Trump 2025

[Griever]

Imaginacíon skrev (1 minutt siden):

Det siste er at Antifa er terrordesignert. Det er umulig fordi Antifa er kun en idé. Det fins ikke noe lederskap og ikke noen medlemmer.

I Trump og hans kompanjongers hender er det et farlig redskap fordi det kan brukes til undertrykking av all uønskelig politisk aktivitet.

Jeg har vage minner om en tid der noe slikt hadde overrasket meg.

[SilverShaded]

Jaja, nå står trumpeten der sammen med den britiske statsministeren og lirer av seg de samme gamle løgnene om innvandrere, økonomien og valget i 2020. 

[Dragavon]

Endret 12 timer siden av Dragavon

[Dragavon]

Sitat

 

Natt til torsdag, norsk tid, kom nyheten om at Jimmy Kimmels talkshow «Jimmy Kimmel Live» har blitt satt på pause - på ubestemt tid.

Reaksjonene lar ikke vente på seg. En lang rekke eksperter mener det dramatiske grepet skjer etter voldsomt press - og et klart ønske - fra USAs president Donald Trump.

Nyheten har skapt sjokkbølger i flere miljøer. Nå tar tidligere president Barack Obama bladet fra munnen, og han holder ikke igjen i sin kritikk av Trump-administrasjonen.

- Etter flere år med klaging over kanselleringskultur, har den sittende administrasjonen løftet det hele til et nytt og farlig nivå ved å jevnlig å true med tiltak mot medieselskaper dersom de ikke knebler eller sparker journalister og kommentatorer den (Trump-administrasjonen, red.anm.) ikke liker.

Det skriver Obama på X, før han følger opp:

- Dette er akkurat den typen statlig press som ytringsfriheten i grunnloven er ment å forhindre – og medieselskapene må begynne å kjempe imot i stedet for å gi etter.

 

https://www.dagbladet.no/studio/nyhetsstudio/687?post=187843

[Griever]

Dragavon skrev (16 minutter siden):

https://www.dagbladet.no/studio/nyhetsstudio/687?post=187843

Det er ikke mulig å forsvare dette. 

[Rune_says]

De facto har Trump nå kontroll med media - alle som fornærmer han eller jobber mot ham saksøker han for mange milliarder dollar slik at eierne gir etter.  Spesielt om de er i en oppkjøpsprosess - der Trump også kontrollerer FCC som kan henholdvis gjøre livet lett eller vanskelig for mediehus.

Trump har kontroll over FBI, CIA, DHS, ICE, Marshal tjenesten etc... og ikke minst høyesterett som har fulgt en forenklet behandling som sannsynligvis ville kvalifisert til "malpractice" om det var en lavere rettsinnstans.  Men situasjonen nå er at det er ingen som kan sanksjonere høyesterett, ICE, FBI, CIA, DOJ eller lign.   Det betyr at vi kan vente enda større "power trips" fra etatene som Trump kontrollerer og helt ned til den enkelte ICE-agent som nå er "untouchable" selv om de opptrer grunnlovsstridig.

I One Big Beautiful Bill sørget Trump også for å gjøre seg selv immun mot straffeforfølgelse.

Neste etter de etablerte mediene blir sannsynligvis youtubere med nok seertall.

Så, selv om virkemidlene er noe annerledes enn i Putin's i Russland, så blir resultatet det samme, en total knebling og forfølgelse av alle medier og opposisjonelle om "Project 2025" får lov å fullføres.

 

[Dragavon]

Rune_says skrev (7 minutter siden):

Så, selv om virkemidlene er noe annerledes enn i Putin's i Russland, så blir resultatet det samme, en total knebling og forfølgelse av alle medier og opposisjonelle om "Project 2025" får lov å fullføres.

Ja, det var det noen sa, og blei kalt hysteriske.

[Snikpellik]

Trump får for lite skryt for at han fikk til fred mellom Aberbaijan og Albania.

[SilverShaded]

Snikpellik skrev (8 minutter siden):

Trump får for lite skryt for at han fikk til fred mellom Aberbaijan og Albania.

