves
        For some reason, American propaganda broadcasts something completely different.
      2. A_Lex
        A_Lex 11 January 2021 12: 06
        +1
        The people cannot rule by themselves


        All according to Zhirinovsky, who said that bandits always rule.
        1. Pavel73
          Pavel73 11 January 2021 12: 24
          +8
          Yes, alas. Whether we like it or not, power is always and everywhere only with those who have the strength and the willingness to use it. Why, for example, the Belarusian Maidan failed? Because the protesters were not ready to use force and shed blood. But the security forces were ready, including morally. Therefore, there was no blood. Lukashenka made it clear that no Polish-Lithuanian mongrels were a decree to him, and if he had to, they would shoot to kill. It is this firmness and readiness to use force that ensured the preservation of peace and order in Belarus. But in Ukraine, Yanukovych gave up in a similar situation. Didn't dare to shoot. I didn’t even warn “I’ll shoot!”. The enemies understood this, made sure that they could put the squeeze on him, and put the squeeze on him. With Western help.
          1. A_Lex
            A_Lex 11 January 2021 12: 33
            +3
            power is always and everywhere only with those who have the strength and the willingness to use it


            This phrase is not equivalent to the phrase "bandits always rule". Power is needed to enforce order in conditions where following order is not some kind of internal unconditional imperative. It's just that at the present time force is associated with power, since the status of power is automatically vested with the right to use force.

            Simply put, you are wrong in claiming that the power is in the one who has the power, because in this way you rearrange cause and effect.
            Power is not with the one who has the power. Quite the opposite - the power is in the one who has the power.
            1. sniperino
              sniperino 11 January 2021 14: 02
              +6
              Quote: A_Lex
              power is in the one with power
              This is probably what Yeltsin thought when he was striving for power. And when he realized that this was not at all the case, because the environment and the media were laughing at him openly, and he really could not change anything, he went into a "tailspin". Putin, going to power, already understood that the highest rank in the table of ranks has no real power if he does not have a real vertical of power, so he started with it.
              1. A_Lex
                A_Lex 11 January 2021 14: 08
                0
                the highest rank in the table of ranks is not valid


                in a bourgeois state.
          2. Avior
            Avior 11 January 2021 12: 40
            -9
            Do you really think that there was no shooting in Kiev?
            1. Pavel73
              Pavel73 11 January 2021 12: 50
              +3
              They were shooting. But it was too late.
              1. Avior
                Avior 11 January 2021 13: 01
                -6
                The first people were shot on 22 January.
                1. Pavel73
                  Pavel73 11 January 2021 13: 20
                  +8
                  First, probably. But by whom? And for what?
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 11 January 2021 13: 59
                    -6
                    First E.
                    If the authorities are trying to hold on to bayonets, it is a matter of time before their opponents will respond in the same way.
                    If they themselves cannot, they will find outside support. For them, power on bayonets will no longer be their power.
                    1. Pavel73
                      Pavel73 11 January 2021 14: 24
                      +5
                      So, who, what and why were the first shot in Kiev on January 22.01.2014, XNUMX? And who are they?
                      1. Avior
                        Avior 11 January 2021 15: 46
                        -6
                        https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_погибших_на_Евромайдане
                      2. Pavel73
                        Pavel73 11 January 2021 17: 30
                        +4
                        Who, what and why were they shot? Is the investigation over?
                      3. Avior
                        Avior 11 January 2021 18: 06
                        -7
                        What's the difference? Talk about something else.
                        Did those gathered on the Maidan think that they were shooting from Yanukovych's side?
                        Yes, no doubt they thought so. And how it really was in this discussion is not important.
                      4. Pavel73
                        Pavel73 11 January 2021 18: 51
                        +8
                        No, this is very important. These corpses were of no use to anyone except the "Maidan" and their Western patrons. They and only they needed blood. However, if the authorities clearly and unequivocally stated that every armed rebel (even a cobblestone or an incendiary bottle) would be destroyed like a mad dog, they would have thought ten times before tackling these cobblestones.
                      5. Avior
                        Avior 11 January 2021 20: 38
                        -2
                        Lukashenka made it clear that no Polish-Lithuanian mongrels were a decree to him, and if he had to, they would shoot to kill

                        Yanukovych gave up the slack in a similar situation. Didn't dare to shoot. I didn’t even warn “I’ll shoot!”. The enemies got it




                        You write that if the authorities make it clear that they are ready to shoot, then they would think ten times before going to the Maidan.
                        Much more clearly, the Maidans were not only sure that the authorities were ready to shoot, but received a clear confirmation of this (and in this context, it does not matter who actually shot. The main thing is that what happened on the Maidan was perceived that way). Everything turns out, according to your recipe, in the eyes of those who are on the Maidan, it looked. But it didn't work.
                        hi
                      6. Pavel73
                        Pavel73 11 January 2021 20: 50
                        +5
                        Absolutely not. Who shot it is unknown. The killers have never been found. The Maidan people (the crowd) got the impression that the authorities are trying to intimidate them with these killings, but they themselves are mortally afraid. But if there was a clear and clear signal from the authorities: yes, everyone who picks up at least a cobblestone is an armed bandit, and they will do with him the way one should do with bandits, then everything would be different. As in Belarus.
                      7. Avior
                        Avior 11 January 2021 21: 05
                        -4
                        Nobody has fired in Belarus yet.
                        And it is not known how else it will be, there are many factors, even if Lukashenka himself is ready for this. He may be ready, but the security forces are not all ready. So it is still unknown. The protests in Minsk were not initially forceful.
                        And as for Kiev, on the Maidan they were sure from the very beginning that Yanukovych's security forces were shooting and killing. A clear illustration of the willingness to kill. And that the authorities are afraid, so if anything, they will say the same about Lukashenka.
                      8. Pavel73
                        Pavel73 11 January 2021 21: 26
                        +3
                        No. A vivid illustration of the readiness to kill is a clear and clear warning to all rebels and troublemakers that if these canals are taken in their hands at least a cobblestone, they will be considered armed bandits, with all the ensuing consequences. It was so? Yanukovych appeared on TV, warned? And you never know what the Maidan people were "sure" about? Their puppeteer shepherds could assure them of anything. When people's brains are out, there is at least something to convince them of. But a strict warning from the authorities could sober up many. And by the way, it would give the security officials confidence.
                      9. Avior
                        Avior 12 January 2021 16: 23
                        -1
                        I don't understand what this is for.
                        Their puppeteer shepherds could assure them of anything.

