Trump 2025

[obygda]

En Gedi skrev (5 minutter siden):

Vel hvorfor skal andre høre på deg som bare raper ut forbannelser og helt åpenbart ikke har noen nyanser i det du sier ?

Jeg kan støtte Trump i noen saker, men er uenig med han i andre. Så skal du se på hva en person gjør, og ikke hva han sier. Alltid gjør det. Så får vi se om 2 år hvordan ståa er og hva han har fått utrettet. Inntil da tar jeg alt som du her fremstiller som rent hysteri og føleri. Eier du ikke evnen til å se at andre er uenig med deg, og med de følelsene du har inni deg, ja det er noe vi har hatt i alle år med Biden. Men har da ikke forgått i hysteri for det. Trump kan aldri bli en verre president en Biden, det er knapt mulig i den vestlige verden.

Jeg er enig at man ikke skal forhåndsdømme - men så langt har Trump skadet forholdet til Europa. Det er fakta.

Og han bygger videre på å skape splid mellom egne velgere og de som ikke stemte på han. Det er fakta.

Jeg kan ikke se at historikere om 100 år vil fremstille en som skaper slik splid vil bli  omtalt i positive ordelag i etterkant.

 

[JK22]

Rune_says skrev (1 time siden):

Klar analyse av MAGA som rasistisk

Hierarki der kvinner er mindre verdt enn menn, fargede mindre verdt enn hvite og intelligente som herrefolket over de dumme massene

 

Pussig at du nevne det; for den svarte middelklassen er nå under meget stor fare. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-federal-job-cuts-trump-musk-dei-middle-class-rcna191704

When Francine Verdine took a job as a clerk at the Internal Revenue Service in Houston in 1983, it was supposed to be a stopgap until something better came along. She didn’t expect that 42 years later, she would look back on it as the start of a rewarding career that provided growth in various management positions, upward mobility and the opportunity to build a comfortable life for her family. 

“I enjoyed my career,” said Verdine, who retired in 2019. “I had no idea when I started that I could make the money I did by the time I left. It’s sad that many others’ opportunity to have a similar career could be over.”

For decades, the federal government provided both reliable jobs and guardrails to offset systemic racial bias in hiring and promotions, offering an alternative for Black workers who might be overlooked or ignored in the private sector. They played a crucial role in helping Black workers like Verdine join the middle class and thrive. But vast cuts by the Trump administration, led by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, are threatening to close down that once-dependable path to financial stability.

The government, which has about 3 million employees, is the largest employer in the country. At least 75,000 of them accepted buyout offers  and thousands were fired in the last several weeks. Many of the workers fired were either newer hires or told they were let go for subpar performance. 

“The federal workforce was a means to help build Black middle class. It hired Black Americans at a higher rate than private employers,” said Sheria Smith, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents the Education Department employees. 

As a part of his efforts, President Trump is angling to shut down the Department of Education, a move that will have dramatic repercussions around the country. Nearly 30% of Education employees are Black according to a 2024 report by the department.

Smith said 74 workers at the department had been let go so far, 60 of whom are Black. 

At the Department of Health and Human Services, where more than 1,300 new hires were reportedly laid off, 20% of the staff was Black. And at the Department of Veterans Affairs, which recently lost 1,000 employees, 24% are Black.

These numbers illustrate how important government jobs have been and are for Black people, said Marcus Casey, a fellow in the Economic Studies program at the Brookings Institution. He said the administration’s efforts are trying to undermine the gains of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned discrimination on the basis of race and other characteristics, and of affirmative action, which began in the federal government to make the hiring and promoting process more inclusive. 

“Whether it was from the post office, through direct growth of federal agencies, through the military — the government fought against the headwinds associated with the private sector,” said Casey, an affiliated scholar with Brookings’ Future of Middle Class Initiative. 

Many Black people could build careers through the federal government typically because the private sector overlooked them, regardless of their qualifications, he said. “And so, the federal government has been essential to the building of the Black middle class.”

A worker at the Department of Transportation in Washington, D.C, who requested anonymity for fear of being fired, said several workers in his office have been fired for “poor performance.” 

“Morale is so low,” he said. “People who should be there are gone. Everyone is nervous about the next shoe dropping.”

He said he has 16 years on the job and was planning to retire in four. “I wanted to do an even 20, maybe even 25. But I have to be honest with myself now: I don’t think I’m going to make it. Every indicator is that my head will be chopped off sooner or later. How can anyone be productive with that hanging over you?”

Undoing DEI to cut the federal workforce

The president’s sweeping changes began with ending DEI throughout the government, weaponizing it as a “destructive ideology” along the way. Countless jobs have been lost in an area that was created to develop fair hiring opportunities.

“A lot of Black people not only benefited from what they call DEI now, but the original affirmative action programs, and the veteran preferences,” Casey said. “That combination helped a lot of people get a foothold in the civil service.” These efforts, he said, “helped people get middle-class salaries and build middle-class lives with an ecosystem of race-specific businesses around Black communities.” 

