Trump 2025 - 2026

[JK22]

Mbappe09 skrev (1 time siden):

Trump kommer til å svikte Taiwan- akkurat som han har gjort med Ukraina.
 

 

Det er ikke bare Taiwan. Det har kommet ut at Trump har seriøse planer om å regelrett løpe fra hele rotet i Midtøsten.

https://x.com/BabakTaghvaee1/status/2055708631656485108

Det har kommet lekkasjer fra militæret om at viktige nøkkelstyrker som trenges for å krysse den persiske gulfen og okkupere iransk territorium skal ha blitt trukket tilbake. Det blir etter hvert klart at Netanyahu og MBZ har funnet seg i en voksende krise i møte med den meget komplette uberegnelige og hevngjerrige tufsen som lot seg presses av arabermaktene anført av bin Salman og den voksende krigsmotstanden i USA, samtidig som det blir mer og mer åpenbart at Trump vil heller vente ut Iran - som likedan satse på det samme. 

Trump er en feiging som foretrakk å angripe svake motstandere, og vil likedan nekte å hjelpe USAs venner. 

[LuxFerre]

2 hours ago, Mbappe09 said:

Trump kommer til å svikte Taiwan- akkurat som han har gjort med Ukraina.
 

 

USA er svært avhengig av Taiwan på grunn av at alle de mest avanserte brikkefabrikkene til TSMC er i Taiwan.
Hvis Kina tar Taiwan vil kina bli verdensledene på brikkeproduksjon og i verste tilfelle så kan de legge samme restriksjoner på TSMC som USA har lagt på avanserte brikker mot Kina som vil bli en katastrofe for USA og teknologi sektoren der.

TSMC Fab 20 i Hsinchu og Fab 22 i Kaohsiung begynte med full produksjon av 2nm brikker i fjerde kvartal 2025.
Resten av verden inkludert TSMC sine utenlandske fabrikker er på 4nm eller høyere og vil ikke komme over til 2nm før rundt 2030.

Endret 16. mai av LuxFerre

[JK22]

LuxFerre skrev (32 minutter siden):

USA er svært avhengig av Taiwan på grunn av at alle de mest avanserte brikkefabrikkene til TSMC er i Taiwan.
Hvis Kina tar Taiwan vil kina bli verdensledene på brikkeproduksjon og i verste tilfelle så kan de legge samme restriksjoner på TSMC som USA har lagt på avanserte brikker mot Kina som vil bli en katastrofe for USA og teknologi sektoren der.

TSMC Fab 20 i Hsinchu og Fab 22 i Kaohsiung begynte med full produksjon av 2nm brikker i fjerde kvartal 2025.
Resten av verden inkludert TSMC sine utenlandske fabrikker er på 4nm eller høyere og vil ikke komme over til 2nm før rundt 2030.

Det åpnes brikkefabrikk på amerikansk grunn. Det hadde vært flere som hadde advart mot dette, spesielt på taiwansk hold om at det kunne lede til at Trump vil tenke seg om å forlate en alliert og heller satse på "deals" med kineserne ved å ha en meget naiv tro om amerikansk selvforsyningsevne hadde blitt etablert. Nå ser vi at disse advarslene ikke er grunnløst. 

[LuxFerre]

40 minutes ago, JK22 said:

Det åpnes brikkefabrikk på amerikansk grunn. Det hadde vært flere som hadde advart mot dette, spesielt på taiwansk hold om at det kunne lede til at Trump vil tenke seg om å forlate en alliert og heller satse på "deals" med kineserne ved å ha en meget naiv tro om amerikansk selvforsyningsevne hadde blitt etablert. Nå ser vi at disse advarslene ikke er grunnløst. 

Taiwan har et "Silicon Shield" der de bruker TSMC sine fabrikker som en sikkerhet i at de skal få hjelp hvis Kina angriper dem.
De har blant annet nektet å gå med på krav om å produsere 50 % av sine mest avanserte brikker i USA, nettopp fordi de vet at silisiumskjoldet svekkes hvis USA blir selvforsynt. De Amerikanske fabrikkene TSMC bygger i USA vil alltid være minst en generasjon etter de mest avanserte fabrikkene som er i Taiwan slik at disse fabrikkene vil aldri produsere de mest avanserte brikkene.

[LuxFerre]

Psykolog Dr. John Gartner: «Jeg spår at Donald Trump vil drepe flere mennesker enn Hitler.»

Her er noen Norske mental helse eksperter som uttaler seg om Trump og at det var en Norsk Psykiater som allerede i 1933 gikk ut og advarte mot Adolf Hitler som skapte hodebry for den Norske regjeringen.
 

 

Endret 16. mai av LuxFerre

[Smule8o]

2 hours ago, LuxFerre said:

Taiwan har et "Silicon Shield" der de bruker TSMC sine fabrikker som en sikkerhet i at de skal få hjelp hvis Kina angriper dem.
De har blant annet nektet å gå med på krav om å produsere 50 % av sine mest avanserte brikker i USA, nettopp fordi de vet at silisiumskjoldet svekkes hvis USA blir selvforsynt. De Amerikanske fabrikkene TSMC bygger i USA vil alltid være minst en generasjon etter de mest avanserte fabrikkene som er i Taiwan slik at disse fabrikkene vil aldri produsere de mest avanserte brikkene.

Og dessuten er det ikke bare selve TSMCs produksjonsanlegg som gjelder. Det er uendelig med know-how og en hel bråte høyst spesialiserte underleverandører som kun finnes i Taiwan.

[JK22]

Smule8o skrev (Akkurat nå):

Og dessuten er det ikke bare selve TSMCs produksjonsanlegg som gjelder. Det er uendelig med know-how og en hel bråte høyst spesialiserte underleverandører som kun finnes i Taiwan.

Vi kan ikke være sikkert på om Trump som demonstrert av oljeresesjonen som rammer brikkeproduksjon, er i stand til å fatte dybden av den kompliserte og delikate brikkeproduksjonen som hadde kunne finne sted i Taiwan fordi vestlige land ikke ville påta seg de meget ressurskrevende og omgivelsesforstyrrende prosessene. Men det gjør tech-oligarkene som støtter ham, og det er tegn på at de bearbeide ham til å gi etter på ønsket om å redusere den amerikanske avhengigheten av Kina, i brudd med tidlig politikk fra det forrige året og Bidens oppdemmingsplan mot den kinesiske trusselen. 