                        Maidans were sure that Yanukovych's security forces had killed. Strictly according to your suggestion. To speak is about nothing. He could threaten and fail. And here everything is clear and clear. Only it did not help him in any way.
                        Understand- Your proposal does not work so primitively.
                      10. Pavel73
                        Pavel73 12 January 2021 17: 56
                        +1
                        It is not primitive. It's simplicity and clarity. "Whoever came peacefully with a banner and specific claims to the authorities is an ordinary protester who can and should be listened to. Whoever came to protest with a foreign flag is already drawn to high treason, and he can and should be arrested and tried. Whoever came with fists and started to break the windows, that is a bully, and he also needs to be arrested and tried. Whoever with the same fists began to rush at law enforcement officers is a malicious bully, and it is possible and necessary to use non-lethal weapons on him. Who took something that can be killed a person (a cobblestone, a Molotov cocktail, a piece of armature, a hunting rifle or a carbine, and so on), he is no longer a peaceful protester, and not a bully, but an armed bandit, and it is not only possible, but must use military weapons to kill. With every right to that. " This is how Yanukovych was supposed to speak and act. Spit on all the shitty screams from the West. You can rest assured: a dozen scoundrels with bottles, destroyed by a shot in the head and warning the others that this will happen to everyone who takes up arms, would instantly calm down the whole crowd of rams. And this had to be done absolutely openly and demonstratively. I would have carried out such an order without hesitation. For the truth is behind us, not behind them. The bandits must lie in the grave. And everyone else should not be "sure", but know exactly who did it, and for what.
                  2. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 11 January 2021 22: 01
                    +7
                    Quote: Avior
                    He may be ready, but the security forces are not all ready.

                    After the photographs with the Kiev women, any security official in Belarus and Russia is very highly motivated to the most brutal option of restoring order.
          3. Dart2027
            Dart2027 11 January 2021 19: 36
            +2
            Quote: Avior
            Who cares?

            That is, when the protesters' owners kill them for the sake of a picture, is the government to blame?
          4. Avior
            Avior 11 January 2021 20: 53
            -4
            We do not consider who is to blame. We are discussing a completely different question.
            In the context of the considered situation, there is no difference. Those on the Maidan were sure that the authorities were shooting, this is of decisive importance for the issue under consideration.
            Read what issue is being discussed
          5. Dart2027
            Dart2027 11 January 2021 21: 59
            +2
            Quote: Avior
            Read what issue is being discussed

            Quote: Pavel73
            Why, for example, the Belarusian Maidan failed? Because the protesters were not ready to use force and shed blood. But the security forces were ready, including morally. Therefore, there was no blood. Lukashenka made it clear that no Polish-Lithuanian mongrels were a decree to him, and if he had to, they would shoot to kill. It was this firmness and readiness to use force that ensured the preservation of peace and order in Belarus. But in Ukraine, Yanukovych gave up in a similar situation. Didn't dare to shoot. I didn’t even warn “I’ll shoot!”. The enemies understood this, made sure that they could put the squeeze on him, and put the squeeze on him. With Western help.
          6. Avior
            Avior 12 January 2021 16: 25
            -1
            An unfortunate example. Initially, no one used force in Belarus.
          7. Dart2027
            Dart2027 12 January 2021 19: 31
            +1
            Quote: Avior
            Initially, no one used force in Belarus.

            True? And what is an attempted coup?
          8. Avior
            Avior 12 January 2021 19: 52
            0
            What a try?
            Their protests were gleaned from peaceful
          9. The comment was deleted.
      3. Siberian54
        Siberian54 13 January 2021 06: 56
        +1
        Quote: Avior
        ... Initially, no one used force in Belarus

        On the outskirts, too, at first, the protesters did not differ from the same Khabarovskites .., then the second stage - the construction of a town on the Maidan and the arrival of "cookies" and there is no dispersal, and the third stage of "onizhedeti" has come. showed - there will be no second stage ..
      4. Avior
        Avior 13 January 2021 08: 07
        0
        The town was even before the beginning of the Maidan. It all started with its dispersal.
  2. nemez
    nemez 17 January 2021 07: 31
    0
    This list has already been analyzed, for the first time there were recorded who poisoned, who died in a drunken fight.
  • lucul
    lucul 11 January 2021 18: 23
    +2
    If the authorities are trying to hold on to bayonets, it is a matter of time before their opponents will respond in the same way.
    If they themselves cannot, they will find outside support. For them, power on bayonets will no longer be their power.

    The recent example of Belarus refutes your opinion. Lukashenka would not hesitate to use force. And why ? Because the majority is still behind him. Here is the answer.
    1. Avior
      Avior 11 January 2021 20: 45
      -5
      Let's see what happens next.
      The protests did not end there completely. And Lukashenka did not start shooting. And it is not known what the reaction of the army, the police and the people will be if it suddenly starts. And will he start.
      In such situations it is very important who first started shooting in the eyes of the majority.
      Therefore, it is too early to apply this thesis to Belarus.
      Yanukovych, when he started, only made things worse for himself. And Lukashenka is in no hurry.
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 11 January 2021 22: 02
      +1
      Quote: Avior
      And Lukashenka did not start shooting. And it is not known what the reaction of the army, the police and the people will be if it suddenly starts.

      But what about the indignation that several Maidan residents were shot without ceremony when law enforcement officers considered their actions threatening?
  • aleksejkabanets
    aleksejkabanets 12 January 2021 13: 59
    0
    Quote: Avior
    If they themselves cannot, they will find outside support.

    Parties relying on the people do not need to seek outside support. People's parties don't get dirty.
  • your1970
    your1970 11 January 2021 14: 15
    +1
    Quote: Pavel73
    But in Ukraine, Yanukovych gave up in a similar situation. Didn't dare to shoot. I didn’t even warn “I’ll shoot!”.

    It is not enough to warn - you need to be sure that the troops will follow the order.
    Vaughn Trump tried to disperse the blacks of the National Guard - his troops were sent ...
    1. Pavel73
      Pavel73 11 January 2021 14: 26
      +3
      Comedy is being broken in the USA. A real war has been unleashed in Ukraine. Against the Russian people. For destruction.
      1. your1970
        your1970 11 January 2021 16: 55
        +4
        Quote: Pavel73
        Comedy is being broken in the USA. A real war has been unleashed in Ukraine. Against the Russian people. For destruction.
        -again...
        Yanukovych didn’t give the order because no one would have followed it.
        Just like the National Guard did not fulfill Trump's order.
        Just like the army would not have complied with the order in 1991 ...
        So EBN was sure in 1993 - that they would carry out his order, gave it, tanks arrived, they shot and that's all ... or the Chinese leadership in Tian-an-men - they were sure, they gave the order to the PLA - and that's it, there are no students.
        If you served in the army, you know - what impossible the order is either not given, or they are trying to fulfill it by any forces and means ...
        It is the same with politicians ...