Verdine said it’s no secret that the government could be streamlined, but added that the way the administration is going about it is “disheartening.”

“There’s no humanity in what’s happening right now,” she said. “No organization. It’s just chaos and people being hurt.”

Mange av Prosjekt 2025-folkene som ikke har en kristenfascistisk bakgrunn, har dyptliggende rasistiske holdninger. DEI ble fjernet i hensikten om å "bleke" statsbyråkratiet som ofte tar seg av minoritetsamerikanerne som i større grad enn de hvite er avhengig av statlig assistanse. De fargede var et populært valg for militære, byråkrater og statlige organisasjoner fordi disses lojalitet og arbeidsomhet aldri var trukket i tvil, selv om folk stadig kom med rasistiske angrep på dem. 

Blant annet av Trump som indirekte antyder at de fargede har mindre hjerner og er dummere - dette er argumenter hentet fra den rasehygieniske tiden. Et meget stort problem med den hvite befolkningens holdninger mot de fargede lå ikke i hudfarge eller rasefordommer, men på det sosiale feltet med et seiglivet mytologi som bunnet i sosiale relasjonsmønster - det er hvorfor så mange hvite hardnakket hevdet de ikke er rasister, ennå ikke realisere sine holdninger. For de fargede var sosiale urene - de var dumme, lat, voldelig, umoralsk og upålitelig. 

Dette har de hvite amerikanerne fremdeles ikke tatt et oppgjør med. Men de har generelt langt større aksept for DEI enn det Trump og hans gærningene mente, fordi dette på en måte bekreftet disses fordommer ved at de fargede ikke kunne klare seg på egenhånd, en slags "opprettelse" av det rasemessige kastesystemet. De er heller ikke dum, de mange raseopptøyene og skamfølelsen gjort at de forsto at det er bedre å holde ro og opprettholde sitt selvsyn som "gode" mennesker. 

Som nå kan bli tatt fra dem. 

 

[VifteKopp]

En Gedi skrev (27 minutter siden):

Trump kan aldri bli en verre president en Biden, det er knapt mulig i den vestlige verden.

Hva var det Biden gjorde som var så ille?

[JK22]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-nonruling-risks-spiraling-clash-between-trump-and-judges-analyst/ar-AA1zAzTT?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=eb5481d3b4fd4d57b9445cdaeeeb4d38&ei=23

Nå har Roberts sendt TO varselsskudd mot Trump, og begge ganger er budskapet "ta det med ro", hvor Roberts kom med kompromisser som synliggjøre at man ikke vil gå i konflikt med ham, men vil i slutten mene seg tvunget. Det er tegn som tyder på at han har store problemer, for domstolene som kan komme i konflikt med Trump, trues av å splittes mellom lojalister og svikere (trumpister) - og han har tre dommere som ikke er tilregnelig; Thomas, Alito og Gorsuch. Men han i virkeligheten bare utsette det uunngåelig, kjøpe seg tid. 

“The risk from this nonruling is that executive vs. judicial friction will escalate without firm direction from the Supreme Court,” wrote Willick.

But he added, “When conflict does escalate, the court will have kept its powder dry.”

Egentlig hadde Roberts kommet ut for hans selvskapte konsekvenser, han har "møtt seg selv" med en rekke idiotiske avgjørelser og hans uvillighet til å sette hardt mot hardt kan bli hans siste tabbe. Hvis Trump ødela konstitusjonen, vil Roberts risikere å bli den siste høyesterettsjustitiariusen i USAs historie - og dette er et ettermæle som vil være veldig ødeleggende for ham for all evighet.

En dag vil han finne seg selv stående foran en eksklusjonspelotong. 

[AtterEnBruker]

VifteKopp skrev (25 minutter siden):

Hva var det Biden gjorde som var så ille?

Han styrket fagforeningsbevegelsen i USA. Gud bedre, for en skandale! Gi mer makt til arbeiderklassen, lissom. Kjenn deres plass, a!

[En Gedi]

VifteKopp skrev (32 minutter siden):

Hva var det Biden gjorde som var så ille?

Alt han gjorde ! Fra den forferdelige evakueringen fra Afghanistan som kostet mange mennesker live, og etterlatelse av enorme mengder våpen til Taliban, til woke kulturen, og direkte undertrykkelse av sine meningsmotstandere. Hans vanvittige slappe holdning til Russland/Ukraina konflikten der dette har fått skure å gå i over 3 år uten at man har snakket sammen en gang! Slik kan jeg fortsette å ramse opp 100,000 vis av andre ting han ikke har gjort, og det han gjorde som var riv ruskende gal !

Grensekonflikten med Mexico som har kostet USA enormt dyrt der immigranter har flommet inn over grensene der kartellene også styrer dette og tjener enorme penger på det, videre har de brukt anledningen til å fylle opp USA med fentanyl fra Kina.

