• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди64
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы110
      • Показать ещё
      Издания17
      • Показать ещё
      Формат6
      Компании26
      • Показать ещё
      Разное83
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели5
      Международные организации9
      • Показать ещё
Сэмюэл Хантингтон
Выбор редакции
28 апреля, 10:05

"Ангел" Victoria's Secret раскрыла секреты успешного селфи

Британская модель Рози Хантингтон-Уайтли поделилась с поклонниками, что ей приходится сделать порядка 100 селфи, пока найдётся хотя бы одно удачное, сообщает Daily Mail. По её словам, снимки нужно трижды пропускать через всевозможные фильтры. Для удачного фото необходимо также яркое освещение. Она отметила, что беспокоится за то, что девушки могут принять слишком близко к сердцу "идеальные фото" моделей с пляжей. Хантингтон-Уайтли напомнила, что снимки обрабатываются.

21 апреля, 23:44

Weekend Roundup: Amid Great Cultural Shifts, Voting Settles Little

In an era of profound cultural transformation, elections and referendums have very real consequences ― such as the repeal of environmental regulations or crackdowns on press freedom. But as much as they reveal how markedly divided societies are at this historical moment, they settle little. For those who are nostalgic for an ideal past, the challenges of a complex future wrought by globalization, digital disruption and increasing cultural diversity remain unresolved. For those looking ahead, there is no going back. The present political reaction is only the first act, not the last. It is the beginning, not the end, of the story of societies in fluid transition. The recent Turkish referendum, like Brexit and U.S. President Donald Trump’s election, fits a pattern of a territorial divide. Residents in large cities and coastal zones linked to global integration and cosmopolitan culture represented just under half of the vote; rural, small-town and Rust Belt regions linked more to the traditions and economic structures of the past were just over half. But there is also a major difference. The populist, nationalist narrative that won the day in Great Britain and the United States championed the “left behind” and splintered the unresponsive mainstream political parties. In Turkey, the day was won by a conservative, pious and upwardly mobile constituency already empowered by some 15 years of rule by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party. The cultural duel there, backed up by neo-Islamist and nationalist statism, will thus be more intense than elsewhere. In an interview following the historic vote in her country, novelist Elif Shafak says, “The referendum has not solved anything. If anything, it deepened the existing cultural and ideological divisions.” She also laments the decline of Turkey’s long experiment as a majority-Muslim country attempting to balance culture, secularism and Western democracy. “This is the most significant turning point in Turkey’s modern political history,” she declares. “It is a shift backwards; the end of parliamentary democracy. It is also a dangerous discontinuation of decades of Westernization, secularism and modernization; the discontinuation of Atatürk’s modern Turkey.” Writing from Istanbul, Behlül Özkan explains the details of the constitutional referendum, how the playing field was tilted in Erdoğan’s favor and how it will have massive implications for Turkey’s future. He also emphasizes the historic importance of Turkey’s reverse. Özkan cites the political theorist Samuel Huntington who, in an essay decades ago on transitions from authoritarian rule, once defined Turkey as a clear example of a one-party system becoming more open and competitive under the constitution put in place by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. It is rare in history to move in the other direction, as Erdoğan has now accomplished. Also writing from Istanbul, Alev Scott believes Turkey is in for “a decade of paranoia under a modern-day Sultan” who was unnerved by the slim margin of his victory. Noting a widely circulated photograph of the president at his moment of triumph, she saw a man not “celebrating victory” but “a man alarmed by near-defeat.” Even as critics within Turkey and others abroad expressed concern over the extinguishing of democracy, Trump again showed his affinity for strongman politics by calling to congratulate Erdoğan on his victory. Yet, as with other countries from India to Argentina, there is likely another element as well to this potentially budding bromance. Sam Stein and Igor Bobic report on ethical issues raised by Trump’s business ties with Turkey. In 2012, Erdoğan joined Trump and his family to mark the opening of Trump Towers Istanbul.  