Trump 2025

[Rune_says]

FrihetensRegn skrev (1 time siden):

Det var ikke snakk om abort, det var snakk om at en person ble arrestert for å be for sin sønn som ble drept på en abortklinikk...

Litt dødfødt å be for noe som skjedde for 22 år siden og vi får anta at moren hadde sine tanker som du ikke kjenner og som ikke er mindre verdifulle selv om hun er kvinne. 

Videre var det i repterende hensikt å bryte en lov.  Og hvordan vet vi hvem han ba til?  Kan like gjerne være Satan for det vi vet. Ingen kan lese tanker. 

[Rhabagatz]

8 minutes ago, jallajall said:

Hva er utviklingen i denne saken egentlig?

At han ligger an til å vinne valget hvis han ikke nektes å delta.

[Rhabagatz]

Når det gjelder Trump og Mexico, så truet Mexicos president med å gå etter amerikanske produsenter på grunn av smuglingen av våpen fra USA.

Det er et reelt problem at narkotikartellene har blitt bevæpnet med våpen som er smuglet inn, og det setter et nytt lys på hele smuglingsproblematikken.

[JK22]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/an-extreme-rupture-shock-over-radical-republican-legal-theory-ignites-debate/ar-AA1z6SVx?ocid=BingNewsSerp&cvid=ea9c84575b794666924e66e659654c9b&ei=29

But Trump's critics — a combination of Democrats, legal scholars and Never Trump conservatives— are countering that in fact, the U.S. Constitution doesn't give the executive branch nearly as much power as he is claiming. The Constitution, according to those critics, provides a system of checks and balances that gives the government's judicial and legislative branches every right to push back against a sitting president.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/we-re-going-to-see-some-republican-on-republican-violence-nyt-congressional-reporter/ar-AA1z6Z0r?ocid=BingNewsSerp&cvid=87453162c5c74575a0c8d6cd09f2a6ad&ei=7

The battle for the next budget bill is being entirely played out among Republicans with three factions trying to get the upper hand and it will not end well for the Republican Party.

That is the opinion of New York Times congressional reporter Luke Broadwater who told the hosts of MSNBC's "The Weekend," he expects war will break out between the multiple factions within the House GOP caucus.

GOP-partiet kan sprekke for godt fordi det trenges et budsjett for å unngå en demokratiskstyrt nedstengning av staten i mars, som må kunne vedtas, men republikanerne er kastet ut i kaos pga. Trump.

"You have the Freedom Caucus at the same time insisting on these $2 trillion in cuts and the president wants his big tax cuts, $4.5 trillion."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-move-to-impeach-judges-who-blocked-trump/ar-AA1z86hB?ocid=BingNewsSerp&cvid=87453162c5c74575a0c8d6cd09f2a6ad&ei=10

Driving the news: Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) is working on articles of impeachment against U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who ordered the administration to lift its federal spending freeze, Clyde's office confirmed to Axios.

In a post on X this week, Clyde called McConnell a "partisan activist weaponizing our judicial system to stop President Trump's funding freeze on woke and wasteful government spending."

Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) has said he plans to introduce articles of impeachment against District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer, who blocked DOGE from accessing Treasury records, on similar grounds.

The Rhode Island and New York Southern District Courts — McConnell's and Engelmayer's venues, respectively — did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Between the lines: Clyde and Crane would need majorities in the House to impeach the two judges and and two-thirds majorities in the Senate to convict them. There are only 53 Senate Republicans.

Det er lite trolig at det vil komme gjennom, men dette er svært illevarslende, med mindre McConnell og andre republikanere går ut og gjort det meget klart at de to speakerne for huset og senatet må slå ned den slags, vil Trump oppfatter som et godkjenningstegn for å ignorere domstoler og eventuelt tar de føderale dommere i arrest "i folkets navn". 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/truly-dystopian-critics-fear-new-trump-education-directive/ar-AA1z9obu?ocid=BingNewsSerp&cvid=dcc997fb79984cdd96d1c3a2fd0c8b1e&ei=14

Lawmakers and free expression groups voiced alarm Saturday after the Trump administration threatened to investigate and strip federal funding from public schools, including colleges and universities that don't comply with its broad interpretation of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action programs in admissions.

Brian Rosenberg, visiting professor of education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, toldInside Higher Ed that the letter was "truly dystopian."

"It goes well beyond the Supreme Court ruling on admissions and declares illegal a wide range of common practices," Rosenberg said. "In my career I've never seen language of this kind from any government agency in the United States."

"Republicans tell you they want to empower local communities and that states, schools, and parents know best, and again and again use top-down threats to achieve their culture war agenda."