Ingen under hans administrasjon har gjort noe med det. Og du ser ikke engang noe av dette, og da snakker vi om å leve i to vidt forskjellige "virkeligheter" der du bare har sympati for din helt riv ruskende gale verdensanskuelse.

[liquidsquid]

En Gedi skrev (2 minutter siden):

Alt han gjorde ! Fra den forferdelige evakueringen fra Afghanistan som kostet mange mennesker live, og etterlatelse av enorme mengder våpen til Taliban, til woke kulturen, og direkte undertrykkelse av sine meningsmotstandere. Hans vanvittige slappe holdning til Russland/Ukraina konflikten der dette har fått skure å gå i over 3 år uten at man har snakket sammen en gang! Slik kan jeg fortsette å ramse opp 100,000 vis av andre ting han ikke har gjort, og det han gjorde som var riv ruskende gal !

Grensekonflikten med Mexico som har kostet USA enormt dyrt der immigranter har flommet inn over grensene der kartellene også styrer dette og tjener enorme penger på det, videre har de brukt anledningen til å fylle opp USA med fentanyl fra Kina.

Ingen under hans administrasjon har gjort noe med det. Og du ser ikke engang noe av dette, og da snakker vi om å leve i to vidt forskjellige "virkeligheter" der du bare har sympati for din helt riv ruskende gale verdensanskuelse.

Tror du selv på alt pisset du lirer av deg?

[obygda]

En Gedi skrev (2 minutter siden):

Alt han gjorde ! Fra den forferdelige evakueringen fra Afghanistan som kostet mange mennesker live, og etterlatelse av enorme mengder våpen til Taliban, til woke kulturen, og direkte undertrykkelse av sine meningsmotstandere. Hans vanvittige slappe holdning til Russland/Ukraina konflikten der dette har fått skure å gå i over 3 år uten at man har snakket sammen en gang! Slik kan jeg fortsette å ramse opp 100,000 vis av andre ting han ikke har gjort, og det han gjorde som var riv ruskende gal !

Grensekonflikten med Mexico som har kostet USA enormt dyrt der immigranter har flommet inn over grensene der kartellene også styrer dette og tjener enorme penger på det, videre har de brukt anledningen til å fylle opp USA med fentanyl fra Kina.

Ingen under hans administrasjon har gjort noe med det. Og du ser ikke engang noe av dette, og da snakker vi om å leve i to vidt forskjellige "virkeligheter" der du bare har sympati for din helt riv ruskende gale verdensanskuelse.

Virker jo litt som du har mye undertrykt sinne og skylder på Biden for alt galt i verden. 

[JK22]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-issued-perhaps-his-most-terrifying-executive-order-on-tuesday/ar-AA1zyvj7?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=f53b36a75e93450e9ee3df6069a8fd04&ei=9

Over the past month, many have warned that President Donald Trump is trying to make himself king or dictator. Trump’s defenders wave off such warnings as hysterical hyperbole. The past week has shown that they are very much not.

Indeed, Trump’s own monarchical statements aside, his recent executive orders, notably the one purporting to eliminate the autonomy of federal independent agencies, combined with the actions of the leaders of Trump’s Justice Department are significant steps toward an American dictatorship.

The defining attribute of a dictatorship, as well as of kingship in its ancient and absolute form, is the assertion that law—its making, interpretation, adjudication, and enforcement—is an emanation of the will of one man.

As King James I of England put it in a lively little work he published in 1598 titled The True Law of Free Monarchies, kings emerged:

" - before any estates or ranks of men, before any parliaments were holden, or laws made, and by them was the land distributed, which at first was wholly theirs. And so it follows of necessity that kings were the authors and makers of the laws, and not the laws of the kings - "

Acting on this theory, James ruled without Parliament for long periods, granted dispensations from statutory law for courtiers and confidants, administered the law through special “prerogative courts” in which the rule of decision was derived from the will of the king, and generally conducted himself as an absolute monarch. His son Charles I was even more convinced of his divine right to absolute legal sovereignty, a disposition so resented by the English that in 1642 Parliament took up arms in a civil war that ended with Charles’ execution and Oliver Cromwell’s Commonwealth.

After the monarchy was restored in 1660, British kings and queens ever after acknowledged that statutory law could only be made by the crown and Parliament acting in concert, that such statutes bound the monarch’s official actions, and that the interpretation of law was primarily a function of judges who based their decisions on statutes and precedent, not the will of the monarch.

The next great constitutional upheaval in Britain, the Glorious Revolution of 1688, displaced King James II in favor his daughter Mary and her consort, William of Orange. To gain the throne, they had to accept the English Bill of Rights which, among other things, abolished the royal power to nullify statutory law, either in general or for the benefit of particular people. Parliament also changed the royal coronation oath to require that monarchs swore to govern according to the laws enacted by Parliament and the laws and customs of the realm. That is, each new monarch had to agree that he or she was not the maker of law, but the upholder of laws made by or in concert with the legislature and judges.