        And yes non-compliance Trump's order is also not a comedy, it can be many times worse by consequences for the WHOLE world, including the Russian Federation. Today they sent him nafig - tomorrow themselves decide to use nuclear weapons. Previously, this was impossible (like the storming of the Capitol), but now request request
    2. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 12 January 2021 10: 53
      0
      Where does the information about the refusal of the National Guard to carry out his order come from? In military circles, Trump is quite popular.
      1. your1970
        your1970 12 January 2021 12: 26
        +1
        In the spring and summer, the news passed when the blacks were fooling around. He demanded the introduction of the National Guard in three cities - the troops did not obey - referring to the objections of the mayors of the cities
        1. Sergej1972
          Sergej1972 12 January 2021 12: 58
          0
          It wasn't like that. He demanded from the mayors that they invite the National Guard, and he, at their request, would give the order to introduce it. And the mayors did not agree. There was no question of any position of the NG leadership. At the head of the National Guard are the same army generals.
  • aleksejkabanets
    aleksejkabanets 11 January 2021 12: 52
    -1
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    There is no democracy there either.

    Today's democracy translates as "moneybags power." And not only in the states.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. tikhonov66
      tikhonov66 12 January 2021 13: 04
      0
      Shame on the POLICE STATE - USA - the main international TERRORIST, the greatest KILLER, LIAR and FRAUDER in history.
      1. aleksejkabanets
        aleksejkabanets 12 January 2021 13: 48
        0
        Quote: tikhonov66
        Shame on the POLICE STATE - USA - the main international TERRORIST, the greatest KILLER, LIAR and FRAUDER in history.

        What are you trying to apply personal qualities to the state? And shout at the same time, are you healthy?
  • FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 12 January 2021 05: 20
    -8
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    There is no two-party system in the USA
    There is no democracy there either.

    Well, Trump was chosen somehow.
    We do not have democracy from the word at all. Zeroed everything to zero.
    1. tikhonov66
      tikhonov66 12 January 2021 13: 07
      +1
      "...
      We do not have democracy from the word at all. Zeroed everything to zero.
      ..."
      - This is for you personally, "disrespectful" fRoman1984 - US State Department - BRAINS ZERO. !!.
      8 - ((
      - Well, dddumat-Ms. Dada - sometimes hey.
      1. FRoman1984
        FRoman1984 12 January 2021 18: 04
        -5
        Quote: tikhonov66
        "...
        We do not have democracy from the word at all. Zeroed everything to zero.
        ..."
        - This is for you personally, "disrespectful" fRoman1984 - US State Department - BRAINS ZERO. !!.
        8 - ((
        - Well, dddumat-Ms. Dada - sometimes hey.

        Apparently, Monsieur Tikhonov, you were brainwashed in a domestic box a long time ago, and the word "think" certainly has nothing to do with you. Go away.
  • tikhonov66
    tikhonov66 12 January 2021 12: 59
    0
    Shame on the police state - the USA - the main international TERRORIST, the greatest KILLER, LIAR and FRAUDER in history.
  • Andrew3000
    Andrew3000 12 January 2021 17: 06
    +2
    There is no stability. Domestic terrorists have taken over the Capitol again.
  • Asad
    Asad 11 January 2021 11: 47
    +5
    Previously, the United States all over the world imposed "democracy", but now on their own skin many will experience all the delights of "choice"!
    1. bad
      bad 11 January 2021 11: 51
      21
      "Time to scatter stones, and time to collect stones" ©
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 11 January 2021 12: 04
        +1
        The only question is who exactly to throw them at ..
        1. sniperino
          sniperino 11 January 2021 14: 08
          0
          Quote: paul3390
          The only question is who exactly to throw them
          As usual: "I throw it up, I don't answer for the bottom."
  • Mykhalych
    Mykhalych 11 January 2021 11: 56
    +6
    "... all those Americans who sympathize with Trump have already begun to be recorded" as internal terrorists ", fired from their jobs - in every possible way to defeat them."- there are, according to conservative estimates, 75 million, here is a terrorist state in all its ugliness.
  • NDR-791
    NDR-791 11 January 2021 11: 58
    +9
    It is stated that now the Kremlin has a transatlantic example of how to act against the "Maidan"
    This is how we ourselves can teach whoever you want.
    1. A_Lex
      A_Lex 11 January 2021 12: 40
      13
      This is how we ourselves can teach whoever you want.


      Just the opposite. The photo shows the victory of the Maidan in 93.
      1. NDR-791
        NDR-791 11 January 2021 12: 44
        +2
        We can do everything. Everything has its time...
        1. A_Lex
          A_Lex 11 January 2021 12: 48
          +5
          We can do everything. Everything has its time...


          You didn't do that. You have nothing to do with those in the picture.
          1. NDR-791
            NDR-791 11 January 2021 12: 53
            +2
            Life will teach. Although you can't go into one water twice. And that will be another story.
            1. A_Lex
              A_Lex 11 January 2021 12: 58
              +1
              Although you can't go into one water twice.


              Only if an alternative path is found.
      2. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 12 January 2021 11: 01
        0
        The victory of the Maidan people is more likely in August 1991. And in 1993, the victory of the executive branch, relying on the army and special services, over the legislative branch, relying on social activists. Surprisingly quickly, the top of the armed forces and special services of the former USSR, which had been in the CPSU a few years earlier, reoriented itself. I have always wondered why the army was reluctant to carry out the orders of the State Emergency Committee and at the same time unquestioningly carried out Yeltsin's orders to storm the building of the Supreme Soviet? Although, of course, the legitimacy of the Emergency Committee was questionable.
        1. A_Lex
          A_Lex 12 January 2021 11: 50
          0
          And in 1993 the victory


          1993 is Pinochet's Chilean script.

          unquestioningly fulfilled Yeltsin's orders to storm the building of the Supreme Soviet


          Paid well. The service refused to storm the White House as a result of which it was then disbanded. The mercenaries, who at that time were an analogue of the Chilean squadrons, were shot without reflecting.
          The problem, as usual, is that normal people preferred to stay inactive, seriously thinking about laws, duty, honor and nobility, while the scum worked in full, as usual, spitting on all laws, acting solely in their personal interests.
          1. Sergej1972
            Sergej1972 12 January 2021 12: 20
            0
            It turns out that if these people were paid well in 1991, they would have shot at Yeltsin's supporters in the same way?
            1. A_Lex
              A_Lex 12 January 2021 12: 37
              +2
              It turns out that if these people were paid well in 1991, they would have shot at Yeltsin's supporters in the same way?