Det har kommet ut at videre oppmykninger mot kineserne vil skje, selv om det vil stride mot kongressens interesser, og man har vært villig til å tillate 500,000 kinesiske studenter i amerikanske universiteter som fremtidig arbeidsstokk for tech-oligarkene som gjør presist samme feil som industrioligarkene i Tyskland ved å dele know-how og sensitive arbeidsoppgaver med kinesiske selskaper. Logisk sett er det knapt overraskende; produksjonsinfrastruktur for elektronikk og "hardware" digitalteknologi er underutviklet i USA med seriøs manglende arbeidskraft - Musk hadde for mange år siden sagt det var simpelt ikke nok kvalifiserte arbeidere så de måtte hente inn folk fra andre land. Og de sløse bort masse på masse av penger for å forstørre infrastrukturen - og samtidig bli helt besatt av AI gjennom utvikling av AI-sentre som stjele bort enorme ressurser. Ressurser som USA alene ikke kunne hoste opp. 

For dem vil Taiwan være en billig pris å betale for å få full adgang til de kinesiske ressursene - arbeidsstokk, fasiliteter, finanser og politisk velvilje selv om Xi har lagt den kinesiske AI-utviklingen under total politisk detaljstyring som Biden og EU hadde ønsket å gjøre.

Dessuten er Trump villig til å selge kornvogna for å holde gården gående; han hadde åpnet opp for kinesisk oppkjøp av åkerbruk i USA til tross for at han selv hadde kjempet mot dette, under ideen om å åpne opp for større eksport til det kinesiske markedet og dermed redde bondesamfunnene - som allikevel vil risikere en situasjon hvor de kan bli prisgitt fremmede autoriteter fra utenfor egne land. Dette skal ha gjort meget mange rurale amerikanerne helt fra seg. 78 % hadde stemt på Trump, nå opplever de at det bare bli verre. 

“And NO it is not ok for China to buy our farmland!!! And no that’s not common sense!!!” (Marjorie Taylor Greene)

Men dessverre er det sett tegn av galskap og kultbesettelse i rundt 60-65 % av de republikanske velgere som mer og mer tre seg selvdestruktivt. Primærvalgene gjør det helt umulig for de republikanske politikerne med folkevett å reagere ettersom de risikere å bli utstemt eller i verste fall utsatt for hatske reaksjoner uten at de andre kunne gripe inn. Til tross for at Trump nærmere seg 70 %-barrieren dag for dag og blant de selvstendige som utgjør halvparten av stemmegivere er det ikke lenge urealistisk med 15 % til 20 % for både Trump og republikanerne. De som holdt med Trump, er villig til å la katastrofe skje. 

Og det er tegn på en økonomisk katastrofe i horisonten. Ikke helt siden 1930-tallet har det vært så dårlig på flere steder, og arbeidstallene per mnd. er på sitt laveste siden 1960-tallet. Resesjonen som har rammet det amerikanske folket, blir sterkere og større etter hvert som oljeresesjonen styrker seg. 

Men det som er verre; er at Trump kan ha seriøse planer om å ignorere folkets dom etter mellomvalget. Hva man kan ligge på det, er ikke mulig å vite - men dette i seg selv er illevarslende. 

En bølge av ulykker er i ferd med å komme veltende i dette året. Det var en meget stor feil av det amerikanske folket å ikke reagere med sinne da de ennå hadde muligheten om å stanse det verste, nå er de for sent ut. Selv hvis Trump fjernes i dag, er det ikke mulig å stanse det han og de rasistiske republikanerne som i rasismens navn kansellert fremfor å dele, hadde startet. 

[obygda]

LuxFerre skrev (6 timer siden):

Psykolog Dr. John Gartner: «Jeg spår at Donald Trump vil drepe flere mennesker enn Hitler.»

Her er noen Norske mental helse eksperter som uttaler seg om Trump og at det var en Norsk Psykiater som allerede i 1933 gikk ut og advarte mot Adolf Hitler som skapte hodebry for den Norske regjeringen.
 

 

Frykter det samme. Mannen er jo gal og plutselig kan han få det for seg at å slippe en atombombe over Iran er løsningen på alt slik mange følte det mhp Japan under 2 verdenskrig.

Mannen bryr seg jo ikke om annet enn sitt eget selvbilde. Skryter man av mannen så er han så snill som en pusekatt. Så han er lett å manipulere også. Israel har jo helt åpenbart klart å få han på kroken via nomineringer til fredspris og egne utmerkelser..Krydrer man det med litt Gud og hellig land så er han der og logrer med halen..

[Dragavon]

Sitat

 

Trump raser:

- Den verste i partiets historie
Donald Trump vil knuse partifellen Thomas Massie i Kentucky. Nå har primærvalget utviklet seg til en brutal maktkamp om presidentens kontroll over Det republikanske partiet.

 

https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/den-verste-i-partiets-historie/84634193

Sitat

Sparket på e-post: Nær 250 amerikanske diplomater mistet jobben
– En av de største selvpåførte feilene USA har gjort, sier tidligere ambassadør.

https://www.vg.no/nyheter/i/e7agm9/sparket-paa-e-post-naer-250-amerikanske-diplomater-mistet-jobben

[JK22]

Trump nemesis Sen. Bill Cassidy defeated in GOP primary

Denne artikkelen avslører at rundt 45 % av primærvelgerne i Louisiana er "trumpister" ved å stemme på hans kandidat Julia Letlow i motsetning til både John Fleming som fikk 28 % og Cassidy 24 %. Dette er i tråd med tidlige funn om at mellom rundt 25 % av de republikanske velgerne er "Never-Trump", men det er interessant at støtten for Trump hadde sunket til under halvparten i en delstat dypt preget av rasistiske holdninger.