Thus, by 1776 the constitutional monarchy of King George III, the monarchy Americans deemed so tyrannical that they rebelled against it, was not democratic because its royal head was selected by heredity rather than election, but it was already fully committed to the rule of law—the fundamental principle that the law is above even the king.

Our founders wanted both popular participation in the choice of rulers—democracy—and the rule of law. They were nonetheless nervous about the risks inherent in pure democracy, particularly the historical phenomenon of the demagogue who manipulated the passions of an ill-informed majority to make himself a monarch beyond the control of law.

For that reason, they designed a government of separate, but mutually checking, branches in which the principal powers of making and interpreting law were conferred on Congress and the judiciary, not the president. And copying their British forebearers, they put into their Constitution the text of an oath to be sworn by the chief executive placing him under the law: “I do solemnly swear … that I will … to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The founders’ fears of dictatorship found a real-world overseas exemplar soon after the Constitution was ratified. In 1799, a Corsican artillery officer named Bonaparte led a coup against the government of post-Revolution France, first making himself dictator (under the title “First Consul”) and later, because in those times the titles and trappings of monarchy legitimated dictatorship, Emperor.

Thus, when Trump quotes Napoleon’s alleged declaration that “he who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” he adopts the view of an undoubted tyrant—and a man despised by our own founders. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to John Adams in 1815, Napoleon was a “Usurper” and “Autocrat” who was possessed of a “tyrannical soul” and a “ravenous thirst for human blood.”

The death of most European monarchies after World War I did not signal the demise of lawless autocracy so much as its translation into the new form of nonhereditary dictatorships, Adolf Hitler’s first among them. A central pillar of Nazism was the Führerprinzip, or “leader principle,” which made Hitler the supreme authority on all questions of law and policy, superior to the legislature, judges, and all civilian and military authority. This was not, of course, a mere theoretical construct—those who denied Hitler’s claim to supreme authority were dismissed, impoverished, imprisoned, tortured, or killed.

We will recognize an American dictator if he openly proclaims that he is superior to the law, does what he pleases regardless of law, and seeks to crush those who seek uphold the rule of law against him.

Which brings us to Trump’s new executive order on “independent agencies.” In the 20th century, Congress recognized that it lacked the in-house expertise to draft statutes of sufficient refinement to address increasingly technical questions raised by modern finance, commerce, and technology. Accordingly, it increasingly enacted statutes that created rules of a fairly high level of generality and delegated responsibility for making more particular legal rules—called “regulations” —to executive branch agencies with expertise in the field. This rulemaking is carried out according to a stringent set of procedures mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act.

In addition, it became clear that Article 3 federal judges lacked both the numbers and the specialized knowledge to adjudicate all the disputes arising under federal regulations. Thus, a new class of jurist—the administrative law judge—was created to preside over regulatory cases in virtually every federal agency. Accordingly, in the U.S., as in virtually all modern states, law is made and interpreted not only by the legislature and the courts, but also by a multitude of executive branch officials applying their own expertise and judgment to the creation, interpretation, and application of administrative law.

Many of the agencies that perform regulatory and adjudicative functions are ordinary Cabinet-level departments, the heads of which are nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and removable at will by the president. However, Congress believed that some governmental functions should be performed by bodies with an extra degree of independence from the personal control of the president. Accordingly, when it created the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and others, it made them “independent agencies” in the sense that, while constitutionally in the executive branch and broadly subject to presidential direction, they are headed by a person or commission whom the president can remove only under stated circumstances.

On Tuesday, Trump issued an executive order which purports to do several things.

First, it purports to abolish the independence of congressionally created independent agencies and subject the heads of all such agencies to performance (and by implication, dismissal) standards set not by Congress but by the White House Office of Management and Budget. This portion of the order is a bald power grab that plainly violates Supreme Court precedent.

Second, the order asserts as to independent agencies the claim Trump has already made about the rest of the executive branch—that he can ignore Congress’ statutory commands about how appropriated money shall be spent. The nonchalance of this declaration reflects Trump’s growing confidence that the Republican Congress will not protest his usurpation of the legislature’s constitutional power of the purse, and thus that the legislative branch already bows before the Führerprinzip.

In addition, the Feb. 18 executive order makes a breathtaking assertion that reaches far beyond independent agencies, declaring that the president (and the attorney general subject to the president’s control) “shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch” and that:

No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General.

In short, Trump is declaring that in all questions of either making law in the form of regulation or interpreting any law whatever—regulatory, statutory, or constitutional—the only executive branch opinion that matters is his.

If Trump opines, for example, that SEC regulations do not bind Elon Musk, then that is the authoritative position of the executive branch, from which no SEC commissioner may dissent.

If he opines that all the procedural protections for immigrants contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act and implementing regulations are no longer operative, his “opinion” is “authoritative” and no employee of the Department of Homeland Security—including presumably its immigration judges—can disagree.