Ikke bare vil Trump ødelegge DoE, han vil også ødelegge undervisningsrettslinjer som er essensielt for den voksende generasjonen som skal lære om USA - ut fra hva som er sett annetsteds omkring DEI, er det tydelig at man vil gjør rasisme stuerent og fremme gamle ideer fra rasehygienens tid. 

"I hope no parent, student, or teacher is intimidated by these threats—this former preschool teacher certainly is not," said Murray. " While it's anyone's guess what falls under the Trump administration's definition of 'DEI,' there is simply no authority or basis for Trump to impose such a mandate. In fact, federal laws prohibit ANY president from telling schools and colleges what to teach, including the Every Student Succeeds Act, that I negotiated with Republicans."

"Rather than trying to make college more affordable or helping to improve our kids' outcomes, Trump is letting far-right extremists inject politics into the classroom at every turn," Murray added. "Republicans tell you they want to empower local communities and that states, schools, and parents know best, and again and again use top-down threats to achieve their culture war agenda."

Det er ikke bare Trump, i flere republikanske delstater er det sett liknende inngrep, selv om det skjer i strid med foreldrenes ønsker og lokalsamfunnenes interesser. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/study-americans-vastly-underestimate-public-support-for-diversity-and-inclusion/ar-AA1z9kuk?ocid=BingNewsSerp&cvid=40a8c56ed7484c588a5d1112f53fd714&ei=19

Det kan lede til en eksplosiv generasjonskonflikt som i 1968 fordi det er bred aksept for DEI - en studie avslørt at alle hadde feilvurdert de faktiske forholdene fordi det vist seg at jo mer offentlighet man få, jo mer kan man dominere folkeoversikten og dermed forlede alle uansett hvilken side man er på. Ekstrem støy, skriking, propaganda, ignoranse og sterk aktivisme av anti-DEI folk som kom fra de samme rekkene som disse bak "Falsk Konservatisme" hadde skapt en falskhet som kan eksplodere for alvor, når spenningene fra under vil bli for stor. Det vist også at store deler av hvite har improviseringsevne så snart de bli kjent med de underliggende tendenser av sine holdninger - mange er rasister uten å være det med deres væremåte og tankemåte, de bare trengte å se sine egne oppførsel. 

“It seems that those with favorable attitudes toward diversity have not succeeded in communicating to the wider public their commitment to inclusion and their support for pro-diversity initiatives,” the researchers concluded. “The individuals with less favorable attitudes—a numerical minority—not only are the most pluralistically ignorant, but they also seem to be more vocal and thus have a disproportionate influence on Americans’ perceptions of their fellow citizens’ attitudes.”

Kanskje det ikke er så rart at man har dårlig tid på seg for å avskaffe demokratiet, DEI var i ferd med å bar frukter for det amerikanske samfunnet, disse som skulle plukke ned fruktene holdes bort utenfor synsvidde av folk som tar fordel av ignoransen og likegyldigheten. Men da betyr det også at det er et stort flertall i det amerikanske folket som kan vende seg mot Trump og MAGA med ukontrollert raseri. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/is-it-time-for-america-s-judges-to-go-on-strike/ar-AA1z6R7z?ocid=BingNewsSerp&cvid=103806eac33a4aee8e5564ec9bcfa2f9&ei=45

Now that multiple court orders are blocking executive actions by the new administration, the Vice President has openly suggested that the executive branch may simply ignore them. That statement risks a constitutional crisis because it challenges a bedrock principle of separation of powers: the holding of 1803's Marbury v. Madison that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

For over two centuries, Marbury and the concept of judicial review have ensured that no politicians or agency administrators—no matter how powerful—can place themselves above the law.  While compliance with court orders has at times been grudging, the President and Congress have consistently respected Marbury in the end because it is part of the glue that holds the Constitution together.

If the Trump Administration is willing to test whether judicial authority can be ignored, how can the courts respond? So far, responses have been  rhetoric from the Chief Justice, talk of civil-contempt fines (which a defiant executive could refuse to pay), and speculation about contempt charges for agency officials (whom a defiant executive could pardon). The judiciary’s usual tools for forcing compliance with court orders could easily be ineffective if the entire executive branch refuses to comply. 

But identifying that problem — that remedies designed to enforce orders in a specific case don’t work well against a concerted effort to ignore orders in many cases — suggests a potential solution. In other contexts, courts identify the party as the problem rather than the order immediately at hand — for example, a “jailhouse lawyer” serving a life sentence in prison who endlessly files frivolous lawsuits.  A body of law has developed about “vexatious litigants” whose filings are simply dismissed out of hand unless they allege an imminent risk of serious harm. 