              There was no need. The GKChP is a show that was needed to put an end to the Novoogarev trial and finally tarnish the Soviet power in the eyes of the people. The key lever is public outrage. What was the performance for? Typical bourgeois provocation for the formation of appropriate moods among the masses, who shortly before spoke in favor of preserving the union, albeit in a new format. There, key figures of supposedly different groups were in the share.

              93 - real struggle between different models of the country's development. The colonial won, with the prohibition of ideology in the constitution, with the consolidation of the principle of the supremacy of international (read American) law in it, the separation of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation from the influence of the state, and exactly starting from 94 a systematic flight of capital began, i.e. tribute to the colonizer. Pinochet also actually turned Chile into a colony of American TNCs.
      3. aleksejkabanets
        aleksejkabanets 12 January 2021 13: 53
        0
        Quote: A_Lex
        Just the opposite. The photo shows the victory of the Maidan in 93.

        You are wrong. Yeltsin, with his camarilla, came to power not as a result of the Maidan, but as a result of a reactionary coup d'etat. In general, what kind of meaning do you put into the word "maidan"?
        1. A_Lex
          A_Lex 12 January 2021 14: 08
          0
          not as a result of the Maidan, but as a result of a reactionary coup d'état


          Which is the same, because it is in the interests of the metropolis, which uses coup technology to colonize.
  • Guards turn
    Guards turn 11 January 2021 12: 00
    +8
    Trump's lawyer Lin Wood promised that in the next 10 days there will be a lot of dirt on Biden and key representatives of the US Democratic Party. Lin Wood wrote on his page in Parler: Over the next 10-14 days, you will learn shocking information about many of our government officials and the rich elite. Sexual trafficking and pedophilia have become a worldwide pandemic. Revelations will touch on Joe Biden, Barack Obama, John Roberts, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Mike Pence, Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Gates and thousands more. I've seen evidence. They convince. It will be a battle between good and evil.
    1. neri73-r
      neri73-r 11 January 2021 12: 05
      +7
      Quote: Guards turn
      Trump's lawyer Lin Wood promised that in the next 10 days there will be a lot of dirt on Biden and key representatives of the US Democratic Party. Lin Wood wrote on his page in Parler: Over the next 10-14 days, you will learn shocking information about many of our government officials and the rich elite. Sexual trafficking and pedophilia have become a worldwide pandemic. Revelations will touch on Joe Biden, Barack Obama, John Roberts, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Mike Pence, Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Gates and thousands more. I've seen evidence. They convince. It will be a battle between good and evil.

      They will not find out anything, not a single media outlet will print or show it, the information will instantly fade, and their accounts will be banned. FSE, curtain.
      1. Guards turn
        Guards turn 11 January 2021 12: 15
        +5
        Upon the capture of the capitol, the grin could be seen on the faces of the leaders of many countries in the world, if you followed them in secret. Is the USA a great country?
        1. neri73-r
          neri73-r 11 January 2021 12: 23
          +7
          I think one cannot associate the United States as a state and a deep state, the latter is much larger and stronger both geographically and financially. And the capture of the capitol is the arson of the Reichstag in our time, a reason for repression.
      2. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 12 January 2021 11: 06
        0
        They will be posted in Durov Telegram.) As a last resort, in Odnoklassniki and Vkontakte.)
    2. paul3390
      paul3390 11 January 2021 12: 06
      +5
      It will be a battle between good and evil.

      At the end of the century
      Took and subdued
      Evil person
      A kind person.
      From the rocket launcher -
      Slap him, goat!
      So it’s good
      Stronger than evil.
    3. Avior
      Avior 11 January 2021 12: 37
      0
      If there were such evidence, they would have been dumped before the elections, not after
      What's the point of waving evidence after the elections?
      hi
  • Old jew
    Old jew 11 January 2021 12: 02
    12
    The globalists will finish with the United States and start dealing with Russia and China. Who is the first in line? These financial fascists do not need strong nation states. We are waiting for actions before the elections to the State Duma.
    1. bad
      bad 11 January 2021 12: 07
      15
      Quote: Old Jew
      Globalists will finish with the US and start dealing with Russia and China

      Well, since the USA is worth it, then we have time smile
    2. A_Lex
      A_Lex 11 January 2021 13: 37
      +1
      These financial fascists do not need strong nation states.


      Do fascists need nationalities and states? And how will they then keep the peoples in subjection, if not pitting against each other and not subordinating to the state apparatus?
    3. lucul
      lucul 11 January 2021 18: 31
      +1
      The globalists will finish with the United States and start dealing with Russia and China. Who is the first in line? These financial fascists don't need strong nation states

      If desired, these globalists are cut out at once, there would be a desire))) Trump did not have such a desire)))
  • A_Lex
    A_Lex 11 January 2021 12: 05
    +4
    There is no real multiparty system anywhere in the world. In general, modern history has shown that political parties are an instrument of manipulation and deception. The real power is not with them anyway. Parties are only engaged in imitation of political struggle, thereby convincing the masses that they are exercising direct influence by voting for certain parties.

    american deep state


    What is the point of calling the oligarchs some tricky, mysterious terms? After all, "civilization" was built. They will do whatever they want, just not to call white white, and black black, in an attempt to puncture the brain and not make it clear the real situation.
    1. Airdefense
      Airdefense 11 January 2021 12: 31
      -6
      The real power is not with them anyway. Parties are only engaged in imitation of political struggle, thereby instilling in the masses that they are exercising direct influence by voting for certain parties.

      Dmitry, just take the time to study the internal structure of the United States, what are the powers of whom, who is chosen and how. The United States has a very good system of checks and balances; it would be nice to implement a lot in Russia. At least the election of state prosecutors (in our case, the region) judges, that is, what they would depend on the population where they work.
      The mistake is based on the fact that many people project the internal structure of Russia with a single center in Moscow onto the United States, but they have a completely different system and simply incomparable “decentralized”.
      1. A_Lex
        A_Lex 11 January 2021 12: 38
        +6
        The USA has a very good system of checks and balances


        Yes. In Hollywood movies. In practice, as elsewhere, this whole "system" works strictly towards the oligarchs, which means that it is not a system.
        1. Airdefense
          Airdefense 11 January 2021 12: 54
          -6
          Dmitry, well, take the time to study the internal structure of the United States, it is certainly not ideal and with flaws, but allows the United States to exist for more than 200 years without any serious shocks.
          As for the oligarchs, what exactly do you mean?
          1. A_Lex
            A_Lex 11 January 2021 12: 56
            +6
            take your time


            Where did you get the idea that I was not wasting time studying? Or can you not understand that I am not interested in naked theory in isolation from practice?