En utrolig tale, bokstavelig talt. Ja, ingen har stoppet så mange kriger som han, og ingen kan geografi som han ! Og ingen vet så mye om krig som Trump, som aldri har satt sine ben i en uniform.

[Griever]

Dragavon skrev (1 time siden):

Ja, det var det noen sa, og blei kalt hysteriske.

Jeg har vært motstander av det råtne mennesket helt fra starten, og jeg trodde det kom til å bli ille om han vant. Men jeg skal innrømme at jeg trodde det var ordninger og slikt på plass som sikret at det ikke kunne bli så ille som dette.

[obygda]

Griever skrev (1 time siden):

Det er ikke mulig å forsvare dette. 

Joda - Donald prøver hele tiden........

[obygda]

Griever skrev (18 minutter siden):

Jeg har vært motstander av det råtne mennesket helt fra starten, og jeg trodde det kom til å bli ille om han vant. Men jeg skal innrømme at jeg trodde det var ordninger og slikt på plass som sikret at det ikke kunne bli så ille som dette.

Det har jo så vidt begynt..mannen har jo ikke sittet ett år ennå...det blir nok verre.........

[Griever]

obygda skrev (1 minutt siden):

Joda - Donald prøver hele tiden........

Sant, og følgerne hans nikker og kaller han vis.

"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"

[Snikpellik]

 

«When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump, that’s all they do — if you go back, I guess they haven’t had a conservative one in years, or something — when you go back and take a look, all they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”

Trump says because he won the election and networks give him “wholly bad publicity” that “I would think maybe their license should be taken away."

He tells reporters: “It will be up to Brendan Carr. I think Brendan Carr is outstanding. He's a patriot. He loves our country, and he's a tough guy.”

Vanvittige uttalelser fra en amerikansk president.

Endret 9 timer siden av Snikpellik

[Boing_80]

Fyren klarer å kalle Albania for Armenia og uttaler Aserbajdsjan på en keitete måte

Er det nå det blir:

MAGA: Jump!
Resten av verden: How high?

Endret 8 timer siden av Boing_80

[SilverShaded]

Riktig så galt er det ikke, noen har fremdeles baller. Her er bl.a mer om Trump's besøk i Storbritania, fra MSNBC.

"Trump wants us to talk about Jimmy Kimmel.."

 

[JK22]

Etter attentatet på Kirk ser vi nå at det ikke lenge er en konstitusjonskrise som både mediene og republikanerne later ikke eksistere, men et brudd med det konstitusjonelle systemet og dermed slutten på "det amerikanske eksperimentet", for republikanerne i deres iver ser ikke ut til å sanse at de ikke bare går for langt, men også tok USA helt ut på ukjent land - for nå bryter de alle normene så det monner, med Roberts velsignelse.

Reaksjonene mot ytringene omkring Kirk nådd sin topp med "Charles Kirk Act"-forslaget som er intet mer enn løgn og propaganda i huset i kongressen, med 166 republikanerne, og sparkingen av komikeren Kimmel har fulgt til meget voldsomme reaksjoner (selv av russlandsvennen Tucker Carlson) som republikanerne helt ignorere. Trump nå meget synlig bryte alle lover og regler som er nødvendig for å opprettholde den amerikanske unionen, han har tatt kongressens autoritet og dermed sørget for at bare han selv skal bestemme i budsjettarbeidet, han aktet å ignorere loven foran en nedstengning som demokratene nå er meget åpent for. Det er omfattende voksende misnøye over den økonomiske situasjonen som meget raskt forverret seg, mens hele 120 mill. amerikanske statsborgere og halvparten så mange migranter er i ferd med å miste grunnleggende rettigheter. De er i ferd med å bli "upersoner". 