Here are a few additional highlights from The WorldPost this week: 11 Things To Know About North Korea’s Secret Nuclear Program North Korea’s Simple But Deadly Artillery Holds Seoul And U.S. Hostage Bill Clinton’s Secretary Of Defense Likes Trump’s North Korea Strategy Photo Series Show The People Of North Korea You Rarely Get To See 4 Reasons Why France’s Presidential Election Is So Important France’s Youth Are Turning To The Far-Right National Front Can American Democracy Survive The Era Of Inequality? Trump Shouldn’t Mess With The Clean Air Act, American Lung Association Warns Amazing Photos Capture How Flowers Look Under Ultraviolet Light  WHO WE ARE     EDITORS: Nathan Gardels, Co-Founder and Executive Advisor to the Berggruen Institute, is the Editor-in-Chief of The WorldPost. Kathleen Miles is the Executive Editor of The WorldPost. Farah Mohamed is the Managing Editor of The WorldPost. Alex Gardels and Peter Mellgard are the Associate Editors of The WorldPost. Suzanne Gaber is the Editorial Assistant of The WorldPost. Katie Nelson is News Director at The Huffington Post, overseeing The WorldPost and HuffPost’s news coverage. Nick Robins-Early and Jesselyn Cook are World Reporters. Rowaida Abdelaziz is World Social Media Editor. EDITORIAL BOARD: Nicolas Berggruen, Nathan Gardels, Arianna Huffington, Eric Schmidt (Google Inc.), Pierre Omidyar(First Look Media), Juan Luis Cebrian (El Pais/PRISA), Walter Isaacson (Aspen Institute/TIME-CNN), John Elkann (Corriere della Sera, La Stampa), Wadah Khanfar (Al Jazeera) and Yoichi Funabashi (Asahi Shimbun). VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS: Dawn Nakagawa. CONTRIBUTING EDITORS: Moises Naim (former editor of Foreign Policy), Nayan Chanda (Yale/Global; Far Eastern Economic Review) and Katherine Keating (One-On-One). Sergio Munoz Bata and Parag Khanna are Contributing Editors-At-Large. The Asia Society and its ChinaFile, edited by Orville Schell, is our primary partner on Asia coverage. Eric X. Li and the Chunqiu Institute/Fudan University in Shanghai and Guancha.cn also provide first person voices from China. We also draw on the content of China Digital Times. Seung-yoon Lee is The WorldPost link in South Korea. Jared Cohen of Google Ideas provides regular commentary from young thinkers, leaders and activists around the globe. Bruce Mau provides regular columns from MassiveChangeNetwork.com on the “whole mind” way of thinking. Patrick Soon-Shiong is Contributing Editor for Health and Medicine. ADVISORY COUNCIL: Members of the Berggruen Institute’s 21st Century Council and Council for the Future of Europe serve as theAdvisory Council — as well as regular contributors — to the site. These include, Jacques Attali, Shaukat Aziz, Gordon Brown, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Juan Luis Cebrian, Jack Dorsey, Mohamed El-Erian, Francis Fukuyama, Felipe Gonzalez, John Gray, Reid Hoffman, Fred Hu, Mo Ibrahim, Alexei Kudrin, Pascal Lamy, Kishore Mahbubani, Alain Minc, Dambisa Moyo, Laura Tyson, Elon Musk, Pierre Omidyar, Raghuram Rajan, Nouriel Roubini, Nicolas Sarkozy, Eric Schmidt, Gerhard Schroeder, Peter Schwartz, Amartya Sen, Jeff Skoll, Michael Spence, Joe Stiglitz, Larry Summers, Wu Jianmin, George Yeo, Fareed Zakaria, Ernesto Zedillo, Ahmed Zewail and Zheng Bijian. From the Europe group, these include: Marek Belka, Tony Blair, Jacques Delors, Niall Ferguson, Anthony Giddens, Otmar Issing, Mario Monti, Robert Mundell, Peter Sutherlandand Guy Verhofstadt. MISSION STATEMENT The WorldPost is a global media bridge that seeks to connect the world and connect the dots. Gathering together top editors and first person contributors from all corners of the planet, we aspire to be the one publication where the whole world meets. We not only deliver breaking news from the best sources with original reportage on the ground and user-generated content; we bring the best minds and most authoritative as well as fresh and new voices together to make sense of events from a global perspective looking around, not a national perspective looking out. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