            As for the oligarchs, what exactly do you mean?


            Capitalist. There are no others.
            1. Airdefense
              Airdefense 11 January 2021 13: 05
              -6
              Where did you get the idea that I was not wasting time studying? Or can you not understand that I am not interested in naked theory in isolation from practice?

              Judging by what you write, you have no idea about the internal structure of the United States. Not to mention the fact that the United States is generally different from State to State with its own laws and even its own police (which can also be different within the State), which works in Texas in a completely different way, for example in Massachusetts.
              1. A_Lex
                A_Lex 11 January 2021 13: 08
                +3
                you have no idea about the internal structure of the United States


                It's a lie.
        2. sniperino
          sniperino 11 January 2021 14: 22
          +2
          Quote: A_Lex
          The "system" works strictly towards the oligarchs, which means that it is not a system.
          Not this way. This means that it is their (oligarchs) system. Any system administrator will tell you: "It works - don't touch it!"
          1. A_Lex
            A_Lex 11 January 2021 14: 31
            -2
            is their (oligarchs) system


            The system cannot belong to someone or be imprisoned under someone. The main point of this "system" is that people everywhere are convinced that it is a real system.
            1. sniperino
              sniperino 11 January 2021 14: 55
              0
              Quote: A_Lex
              The system cannot belong to someone or be imprisoned under someone.
              If you use a non-licensed copy of the Windows system, then its owners, through their lawyers, can easily prove in court that it does not belong to you. OS Gentoo, ArchLinux are tailored for advanced users, but not suitable for gamers, even advanced ones; BSD - for IT people, etc. Political systems do not fundamentally differ from OS in this.
              1. A_Lex
                A_Lex 11 January 2021 15: 03
                +1
                If you are using a non-licensed copy of the system


                System performance and copyright issues are two different things. The Windows system works equally well when purchased in a society where copyrights are institutionalized and downloaded in a society where copyrights are prohibited.

                OS Gentoo, ArchLinux are tailored for advanced users, but not suitable for gamers, even advanced ones; BSD - for IT people, etc.


                There are no fundamental restrictions. You can use each of these systems if you understand it. In order to use current or past political systems, it is not enough to understand them. You need to either get the approval of the owners of the system, or become the owner yourself, displacing the former.
                1. sniperino
                  sniperino 11 January 2021 15: 19
                  0
                  Quote: A_Lex
                  System health and copyright issues are two different things.
                  Copyright is incorporated in any commercial system by the fact that its codes are closed, and ownership is in any (login - password). This imposes restrictions on the systems in their performance: from the impossibility of making changes to the system to adjust its work for yourself to the prohibition of entering the system.
                  1. A_Lex
                    A_Lex 11 January 2021 15: 34
                    +1
                    Copyright is incorporated into any commercial system by the fact that its codes are closed.


                    Depends on the type of license. A closed system can use components whose code is open. So not "any".

                    , and ownership - in any (login - password).


                    Ownership is not a matter of entering a password, but of ownership of the system.

                    This imposes restrictions on systems and in their performance.


                    These restrictions are neither an integral part of the system, nor a condition for the actual performance of the system.
                    In a society where copyright is institutionalized, these restrictions are circumvented.
                    In a society where copyright is prohibited, these restrictions are initially absent.
                    1. sniperino
                      sniperino 11 January 2021 15: 40
                      0
                      Quote: A_Lex
                      Ownership is not a matter of entering a password, but of ownership of the system.
                      In the legal system and in the OS, the issues of ownership are regulated in different ways. In the OS, this is a login and password, and in court - supporting documents.
                      1. A_Lex
                        A_Lex 11 January 2021 15: 45
                        0
                        In the OS, this is a username and password.


                        No. According to your logic given above, if you have not bought a system, the legal use of which becomes possible after the fact of purchase, just knowing the login and password is not enough for you to be officially considered a legal user of the system.
                      2. sniperino
                        sniperino 12 January 2021 17: 27
                        -2
                        Quote: A_Lex
                        so that you can officially be considered a legal user of the system.
                        Do not finish reading, or something.
                        In the OS, this is a login and password, and in court - supporting documents
                        The judicial system does not require a login and password to establish the copyright holder.
                      3. A_Lex
                        A_Lex 12 January 2021 19: 08
                        0
                        The judicial system does not require a login and password to establish the copyright holder.


                        Yes, you are thinking in the right direction. From the mere knowledge of the login and password, the status of ownership does not follow. An approximate analogy to make it easier for you to understand - if a person has a key to an apartment in his pocket, then this fact alone is not enough to consider a person as the owner of an apartment, to the lock of which the key in his pocket fits.
            2. sniperino
              sniperino 11 January 2021 15: 34
              0
              Quote: A_Lex
              System health
              The operability and what we started with - the tailoring of the system to certain categories of users, access rights are completely different things.
              1. A_Lex
                A_Lex 11 January 2021 15: 37
                0
                The operability and what we started with - the tailoring of the system to certain categories of users, access rights are completely different things.


                I did not say otherwise.
                1. sniperino
                  sniperino 11 January 2021 16: 16
                  0
                  Quote: A_Lex
                  I did not say otherwise.
                  You wrote this
                  These restrictions are neither an integral part of the system, nor a condition for the actual performance of the system.
                  Both an integral element and a condition for the actual performance of the system. The estate system assumes the restriction of different groups and individuals to occupy certain places in the management structure. Without this, it breaks down.
                  1. A_Lex
                    A_Lex 11 January 2021 16: 22
                    0
                    Class system


                    This is also not a system, because the system cannot belong to someone or be imprisoned for someone. So within the framework of the logic of my reasoning, I do not contradict myself.
                  2. sniperino
                    sniperino 11 January 2021 16: 37
                    0
                    Quote: A_Lex
                    within the logic of my reasoning
                    It looks like airbrushing on a car:
                    My life is my rules
                    smile
                  3. A_Lex
                    A_Lex 11 January 2021 16: 45
                    0
                    My life my rules


                    It is precisely this logic that is characteristic of both the capitalist "system" and the estate "system". These are "systems" in which private rules are in effect, beneficial to a narrow group of people. Moreover, these rules, again privately, are also constantly adjusted depending on the context of a particular situation in order to benefit the beneficiaries, i.e. masters of the "system".
                  4. Bolt cutter
                    Bolt cutter 11 January 2021 18: 51
                    0
                    My life is my rules
                    Initially, my life-my rules-the slogan of American homosexuals (when their movement was still illegal and they themselves were beaten just for fun) .And clear impudent guys laughing with "cool" airbrushing on "cool cars" they don't know laughing
                  5. A_Lex
                    A_Lex 11 January 2021 19: 50
                    +1
                    slogan of american homosexuals