What if the judiciary treated the federal government itself as a vexatious litigant? Imagine courts refusing to hear broad categories of cases where the United States is a party until the executive branch obeys court orders. The agencies and departments that make up the federal government rely heavily on the courts to enforce contracts, prosecute criminal cases, and otherwise resolve a sprawling range of disputes about the operation of government. . A refusal to entertain some — or most — cases from an Administration that disrespects judicial authority would be a drastic but forceful step—and far more effective than imposing fines that will likely not be paid. 

Problemet med denne ideen er at dommerstanden har blitt kompromittert i lang tid av partilojale og falske dommere som plantes gjennom politiske nominering i domstolene, i eldre tid var korrupte dommerne et stort problem, men disse var knapt opptatt av politikk fordi disse vet at deres makt lå i lovverkets uangripelige natur, som de må ikke sette i seriøs risiko under enhver tidspunkt. Men i det siste har det vært sett dommere som brøt forskrifter, tilsidesatt lover og skape ikke-eksisterende fullmakter som da Trump fikk immunitet. En streik kan ende med at de lojale dommerne vil bli fjernet til fordel for et fåtall rebelldommere som sverge deres lojalitet mot parti og mann fremfor lovverket, dermed forankre deres makt i maktutøvelsen fremfor i lovverket. 

Trolig er det dette som gjør at høyesteretten så langt ligger meget lavt, de frykter et sammenbrudd. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/opinion-democrats-don-t-need-their-own-trump-they-need-their-own-teddy-roosevelt/ar-AA1z7PDP?ocid=BingNewsSerp&cvid=444658b0471a49a086aa52cbc1e1b015&ei=30

Hva USA trenger mest av alt er en mann med sterk integritetsstyrke, politisk kløkt, instinktiv hardhendthet og sterk kunnskap - en mann som Teddy Roosevelt, som hadde vært en idol i hans tid som president, ikke minst fordi hans fryktløshet, taleevner og ferdigheter hadde gjort ham til en av de største politikere i USAs historie. Selv om han hadde alvorlige personlighetsbrister, var en imperialist av rang og var for brautende for folk flest, som foretrukket hans etterfølgeren, "musa" Taft. Han avsluttet hans politiske karriere som en umåtelig bråkmaker som ved vanvare tillatt en rasist komme til det hvite huset - Wilson, som senere forkynte nasjonal selvbestemmelse. 

* The first was attacking corruption in your own party

* The second is not being afraid to be progressive.

* The third and last thing Democrats need to learn is how to use the bully pulpit.

I altfor lang tid hadde demokratene problemer med å finne en leder som er villig til å slåss med knyttnever, de trenger en "bølle" som allikevel burde være en mann av ære og integritet - det striks motsatte av Trump - Teddy er verdensberømt for hans setning "snakk myk og bære en stor kjeppe". 

Liberals loved Roosevelt because he fought for the poor and reformed the government. Conservatives love him for his patriotism and for espousing law and order and civic responsibility. Liberals also hated him because of his imperialism and nationalism. Conservatives hated him because he was anti-business and he set up the foundation for the welfare state.

Teddy var en president for det amerikanske folket, hans verk da han hadde embetet, var for folket med hans kunnskap, integritet og besluttsomhet i sin kamp for å gi folk et bedre hverdagsliv og en lovende fremtid. Han slåss med all sitt vesen og det er det som gjort ham til en av de største presidenter i historien. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trump-says-value-added-taxes-will-be-considered-tariffs-what-to-know-about-his-reciprocal-tariff-plan-and-its-inflation-impact/ar-AA1yQ0Ai?ocid=BingNewsSerp&cvid=a2230d6f3a0948fe97336f94a08efc6f&ei=69

Dette er så syk som det bare kunne ha blitt, for MVA er om alle varer uansett opprinnelse innenfor et lands marked. I Norge er det 25 %, og det kom ikke på tale i det hele tatt fordi statsfinansene trenger denne inntektskilden, intet land har noensinne toll mot et annet lands MVA i det hele tatt! 

“Very simply, it's if they charge us, we charge them," Trump summarized Sunday about what the policy looks like. Reciprocal tariffs are indeed straightforward in theory: The U.S. would pose the same levies on imported goods from a given country that the other country imposes on their U.S. imports. But it gets far murkier in practice, as countries often charge different tariffs on different classes of goods, and the taxes charged can often take several different forms. Goldman Sachs economists Alec Phillips and Elsie Peng outlined three approaches Trump could take in a Tuesday note to clients. “Country-level reciprocity” is the “simplest” strategy which would have the U.S. impose the same average tariffs trading partners slap on U.S. goods, according to the economists. “Product-level reciprocity by country” would have the U.S. place marching tariffs on a good-by-good basis by trading partner." Reciprocity including non-tariff barriers” is the “most difficult” approach as it would encompass a complicated web of inputs including inspection fees and value-added taxes.