17 апреля, 19:06

Erdogan's Referendum Was Neither Free Nor Fair

ISTANBUL — In 1946, members of Turkey’s ruling party made the momentous decision to transition to a multi-party system and usher in democracy to Turkey. In the eyes of political scientists, this is an event with few precedents elsewhere in the world. The political theorist Samuel Huntington, in an article concerning authoritarian regimes, defines Turkey as “the most clear-cut instance of the shift from an exclusionary one-party system to a competitive system.” And now with more than seven decades of experience with multi-party politics, Turkey has been largely successful at preserving its self-imposed democratic system, regardless of its imperfections and despite a handful of military coups. But Sunday’s referendum, which approved a change from a parliamentary system to a presidential one and will allow the winner of the next presidential election to take full control over the government, was arguably one of Turkey’s most problematic political votes to have been held under an elected, non-military administration. The referendum will have far-reaching implications for Turkey. The position of the prime minister has now been abolished. It is clear that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has run Turkey for almost 15 years, has no desire to share power with a political partner. Moreover, the referendum took place under a state of emergency proclaimed after last year’s attempted coup. Since that traumatic event, more than 100,000 public sector employees have been dismissed, the rule of law has been suspended and numerous media outlets have been shut down by force. In such an atmosphere, there are serious concerns about the democratic legitimacy of any debate about altering the country’s political system. Indeed, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe expressed concern about the validity of the vote, saying the referendum had taken place on an “unlevel playing field.” Throughout the campaign preceding the vote, there was scarcely any discussion of the proposed constitutional changes. For one thing, the co-chairs of the HDP (the third-largest party in Turkey’s parliament and the one whose main base of support is Turkey’s Kurdish population) are currently under arrest, as are numerous HDP deputies and mayors. The HDP was unable to conduct an effective campaign leading up to the referendum. In addition, Turkey’s media and academia — which would normally take a leading role in weighing any changes to the country’s political system — have been operating under severe constraints due to the state of emergency. As a result, the task of campaigning against the proposed changes mainly fell to Turkey’s main opposition party, the CHP. But the center-left CHP’s influence over Turkey’s electorate was limited. Erdogan’s referendum strategy was based on consolidating his appeal to right-wing voters. He formed a partnership between his party, the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, and the nationalist MHP. Sunday’s vote was less a referendum, which occurs when a society decides to make a change to its political system through meaningful debate in a democratic setting, than a plebiscite, which is merely meant to test public opinion rather than to have a binding effect. With little room for real debate, the “referendum” merely serves as a rubber stamp for the country’s leader. Throughout the two-month-long campaign, there was scarcely any discussion of the proposed constitutional changes. Instead, everything was reduced to the question of whether to end or to prolong Erdogan’s tenure. On the final day of the campaign, Prime Minister Binali Yildirim effectively admitted as much: “There wasn’t a chance to talk about the content [of the referendum].” Everywhere in Turkey — in the streets, in public squares, on television, in the newspapers — the “yes” campaign dominated. Making full use of the public funds at its disposal, the AKP appealed to voters’ emotions, portraying itself as full of valor and zeal. There was no sign of the skeptical, critical, deliberative atmosphere that is a precondition for any constitutional referendum. Leaders of various parties never appeared on television to debate each other in front of the nation. Even more troublingly, those in the “no” camp were, at times, accused of being terrorists or coup supporters. In the absence of free debate and other democratic conventions, the referendum simply became a plebiscite validating the country’s transition to one-man rule. There was no sign of the skeptical, critical, deliberative atmosphere that is a precondition for any constitutional referendum. But despite the unequal, unfair conditions that prevailed, Erdogan achieved his objective by only a hair’s breadth, with only 51 percent of the vote. Opposition parties made allegations of voting irregularities and questioned the legitimacy of the result. A majority of voters in Turkey’s big cities (including Istanbul and Ankara) and in the Aegean and Mediterranean regions voted no. Even the district of Uskudar in Istanbul where Erdoğan has a house voted no. His steadiest support came from the more conservative Anatolian heartland and the Black Sea provinces.   Given that Turkey has been governed under a state of emergency for nine months — with the rule of law suspended, heavy pressure on the media and a campaign environment that was neither free nor fair — it is all too obvious what kind of presidential system awaits Turkey. Opposition parties have described Turkey’s new political order as a one-man regime. Erdogan has described it as a “Turkish version” of the presidential system. This system is undoubtedly quite different from its U.S. counterpart — it has more in common with the dysfunctional presidential systems of Latin America. Under Turkey’s new presidential system, the president will have ultimate authority over all three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. Any checks and balances will be ineffective.         The new system can only be expected to lead to further uncertainty and instability in Turkey over the coming years. Since being president in 2014, Erdogan has effectively governed the country singlehandedly, and serious political and economic problems have resulted. Turkey is reeling from last year’s coup attempt, terrorist organizations are carrying out gruesome attacks and the Turkish lira is steadily depreciating. It is worth asking whether one man is likely to solve all these problems or only exacerbate them further. Those in the 'no' camp were, at times, accused of being terrorists or coup supporters. Who will be vindicated in the years to come? The residents of Turkey’s big cities and coastal areas, who desire a more pluralistic political model as well as integration into the global system? Or conservative voters from the Anatolian heartland, who have eagerly adopted the government’s populist message and see one-man rule as the answer to Turkey’s woes?  The shift to one-man rule opens Pandora’s Box for Turkey because, despite using state resources for the “yes” campaign, Erdogan’s referendum still only passed with 51 percent of the vote. Such a narrow win despite the cards tipped in his favor equates to a defeat — a Pyrrhic victory. This realization was clear in Erdogan’s subdued rather than celebratory tone when he gave his “victory” speech on election night. Given that about half the population is not behind him, he knows this will not end well for him when he is unable to resolve Turkey’s myriad of challenges all on his own. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
16 апреля, 20:15