                    Those. a minority that imposes its rules on the whole society as a whole and does not correct the policy even if it knows the negative opinion of the majority regarding the imposition of such a policy on the whole society as a whole. It turns out exactly the same "system", sharpened for a certain narrow group of beneficiaries. You see, the "systems" seem to be different, but the essence of each such "system" is unchanged - the minority forces society to play according to the rules beneficial to the minority.
                  6. Bolt cutter
                    Bolt cutter 11 January 2021 19: 56
                    -1
                    This has been almost always the case. History has not yet provided an example of the opposite.
                  7. A_Lex
                    A_Lex 11 January 2021 20: 09
                    +2
                    It was almost always like this


                    Social practice cannot be considered either true or natural, just because it is habitual. Thus, the statement "it has always been this way" is not a justification for claiming that "it will always be this way."
                  8. Bolt cutter
                    Bolt cutter 11 January 2021 20: 17
                    -1
                    The trends in the development of society are in many ways comparable to the laws of physics. So always means always.
                  9. A_Lex
                    A_Lex 11 January 2021 20: 23
                    +1
                    Society's development trends are largely comparable to the laws of physics.


                    Generally incomparable. This is clearly seen in the example of laws. The laws of physics cannot be ignored by anyone. The "laws" of society are often selectively violated.
                  10. Bolt cutter
                    Bolt cutter 11 January 2021 20: 28
                    -1
                    "Laws" - which are the will of the ruling class, backed up by selective violence - yes. But the laws of the development of society, like the laws of physics, are not. It is impossible (for example) to move society from slave-owning to socialist, just as it is impossible to abolish gravity and nuclear decay.
                  11. A_Lex
                    A_Lex 11 January 2021 20: 38
                    +1
                    laws of development of society


                    You want to say that in some document the "laws of society" are set out, which are established in full and final volume, which means that regarding such a phenomenon as "society", those who are privy to these laws no longer have any secrets or contradictions and thus they have achieved a state of absolute clarity of understanding of all processes occurring in society, in contrast, for example, to scientists who cannot yet boast of the same complex understanding of physics?
                  12. sniperino
                    sniperino 12 January 2021 10: 49
                    -1
                    Quote: Bolt Cutter
                    the laws of the development of society, like the laws of physics ... It is impossible to advance society from slaveholding to socialist (for example), just as it is impossible to abolish gravity and nuclear decay
                    It turns out that a person has no free will, like an aspen tree, from which oranges are not born. Then why all this pathos about slavery and socialism? Why don't Marxists use the Istmatist formula for the correlation of productive forces and production relations to explain the transition from developed socialism to wild capitalism with elements of a slave-owning system (a classmate in the 90s lived in slavery for a couple of months with two dozen of the same alcoholics until he ran away), but muttering about some traitor?
                    In general, of course, the attitude to a person as to a piece of complexly organized meat greatly contributes to the organization of social experiments in the form of revolutions of different color shades, but prevents a humane attitude towards people, in which they feel sorry for them and want to help with something even unfamiliar.
                  13. A_Lex
                    A_Lex 12 January 2021 11: 54
                    0
                    It turns out that a person has no free will


                    Nonsense.

                    By the way, since you are so confident in drawing conclusions, maybe you will answer the question, in which document are the above "laws of society" outlined?
                  14. sniperino
                    sniperino 12 January 2021 13: 08
                    0
                    Quote: A_Lex
                    Which document contains the above "laws of society"?
                    Can't you ask so that the question is clear? If this question is really addressed to me. I write that a person has free will, and even for large groups of people it is impossible to discover laws of the "chain reaction" type that Boltorez writes about. What are you talking about?
                  15. A_Lex
                    A_Lex 12 January 2021 13: 16
                    0
                    Can't you ask so that the question is clear?


                    Your words are quoted. And judging by the answer, you read what was written above, moreover, you quoted the text in which the "laws of the development of society" are mentioned. And despite this, my question turns out to be "very much incomprehensible" to you?
                  16. sniperino
                    sniperino 12 January 2021 13: 49
                    0
                    Quote: A_Lex
                    quoted a text that referred to the "laws of society development"
                    He quoted the text of Boltorez, wrote that the laws of development of society (which were studied in history) are not confirmed by the general-history. practice ... you need a link to a textbook on history, or to "Capital", it is not clear.
                  17. A_Lex
                    A_Lex 12 January 2021 14: 06
                    0
                    textbook on history, or on "Capital"


                    Capital? Clear. I, assuming that Boltorez under the "laws of the development of society" means something more sane, became interested. But it looks like there will be no concretization from him.
          2. Bolt cutter
            Bolt cutter 12 January 2021 13: 28
            -1
            treating a person as a piece of complex meat
            Human gregarious scavenger predator. Of course there is free will, but you can't trample on the system.
          3. sniperino
            sniperino 12 January 2021 14: 02
            0
            Quote: Bolt Cutter
            Of course there is free will
            This mystery is great. In materialism, such freedom is not provided, because the will, like the rest of the psyche, is just a "reflection" from the electro-magnetic interactions and chemical reactions that take place in meat, such as a hologram.
          4. Bolt cutter
            Bolt cutter 12 January 2021 14: 13
            -1
            hologram type
            And holograms are different. yes But if a certain Roman philosopher (hypothetical) would write a treatise on the need to abolish slavery and let go of his slaves, slavery would not have ended in that era. Society had to develop to this. Shl. Personally, I think that the role of personality in history is negligible.
          5. sniperino
            sniperino 12 January 2021 16: 34
            +1
            Quote: Bolt Cutter
            slavery in that era would not have ended
            However, to declare that in the USA in the 19th century the productive forces were less developed than in Europe in the 15th century would be a lie. Nevertheless, in medieval Europe, slavery remained only in the domestic form, and in the USA - in the production of goods. And the archaic slave-owning production relations did not prevent the Americans from getting rich to such an extent that they bought Louisiana from the most advanced French bourgeoisie for 15 million dollars and Alaska from feudal Russia for 7 kopecks. These "laws" of history and mathematics can only destroy states; they are tailored for the revolution, but not under the state. construction or scientific analysis of the causes of historical development.
          6. Bolt cutter
            Bolt cutter 12 January 2021 16: 45
            -2
            USA - in the production of goods
            Cotton and sugar plantations are practically atavism (there were no slaves behind the machines). In addition, the inertia of thinking played a role there. Well, the shortage of white workers. And even then, blacks in the last years of slavery lived almost the same as the white poor. Slavery was practically obsolete.
          7. Illanatol
            Illanatol 17 January 2021 09: 59
            0
            "Atavism" brought a healthy export income.
            They are made from cotton and explosives. In general, the product is strategic.
            By the way, in the southern states, rice was also grown using blacks, also for export. After the defeat of the South, this industry fell into decay for a long time.
        3. Illanatol
          Illanatol 17 January 2021 09: 55
          -1
          "And the archaic slave industrial relationship did not stop Americans from getting rich to that extent."