If he opines that regulations governing the oil and gas industry or the discharge of toxic effluents into the water should be amended, or merely reinterpreted, to give special privileges to his campaign contributors, that, too, would be an authoritative declaration from which no dissent would be allowed.

If he decides that the FBI and the Justice Department may legally commence criminal investigations or prosecutions against his “enemies” without any factual basis, then that is the “authoritative interpretation of law for the executive branch.” And, as demonstrated by the forced resignations of multiple Justice Department prosecutors in New York and D.C. in the past week, anyone who disagrees publicly with such patently unethical or illegal “interpretations” of law will be deemed “disloyal,” forced out of government, and possibly investigated themselves.

One can, if willfully blind, ignore as a kind of twisted playfulness Trump’s social media quotations of Napoleon or the White House’s posting of an image of Trump wearing a crown. But there is nothing playful in the content of Trump’s executive orders or the behavior of his thuggish minions at DOJ. Having already subdued Congress, Trump has now openly announced that the Führerprinzip governs the executive branch and that he will crush any honest public servant who dissents.

En veldig god artikkel som oppsummert at Trump aktet å innføre et rent enevoldsregime - som er svært lik det en vil finne i Gaddafis Libya før 2011.

Da Jakob 1. innført et proto-enevoldskongedømme i hans regimetid, hadde det vært en del av en internasjonal tendens hvor renessansekongene som sloss mot aristokratiet i sentralisering av statefunksjonene i overgangen fra kongedømme til stat, valgt to politiske alternativer; forfatningsløsningen som Sverige hadde med et par avbrudd fram til 1917 - eller absoluttsløsningen som i seg selv betyr et enevoldskongedømme. Før dette hadde man et føydalt maktbalanseprinsipp mellom konge og adelskap omkring statefunksjonene som betyr at kongen ikke kunne utøve total makt, bare ha fullmakter knyttet til status og maktutøvelse. Det var dette Jakob 1. mente ved å "sette kongene fri". Jo mer utviklet en stat bli, jo mer komplisert bli det - og i slutten på 1500-tallet hadde statsadministrasjon oppstått, som forutså nye styreprinsipper med ekspertise og et klart kommandohierarki. Det var dermed ikke mulig å unngå en fornyelse, og mens svenskene valgt forfatningsmodellen hadde danskene ventet over et par generasjoner fram til 1660, ved å velge absoluttsmodellen. Selv tyranniske konger i middelalderen kunne ikke trøbbelfritt forbryte seg mot normer og lover uansett hvor stor frihet de var gitt, for disse måtte regjere ved hjelp av lov og må ha folkets aksept for loven. Jakob 1. mente kongen skulle ha full råderett - det gikk galt. 

Veldig galt, alle enevoldskongedømmene fikk en voldelig slutt, sist med de dansk-tyske krigene i 1848-64. Det vist seg at selv om administrasjonen improviseres og man fikk et embetsvesen med stor satsing på meritokratiske prinsipper knyttet til kongens gunst, forbli de interne strukturene spent og utilstrekkelig. Som ved å la huset forfalle mens man sørget for orden på innsiden. Det engelske aristokratiet var dypt delt mellom kongen og parlamentet under de engelske borgerkrigene som så fremvekst av borgerstanden uansett status og yrke, som gjort at forfatningsmodellen ble det eneste alternativet hvor kongen reduseres til et samlingspunkt for rikets stabilitet og kontinuitet. Nesten alle amerikanske grunnlovsfedrene i USA er fra borgerstanden, og generelt opptatt av de borgerlige dydene som disse lagt meget sterk vekt på under utarbeidet av "the bill of Rights", 1789-konstitusjonen og de legale tradisjonene. De var selvsagt naturlige forkjempere for forfatningsmodellen, selv om de var svært skamløst ved å påstå de gjort opprør mot kongen selv om det egentlige var parlamentet i London som var fienden. Kongen var "politimannen" (fangevokter i følge andre). 

Så det Trump har gjort i denne uken er intet mindre enn en konstitusjonsfiendtlig handling som så langt har gått ubemerket, fordi hans presidentordrer måtte først settes i verk, og domstolene har for lengst begynte å handle, mens MAGA holde kongressen ut av tingene. 

Faktisk - om Teddy Roosevelt hadde blitt gjenopplivet og lest Trumps presidentordre - ville han ha ridd med sabel i hånd og fråde i munnen rett til det hvite huset eller Florida, for å drepe "en blivende tyrann". 

[sedsberg]

1 hour ago, iblazeqt said:

Jeg så en reel om EM som har visstnok trodd det var utbetalinger til samme personer flere ganger fordi han så samme personnumneret gå igjen i databasen flere ganger. Det virker som EM ikke vet hva en relasjonsdatabase er for noe, og disse 19åringene virker også å ikke ha helt kontroll (ref sårbarhetene oppdaget på deres egen nettside). Så ikke overrasket over duplikater, regnefeil og allskens finurligheter i deres rapporter. 