Den siste "reciprocity" som vil ramme HELE VERDEN er i klar strid med internasjonal praksis - og i realiteten ekstraterritorial maktinngrep fordi det betyr da at et land aktet å fjerne et annet lands avgifter og skatteform som absolutt intet land skal legge seg borti. 

Gjennomsnittlig sett er det 1,5 % på all varer uansett type og opprinnelse i USA som er underlagt toll, her vil Trump øke det til 4,8 % - og hvis han skulle åpne for økt toll mot land som har VAT/MVA praksis kan det stige helt opp til 25 % eller mer avhengig av hvilken land det er snakk om. 

[jallajall]

21 minutes ago, jjkoggan said:

Utviklingen er at Vance promoterer den russiske versjonen av saken 

Som er?

18 minutes ago, Rhabagatz said:

At han ligger an til å vinne valget hvis han ikke nektes å delta.

Ja det er vistnok mye styr frem og tilbake der.

Endret søndag kl 15:26 av jallajall

[JK22]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/donald-trump-has-become-master-of-the-us-senate/ar-AA1z9777?ocid=BingNewsSerp&cvid=0bccb2414acc43e199c138f06334803e&ei=48

First, before Elon Musk came for everyone, Donald Trump came for the US Senate. When he returned to office, the House of Representatives was already under his heel. Many of the House Republican leaders had been his sidekicks during January 6, and one, Mike Johnson, had since become the speaker. The Senate, however, still retained, for the most part, its club-like atmosphere where the members considered themselves powers unto themselves. Senators with a toga complex have always looked down on House members as rabble. Trump viewed the independent character of the upper body as a thorn in his side. The subservience of the House of Representatives was the model that Trump envisioned for the Senate. It could no longer pretend to be the greatest deliberative body of legislators in the world, but a vassal fiefdom subject to his whims.

Trump’s opportunity to crush the Senate appeared at once. As soon as he made his nominations for his cabinet, the Senate would hold confirmation hearings. His misfit nominees gave him his chance. In any previous time, just a tincture of the alcoholism, serial sexual abuse, playing footsie with a Russian-backed despot, hawking of snake oil, doodling enemies lists and bilking non-profit organizations, quite apart from plain incompetence, would have been enough to knock them out before they ever approached a seat in a hearing room.

The senator John Tower, of Texas, very much a member of the club of his day, but a drunken sexual harasser of the old school, groping in elevators, was exposed when George HW Bush nominated him as secretary of defense, and dropped out. But shame in the Trump orbit is as antiquated a notion as virtue.

The patent unfitness of Trump’s nominees put the senators on the spot. It was the senators, not the obviously disqualified nominees, who had to pass the test. They were not the ones sitting in judgment; they were in Trump’s dock. If Trump could break the lords of the Senate over his cabinet of curiosities, he could reduce them to being his serfs. By transforming their duty to advise and consent into shut up and obey, Trump would trample more than unstated norms. He would be obliterating a constitutional responsibility of the Senate and removing a further check and balance on his power.

Subverting the institution was not an abstract exercise. If individual senators looked like they might stand in the way, it was not enough that they be defeated on a roll-call vote. They had to be personally violated. The part of themselves that they held to be at their core both as public officials and private persons had to be soiled. They had to be made examples before the others. Their humiliation had to be performed as a public demonstration. By voting in favor of nominees they knew in their bones should never be approved, whose disqualifications crossed the senators’ deepest principles, their intimidation made them Trump’s subjects. Once the method of defilement was established, it would be applied again and again. It would loom as an ever-present threat over any others’ wavering. Trump’s degradation would be sufficient to cow the rest. But he would not stop. After the first victim, then there was the next, and the next, one after another, until Trump was the master of the Senate. Trump began with one senator whose vulnerability he could twist to make her writhe.

That senator was Joni Ernst, of Iowa.

After attending Iowa State University, where she joined ROTC, Ernst enlisted in the army, served during the Iraq war in Kuwait in charge of a transport unit, and attained the rank of lieutenant colonel. Running for the US Senate in 2014, she said she had been sexually harassed in the military and pledged that, if elected, she would make independent investigation and prosecution of sexual crimes her signature issue.

Once she entered the Senate, Ernst was for the most part a down-the-line conservative Republican, yet was also among the few Republicans who consistently sponsored and voted for bills to protect victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, especially focusing on women in the military.