          Why would they be archaic? They are also used in our world. Type in "High-tech slave" in Google, there will be a lot of links.
          Why shouldn't they get rich without aggressive neighbors and wagon resources?
          The advanced French bourgeoisie, like other Europeans, also actively used slave labor in their colonies.
        4. sniperino
          sniperino 17 January 2021 17: 09
          0
          Quote: Illanatol
          Why would they be archaic?
          From the standpoint of the "law of conformity of production relations to the nature and level of productive forces": Africans, whose consciousness in two centuries of life in the United States went several centuries ahead, and the means of labor - cotton ginning machines, etc. speaking already about the Ancient world.
  • Sergej1972
    Sergej1972 12 January 2021 11: 16
    0
    Federal prosecutors and federal judges in the United States are appointed. Moreover, the federal prosecutor's office and federal courts have an extensive territorial structure. State prosecutors and judges are elected, and not all. Cases of espionage, treason, terrorism, insurgency, and many others are considered exclusively by federal courts, with the support of charges from federal prosecutors. And they sit for these crimes in federal prisons. Their management system, I agree, is decentralized, but relatively. Since the beginning of the 20th century, it has become highly centralized, especially after the reforms of Franklin Roosevelt. The main thing is that the federal authorities have more money than the authorities of all the states combined.
  • Sergej1972
    Sergej1972 12 January 2021 13: 21
    0
    What do you think about the fact that in most states (except California and some others) the elections of prosecutors and judges are held on a party basis? Regardless of whether they are elected by the population or by state legislatures. Candidates do not hide their party affiliation, and the party machines help them. Somehow this does not fit with our ideas about the political neutrality of judges and prosecutors. Even about the members of the US Supreme Court, everyone knows who is a Republican and who is a Democrat.
  • datura23
    datura23 11 January 2021 12: 49
    -1
    in Russia, parties are not even engaged in imitation, just a layer of parasites
    1. A_Lex
      A_Lex 11 January 2021 12: 52
      +1
      No, why. They imitate in words. People still believe in words and promises.
  • Old jew
    Old jew 11 January 2021 12: 16
    +2
    Quote: malo
    Well, since the USA is worth it, then we have time

    Nobody knows how much time there is. Force the opponent to make decisions in time trouble, he will certainly make a mistake.
  • Airdefense
    Airdefense 11 January 2021 12: 26
    -2
    Look how many Republican governors, how many Democrats there are approximately exactly, it is equally interesting that the state as a whole is democratic, and the governor is Republican and vice versa.
    As for Trump, everything is simple, they did not present evidence of election fraud, and they themselves even stated in court that they had no evidence of fraud, but only allegedly violations.

    There was also a moment with a complaint to the Supreme Court about the change in the voting rules in the state of Pennsylvania, not through legislators, here it looks like this is a violation of the constitution, because in the United States, according to the constitution, such a change can only be made through legislators
    and the Supreme Court about this and ruled

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-542

    but referring to the fact that the elections are already "on the nose", they did not consider the claim.

    And of course, the US is closest to "true" democracy, and if the Democrats screw up in four years, they will lose the next election.
  • yuriy55
    yuriy55 11 January 2021 12: 29
    +1
    globalists will create a new world from the "dust of America"

    Creators. Nothing serves as an example or a lesson for them:
    Himself - one immortal, who created and created man: we, mortals, from the earth were created, and to the same land let's go, as You commanded, creating me and saying to me: "You are the earth, and you will go to the earth," where all of us, mortals, will go, transforming our grave sobs into the song "Alleluia!"

    First, you need to free yourself from the curses of the indigenous people of America ... And nobody managed to create a new pyramid from the ashes of the old ...
    The new world will probably be without the ashes of America ... yes
  • dvina71
    dvina71 11 January 2021 12: 32
    +5
    Well, the secret of the polichenel is straightforward .. The USA has long and firmly ruled by financial clans, the owners of the FRS .. everything else .. the senate and the president .. the presidency .. work for the benefit of the owners of the money.
    Kennedy won't let you lie ..
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 11 January 2021 12: 32
    0
    The poor fellows are tired of hiding their bestial essence behind show-offs about democracy. Finally, the grin of wild capitalism was highlighted. And we hung up burdocks and ears.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 11 January 2021 13: 03
      +1
      Finally, the grin of wild capitalism was highlighted. And we hung burdocks and ears.
      That is, more than a million perished in Iraq, much more in Vietnam, and Yugoslavia and Libya, turned into nothing, were not sufficiently indicative in the sense of the savage grin of capitalism? Concentration camp stoves in World War II too? And only the "light flirt" in the capitol finally highlighted something there? ...
      Did I understand you correctly?
      1. A_Lex
        A_Lex 11 January 2021 13: 39
        +1
        And only the "light flirt" in the capitol finally highlighted something there? ...


        There was no capitalism during the Crusades.
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 11 January 2021 20: 13
          0
          There was no capitalism during the Crusades.
          explain your idea in more detail?
          1. A_Lex
            A_Lex 11 January 2021 20: 29
            +2
            explain your idea in more detail?