Primærvalg er unik, og dessverre den største årsaken bak den katastrofale utviklingen for demokratiet som nå er nærmest ikke-eksisterende i USA, ved at det tillatt opphoping av ekstremister og fanatikere i utvelging av valgkandidater uansett om disse utgjør et lite fåtall eller ikke. I alle andre land velges kandidatene innad for deretter å la folket felle deres dom. Mange sier nå at primærvalgene åpnet for utenforstående folk var en meget stor feil. For det er der Trump tar makten i partiet gjennom partikassa som ved en dumhet kom under hans kontroll og gjennom fanatikerne som utkonkurrert alle andre med bedre organisering, bedre oppmøte og større finansielle ressurser. 

[obygda]

Det er kanskje ikke noen nyheter for mange her - men kom over denne :

https://www.nrk.no/urix/har-iran-vunnet-propagandakrigen-over-usa_-1.17881676

Og jeg må si at selv om dette er AI generert så treffer det meg.

Det er mye sannhet i det som sies her 

 

 

 

Endret 17. mai av obygda

[Poor Old Gil]

Bilder fra Kina-oppholdet (litt vind).

[JK22]

Anthony Scaramucci says critics misread Trump: 'Never been in a room with him'

SkyBridge Capital founder Anthony Scaramucci offered a candid psychological portrait of President Donald Trump on Saturday, arguing that critics and world leaders fundamentally misread the president’s behavior.

Trump’s Private Persona vs. Public Image

Scaramucci said many people struggle to understand how Trump became president because they have never met him in person. “People can’t figure out how Trump got to the presidency because they’ve never been in a room with him,” he wrote on X. He described Trump as "disarming, gregarious, genuinely charming" in person, which he said contrasts sharply with his more combative public image.

Scaramucci, the former White House communications director, highlighted Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney as a prime example of Trump’s private dynamic. Despite public disagreements, he said Trump calls Carney "more than any other Western leader" because Carney's resistance earns his respect.

“He craves the pushback. He just can’t admit it,” Scaramucci wrote.

Reversal In Tone

The remarks carry added weight given that Scaramucci has separately and publicly called for Trump’s removal from office.

Earlier in this week, Scaramucci said his brief White House tenure created severe strain at home, adding that his wife strongly opposed Trump and their marriage was "almost" pushed to the breaking point during that period.

Scaramucci's recent remarks also mark a sharp reversal from his earlier comments, when he described Trump as a "reality TV producer" who engineers cycles of conflict for attention and control.

Dette er litt gammelt nytt, fordi Trump som en durkdreven svindler er nødt til å sjarmere, smiske og overtale slik at de fleste ikke klarte å se ansiktet og intellekturet bak masken - men det Scaramucci skildrer er riktig, til tross for hans hevngjerrighet og ego er det latt merke til at han innerst inne er en feiging som vik unna så snart man viser tenner og gjør motstand. Likedan om at han fremme konflikt og polarisering for oppmerksomhet, illusjon av kontroll i splitt-og-hersk stil. 

The Supreme Court has unleashed 'Jim Crow 2.0' as the South rolls back Black representation

The Supreme Court’s decision gutting the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais has commenced the largest rollback of Black political representation since the end of Reconstruction and the imposition of Jim Crow in the South.

Once bound by the law to draw districts that do not result in discrimination against Black voters, Southern states are now freed by the court to eliminate those Black-majority districts and replace them with white majorities. Three such seats have either already been eliminated or are on a fast track to be eliminated in Alabama, Louisiana and Tennessee. White Republican governments in Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina are also moving forward with special legislative sessions to redraw maps.

In total, white Republican majorities could eliminate upwards of 19 Black majority seats across the South, according to a study by Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter. This is only the tip of the iceberg, as the Supreme Court’s decision applies to all state offices elected through district maps. This threatens Black and Latino representation in state legislatures, state judiciaries, city and county councils and many other elected offices.

This potential extinction-level event for Black political representation across the South harkens back to some of the darkest days of the country’s history.

“This is Jim Crow 2.0,” said Tennessee state Rep. Justin Pearson, a Democrat who was running for his party’s nomination in the now-eliminated Memphis congressional district. “This is racist redistricting. This is retribution that happened after Reconstruction. And it is the neo-confederacy, not separating from the union, but changing the institutions in the country in order to solidify their power.”

Following the Civil War and the end of slavery, the Republican Congress led an ambitious campaign of Reconstruction to integrate the formerly enslaved into political society and create pluralistic governments in the South. Hundreds of Black men (women still did not have the right to vote) were elected to offices including governor, congressman, senator and on down following the passage of the 14th and 15th amendments. But this was short-lived as white Southerners organized a campaign of violent repression and terrorism known as Redemption to seize back control, while the Supreme Court carved the original intent out of the 14th and 15th amendments and gutted civil rights laws passed by Congress.

These Redeemers imposed new laws and constitutions on the Southern states meant to ensure white rule by eliminating Black political representation and Black voting rights. This push culminated with the enactment of Jim Crow laws across the South as a response to suppress the successful fusion of Black voters with white Populists at the turn of the 20th century. What remained were authoritarian states imposing racial apartheid through legalism and violence.

The last Black congressman of this era, George H. White, gave his farewell speech in 1901 after North Carolina adopted Jim Crow laws effectively banning Black people from voting.

“This, Mr. Chairman, is perhaps the Negroes’ temporary farewell to the American Congress; but let me say, phoenix-like he will rise up some day and come again,” White said. “These parting words are in behalf of an outraged, heartbroken, bruised, and bleeding, but God-fearing people, faithful, industrious, loyal people-rising people, full of potential force.”

The former Confederate states would not send another Black congressman to Washington for another 72 years. The Voting Rights Act, enacted in 1965 following the historic march from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. made that possible. That law banned the bread-and-butter of Jim Crow — literacy tests and other subjective discriminatory criteria for voter registration — and created legal mechanisms to challenge laws and district maps as discriminatory.

But even the original Voting Rights Act could only do so much. In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled in City of Mobile v. Bolden that plaintiffs challenging a district map as discriminatory must show evidence of racially discriminatory intent. This was very hard as even the Jim Crow laws were designed to be facially neutral, that is, to not explicitly apply only to Black people. And so, with a broad bipartisan vote in 1982, Congress passed a reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act that overruled the Supreme Court by requiring plaintiffs to show that a given law or map resulted in discrimination, rather than being intentionally crafted to discriminate.