When Ernst divorced in 2019, her painful story of emotional and physical abuse became public – her husband’s dalliance with a babysitter, his long-term affair with a mistress and, after she confronted him, how he suddenly “grabbed me by the throat with his hands and threw me on the landing floor. And then he pounded my head.” Her husband responded by accusing her of having an affair herself, which she said was a “lie”. She also revealed at that time that she had been raped as a college student, reported it to the counseling service, but chose not to go to the police, and had kept it a secret. “I couldn’t stomach the idea that my rape would become public knowledge,” she wrote in a memoir published in 2020. “I was sure my boyfriend would find a way to blame me.”

Ernst’s divorce complaint disclosed for the first time that she had turned down candidate Donald Trump’s offer to be his vice-presidential running mate in the 2016 campaign. She attributed her refusal as vaguely not being “the right thing for me or my family”. It is uncertain whether Trump ever made the actual offer. He took Mike Pence, who was pressed on him by his campaign manager Paul Manafort to represent the evangelical right.

When Trump nominated Pete Hegseth to be secretary of defense, stories instantly surfaced that the Fox News weekend host had been accused of rape, paid hush money, had a history of sexual abuse in two of his marriages, impregnated a girlfriend and was a raging alcoholic who drank on the job. He also opposed women serving in combat roles in the military, as Ernst had.

“I am a survivor of sexual assault,” Ernst said in her initial response to Hegseth’s nomination. She insisted that she wanted “to make sure that any allegations have been cleared, and that’s why we have to have a very thorough vetting process”.

But the “vetting process” was warped. Witnesses were hesitant to come forward, afraid they would be subject to the reign of terror that Christine Blasey Ford endured when she publicly testified in Brett Kavanaugh’s hearing to be on the supreme court he had sexually assaulted her. But the woman who claimed that Hegseth had raped her was willing to speak privately with Ernst. So were two other witnesses, both female soldiers who would also talk to her in private about his drunkenness and sexual harassment.

Ernst was then subjected to waves of “Maga” attacks. Facing re-election in 2026, she was threatened with a primary challenge from a local rightwing talkshow host, Steve Dease, who posted: “Joni Ernst sucked as a Senator long before this … I am willing to primary her for the good of the cause.” Elon Musk forked over a half-million dollars to blast ads that wallpapered Iowa TV, hailing Hegseth as a “patriot” and “warrior”, and warning that the “deep state” (ie Ernst) opposed him. Donald Trump Jr unleashed a storm on social media against Ernst, saying that if any senator criticized Hegseth, “maybe you’re in the wrong political party!” An online squadron of winged monkeys swarmed her. The phrase “She’s a Democrat” trended.

Ernst succumbed to the smear campaign. She refused to meet with the alleged rape victim, according to a report by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker. She also would not see the other women with first-hand accounts. Ernst hid. The witnesses, however, told their stories to Senator Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat of Illinois and a combat veteran who lost both of her legs. From her isolation, Ernst finally released an announcement that she would support Hegseth. Duckworth said that Ernst and other Republican senators had refused to put “the national security of America over their own political survival”.

Then came the turn of Thom Tillis, the senator of North Carolina. He, too, was wary of Hegseth. He heard first-hand from a witness about his drunken behavior. Tillis told Hegseth’s former sister-in-law that if she provided an affidavit about Hegseth’s abuse, he would vote against him. So, she came forward despite the slings and arrows of the Trump mob. The evening before the vote, Tillis quietly told the Republican leader John Thune he would oppose Hegseth. Tillis spoke with both JD Vance and Trump. Unlike Ernst, none of his drama was conducted in public. When the time came to vote, Tillis, who faces a tough re-election in 2026, voted “yes”. Tillis turned on a dime.

Then they came for Bill Cassidy, the senator of Louisiana. Cassidy is a physician who has devoted much of his career to public health and educating people about the importance of vaccinations. He was the decisive vote on the Senate finance committee on the nomination of Robert F Kennedy Jr to become secretary of health and human services, the leading vaccine skeptic who has made millions off his crank conspiracy theories and whose cousin, Caroline Kennedy, called him “a predator”.

Cassidy attempted to coax Kennedy into committing to the scientific truth that vaccines work.

“I’m a doc, trying to understand,” Cassidy said. “Convince me that you will become the public health advocate, but not just churn the old information so that there’s never a conclusion.” No matter how many times he tried, Kennedy would not give him a straight answer.

Cassidy was already vulnerable. He had voted to impeach Trump after the January 6 insurrection. A far-right primary opponent, the representative Clay Higgins, was preparing to run against him. After Cassidy’s questioning of Kennedy, the winged monkeys descended on him. And Higgins posted on X: “So, vote your conscience Senator, or don’t. Either way, We’re watching.” Cassidy replied with a biblical quotation: “Joshua said to them: ‘Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Be strong and courageous. This is what the LORD will do to all the enemies you are going to fight.” But when the vote came, Cassidy crumpled. 