Går mye rykter om at Mr. Musk ikke er kodegeniet alle trodde han var. Vi har jo også denne saken:

Spoiler

 

[Mbappe09]

Viser egentlig hvor mye Europa også kan gjøre av skade mot amerikanerne. Trump overvurderer USAs makt.

 

[jallajall]

Musk må stanses!


 

[Mbappe09]

Prakteksempel på idiot velgere som angrer. 
JK22 har helt rett i at stemningen mot Trump er i ferd med å snu.

 

 

[sedsberg]

Verdens rikeste mann bruker andres kredittkort for abbonement? Joda, helt sansynlig!

[Atib Azzad]

1 minute ago, sedsberg said:

Verdens rikeste mann bruker andres kredittkort for abbonement? Joda, helt sansynlig!

Det er ikke ment til å leses seriøst, det er kanskje reellt at han mannen lyver til hun han er gift med.
Men hensikten her er å bruke det for å fleipe bort alvoret i det Musk driver med.

[Mannen med ljåen]

I dag har tyskerne valg, og det er mye misnøye der også. AfD kan få makt. 

Og jeg lurer på hvorfor de styringsdyktige, demokratiske, seriøse partiene ikke lever opp til noen av de adjektivene. Vi vet jo at tysk politikk er gjennomsyret av Putins makt. Men gjelder det alle vestlige land?

[Mbappe09]

Sykt når Polen, som anses å være et av de mest lojale statene ovenfor USA, blir ignorert på denne måten. Det bekrefter at Trump er blitt helt rabiat. 

 

Endret 2 timer siden av Mbappe09

[Snikpellik]

Uavhengig av resultatet i det tyske valget blir det spennende å se Trump-administrasjonens respons.

Hvis AfD gjør det dårlig, eller ikke får makt; kommer Trump, Musk og gjengen til å spre løgner og desinformasjon om valgjuks og lignende?

Hvis AfD gjør et veldig bra valg og kommer til makta, hvordan vil Trump-administrasjonen forholde seg til at et pro-russisk fascistparti har fått makta hos en av sine viktigste allierte? Da vil det ikke være bare republikanerne, Orban og Fico lengre, men også en virkelig regional stormakt som deler mye av den samme politiske ideologien som nå forpester USA.

Endret 2 timer siden av Snikpellik

[ticx]

"Play stupid games win stupid prizes", USA 2025-2028(?)

[SilverShaded]

JK22 skrev (1 time siden):

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-issued-perhaps-his-most-terrifying-executive-order-on-tuesday/ar-AA1zyvj7?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=f53b36a75e93450e9ee3df6069a8fd04&ei=9

Over the past month, many have warned that President Donald Trump is trying to make himself king or dictator. Trump’s defenders wave off such warnings as hysterical hyperbole. The past week has shown that they are very much not.

Indeed, Trump’s own monarchical statements aside, his recent executive orders, notably the one purporting to eliminate the autonomy of federal independent agencies, combined with the actions of the leaders of Trump’s Justice Department are significant steps toward an American dictatorship.

The defining attribute of a dictatorship, as well as of kingship in its ancient and absolute form, is the assertion that law—its making, interpretation, adjudication, and enforcement—is an emanation of the will of one man.

As King James I of England put it in a lively little work he published in 1598 titled The True Law of Free Monarchies, kings emerged:

" - before any estates or ranks of men, before any parliaments were holden, or laws made, and by them was the land distributed, which at first was wholly theirs. And so it follows of necessity that kings were the authors and makers of the laws, and not the laws of the kings - "

Acting on this theory, James ruled without Parliament for long periods, granted dispensations from statutory law for courtiers and confidants, administered the law through special “prerogative courts” in which the rule of decision was derived from the will of the king, and generally conducted himself as an absolute monarch. His son Charles I was even more convinced of his divine right to absolute legal sovereignty, a disposition so resented by the English that in 1642 Parliament took up arms in a civil war that ended with Charles’ execution and Oliver Cromwell’s Commonwealth.

After the monarchy was restored in 1660, British kings and queens ever after acknowledged that statutory law could only be made by the crown and Parliament acting in concert, that such statutes bound the monarch’s official actions, and that the interpretation of law was primarily a function of judges who based their decisions on statutes and precedent, not the will of the monarch.

The next great constitutional upheaval in Britain, the Glorious Revolution of 1688, displaced King James II in favor his daughter Mary and her consort, William of Orange. To gain the throne, they had to accept the English Bill of Rights which, among other things, abolished the royal power to nullify statutory law, either in general or for the benefit of particular people. Parliament also changed the royal coronation oath to require that monarchs swore to govern according to the laws enacted by Parliament and the laws and customs of the realm. That is, each new monarch had to agree that he or she was not the maker of law, but the upholder of laws made by or in concert with the legislature and judges.