Challenges brought under Section 2 of the newly reauthorized Voting Rights Act centered on post-1990 Census redistricting and, for the first time since Reconstruction, Southern Black political representation in Congress exceeded that of the post-Civil War period.

But the court’s decision in Callais threatens all of this by reversing the 1982 Voting Rights Act reauthorization by stating that challenges brought under the law’s Section 2 to district maps must prove intentional racial discrimination. The decision also requires any challenge to yield to the partisan motives of state legislators, who can now claim they are eliminating Black majority seats simply because they predominantly elect Democrats.

“Callais basically gave [state governments] the defibrillator to the heart of Jim Crow to be more bold and aggressive to eliminate Black districts, eliminate Black representation, and the Supreme Court says as long as you’re doing it for partisan reasons, it’s legal,” said Davante Lewis, a Democrat who serves as an elected member of the Louisiana Public Service Commission, which regulates public utilities in the state.

And they are using it. Tennessee’s all-white government slammed through a new map within days of the Supreme Court’s decision wiping out the state’s only Black-majority House seat centered on Memphis, which existed well before the passage of the Voting Rights Act and before the city became majority Black.

In Louisiana, Republicans are on the verge of enacting a new map that would wipe out the Black-majority district centered on Baton Rouge and represented by Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields, while preserving the New Orleans district currently represented by Democratic Rep. Troy Carter.

Before the new map was slammed through a Louisiana Senate committee at 4:30 in the morning on Wednesday, Louisianians provided testimony denouncing it as a return to the state’s old practices of racial discrimination and segregation. Among those testifying was Leona Tate, who, at the age of 6, joined Ruby Bridges, Tessi Provost and Gail Etienne as the first Black children to desegregate Louisiana public schools in 1960.

“I went through something no child should go through to desegregate our state,” Tate told the committee. “And now 65 years later, I’m watching as lawmakers attempt to go backwards and segregate us once again through disgraceful voting maps.”

Alabama Republicans, meanwhile, passed a trigger law that enables the state to revert to a congressional map adopted in 2021 with just one Black-majority House seat, depending on how a U.S. District Court rules in a related case. 

“I never thought that me, at 52, where my grandfather and mother and her classmates were fighting for voting rights and acceptance and equal opportunity, that I would be fighting the same battles,” said state Sen. Merika Coleman, a Democrat representing a Black-majority seat centered around Birmingham.

South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, called a special legislative session to eliminate the state’s sole Black-majority seat held by Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn after five Republican state senators joined Democrats to block the legislature from calling itself back into session for the same purpose.

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, both Republicans, have called for special sessions to eliminate Black majority districts for the 2028 elections. Tate also called for Mississippi Republicans to redraw state legislative and state supreme court maps.

These calls by white Republican majorities to eliminate Black majority seats do not just look like the actions that Southern states took when they wiped out Black political power and installed Jim Crow; they sound like them, too.

Back then, white Southerners claimed that their states were plagued by “Negro misrule,” arguing that Black people were not morally fit to exercise the franchise or serve in government. White rule would be superior. Today, this rhetoric is only slightly toned down.

“What I will tell you is the tenure of Congressman Bennie Thompson reigning terror on the Second Congressional District is over,” Reeves said on Wednesday about Mississippi’s lone Black congressman. “It’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when.”

“The districts represented by Democratic congressmembers would probably be better off right now with some conservative voices being able to help their communities,” Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said on May 5.

“To say that Black voters in Alabama would fare better if they were represented by Republicans, how dare he determine what is best for us,” Coleman said.

Throughout this attack on Black voting rights and representation, Republicans have attempted to mask their actions with claims of partisan motivation, as the Supreme Court told them to do, and calls for “conservative” supremacy in their states.

“Tennessee is a conservative state,” Tennessee Republican state Sen. John Stevens said on the statehouse floor in support of the bill eliminating the state’s lone Black majority House seat. “Its congressional delegation should reflect that.”

But not all Republicans have properly masked this rhetorical euphemism of its racial meaning, as South Carolina GOP Rep. Ralph Norman failed to do when he contrasted conservatives in his state with Black people.

“Jim Clyburn — I like him personally, but he does not represent the rest of South Carolina, which is conservative,” Norman, who is running for governor, said on Newsmax on Monday. “His district is close to 47% African-American. And then 41% [white], with 6% makeup of Hispanics.”

The Supreme Court instigated this return to the South’s history of repressing Black political representation, but the Callais decision isn’t the lone example of a new Jim Crow rising. 

Tennessee lawmakers have repeatedly attacked Memphis by installing an all-white overseer board as part of a seizure of the city’s school boards and overriding bills to establish civilian review boards for police misconduct. Louisiana Republicans eliminated New Orleans’ office of criminal clerk after Calvin Duncan, an exonerated Black man, won election to it. Attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and critical race theory (CRT) have spurred laws banning or restricting the teaching of Black history across the South.

These efforts to wipe out the Civil Rights Movement’s progress aren’t restricted to the South, but are coming from the top of the Republican Party. President Donald Trump sought to ban DEI with an executive order, rescinded a Civil Rights-era executive order that banned racially discriminatory hiring for government contractors, canceled grants and programs that help Black communities, engaged in a purge of government workers that has disproportionately targeted Black women and fired high-level Black military officials while replacing them with white men.

This new era of Redemption, however, is not being met without resistance. Mass mobilizations are already underway across the South with large rallies in Selma and Montgomery, Alabama — the sites that gave birth to the Voting Rights Act — planned for Saturday. Organizers are planning more voter registration drives and protests now, as democratic reforms to the Supreme Court gain steam.

“We are in a historical place right now whether you call it the next Civil Rights Movement or the next Reconstruction,” Coleman said. “We are in the midst of a pinnacle point in the history of this country, to say who are we? Are we the America that welcomes all people and feels as if all people should have a voice and have representation? Or are we a country that creates an atmosphere of us and them?”