They came for Todd Young, the senator of Indiana. He is something of Hoosier Republican royalty, married to the niece of former vice-president Dan Quayle. Young was poised as the decisive vote on the Senate intelligence committee on the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be the director of national intelligence. In addition to “parroting false Russian propaganda”, as the former senator Mitt Romney put it, and visiting Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad, whom she declared was not a “torturer” and “murderer”, she had urged a pardon for “brave” Edward Snowden, who stole massive amounts of data from the National Security Agency and absconded to Russia. When Young asked her whether Snowden had “betrayed the American people”, she acknowledged he had broken the law, but would not go beyond that formulation. Young appeared edgy about her nomination.

“Todd Young is a deep state puppet,” posted Elon Musk. His ears had pricked up when he had learned that Young was on the board of directors of the National Endowment for Democracy, created by Ronald Reagan and funded through USAid to promote the rule of law and democracy around the world. Musk tweeted that the NED was “an evil organization [that] needs to be dissolved”. The Trump X mob swarmed. Besieged, Young spoke with JD Vance. The US vice-president arranged a call with Musk. Young announced he would back Gabbard. The noise disappeared.

The novel Advise and Consent, by a Washington reporter, Allen Drury, published in 1959 and produced as a movie in 1962, described a cold war melodrama in the Senate over the confirmation of a nominee to become secretary of state who had a left-wing background in his youth. One senator, with a secret gay past, caught up in the fight, fearing exposure, commits suicide. (The scene depicting a gay bar was a movie first.) But the suicide was not over any great principle. The victim was collateral damage. And the president in Advise and Consent was not attempting to use the process to coerce the Senate into vassalage.

Hegseth, Kennedy and Gabbard are now all confirmed. The advise and consent responsibility of the Senate was twisted. The senators came to kneel before Trump – and Musk. Musk praised Young, the former “puppet”, as “a great ally”. Cassidy posted: “After collaborative conversations with RFK and the White House, I voted yes to confirm him.” Tillis gave a floor speech extolling Musk and Doge: “Innovation requires pushing the envelope and taking calculated risks.” Ernst wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled USAid Is a Rogue Agency.

Meanwhile, the $2bn in USAid purchases of agricultural products for humanitarian aid were suspended. The Iowa Soybean Association, dependent on a $95m grant supporting more than 1,000 farms that was now not being paid, protested. Ernst, a member of the Senate agriculture committee, was silent.

“I was embarrassed,” Ernst told the Des Moines Register about speaking about being raped. “I didn’t know how to explain it. I was so humiliated. And I’m a private person, when it comes to those things.” After that incident, she found herself in an abusive relationship and the victim of domestic violence. As a senator, she used her position to break with her past of victimhood and established herself as a champion of those who had been victimized as she had been. But then she found herself in another abusive relationship, with Donald Trump. She was threatened with being completely stripped of everything she had striven for and her status as a senator destroyed. She had a choice to stand up against her transgressor or to subject herself to him. She decided to submit to the humiliation. And afterward she became the enabler of the abuser.

Det er en meget horribel historie om hvordan Trump slo ut senatet og ødela denne institusjonen - hets, mobbangrep, trusler, endog dødstrusler og utpressing som meget ufattelige ondsinnede handlinger som gjør det meget klart at 49,8 % av det amerikanske folket hadde gjort en utilgivelig stor feil ved å stemme på en mann som regelrett trakassere folkevalgte rett for øyne på alle. 

Hvis høyesteretten ikke vil, og hvis militæret ikke vil, kommer det til å bli et fryktelig blodbad når borgerkrig brøt ut, for flere millioner har blitt kriminelle som vil ikke nølt med å bruke ekstrem vold for å forgripe seg på amerikanerne som kommer til å besvare dette med hard hånd. 

I andre land finnes det lover, men som et resultat av Roberts har loven sluttet med å fungere - han hadde svekket vernet mot hets, åpnet for sakløs kritikk og mobbpress, og sist gav Trump absolutt immunitet som betyr at han kan beskytte folk som drapstrue, trakassere og angripe andre enten ved å ha disse under egen autoritet eller benåde disse. 

Roberts kommer til å bli henrettet, sanne mine ord. 

Endret søndag kl 15:53 av JK22

[superrhino]

Kan det være mulig at et eventuelt demokrat-regime fra 2029 ikke vil skille seg stort fra den utenrikspolitikken som Trump fører nå? Husk at Trump og MAGA ikke er alene i å ønske å kutte utgifter og trekke seg ut fra Europa. Vil du høre en litt mer stueren versjon av Trumps doktrine, som har gjenklang langt inn i gangene i D.C., så er det bare å lese Stephen Wertheim.