Thus, by 1776 the constitutional monarchy of King George III, the monarchy Americans deemed so tyrannical that they rebelled against it, was not democratic because its royal head was selected by heredity rather than election, but it was already fully committed to the rule of law—the fundamental principle that the law is above even the king.

Our founders wanted both popular participation in the choice of rulers—democracy—and the rule of law. They were nonetheless nervous about the risks inherent in pure democracy, particularly the historical phenomenon of the demagogue who manipulated the passions of an ill-informed majority to make himself a monarch beyond the control of law.

For that reason, they designed a government of separate, but mutually checking, branches in which the principal powers of making and interpreting law were conferred on Congress and the judiciary, not the president. And copying their British forebearers, they put into their Constitution the text of an oath to be sworn by the chief executive placing him under the law: “I do solemnly swear … that I will … to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The founders’ fears of dictatorship found a real-world overseas exemplar soon after the Constitution was ratified. In 1799, a Corsican artillery officer named Bonaparte led a coup against the government of post-Revolution France, first making himself dictator (under the title “First Consul”) and later, because in those times the titles and trappings of monarchy legitimated dictatorship, Emperor.

Thus, when Trump quotes Napoleon’s alleged declaration that “he who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” he adopts the view of an undoubted tyrant—and a man despised by our own founders. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to John Adams in 1815, Napoleon was a “Usurper” and “Autocrat” who was possessed of a “tyrannical soul” and a “ravenous thirst for human blood.”

The death of most European monarchies after World War I did not signal the demise of lawless autocracy so much as its translation into the new form of nonhereditary dictatorships, Adolf Hitler’s first among them. A central pillar of Nazism was the Führerprinzip, or “leader principle,” which made Hitler the supreme authority on all questions of law and policy, superior to the legislature, judges, and all civilian and military authority. This was not, of course, a mere theoretical construct—those who denied Hitler’s claim to supreme authority were dismissed, impoverished, imprisoned, tortured, or killed.

We will recognize an American dictator if he openly proclaims that he is superior to the law, does what he pleases regardless of law, and seeks to crush those who seek uphold the rule of law against him.

Which brings us to Trump’s new executive order on “independent agencies.” In the 20th century, Congress recognized that it lacked the in-house expertise to draft statutes of sufficient refinement to address increasingly technical questions raised by modern finance, commerce, and technology. Accordingly, it increasingly enacted statutes that created rules of a fairly high level of generality and delegated responsibility for making more particular legal rules—called “regulations” —to executive branch agencies with expertise in the field. This rulemaking is carried out according to a stringent set of procedures mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act.

In addition, it became clear that Article 3 federal judges lacked both the numbers and the specialized knowledge to adjudicate all the disputes arising under federal regulations. Thus, a new class of jurist—the administrative law judge—was created to preside over regulatory cases in virtually every federal agency. Accordingly, in the U.S., as in virtually all modern states, law is made and interpreted not only by the legislature and the courts, but also by a multitude of executive branch officials applying their own expertise and judgment to the creation, interpretation, and application of administrative law.

Many of the agencies that perform regulatory and adjudicative functions are ordinary Cabinet-level departments, the heads of which are nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and removable at will by the president. However, Congress believed that some governmental functions should be performed by bodies with an extra degree of independence from the personal control of the president. Accordingly, when it created the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and others, it made them “independent agencies” in the sense that, while constitutionally in the executive branch and broadly subject to presidential direction, they are headed by a person or commission whom the president can remove only under stated circumstances.

On Tuesday, Trump issued an executive order which purports to do several things.

First, it purports to abolish the independence of congressionally created independent agencies and subject the heads of all such agencies to performance (and by implication, dismissal) standards set not by Congress but by the White House Office of Management and Budget. This portion of the order is a bald power grab that plainly violates Supreme Court precedent.

Second, the order asserts as to independent agencies the claim Trump has already made about the rest of the executive branch—that he can ignore Congress’ statutory commands about how appropriated money shall be spent. The nonchalance of this declaration reflects Trump’s growing confidence that the Republican Congress will not protest his usurpation of the legislature’s constitutional power of the purse, and thus that the legislative branch already bows before the Führerprinzip.

In addition, the Feb. 18 executive order makes a breathtaking assertion that reaches far beyond independent agencies, declaring that the president (and the attorney general subject to the president’s control) “shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch” and that:

No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General.

In short, Trump is declaring that in all questions of either making law in the form of regulation or interpreting any law whatever—regulatory, statutory, or constitutional—the only executive branch opinion that matters is his.

If Trump opines, for example, that SEC regulations do not bind Elon Musk, then that is the authoritative position of the executive branch, from which no SEC commissioner may dissent.

If he opines that all the procedural protections for immigrants contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act and implementing regulations are no longer operative, his “opinion” is “authoritative” and no employee of the Department of Homeland Security—including presumably its immigration judges—can disagree.