Текст: РАСКОЛОТЫЕ СТРАНЫ И КРИЗИС ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОСТИ ( Бонин Николай )

Статья директора Института стратегических исследований при Гарвардском университете С. Хантингтона "The Clash of Civilizations?" (1993 г.) - одна из наиболее цитируемых в политологии. В ней выстраиваются подходы к теории мировой политики после холодной войны. К чему приведет новая фаза мирового развития, когда усиливается взаимодействие между различными цивилизациями и одновременно углубляются различия между ними? На этот вопрос автор не дает ответа, но террористические акты в Америке 11 сентября 2001 г. и последовавшие за ними события свидетельствуют об исключительной актуальности поднятых проблем:           «МОДЕЛЬ ГРЯДУЩЕГО КОНФЛИКТА           Мировая...

11 апреля, 00:10

Bannon's 'Arc Of History' Bends Toward War

In the Sunday “New York Times,” the journalist Jeremy Peters does a good job unpacking the book that has probably had the most lasting influence on the worldview of Trump’s “chief strategist” Stephen K. Bannon. It turns out Bannon’s favorite American “history” book is the 1997 “The Fourth Turning” by a couple of amateur historians, Neil Howe and William Strauss. Howe and Strauss put forth a bleak version of American history that is deterministic and grandiose. They predict a “cycle” in American history that happens every 80 years or so, which predestines the United States to endure widespread catastrophe and warfare that transforms institutions in its wake. It’s creepy that someone so close to power in the White House is enthralled with this dystopian vision of the near future. Whereas President Barack Obama often chose to cite Martin Luther King, Jr.’s idea that the “arc of history is long but it bends towards justice.” Bannon has made the philosophical choice to follow the less optimistic view that the “arc of history is short and bends toward war, carnage and catastrophe.” Bannon’s obsession with reading and re-reading “The Fourth Turning”  (even making a movie about it) shows he’s fascinated with big wars and big destruction. He’s on record spouting off constantly about the coming “clash of civilizations.” Maybe Bannon should put down Samuel Huntington and the claptrap from amateurs and read some real historians like David Kennedy on the “Great War,” Martin Gilbert on World War Two, or George McT. Kahin and Marilyn B. Young on the U.S. war in Vietnam. He might also want to take a look at Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore and Thomas Sugrue’s “These United States” and learn about how all those people who he believes exist outside the “core” of his white nationalist worldview have built this nation.   Instead of blaming 'political correctness' or 'snowflakes,' Bannon should learn about the true causes of the decline of the American middle class. Instead of blaming “political correctness,” “snowflakes,” or “cucks” for creating the social divisions he’s so dedicated to exacerbating, Bannon should learn about the true causes of the decline of the American middle class. In recent decades the United States has become more socially inclusive while becoming more economically unequal. The ludicrously wealthy people who Bannon so faithfully serves, like Robert and Rebekah Mercer, not only wish to perpetuate the socially distorting income and wealth gap, but also apparently want to use walls, deportation, and voter suppression to segregate society by race and ethnicity. Despite claims to the contrary, Bannon and his team of sycophants aren’t really interested in the plight of the white working class. They’re just a bunch opportunistic racists and xenophobes who dress up their emerging fascist ideology in postmodernist verbiage. Bannon’s version of history is racialized. His contempt for diversity and “political correctness” and his promise to “deconstruct the administrative state,” are really just ideological window dressing to hide the pursuit of destroying programs that value human solidarity and uplift, and sacrificing their budgets to military hardware and border walls. The fact that Bannon and Trump have risen to power at all is a clear indicator of the deep crisis in values our country faces right now. We need to decide