Her er en rekke artikler; 

Democrats are being 'totally set up' by Republicans on Charlie Kirk vote: insiders

'Getting a little out of control': MAGA firebrand blasts latest theory about Kirk's death

Manufactured outrage is killing academic freedom in Texas | Opinion

Tucker Carlson says Trump administration is using Charlie Kirk’s killing to trample First Amendment

This is how they silenced Stephen King | Opinion

We’ve Reached the Era of American Unhistory

It’s clear now that we are going to adapt a trope from George Orwell, who wrote in 1984 of “unpersons”: people whose existence has been disappeared because of an offense against the Party.

We have passed into the era of “unhistory.” The other day, it was announced that a famous 1863 picture of an ex-slave showing the crisscrossed scar tissue from dozens of whippings would be removed from a national park. And, as The Washington Post says, this was part of a general campaign on the part of the administration to quite literally whitewash American history as presented on our public lands.

The problem with debating fascists — from a guy who’s debated just about everyone

Det simpelt går ikke å debattere med fascister. Likedan med enhver som har inntatt en fanatisk innstilling som gjør dem helt umotagelig for enhver form for argument som fornuftige samtale. Med min personlige erfaring omkring selverklærte antivestlige stalinister som i dag er russlandsvenner - spesielt omkring Ondoro i VGD i 2006-2012, som hadde eneansvaret for å ødelegge debattkulturen som MOD og eierne helt ignorert - kan jeg slutte meg til en slik konklusjon. 

Very rarely can you change your opponent’s mind. My goal is to change the people watching. When you’re debating on stage, as I have done, or whether you’re debating on YouTube and 10 or 11 or 12 million people now have watched that Surrounded show, you are hoping that in that 11 or 12 million people, there are a handful of people who are truly open-minded, truly independent people. 

Det er hvorfor jeg hadde i mange år prøvd å snakke med moderatorene i VGD om å kaste ut antivestlige som med viten og vilje bruker debatt for å spre sin gift, men for sent - "ytringsfrihet über alles", "fornuft alltid seire", "alle har rett" og "toleranse for intoleranse" - man hadde i debattforum, diskusjonstråd og så videre en naiv ide om at enhver som skje der, forbli innenfor - uten å fatte at debatt er som ringer i vannet med stor spredningseffekt. I 2000-årene var nazister og fascister kastet ut av VGD, nå er de på vei tilbake. Mye styrket pga. de antivestliges systematiske svekkelse av debattreglene og debattatferd for å fremme polarisering og åpenlys konflikt. Fascismen er i ferd med å bli stuerent - helt motsatt av hva det hadde vært for tjue år siden. VGD har forsvunnet i mellomtiden. 

Folk har altfor lett med å sette hverandre i båser og bli partisk inntil punktet at disse risikere å komme inn i fascistssonen. Disse som ikke forstått dette, som Mehdi Hasan som utsettes for ren og skjær rasisme på direkten, hadde tidlig trodd man kunne ha fri ytring selv med disse som mener ytringer skulle militariseres eller forbys helt. Som nå skje for tiden i USA for hender på "republikanerne". Ytring innbar ansvar - det er hva som har vært min holdning i mesteparten av mitt liv. Disse som trodd på ultraliberale ytterpunkter endt opp med å risikere å miste alt. 

Obama: Trump is manufacturing America’s worst-ever political crisis

Obama er nå tilbake; han ser ut til å ha endelig fått nok, og har startet en kampanje hvor han vil deretter fokusere på "republikanerne"s synlige brudd på amerikanske normer og unionens eksistens, han hadde forstått at Trump og "republikanerne" aktet å ødelegge den demokratiske USA. Nå MÅ alle eks-presidenter - Bush junior inkludert - og eks-høyesterettssjefer går sterkt ut og fordømme både Trump og det republikanske partiet som nå har helt sluttet med å fungere som et republikansk parti og blitt et fascistparti. De kan ikke lenge ignorere utviklingen. 

Trump's new scheme to enrich his family is endangering the entire economy | Opinion

In the midst of the Trump regime’s shameful attempt to attack any and all organizations and institutions that oppose it, we must not and will not back down from holding Trump accountable for his corruption and lawlessness.

The most dangerous part of the GENIUS Act is how it allows crypto to reach into mainstream financial systems.

All this corruption is bad enough. Worse, it could tank the economy.