Endret søndag kl 15:57 av superrhino

[obygda]

Er Donald Trump en rasist? Jeg spør fordi de som han har utpekt har en ekstrem overvekt av hvite :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_cabinet_of_Donald_Trump

Alle større poster er besatt av blenda hvite

 

[JK22]

 "Work with Canada, or lose it as a friend."

Dette kom fra den konservative Poilievre.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sometimes-it-does-take-a-threat-canada-s-conservative-leader-puts-trump-on-notice/ar-AA1z9EKE?ocid=BingNewsSerp&cvid=4c4bff19930c4c4c93e6f5f75ba659a6&ei=38

"We are slow to anger and quick to forgive. But never confuse our kindness for weakness. We are mild-mannered and made of steel," before adding, "Sometimes it does take a threat to remind us what we have, what we could lose and what we could become."

“Carry out the unprovoked attack on our economy and your consumers will pay more and your workers will make less,” he told the crowd. “Gas prices will skyrocket. You will turn a loyal friend into a resentful neighbor, forced to match tariff with tariff and to seek friends elsewhere. Both our economies will weaken, leaving less money for defense and security and our enemies will grow stronger.”

He then. warned, "Simply put, we can no longer depend on the Americans alone for our trade. We can no longer think of them as our backup defense. These threats, my friends, are a wakeup call.”

Hmm... om kineserne drepe Xi i dag og sette inn et mye mer moderat regime som fjerne mange av de kontroversielle lover, kunne kanadierne ønske velkomne kinesiske styrker på egen grunn? Uansett hadde Poilievre i lang tid tatt til orde for at Canada skulle være mer involvert med Asia og Europa istedenfor bare på det nordamerikanske fellesmarkedet. 

 

[xRun]

obygda skrev (12 minutter siden):

Er Donald Trump en rasist? Jeg spør fordi de som han har utpekt har en ekstrem overvekt av hvite :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_cabinet_of_Donald_Trump

Alle større poster er besatt av blenda hvite

Det er flere ting i hans bakgrunn som støtter den tanken, som hans opprop for dødsdom ifbm. "Central Park Five"-saken hvor de svarte mistenkte ble dømt til fengselsstraffer men senere løslatt etter at man kom frem til at de ikke var involvert, og f.eks. saken om rasistisk utleiepraksis på Trump-eiendommer etc. 
Hans tilhengere har en tendens til å hoppe på enhver som lufter ideen, men det er helt klart et inntrykk man kan få.

[rabler]

2 hours ago, Snikpellik said:

Dagen-redaktør Vebjørn Selbekk tar et oppgjør med norske konservative kristne som radikaliseres av Trump.

«Vend om, før det er for sent»
https://www.vg.no/nyheter/i/lwmz83/vebjoern-selbekk-tar-oppgjoer-med-donald-trump

– Det gjør meg både trist og provosert hvor mange som har slukt både agn, krok og søkke fra Donald Trump, sier den profilerte redaktøren.

– Det er ikke godt si hvor denne ferden med Trump vil ende. Han er fullstendig uforutsigbar, og flere kristne heier ham frem som en slags reddende brumlebass.

Vebjørn Selbekk er skremt over hvor sterk støtte USAs president har blant konservative kristne i Norge. Nå advarer han:

– Det er for mange kristne som drikker fra hans giftpakke. Vend om, før det er for sent.

Wow. Når til og med Selbekk tar avstand har det jammen gått langt. 😶

[Casey]

Crooked Cracker skrev (1 time siden):

Du lyver alltid om han.

Nei.

[rabler]

33 minutes ago, obygda said:

Er Donald Trump en rasist? Jeg spør fordi de som han har utpekt har en ekstrem overvekt av hvite :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_cabinet_of_Donald_Trump

Alle større poster er besatt av blenda hvite

 

Ja han er en rasist. Det har han alltid vært.

[Tussi]

JK22 skrev (2 timer siden):

Hamas burde skåre over strupene på samtidige gisler for å vise alvor, men disse forhindres av de rådville araberne som sliter med at man ikke er enig omkring palestinerne - det er monarkisk-republikanske konfliktlinjer i tillegg til enevoldsherskernes luner som sett i Emiratene hvor MBZ så ut til å ville forråde palestinerne. Erdogan er ikke klar, han er i midten av en massiv opprustning - han har planer om ICBM våpen, hangarskip og ambisjoner om atomvåpen, men avhengigheten av amerikansk know-how er fremdeles for stor. Det merkes at store deler av Trump-"administrasjonen" har meget kraftige antimuslimske holdninger, og visse anså Tyrkia som en potensiell trussel, og Saudi-Arabia som en upålitelig partnersmakt. Det eneste araberne kunne eniges om er å vinne seg tid og finne nye beskyttelsespatroner. Men Putin er 100 % upålitelig, selv om han får beholde baser i Syria og Sudan vet araberne at de ikke kan regne med ham, så bare India og Kina er tilbake. Det er en meget sterk avgrunn mellom muslimer og hinduer, så bare Kina gjenstår. 