whether we will honor the social contract that sees all of us in this country working together in solidarity, or cut loose millions of America citizens from any meaningful investment in our society beyond mere survival in an increasingly harsh form of capitalism. But the non-white people Bannon wants to disfranchise have agency. People-power isn’t going away any time soon despite the vision of crisis and catastrophe Bannon is toiling so hard to bring about. Trump and Bannon want to privatize everything, strip away basic services from working people, and “deconstruct” the very idea of a social commitment we all share to whoever resides in the United States. During the 1930s and 1940s, amidst economic crisis and global war (the contemporary starting point for The Fourth Turning) the only way President Franklin D. Roosevelt could rally the people was to adhere to an ideology that was the exact opposite of the Bannon-Mercer worldview. Roosevelt held back the forces of reaction and fascism in this country and promoted a vision of solidarity among all Americans that valued each other and the contributions every American could make in working together to confront the Great Depression and the rise of fascism. There were still many harsh injustices and glaring contradictions, but the overarching ideology was one of solidarity and workers’ rights. Today, the social programs that Bannon, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and Trump want to dismantle are what have stitched together our society in times of economic crisis. Far more than “an administrative state,” these federal programs created a new social contract that allowed for the building of a middle class and reflected the values contained in FDR’s “Four Freedoms”: freedom of speech; freedom of worship; freedom from want; and freedom from fear. He later added to the list the right to remunerative work, education, housing, and health care. Without the values of solidarity that the New Deal embodied a divided America at the mercy of rapacious ruling elites that waged class warfare against its fellow citizens would have rendered the country too divided to fight any war. Everybody seems to admit that the country is more divided today than at any time since the Civil War. And even with the corporate media fawning over Trump’s recent cruise missile attacks in Syria, which magically transformed a charlatan into “a president,” Trump might be surprised by the size of the opposition if he and Bannon seek to send large numbers of soldiers into any new U.S. military adventure. If you win election by playing on people’s innate selfishness and bigotry then when the time comes you need them suddenly to be altruistic and willing to sacrifice for your big, expensive war it might not go as planned. New U.S. wars in the Middle East aren’t even popular among Bannon’s ideological brethren in the “alt-right.” Who would’ve known that Donald Trump, perhaps the most dangerous and incompetent president in U.S. history, only needed to fire some cruise missiles at an Arab country and the Establishments of both major political parties would be eating out of the palm of his hand? But the Establishments are out of touch with the rank and file. In 2013, President Obama discovered when he tried to drum up support to strike Syria that after Iraq and Afghanistan and other U.S. interventions the public has turned a corner on waging pointless wars. Especially in a period of forced austerity in the form of stagnant wages and savage budget cuts, millions of Americans from across the political spectrum see these wars as costly and gaining them nothing. It’s pointless for analysts and commentators from the corporate media or NPR or the big think tanks in Washington to even entertain the idea that there’s such a thing as an emerging “Trump Doctrine.” The only “doctrine” to come out of the spectacle of Trump’s cruise missile attack in Syria is that he is now incentivized to “wag the dog” in the future whenever he and Bannon see potential political advantage in doing so. The task ahead is to stop any moves towards fulfilling Bannon’s catastrophic “vision” of the future. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
09 апреля, 14:17