The GENIUS Act opens the door to institutions investing more heavily in crypto. It would even let banks and big corporations, like Walmart, Amazon, or Facebook, launch their own digital currencies — potentially thousands of them — all with little oversight.

Trump has also opened the door to letting retirement plan administrators invest 401(k) funds in crypto. That could put your savings at risk even if you never buy any cryptocurrencies.

As we saw during the 2008 financial meltdown, the more the economy becomes entwined with volatile and speculative investments, like crypto, the greater the risk to all of us. The failure of risky bets can have a domino effect.

If a single cryptocurrency began to tank — as crypto has done in the past — investors would likely rush to sell off crypto to get their real money back. This could lead to massive bank runs.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has predicted that under the GENIUS Act, crypto firms could end up holding more than $2 trillion in U.S. treasury bills as collateral. If they had to suddenly liquidate those assets to cover a bank run, the value of U.S. securities could plummet, triggering a global financial crisis.

Crypto has shown no redeeming social value and it poses huge dangers to our economy. Yet Trump is enabling it to worm into the economy because he’s taken huge crypto payoffs that have made him and his family billions of dollars.

Kryptopenger er noe jeg er meget sterkt fiendtlig mot fordi dette er mer falskere enn den meste falske FIAT, og som mange stater misliker sterkt fordi pengeøkonomi og finanskontroll er essensielt for et fungerende samfunn. Har aldri, og vil aldri røre kryptopenger som ikke engangs har symbolsk verdi garantert av mektige makter som en stat. 

Trump could flip ‘kill switch’ on payments in the West

Hva vil skje om Trump tar kontroll over viktige finansielle selskaper som kredittkortselskaper som VISA og Mastercard? En viktig årsak bak USAs plass som verdens sterkeste marked basert på egne valutastyrke som nå er i ferd med å bli farlig svekket, er investorenes tro på legal beskyttelse og ikke-politisk innblanding omkring det amerikanske finanssystemet. Forsvinne dette, vil hele Vesten få meget seriøse problemer. Danmark har deres "Dankort", men slike nasjonale kredittkort er ikke vanligkost for internasjonal frihandel - så ikke-Vesten skaffet seg egne alternativer, slik at VISA/Mastercard vil ikke være for kritisk utenfor Vesten. 

'America's Comeback' is nothing but a con job | Opinion

The question is “America Comeback” to what?

In 1981, when Ronald Reagan was sworn into office

・Fully two-thirds of Americans were in the middle class,

・College was so cheap you could pay your tuition with a weekend job,

・Healthcare was inexpensive and widely available,

・Women and minorities had achieved legal (albeit not yet actual) parity with white men,

・And school and mass shootings were largely unknown because weapons of war were mostly outlawed from our streets.

・Today, however, as a result of the Reagan Revolution:

・Only around half of us are in the middle class,

College debt has crushed two generations to the point where they can’t start a family or buy a house,

A half-million families end up homeless or bankrupt every year because somebody got sick,

The GOP is leading an effort to make it harder for women and minorities to vote or maintain employment,

And, with more guns than people, mass shootings are an almost-daily occurrence.

It's easy to see why an appealing pitch to the nation’s young people would be “comeback” or “Make America Great Again.” But what caused that “greatness” that we need to “come back to” and what wrecked it?

The American middle class is a relatively recent phenomenon. In 1900, only about 17 percent of us were in it; by the time of the Republican Great Depression it was about a quarter of us.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt was sworn into office in 1933, he embarked on a radical new campaign to create the world’s first widespread, more-than-half-of-us middle class. It had three main long-term components.

First, he passed the Wagner Act in 1935 that legalized labor unions and forbade employers from bringing in scab workers or refusing to recognize a union. That gave workers democracy in the workplace, and they used that power to demand that as their productivity increased, so would their pay and benefits.

Second, he established a minimum wage to make sure that people who worked full time would never end up in poverty.

Third, he raised the top income tax rate to 90 percent for the morbidly rich and 52 percent for corporations.