Det er veldig merkelig at mediene ikke hente fram krigsoppskriftene både i og utenfor USA. Veldig merkelig. Og det er lik merkelig at rasismestemplet ikke er hentet fram. Her har man synlige rasistiske holdninger som motiv for å demontere demokrati og minoritetsrettigheter, og ennå har det ikke kommet mye bråk i motsetning til det som hendt i 1960-1990 perioden. Los Angeles-opptøyene i 1992 var "sist gang" ordet "rasist" var i folkebevissthet i betraktning av begivenhetene i USA. Nå må den hentes fram på nytt. 

[N-4K0]

Dragavon skrev (13 timer siden):

https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/den-verste-i-partiets-historie/84634193

Ja, det var jo rette kjeften det smalt fra. Trump gjør som vanlig det han kan best, kjefte og slenge dritt om alt og alle som våger å gå imot ham istedet for å danse lydig etter hans pipe.

[JK22]

How Republicans plan to rig the vote — and make it stick | Opinion

The same outfit that wrote Project 2025 and watched the Trump administration follow its playbook virtually to the letter has been busy assembling a 90-page tract called “Saving America by Saving the Family.”

It maps out a future in which American women are stripped of their right to vote without their husbands’ paperwork, denied access to contraception and abortion, pushed back into the home, and reduced to what Heritage’s new American Citizenship chair Scott Yenor calls the “heroic feminine” of motherhood and wifeliness. It’s quite a Mother’s Day card from the people who claim to revere motherhood the most.

Scott Yenor wants:

— To make gay sex illegal in America again,

— Divorce to be “difficult to get or proscribed,”

— Adultery and sex between unmarried consenting adults criminalized, and

— The Civil Rights Act to be “scaled back” so that businesses, schools, and “every other institution in the country” can once again discriminate against women, queer people, and minorities the way they used to.

And just a few months ago, the Heritage Foundation, the same outfit that wrote Project 2025 and watched the Trump administration follow their playbook virtually to the letter, hired Yenor to chair its American Citizenship Initiative.

When pressed about Yenor’s record, reported in detail by The Guardian and LGBTQ Nation, Heritage didn’t quietly walk anything back. They instead invoked their “One Voice” doctrine, which means that what one Heritage staffer says is what the institution stands for, and they loudly stood by him.

Even some of the foundation’s allies winced publicly to The Atlantic, but Heritage reportedly didn’t budge. This is what billionaire-funded Christian nationalism looks like in 2026, and it’s been the project, almost without interruption, ever since the Reagan Revolution

Most Americans don’t know how the Heritage Foundation came to exist; I’ve been telling this story on the radio for more than two decades because it matters. In 1971, a tobacco lawyer named Lewis Powell wrote a confidential memo to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce arguing that the American “free enterprise system” was under attack from “the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians.”

His prescription was that corporate America needed to fund its own intellectual infrastructure, think tanks and university programs, legal centers, and media outlets that would shift the country’s political center hard to the right and protect billionaire wealth from democratic accountability.

Two months after writing that memo, Nixon nominated Powell to the Supreme Court.

In 1973, beer baron Joseph Coors read the Powell Memo, decided American business was “ignoring a crisis,” and wrote a $250,000 check to launch the Heritage Foundation alongside Paul Weyrich, the man who later coined the phrase “Moral Majority” and famously told a room of 1980 evangelical leaders that conservatives don’t actually want everyone to vote because “our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

Heritage was, from day one, a vehicle for translating Powell’s memo into operational policy, and that founding circle of donors, Coors plus Bradley plus Olin plus Scaife plus Koch, never really left.

According to a DeSmog analysis of Project 2025’s funders, six billionaire family foundations bankrolled Heritage’s blueprint for the second Trump administration: Bradley, Coors, Koch, Mellon, Seid, and Uihlein.

Same families, same project, more than half a century of the same handful of fortunes funding the same grinding assault on democracy, women’s rights, civil rights, and any policy that would tax great wealth or restrain corporate power.

What’s new is how openly they’re saying the quiet parts now.

Heritage’s 90-page tract “Saving America by Saving the Family,” the subject of a thorough investigation by Billie Jean Sweeney for Important Context, lays out a vision that overturns marriage equality, denies the existence of trans people, eliminates no-fault divorce, and uses federal Medicaid dollars as a weapon against any state that disagrees.

The document opens with the sentence “The Founding Fathers were, quite literally, fathers,” which gives you a pretty clear sense of where they’re going. They’ve invented a problem they call a “birth dearth” and identified the culprits: women being educated, women working outside the home, women using contraception, women existing as autonomous people.

As Mehmet Oz, Trump’s administrator for Medicare and Medicaid, said recently, “One in three Americans is under-babied.” White Americans, of course.

Anybody who’s read 1930s European history will recognize what’s going on here.

The Nazi regime’s Mutterkreuz, the “Cross of Honor of the German Mother,” handed out medals to Aryan women who produced four or more children while sterilizing those it considered unfit, and the Lebensborn program ran maternity homes designed to manufacture “racially valuable” babies for the Reich.

Heritage isn’t there yet, but the ideological architecture is the same: women as reproductive vessels for a state-defined ideal, with the full weight of federal policy bent toward forcing them into that role.

Civil rights attorney Michelle Uzeta, who runs the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, told reporters the through-line is “government-sponsored devaluation of entire communities, informed by eugenic thinking,” and that’s not hyperbole, that’s what the documents say when you read them carefully.

The operational arm at HHS is staffed accordingly. Russell Vought, Trump’s OMB director and a self-described Christian nationalist who co-authored Project 2025, has spoken with revulsion of “the transgender sewage that’s being pumped into our schools and institutions.”

Calley Means, a former Heritage research analyst, is now senior White House advisor at HHS. His sister Casey Means, whose surgeon general nomination Trump just withdrew on April 30 after Senator Bill Cassidy refused to support her, told Tucker Carlson that birth control “shuts down” a woman’s “life-giving nature,” and Trump immediately replaced her with another vaccine-skeptical Fox News contributor, radiologist Nicole Saphier.

Natalie Dodson, a named Project 2025 contributor, runs the Office of Population Affairs that decides Title X family planning rules, and the first Trump-era domestic gag rule, in effect from 2019 to 2021, forced 981 clinics out of the program and cut the network’s patient capacity in half, leaving six states with no Title X provider at all. The current administration has signaled it will repropose the gag rule, and Trump’s 2026 budget proposes eliminating Title X entirely.