Корги-мания: калифорнийский пляж на день заполнился собаками в ярких костюмах

В городке Хантингтон-Бич, штат Калифорния состоялся очередной фестиваль Corgi Beach Day.

09 апреля, 09:17

Созвездие цивилизаций. Как происходят их контакты в современном мире

Резюме:Если стремиться к равновесному и многополярному миру, необходимо признание ойкумены как «многоцивилизационной». Именно такой подход превратит цивилизационный диалог не только в неконфликтный, но и взаимообогащающий.

Выбор редакции
02 апреля, 07:38

Ученые рассказали, как работает новый метод борьбы с болезнью Альцгеймера

Британские ученые, опубликовав на днях статью о методах лечения болезней Альцгеймера, Хантингтона и Паркинсона, приводят подробности своих исследований.

Выбор редакции
01 апреля, 19:43

Ученые изобрели новый метод борьбы с болезнью Альцгеймера

Врачи открыли новый метод генной терапии, позволяющий победить болезнь Альцгеймера, а также менее распространенные болезни Хантингтона и Паркинсона.

Выбор редакции
01 апреля, 16:39

Times: новый метод генной терапии поможет врачам победить болезнь Альцгеймера

Данный вид лечения зарекомендовал себя с положительной стороны в борьбе с менее распространенными болезнями Паркинсона и Хантингтона

Выбор редакции
01 апреля, 00:59

Фундаментальные законы информационной безопасности

Все мы знаем о фундаментальных законах физики, открытые Ньютоном и Галилеем. Наверное хотя бы немного со школьных парт слышали об аксиоматике Евклида. Кто решил хотя бы приблизиться к положению homo universalis, (хотя в наш XXI век это весьма непросто) наверное что-то слышал о законах Данилевского, Тойнби и/или Сэмюэла Хантингтона... А что с Информационной Безопасностью? Есть ли у нас, ИБ-шников свои фундаментальные законы? Да — есть! И в этой статье о них пойдет речь. Дальше читать

26 марта, 12:40

Видео драки сторонников и противников Трампа появилось в сети

В лицо организатору акции в поддержку президента США брызнули из перцового баллончика

26 марта, 12:25

Сторонники и противники Трампа устроили массовую драку в Калифорнии

На юге Калифорнии противники Дональда Трампа распылили слезоточивый газ в лица участников митинга за Трампа. Те набросились на обидчиков с кулаками. В итоге драку разнимала полиция.