That high top tax rate on the rich meant that the average CEO took only about 30 times what the average worker did (because he’d be paying 90 percent or 74 percent after taking the first few millions), leaving far more money in the company to give raises and benefits to workers.

Corporations could get around their top tax rate by investing in their business. Research and development, new product roll-outs, advertising and marketing, and increasing pay and benefits were all tax-deductible, and that high tax rate incentivized them to do these things that built a strong and resilient manufacturing economy (stock buybacks were considered illegal stock manipulation until 1983).

Reagan undid all of that, lowering the top tax rate on the morbidly rich from 74 percent to 27 percent (it’s since gone up to 34 percent), cutting the top corporate tax rate to 34 percent, and legalizing stock buybacks, so now CEOs are taking literally hundreds of billions out of their companies (Musk is set to make a trillion) and wages for workers have been mostly flat even since 1981.

In similar fashion, Reagan declared war on labor unions so effectively that that one-third of us protected by unions in 1981 has collapsed. Today private sector union membership rates are only 5.9 percent, with some states even lower (North Carolina 2.4 percent, South Dakota 2.7 percent, and South Carolina 2.8 percent.

Regarding college, 80 percent of the cost of an education in state-run colleges and universities was paid by government when Reagan came into office, leaving about 20 percent of the cost to be covered by tuition. The Reagan Revolution changed all that, so that today tuition covers the largest percentage and the state is only covering around 20 percent-40 percent (it varies from state to state).

Healthcare was inexpensive when Reagan came into office because most states required both insurance companies and hospitals to run as nonprofits. There weren’t any billionaire insurance industry executives like Dollar Bill McGuire until Republicans changed the rules of the game, letting insurance companies and hospitals run as profit-making operations at the expense of the American public.

Great strides had also been made in opportunity for minorities and women by 1981; just a decade earlier women had gained the right to have a credit card or sign a mortgage without a husband, brother, or father’s signature. Affirmative Action programs were pulling racial and religious minorities into the mainstream of the American economy, kicking off a widespread Black middle class.

So, if Charlie Kirk was all about an “American Comeback,” what were his positions on the issues that created that broad, widespread middle class that Republicans and Trump promise us they’ll restore when they “Make America Great Again”?

On taxes, Kirk wanted to replace the progressive income tax with a 10 percent flat tax, so even the poorest person is paying income taxes on their meager income while the morbidly rich get a massive tax break.

He called unions “cartels” and celebrated teachers losing the right to unionize.

On college tuition, he opposed any plan to reduce student debt or increase federal or state funding to higher education, calling free college a “bribe.”

And on health care, Kirk opposed the kind of universal health care every other developed country in the world has, calling the VA an example of failed “government-run” healthcare.

With regard to the rights of women and minorities Charlie was also outspoken, most notably saying about prominent Black women Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, whom he labeled “affirmative action picks”:

“You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”

He added:

“We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the mid-1960s.”

Finally, with regard to guns, even though 87 percent of Americans want reasonable gun control, Kirk was all-in with the firearms industry, arguing that “some gun deaths every single year” are worth the cost of the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. How do we protect our kids? Kirk said, quite simply, more guns was the solution:

“If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don’t our children?”

So, the question: How does doubling down on low taxes for the morbidly rich, keeping our health care for-profit, withholding higher education funding, gutting unions, increasing the number of guns, and trash-talking women and minorities make America “comeback”?

Republicans and their well-paid hustlers (Kirk took in hundreds of millions) have been promoting these positions for forty-four years and the result has been the gutting of the American middle class, now leading to anger, resentment, and political violence.

It’s way past time for America to return to the policies and positions that history proves (both in America and around the world) produce and build a strong middle class, the essential foundation for economic and political stability.

Problemet er at amerikanerne - spesielt hvitebefolkningen - har latt seg styres av sine fordommer etter republikanerne realiserte det finnes en sterk rasistisk understrømning som kunne utnyttes for å reversere enhver og kansellere det som ikke fikses med en fascistinspirert kanselleringskultur som startet i enkelte kommuner i sørstatene i slutten på 1950-tallet som reaksjoner på legale seirer for minoritetsfolk som bare ønsket å gå i samme park, svømme i samme basseng og spise i samme restaurant som de andre. Det har endt med at hviteamerikanerne saboterte seg selv - og ført USA mot randen av utslettelse. For å svindle et menneske må du finne menneskets svakheter. Trump var bare den siste svindleren. 