            There were victims of the conquerors even before capitalism, therefore this is not a criterion inherent in capitalism.
      2. Ros 56
        Ros 56 11 January 2021 14: 57
        -1
        You didn't understand a damn thing, and there is no time to explain. stop
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 11 January 2021 20: 11
          0
          You didn't understand a damn thing, and there is no time to explain.
          Yes, I understood everything about capitalism thirty years ago. And since then I have not experienced any illusions in his direction. And you?
          1. Ros 56
            Ros 56 12 January 2021 08: 25
            -1
            To be honest, there were hopes, and even in the mid-90s, the results were quite good. But in the end it turned out that in order to succeed, one had to brutalize and tear everyone up. Well, I didn't, I didn't. fellow
            1. abrakadabre
              abrakadabre 12 January 2021 11: 30
              0
              for success one must become brutalized and tear everyone up. Well, I didn't, I didn't. fellow
              This is called conscience. Congratulations, you have it good drinks
  • mag nit
    mag nit 11 January 2021 12: 57
    -1
    And the 4 parties of parasites, which are financed from the budget of Russia, is it a multi-party system?
    1. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 12 January 2021 11: 19
      -1
      In most European countries, parties are funded from the state budget, depending on their electoral success.
  • Stirbjorn
    Stirbjorn 11 January 2021 13: 10
    0
    It is stated that now the Kremlin has a transatlantic example of how to act against the "Maidan" - to disperse and declare the enemies of democracy and the people.
    The Kremlin has an example of how to vote correctly, for example using mail-in voting. And no stuffing of bundles of ballots under the protests of observers. Just once ... and +100 votes in favor of one candidate. So our CEC has a lot to learn, since in the most democratic country this is possible, than we are worse
  • serggb
    serggb 11 January 2021 13: 26
    +2
    "Elephant" and "Donkey" should be changed to "Horseradish" and "Radish".
    The Americans in their elections find out which of them is sweeter.
  • The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 11 January 2021 13: 44
    0
    The unknown author of the article reminds Vovochka from an anecdote when he comes home and says a phrase that ends with the words "... not so called!" And in the background the song "Goodbye, America!"
  • rocket757
    rocket757 11 January 2021 13: 50
    0
    Ha, SYSTEM rules !!! There may be graters between its members, but this is only among them ... for everyone else, who is from below and from the side, there is no fundamental difference and there never will be!
    The foundations remain unshakable, THE POWER OF CAPITAL!
  • nikvic46
    nikvic46 11 January 2021 15: 35
    0
    Democracy is a beautiful sign over a state building, but countries that copy America's organization, yeah, ignore this sign. For them, the main thing is to create a bunch of oligarchs, robbery loans, collection agencies. Take away expensive land and place the population on the outskirts. Create their own courts, where only the truth of the rich handful will rule. That's all democracy.
  • Berg berg
    Berg berg 11 January 2021 16: 07
    0
    Everyone has known this for a long time, they have this clan tribal power.
  • Old jew
    Old jew 11 January 2021 19: 57
    0
    Quote: lucul
    If desired, these globalists are cut out at once, there would be a desire))) Trump did not have such a desire)))

    Globalists are not an individual, they are a system. If you remove one, another will appear. The system can only be defeated by a stronger system.
  • vavilon
    vavilon 11 January 2021 21: 22
    0
    Only a blind man could not see that in the West there are no free elections like the media, several families who have created a modern slave world called "democracy"
    1. for
      for 13 January 2021 02: 14
      0
      Quote: vavilon
      There is no

      And we have something different. Only one family.
      1. vavilon
        vavilon 13 January 2021 14: 47
        0
        I think that there are also several, because one will be devoured by envious people.
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 11 January 2021 22: 55
    +1
    And what, before someone believed in these mattress tales for suckers?)))) The stronghold of democracy, a country of equal opportunities))) when was it that a simple hard worker would hold a more or less serious position? In the USSR, there were much more opportunities for a simple hard worker to get out "up".
  • dementor873
    dementor873 12 January 2021 01: 53
    -1
    Interestingly, the secret service will now guard him until the end of his days according to the law, or they will find a loophole. Or let a random bum shoot him to death while the agent turned away. But this will be a blow to the secret itself.
  • FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 12 January 2021 05: 18
    -3
    Well, don't exaggerate everything, nobody gets fired for supporting Trump. 47 million voted for him. Don't overtake it.
    1. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 12 January 2021 11: 21
      0
      74 million, not 47 million. By the way, a historical record for the number of people who voted for the current president.
  • sleeve
    sleeve 12 January 2021 06: 11
    0
    Something like that is almost a repeat. Pogroms, weakness of the state. Assault squads. External enemy. Only there was the Comintern and the Reichstag.
  • Sergej1972
    Sergej1972 12 January 2021 11: 23
    +1
    I like the German experience more. In a similar situation, when the two leading parties go head to head, they in the FRG most often create a "grand coalition" and rule together. But the Germans find it easier, they have a parliamentary form of government.
  • Do not care
    Do not care 12 January 2021 15: 07
    0
    Also news to me, It has always been like this:

  • sniperino
    sniperino 12 January 2021 17: 02
    0
    Quote: Bolt Cutter
    Cotton and sugar plantations - almost an atavism (there were no slaves behind the machines)
    Not so: after the invention of the cotton gin, the demand for slave labor in the United States skyrocketed. At every stage of history, in any part of the world, one can see contradictions with the history of history. But, I repeat, it was created not as a science or philosophy, but as a guide for the revolutionary action of the masses; Marx shaped the idea of ​​revolution in such a way that it could take possession of the masses and become a material force. And modern dogmatists-opportunists think that nothing needs to be changed in designation and design, and so it will work.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Vasilenko Vladimir
    Vasilenko Vladimir 12 January 2021 20: 55
    -1
    By and large, there is one party in the United States that brutally cracks down on those who decide to go against the laws imposed by it and against its interests.
    there are clans in the USA and everything else is for suckers
  • don-1500
    don-1500 13 January 2021 01: 03
    0
    Quote: Avior
    What's the difference? Talk about something else.
    Did those gathered on the Maidan think that they were shooting from Yanukovych's side?
    Yes, no doubt they thought so. And how it really was in this discussion is not important.

    Avior, turn on your head, just remove the pan from the beginning. Victoria Nuland came to the Maidan, wandered around so-so easily, handed out cookies, supposedly communicated with the people, all so accessible. And now attention is the question: how much before Victoria's arrival did the US intelligence services plus her personal security take control of all the attics and balconies around? Persons of this level, especially in a dangerous environment, are protected only in this way. So draw conclusions Avior, who controlled the attics all January. And don't fool people with your "heavenly hundred"
  • for
    for 13 January 2021 02: 07
    -1
    Tolley we have as much as four, and on the eve dozens come up. The majority party makes concessions and supports the initiatives of small parties.
  • Growlers
    Growlers 13 January 2021 13: 04
    0
    The author does not know the situation, the analysis is too superficial. Not seriously. For Trump, 72% of the percent of the Republicans, so to speak, is a one-story rural America. And the root of the problem lies in the collision of the two US economies. The first is the traditional industrial economy that has made the United States a global power. This is the oil and gas sector, this is chemistry, heavy industry, logistics, etc. And there is the economy of large technologies and finance, which for the last 20 years has completely dominated and grew faster than others. Trump is backed by big industrial groups, and Biden is backed by the tech sector - Facebook and so on - finance. This is just the beginning