26 марта, 10:51

Сторонники и противники Трампа подрались во время митинга

Противники и сторонники президента США Дональда Трампа подрались во время митинга. 26 марта в городе Хантингтон-Бич, штат Калифорния, состоялась демонстрация в поддержку американского лидера.

26 марта, 10:48

В сети появилось видео драки сторонников и противников Трампа

В сети появилось видео с дракой сторонников и противников президента США Дональда Трампа, передает издание Los Angeles Times.Столкновения произошли в городе Хантингтон-Бич, штат Калифорния. Причиной инцидента явилось то, что неизвестный в черной маске распылил содержимое перцового баллончика в лицо организатора акции в поддержку нынешнего президента Соединенных Штатов. После этого началась драка между единомышленниками и противниками Трампа.В результате стычки пострадали два человека. Разогнать толпу удалось лишь полиции, которая арестовала шесть человек, все они оказались из "лагеря" противников президента США, добавляет издание.    

26 марта, 10:41

В Калифорнии подрались сторонники и противники Трампа

В американском городе Хантингтон-Бич мирный митинг сторонников президента США Дональда Трампа перерос в массовую драку с его противниками. Об этом сообщает Los Angeles Times. Когда противники Трампа узнали о том, что его сторонники проводят митинг, они немедленно приехали к месту его проведения, окружили митингующих, после чего один из них напал с газовым баллончиком на женщину. После этого в потасовку ввязались ещё несколько человек. К счастью, полицейские, дежурившие на митинге, смогли быстро разнять дерущихся. Задержано шесть человек.

26 марта, 09:11

Драка противников и сторонников Трампа в Калифорнии. Видео

Потасовку развязал как мужчина в маске, который распылил содержимое перцового баллончика в лицо организатору акции Дженнифер Стерлинг

26 марта, 09:03

В Калифорнии подрались сторонники и противники Трампа

В  Хантингтон-Бич (Калифорния) накануне подрались сторонники и противники президента США Дональда Трампа, передает AP. Спровоцировал столкновения неизвестный в черной маске, который распылил перцовый баллончик в лицо организатора акции в поддержку президента. После этого между единомышленниками и противниками Трампа вспыхнула массовая драка, в которой пострадали два человека. Толпу разогнала полиция, которая задержала шесть человек - все из стана противников президента. Это уже не первый случай стычек между

26 марта, 07:58

Сторонники и противники Трампа подрались в Калифорнии

Стражи порядка задержали несколько человек из-за потасовок, произошедших во время демонстрации сторонников президента США Дональда Трампа в штате Калифорния, пишет Los Angeles Times. Демонстрация в поддержку Трампа проходила в городе Хантингтон-Бич, в ней участвовали около 2 тыс. человек. Рядом с митингующими собралась небольшая группа противников президента США, один из которых распылил в лицо женщине – организатору шествия содержимое перцового баллончика, передает ТАСС. После этого между сторонниками и противниками президента завязалась драка. Полиция разогнала протестующих. Задержаны по меньшей мере три человека, применившие перечный газ, еще несколько демонстрантов арестованы за другие нарушения. Как минимум двое получили ранения. Позже в соцсетях появились видео столкновений. Это уже не первый случай таких стычек между сторонниками и противниками Трампа. Различные столкновения наблюдаются с момента инаугурация президента США. В январе пассажирка самолета, совершавшего перелет из Балтимора в Сиэтл, накинулась на сидевшего рядом мужчину, узнав, что он является сторонником нового президента США Дональда Трампа. В феврале был проведен опрос, результаты которого показали, что итоги президентских выборов в США способствовали ухудшению отношений 40% американцев с кем-либо из родных или друзей.

26 марта, 06:26

Драку сторонников и противников Трампа сняли на видео

Столкновения между сторонниками и противниками президента США Дональда Трампа произошли 25 марта в городе Хантингтон-Бич, штат Калифорния, во время демонстрации с участием двух тысяч его единомышленников. Человек в маске распылил в лицо организатору шествия содержимое перцового баллончика, затем началась драка.