The most useful place to watch how the playbook actually operates on the ground is Missouri.

Voters there passed a constitutional amendment in November 2024 protecting abortion rights with 52 percent of the vote, and the Republican-controlled legislature simply ignored them and referred a counter-amendment to this November’s ballot that would repeal the protections voters just enshrined.

To boost their odds, they bundled in a permanent ban on gender-affirming care for trans minors, even though Missouri law already bans that care. It’s pure ballot candy, bolted onto an abortion ban specifically because polling shows the trans-care provision boosts support for the abortion ban among voters who otherwise wouldn’t go along.

Divide and conquer, in other words, weaponized at the ballot box to overturn the explicit will of the voters.

This is what I wrote about in The Last American President: the slow, methodical, billionaire-funded conversion of American constitutional democracy into something that more closely resembles a “Christian” white supremacist oligarchy with a theocratic veneer.

The people running this project are not hiding it anymore. Yenor isn’t hiding it, Vought isn’t hiding it, and Heritage’s “Saving the Family” tract isn’t hiding it either.

They’re telling us, in their own words, that they want to recriminalize gay sex, eliminate no-fault divorce, force women back into the home, gut the Civil Rights Act, and use federal funding as a chokehold on any state that resists.

And while Heritage and its think-tank allies map out the cultural policy, their allies in Congress are working to rig the franchise itself so that the populations most opposed to all of this can’t actually vote any of it down.

The SAVE Act, which Republicans in the House passed in expanded form on February 11 as the SAVE America Act, would require every American to produce documentary proof of citizenship in person at an election office in order to register or re-register to vote.

The Brennan Center estimates that more than 21 million eligible American citizens lack ready access to those documents, and the League of Women Voters puts the number of American women whose paperwork doesn’t match their current married name at 69 million, all of whom would suddenly need to dig up a birth certificate, a marriage license, proof of a legal name change, and matching photo ID just to vote.

Trans Americans, naturalized citizens, older Black Americans born in the pre-civil-rights South who were never issued birth certificates in the first place, college students, military families stationed overseas, rural voters who’d have to drive hours to a county office, and the millions of working-class citizens who simply can’t afford a passport would face the same wall.

Senator Mike Lee of Utah, one of the bill’s chief Senate champions, has publicly tied its passage to Republican prospects in the 2026 midterms, which is about as close as a politician gets to admitting on the record that the entire point of the bill is to keep women, trans people, young voters, and Americans of color away from the polls so the Heritage agenda doesn’t get voted down by the majorities that consistently oppose it.

Dette er GALNINGER som ønske å slette ett årtusen ut av historien, ja endog helt tilbake til før middelalderen! De vil ha sanne neoføydale tilstander hvor folket vil bli fratatt deres politiske og personlige rettigheter til fordel for et riksmannsoligarki som begynnelsen på det føydale aristokratiet i oppløsningen av Romerriket hvor de rike og velstående som kontrollere handelsressursene, eiendommene i deres regioner og deretter livsnødvendigheter hadde dyttet ut den keiserlige administrasjonen som tidlig var ordnet av det romerske styret i Roma. De vil ta vekk frihet og rettigheter fra kvinner, yngre menn, soldater, minoritetsfolk og redusere arbeidsfolk til treller prisgitt de rike. De bryr seg ikke om de republikanske maktpolitikerne som har førte seg inn i en felle hvor det ikke finnes vei ut av, da de vil heller virkeliggjøre deres ambisjoner om å skape et neoføydalt rasebestemt kristenrike bokstavelig talt, selv om det er i strid med alt som hadde oppstått på ett årtusen - Magna Carta forkastes fordi det er liberalt, de vil forkaste endog tingordningen fra skandinavisk land og ha en totalitær tolkning av romerretten, men uten mange av de innbygde rettighetene. 

Det finnes bare en utvei om amerikanerne ikke må gjøre opprør for å kue rundt 25 % av sin befolkning som definitivt er kommet helt ut på viddene, å stemme ut republikanerne. Alle som stemte republikansk må slutte med det. For hvis de ikke gjør det, vil USA ødelegges når folk flest - spesielt de yngre - innser at de er i fare om å miste ENHVER. 

[DukeNukem3d]

Document skriver at kriminaliteten i amerikanske byer stuper

"Den positive utviklingen tilskrives en offensiv politikk for lov og orden i president Trumps annen periode. Føderale agenter og Nasjonalgarden er satt inn for å støtte lokalt politi i kampen mot voldelige gjengangere, narkotikahandel og ulovlig våpenbruk i byer som Chicago, Portland, Los Angeles og i hovedstaden. Også New York Times har registrert «den svimlende nedgangen» i voldskriminaliteten, men slår fast at «ingen kjenner årsakene»."

Murder Rate Drops to Lowest Level Since at Least 1900, New Report Says - The New York Times

Volds­krimi­nali­teten stuper i amerikanske byer, laveste draps­rate på 125 år

Endret 17. mai av DukeNukem3d

[Pop]

23 hours ago, Dragavon said:

https://www.vg.no/nyheter/i/e7agm9/sparket-paa-e-post-naer-250-amerikanske-diplomater-mistet-jobben

Dette vil bli en seriøs katastrofe for USAs utenrikspolitikk. Tenk all erfaring, kompetanse og rutine som forsvinner, og da skal erstattes av lojalister under ypperstepresten som har de motsatte egenskapene. Når grumpy sender slekta i stedet, som er vant med veldig andre utgangspunkt enn drevne internasjonale diplomater og forhandlere, blir USAs delegasjoner grundig rafset over. Ikke rart at både Iran, Russland, Nord-Korea har reist flirende hjem fra møter med USAs "forhandlere" siste årene. USA har oppnådd null, antakelig i stor grad pga forhandlere som ikke kan spillet. De er ute på så dypt vann at de har ingen anelse om at de er det en gang. Særdeles ydmykende og får USA til å fremstå som forhandlere av den lokale pølseboden på hjørnet.