Og dessverre (heldigvis for oss) har det kinesiske folket et meget stort problem ved at de har meget sterke kultursjåvinistiske holdninger og manglende tradisjon for maktallianseoppbygging utenfor egne grenser der man behandle andre med respekt og verdighet istedenfor ovenfra-og-nedover. Xi er definitivt feil mann, han er en selvinnbilt sjåvinist med sterke fordommer som tror på hans "klokhet" om kineserne skulle overta USAs plass. For selv om de afrikanske statsoverhodene kunne gå til Kina, vil de bare få våpen og materiell leveranse mot gjenytelser - når de trenger nødhjelp og sivilpolitisk assistanse. Her har den amerikansk-europeiske aksen en stor fordel ved å være dypt kjent med de indre afrikanske affærer helt siden midten av 1800-tallet. 

Kineserne er ikke klar tidsnok for å overta USAs rolle, lik meget som araberne/tyrkerne ikke er klar for å konfrontere Israel og europeerne ikke er klar for å ordne egne sikkerhet uten USAs assistanse. 

Et meget stort tomrom vil oppsto, som kan åpne for anarki og kaos med enorme konsekvenser. 

Anbefaler du virkelig Hamas å drepe uskyldige mennesker som har ludd i over 400 dager? Altså, makan! Spillet ingen rolle hva Hamas tjener oå, å oppfordre til drap på uskyldige burde du virkelig holde deg for god for hvis du ønsker å bli tatt alvorlig i den konflikten igjen

[jjkoggan]

jallajall skrev (1 time siden):

Som er?

 

Du kan ikke stole på myndighetene dine og demokratiet generelt , de er korrupte og imot deg!

[Mannen med ljåen]

Jeg foreslår redigering av uttalelser som oppfordrer til mord på sivile før mod ser det, og en frivillig pause fra forumtråden for de som trenger det. Det er ikke godt for psyken å bli så radikalisert. Tenk på blodtrykket.
Her er en roligere tråd, med mat og positivitet:

Ikke min tråd, men veldig godt for kropp og sinn. Lag noen av rettene. Det er middagstid.
Så føler man seg bedre etterpå.

 

[Tussi]

Fikk kun lest det som var åpent i den VG-artikkelen, men jeg er helt enig med Selbekk

[JK22]

Tussi skrev (41 minutter siden):

Anbefaler du virkelig Hamas å drepe uskyldige mennesker som har ludd i over 400 dager? Altså, makan! Spillet ingen rolle hva Hamas tjener oå, å oppfordre til drap på uskyldige burde du virkelig holde deg for god for hvis du ønsker å bli tatt alvorlig i den konflikten igjen

De KAN gjøre det hvis de skulle bli helt desperat, og hvis det ikke finnes noe utvei. Trump helt ignorere dette alvoret da det er snakk om terrorister som drepe barn uten den minste nølingen og dermed vil ikke ha skrupler om å gjøre noe som vekker stor sjokk - "vi gjør det fordi du tvinge oss" - det er hva gisseltakernes argumentet i flere tiår gikk ut på, og som hadde vært forstått i lang tid. Ved å bable vekk om å utradere Gazastripen og utrydde Hamas har han gjort gislenes liv uvesentlig for Hamas som vil ikke ha noe å tape. Netanyahu bryr seg ikke, for ham er gislene bare et middel for å svekke Hamas. 

Så slutten er det araberstatene som holder disse gislene i livet fordi de trenger tid, og har derfor arbeidet meget hardt med å få Hamas til å la være, og fortsette med våpenstillstandsbestemmelsene i mellomtiden. Men hva om løslatelsen av gislene skulle vise seg å være et meget stort feilgrep om Netanyahu og Trump gå til angrep på dem for å utrydde dem, og renske ut Gaza for den palestinske befolkningen som kan bli utsatt for gruvekkende overtredelser? Det kan få fremtidige gisseltakere og terrorister til å forstå at de kan ikke presse motparten ved å appellere til disses humanitære interesser - slik at de vil deretter bli mer ekstremt og mer totalitært. 

De vil ikke lenge ha skrupler om å angripe vestlige uten det minste fliket av nåde. 

Endret søndag kl 17:17 av JK22

[jallajall]

36 minutes ago, jjkoggan said:

Du kan ikke stole på myndighetene dine og demokratiet generelt , de er korrupte og imot deg!

Var vel ikke helt det han sa ifbm romania?

[jallajall]

Wot.