If he opines that regulations governing the oil and gas industry or the discharge of toxic effluents into the water should be amended, or merely reinterpreted, to give special privileges to his campaign contributors, that, too, would be an authoritative declaration from which no dissent would be allowed.

If he decides that the FBI and the Justice Department may legally commence criminal investigations or prosecutions against his “enemies” without any factual basis, then that is the “authoritative interpretation of law for the executive branch.” And, as demonstrated by the forced resignations of multiple Justice Department prosecutors in New York and D.C. in the past week, anyone who disagrees publicly with such patently unethical or illegal “interpretations” of law will be deemed “disloyal,” forced out of government, and possibly investigated themselves.

One can, if willfully blind, ignore as a kind of twisted playfulness Trump’s social media quotations of Napoleon or the White House’s posting of an image of Trump wearing a crown. But there is nothing playful in the content of Trump’s executive orders or the behavior of his thuggish minions at DOJ. Having already subdued Congress, Trump has now openly announced that the Führerprinzip governs the executive branch and that he will crush any honest public servant who dissents.

En veldig god artikkel som oppsummert at Trump aktet å innføre et rent enevoldsregime - som er svært lik det en vil finne i Gaddafis Libya før 2011.

Da Jakob 1. innført et proto-enevoldskongedømme i hans regimetid, hadde det vært en del av en internasjonal tendens hvor renessansekongene som sloss mot aristokratiet i sentralisering av statefunksjonene i overgangen fra kongedømme til stat, valgt to politiske alternativer; forfatningsløsningen som Sverige hadde med et par avbrudd fram til 1917 - eller absoluttsløsningen som i seg selv betyr et enevoldskongedømme. Før dette hadde man et føydalt maktbalanseprinsipp mellom konge og adelskap omkring statefunksjonene som betyr at kongen ikke kunne utøve total makt, bare ha fullmakter knyttet til status og maktutøvelse. Det var dette Jakob 1. mente ved å "sette kongene fri". Jo mer utviklet en stat bli, jo mer komplisert bli det - og i slutten på 1500-tallet hadde statsadministrasjon oppstått, som forutså nye styreprinsipper med ekspertise og et klart kommandohierarki. Det var dermed ikke mulig å unngå en fornyelse, og mens svenskene valgt forfatningsmodellen hadde danskene ventet over et par generasjoner fram til 1660, ved å velge absoluttsmodellen. Selv tyranniske konger i middelalderen kunne ikke trøbbelfritt forbryte seg mot normer og lover uansett hvor stor frihet de var gitt, for disse måtte regjere ved hjelp av lov og må ha folkets aksept for loven. Jakob 1. mente kongen skulle ha full råderett - det gikk galt. 

Veldig galt, alle enevoldskongedømmene fikk en voldelig slutt, sist med de dansk-tyske krigene i 1848-64. Det vist seg at selv om administrasjonen improviseres og man fikk et embetsvesen med stor satsing på meritokratiske prinsipper knyttet til kongens gunst, forbli de interne strukturene spent og utilstrekkelig. Som ved å la huset forfalle mens man sørget for orden på innsiden. Det engelske aristokratiet var dypt delt mellom kongen og parlamentet under de engelske borgerkrigene som så fremvekst av borgerstanden uansett status og yrke, som gjort at forfatningsmodellen ble det eneste alternativet hvor kongen reduseres til et samlingspunkt for rikets stabilitet og kontinuitet. Nesten alle amerikanske grunnlovsfedrene i USA er fra borgerstanden, og generelt opptatt av de borgerlige dydene som disse lagt meget sterk vekt på under utarbeidet av "the bill of Rights", 1789-konstitusjonen og de legale tradisjonene. De var selvsagt naturlige forkjempere for forfatningsmodellen, selv om de var svært skamløst ved å påstå de gjort opprør mot kongen selv om det egentlige var parlamentet i London som var fienden. Kongen var "politimannen" (fangevokter i følge andre). 

Så det Trump har gjort i denne uken er intet mindre enn en konstitusjonsfiendtlig handling som så langt har gått ubemerket, fordi hans presidentordrer måtte først settes i verk, og domstolene har for lengst begynte å handle, mens MAGA holde kongressen ut av tingene. 

Faktisk - om Teddy Roosevelt hadde blitt gjenopplivet og lest Trumps presidentordre - ville han ha ridd med sabel i hånd og fråde i munnen rett til det hvite huset eller Florida, for å drepe "en blivende tyrann". 

Dette er akkurat det jeg har tatt opp to ganger. Ingen, hverken i USA eller her i forumet, ser ut til å ha forstått alvoret i denne EO fra 18/2...man møtes bare av "jamen..jamen..jamen..". Her i JK22 sin post er det mye bedre forklart enn hva jeg har klart å gjøre, og det viser den faktiske makten Trump har gitt seg selv her. I praksis er han nå allmektig.