[Filmvenn]

Natt til fredag sendes siste The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. CBS hevder showet ble kansellert på grunn av vage økonomiske grunner. Alle skjønner at ParamountSkydance avsluttet programmet for å blidgjøre Trump. At ingen snakker om dette i norsk media er flaut.

 

[sedsberg]

Ja, hvorfor skal ikke presidenten av verdens frieste land få lov til å kontrollere media slik lederne i land som Kina, NK og russland gjør det??

[Dragavon]

JK22 skrev (14 timer siden):

Anthony Scaramucci says critics misread Trump: 'Never been in a room with him'

SkyBridge Capital founder Anthony Scaramucci offered a candid psychological portrait of President Donald Trump on Saturday, arguing that critics and world leaders fundamentally misread the president’s behavior.

Trump’s Private Persona vs. Public Image

Scaramucci said many people struggle to understand how Trump became president because they have never met him in person. “People can’t figure out how Trump got to the presidency because they’ve never been in a room with him,” he wrote on X. He described Trump as "disarming, gregarious, genuinely charming" in person, which he said contrasts sharply with his more combative public image.

Scaramucci, the former White House communications director, highlighted Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney as a prime example of Trump’s private dynamic. Despite public disagreements, he said Trump calls Carney "more than any other Western leader" because Carney's resistance earns his respect.

“He craves the pushback. He just can’t admit it,” Scaramucci wrote.

Reversal In Tone

The remarks carry added weight given that Scaramucci has separately and publicly called for Trump’s removal from office.

Earlier in this week, Scaramucci said his brief White House tenure created severe strain at home, adding that his wife strongly opposed Trump and their marriage was "almost" pushed to the breaking point during that period.

Scaramucci's recent remarks also mark a sharp reversal from his earlier comments, when he described Trump as a "reality TV producer" who engineers cycles of conflict for attention and control.

Dette er litt gammelt nytt, fordi Trump som en durkdreven svindler er nødt til å sjarmere, smiske og overtale slik at de fleste ikke klarte å se ansiktet og intellekturet bak masken - men det Scaramucci skildrer er riktig, til tross for hans hevngjerrighet og ego er det latt merke til at han innerst inne er en feiging som vik unna så snart man viser tenner og gjør motstand. Likedan om at han fremme konflikt og polarisering for oppmerksomhet, illusjon av kontroll i splitt-og-hersk stil. 

The Supreme Court has unleashed 'Jim Crow 2.0' as the South rolls back Black representation

The Supreme Court’s decision gutting the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais has commenced the largest rollback of Black political representation since the end of Reconstruction and the imposition of Jim Crow in the South.

Once bound by the law to draw districts that do not result in discrimination against Black voters, Southern states are now freed by the court to eliminate those Black-majority districts and replace them with white majorities. Three such seats have either already been eliminated or are on a fast track to be eliminated in Alabama, Louisiana and Tennessee. White Republican governments in Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina are also moving forward with special legislative sessions to redraw maps.

In total, white Republican majorities could eliminate upwards of 19 Black majority seats across the South, according to a study by Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter. This is only the tip of the iceberg, as the Supreme Court’s decision applies to all state offices elected through district maps. This threatens Black and Latino representation in state legislatures, state judiciaries, city and county councils and many other elected offices.

This potential extinction-level event for Black political representation across the South harkens back to some of the darkest days of the country’s history.

“This is Jim Crow 2.0,” said Tennessee state Rep. Justin Pearson, a Democrat who was running for his party’s nomination in the now-eliminated Memphis congressional district. “This is racist redistricting. This is retribution that happened after Reconstruction. And it is the neo-confederacy, not separating from the union, but changing the institutions in the country in order to solidify their power.”

Following the Civil War and the end of slavery, the Republican Congress led an ambitious campaign of Reconstruction to integrate the formerly enslaved into political society and create pluralistic governments in the South. Hundreds of Black men (women still did not have the right to vote) were elected to offices including governor, congressman, senator and on down following the passage of the 14th and 15th amendments. But this was short-lived as white Southerners organized a campaign of violent repression and terrorism known as Redemption to seize back control, while the Supreme Court carved the original intent out of the 14th and 15th amendments and gutted civil rights laws passed by Congress.

These Redeemers imposed new laws and constitutions on the Southern states meant to ensure white rule by eliminating Black political representation and Black voting rights. This push culminated with the enactment of Jim Crow laws across the South as a response to suppress the successful fusion of Black voters with white Populists at the turn of the 20th century. What remained were authoritarian states imposing racial apartheid through legalism and violence.

The last Black congressman of this era, George H. White, gave his farewell speech in 1901 after North Carolina adopted Jim Crow laws effectively banning Black people from voting.

“This, Mr. Chairman, is perhaps the Negroes’ temporary farewell to the American Congress; but let me say, phoenix-like he will rise up some day and come again,” White said. “These parting words are in behalf of an outraged, heartbroken, bruised, and bleeding, but God-fearing people, faithful, industrious, loyal people-rising people, full of potential force.”

The former Confederate states would not send another Black congressman to Washington for another 72 years. The Voting Rights Act, enacted in 1965 following the historic march from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. made that possible. That law banned the bread-and-butter of Jim Crow — literacy tests and other subjective discriminatory criteria for voter registration — and created legal mechanisms to challenge laws and district maps as discriminatory.

But even the original Voting Rights Act could only do so much. In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled in City of Mobile v. Bolden that plaintiffs challenging a district map as discriminatory must show evidence of racially discriminatory intent. This was very hard as even the Jim Crow laws were designed to be facially neutral, that is, to not explicitly apply only to Black people. And so, with a broad bipartisan vote in 1982, Congress passed a reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act that overruled the Supreme Court by requiring plaintiffs to show that a given law or map resulted in discrimination, rather than being intentionally crafted to discriminate.

Challenges brought under Section 2 of the newly reauthorized Voting Rights Act centered on post-1990 Census redistricting and, for the first time since Reconstruction, Southern Black political representation in Congress exceeded that of the post-Civil War period.

But the court’s decision in Callais threatens all of this by reversing the 1982 Voting Rights Act reauthorization by stating that challenges brought under the law’s Section 2 to district maps must prove intentional racial discrimination. The decision also requires any challenge to yield to the partisan motives of state legislators, who can now claim they are eliminating Black majority seats simply because they predominantly elect Democrats.

