Ārpolitikas eksperts: Harisa ASV prezidenta kandidātu vēlēšanu debatēs bija labāka par Trampu

"Formas ziņā abi kandidāti bija savā elementā, bet Kamala Harisa bija labāka. Tā vien izskatās, ka viņa uzvarēja šajās debatēs. Protams, ASV vēlētāji spriedīs, kurš bija labāks, bet Harisa pārspēja visas cerības, kas bija liktas uz viņu," "Rīta Panorāmā", runājot par aizvadītajām ASV priekšvēlēšanu debatēm, viedokli pauda Ģeopolitikas pētījumu centra direktors, RSU asociētais profesors Māris Andžāns.

[@pacifism5]

Ja šis eksperts arī skatās Destiny, tad nav nekāds brīnums.

[@RaimondsKlušs]

Svarīgi lai mums būtu labums no šīm vēlēšanām, lai Mums būtu labums

[@reinismazurs]

Harisa Karš un Tramps miers. Latvijai izdevīgi ir miers.

[@sergej17pokah91]

Hahahaha

#PaToLaiku,kā pateikt, ka @ltvzinas atgremo globalistu diktātu,nepasakot,ka @ltvzinas atgremo globalistu diktātu?

[@rolandlee6898]

This so-called expert didnt say anything of value. "In the US it depends not just what you say but how you say it"... Just in the US? Thats true for everything. A completely vacuous statement. As for the debates. Harris did a lot better than most people expected, but given her personal links to ABC and its political leaning, it did not come off too surprising that she would be favored in the coverage. Her performance was in stark contrast to her usual speeches, which would indicate a good level of preparedness for this debate, actually rather unusual. The bias was actually very evident, and that was their game plan. Harris would never accept a debate hosted by, say, FOX because of the obvious bias of the host. Trump, however, accepted the debate, perhaps somewhat unprepared expecting the usual Harris word salad speeches, in this case. Ballsy, but not much of a choice if we are to see any debates at all. Harris (and the hosts at times) deliberately tried to provoke Trump into outbursts and personal attacks, and they were successful. That was the biggest loss for Trump in the debates, he let them get to him, fully knowing they would try. The "lets tone down the rhetoric" line lasted all but 3 days following the assassination attempt, and notice how that has since been fully swept under the rug. Will this affect anything? Not really. Loyalty to parties in America is basically on par with a religion. People tend to vote for the same parties regardless of candidates and there are indeed only a small number of swing states, which he at least pointed out correctly. Harris is a political chameleon, she has little consistency in her policy proposals, claiming opposing positions to different crowds and always pretending to have a relatable background. Many people rightfully ask - she has already been VP for more than 3 years, what stopped her from implementing her promises already? Good question. All in all, the establishment and American elite hate Trump, media and institutions are highly politicized. People start to see that more and more, especially after the alleged Russia ties, Jan 6, the prosecution and assassination attempt, and how those contrast to incidents involving other politicians. if the political elite will do literally anything to stop him, it makes you wonder - why? As for foreign meddling. China is fully in support of the Democratic party, quite openly at that. By their own admission Trump's presidency was the only administration where they did not have their people at the top. Their words. Russia in the present day is a total outcast and doesnt stand to benefit much either way. Which is a dangerous situation in its own right and has pushed Russia even closer with China. Dems would maintain status quo, which means war continues at its current pace, which is in effect a stalemate with clear no end in sight. Trump, well, he might be able to at least mediate a ceasefire. He has a track record of not favoring war, forthcoming diplomacy, but also not backing down from his position. He makes a good point on "Ukraine must win" question. Its a dumb question, completely unrealistic with no actual plan. What does "winning" even mean in this case? For America maintaining war just means more defense contracts. Profit. Most people dont realize that the US does NOT give "aid" to Ukraine. They have a lend-lease agreement. Ukraine OWES money for everything America sends over. With interest. (www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2721) Who benefits? Ukraine? Hardly. His answer is - end the war, even a ceasefire, so people stop dying. Which is a far more reasonable position.

[@Mr.Raitis]

Nē skaidrs ka Amerikā lielākas algas ka Latvijā.. Ne skaidrs pohuj politika ja ir nauda vai ne.. Lai kāds būtu iznākums tanī politikā runā vai kurš vinnēs.. Tas jau vairs nav svarīgi Jo Amerikā iedzīvotājiem ir lielākas algas ka Latvijā Tas ir fakts ko saprot arī bez politikas.. Jā tā ir tanī visa lieta.. Jā

[@plevjuzanis]

marksisti

[@vinnijsvinnijs8439]

😂tiešām

[@igerce]

Prestitūtas prestitūtē. Skaisti.