“Callais basically gave [state governments] the defibrillator to the heart of Jim Crow to be more bold and aggressive to eliminate Black districts, eliminate Black representation, and the Supreme Court says as long as you’re doing it for partisan reasons, it’s legal,” said Davante Lewis, a Democrat who serves as an elected member of the Louisiana Public Service Commission, which regulates public utilities in the state.

And they are using it. Tennessee’s all-white government slammed through a new map within days of the Supreme Court’s decision wiping out the state’s only Black-majority House seat centered on Memphis, which existed well before the passage of the Voting Rights Act and before the city became majority Black.

In Louisiana, Republicans are on the verge of enacting a new map that would wipe out the Black-majority district centered on Baton Rouge and represented by Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields, while preserving the New Orleans district currently represented by Democratic Rep. Troy Carter.

Before the new map was slammed through a Louisiana Senate committee at 4:30 in the morning on Wednesday, Louisianians provided testimony denouncing it as a return to the state’s old practices of racial discrimination and segregation. Among those testifying was Leona Tate, who, at the age of 6, joined Ruby Bridges, Tessi Provost and Gail Etienne as the first Black children to desegregate Louisiana public schools in 1960.

“I went through something no child should go through to desegregate our state,” Tate told the committee. “And now 65 years later, I’m watching as lawmakers attempt to go backwards and segregate us once again through disgraceful voting maps.”

Alabama Republicans, meanwhile, passed a trigger law that enables the state to revert to a congressional map adopted in 2021 with just one Black-majority House seat, depending on how a U.S. District Court rules in a related case. 

“I never thought that me, at 52, where my grandfather and mother and her classmates were fighting for voting rights and acceptance and equal opportunity, that I would be fighting the same battles,” said state Sen. Merika Coleman, a Democrat representing a Black-majority seat centered around Birmingham.

South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, called a special legislative session to eliminate the state’s sole Black-majority seat held by Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn after five Republican state senators joined Democrats to block the legislature from calling itself back into session for the same purpose.

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, both Republicans, have called for special sessions to eliminate Black majority districts for the 2028 elections. Tate also called for Mississippi Republicans to redraw state legislative and state supreme court maps.

These calls by white Republican majorities to eliminate Black majority seats do not just look like the actions that Southern states took when they wiped out Black political power and installed Jim Crow; they sound like them, too.

Back then, white Southerners claimed that their states were plagued by “Negro misrule,” arguing that Black people were not morally fit to exercise the franchise or serve in government. White rule would be superior. Today, this rhetoric is only slightly toned down.

“What I will tell you is the tenure of Congressman Bennie Thompson reigning terror on the Second Congressional District is over,” Reeves said on Wednesday about Mississippi’s lone Black congressman. “It’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when.”

“The districts represented by Democratic congressmembers would probably be better off right now with some conservative voices being able to help their communities,” Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said on May 5.

“To say that Black voters in Alabama would fare better if they were represented by Republicans, how dare he determine what is best for us,” Coleman said.

Throughout this attack on Black voting rights and representation, Republicans have attempted to mask their actions with claims of partisan motivation, as the Supreme Court told them to do, and calls for “conservative” supremacy in their states.

“Tennessee is a conservative state,” Tennessee Republican state Sen. John Stevens said on the statehouse floor in support of the bill eliminating the state’s lone Black majority House seat. “Its congressional delegation should reflect that.”

But not all Republicans have properly masked this rhetorical euphemism of its racial meaning, as South Carolina GOP Rep. Ralph Norman failed to do when he contrasted conservatives in his state with Black people.

“Jim Clyburn — I like him personally, but he does not represent the rest of South Carolina, which is conservative,” Norman, who is running for governor, said on Newsmax on Monday. “His district is close to 47% African-American. And then 41% [white], with 6% makeup of Hispanics.”

The Supreme Court instigated this return to the South’s history of repressing Black political representation, but the Callais decision isn’t the lone example of a new Jim Crow rising. 

Tennessee lawmakers have repeatedly attacked Memphis by installing an all-white overseer board as part of a seizure of the city’s school boards and overriding bills to establish civilian review boards for police misconduct. Louisiana Republicans eliminated New Orleans’ office of criminal clerk after Calvin Duncan, an exonerated Black man, won election to it. Attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and critical race theory (CRT) have spurred laws banning or restricting the teaching of Black history across the South.

These efforts to wipe out the Civil Rights Movement’s progress aren’t restricted to the South, but are coming from the top of the Republican Party. President Donald Trump sought to ban DEI with an executive order, rescinded a Civil Rights-era executive order that banned racially discriminatory hiring for government contractors, canceled grants and programs that help Black communities, engaged in a purge of government workers that has disproportionately targeted Black women and fired high-level Black military officials while replacing them with white men.

This new era of Redemption, however, is not being met without resistance. Mass mobilizations are already underway across the South with large rallies in Selma and Montgomery, Alabama — the sites that gave birth to the Voting Rights Act — planned for Saturday. Organizers are planning more voter registration drives and protests now, as democratic reforms to the Supreme Court gain steam.

“We are in a historical place right now whether you call it the next Civil Rights Movement or the next Reconstruction,” Coleman said. “We are in the midst of a pinnacle point in the history of this country, to say who are we? Are we the America that welcomes all people and feels as if all people should have a voice and have representation? Or are we a country that creates an atmosphere of us and them?”

Det er veldig merkelig at mediene ikke hente fram krigsoppskriftene både i og utenfor USA. Veldig merkelig. Og det er lik merkelig at rasismestemplet ikke er hentet fram. Her har man synlige rasistiske holdninger som motiv for å demontere demokrati og minoritetsrettigheter, og ennå har det ikke kommet mye bråk i motsetning til det som hendt i 1960-1990 perioden. Los Angeles-opptøyene i 1992 var "sist gang" ordet "rasist" var i folkebevissthet i betraktning av begivenhetene i USA. Nå må den hentes fram på nytt. 

Blir motstykket til det iranske prestestyret, berre med bibel i staden for koran.