Allan J. Lichtman: The Truth About Conservatism | Opinion

When President Donald Trump said, “The States are merely an ‘agent’ for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes,” he revealed a profound inconsistency: states’ rights—long upheld in conservative rhetoric—can be discarded when inconvenient.

Too often, conservative principles operate as talking points for public consumption, rather than convictions. The disconnect between stated ideals and political practice corrodes the familiar conservative commitments to limited government, fiscal responsibility, free enterprise, personal morality and responsibility, law and order, and strict construction of the Constitution. The truth of conservatism lies elsewhere, in the unshakeable principles that the dispensable litany of professed ideals protects.

Conservatives have repeatedly used state power to regulate private life—from alcohol, drugs, gambling, and prostitution to LGBTQ rights, pornography, and abortion. They have supported expansive military and police forces, aggressive counter‑subversion measures, large‑scale deportations, censorship in schools, and book bans. The real clash with liberals is not over how big government should be, but over what the state should be empowered to do.

Conservatives often decry reckless spending and deficits when out of power, yet when governing, many have overseen historic increases in debt through tax cuts and expanded spending. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump each presided over substantial rises in the federal deficit and national debt.

Despite professing fidelity to free enterprise, conservatives have repeatedly backed government interventions that advantage corporations. Republican presidents, from Warren Harding to Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump, have supported protectionist tariffs that undermine free markets. At the federal and state levels, conservatives have carved out market exceptions through favorable regulations, anti‑union policies, and “corporate welfare”—loans, subsidies, and tax breaks that tilt the playing field toward well‑connected firms.

Conservatives condemned President Bill Clinton‘s personal moral failings, arguing that they disqualified him from holding public office. However, they have overlooked the transgressions of conservatives such as serial adulterers Warren Harding, Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump, Herschel Walker, and convicted pedophile Dennis Hastert. They ignored Trump’s 34 felony count convictions and the civil finding that he sexually abused, hurt, and defamed E. Jean Carroll.

Conservative leaders and administrations have besmirched the rule of law in the Republic’s gravest scandals; Teapot Dome under Harding, Watergate under Nixon, Iran–Contra under Reagan, and multiple scandals in the Trump era. False claims of a stolen 2020 election helped fuel the January 6 attack on the Capitol, which injured more than 140 officers. The historical record of prosecutions reflects this pattern: for presidents from Jimmy Carter to Trump 45, there were 142 criminal indictments under the three Republican administrations, compared to two indictments under the three Democratic administrations.

A conservative U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has departed from conservatives’ professed commitment to the Constitution’s plain meaning and the framers’ intent. Conservatives have accused liberal justices of injecting politics into rulings. Yet, the “Robert’s Court” has rendered politically infused decisions on campaign finance, gun rights, abortion, presidential immunity, and the disqualification clause of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Understanding the core principles of American conservatism starts with recognizing that it is more than a reaction against the liberal state. Modern conservatism developed its own history and internal logic, emerging not merely in opposition but alongside liberalism as a powerful response to the social and economic upheavals of the early 20th century. It is a robust, forward‑looking tradition with a distinct vision for the nation’s future.

Since World War I, the American right has held together as a political movement by prioritizing a conservative vision of white Christian values and private enterprise, while shielding those immutable core principles with expendable public‑facing ideals. As House Speaker Mike Johnson said, “Pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That’s my worldview.” For Johnson and many conservatives, selected biblical teachings sanctify stances on abortion, gay rights, and school prayer, and condemn liberal approaches to taxes, welfare, and regulation. Yet, they typically cherry‑pick marginal strands of Christian tradition while overlooking its stronger emphases on the dangers of wealth, greed, and falsehoods, and its concern for the poor, oppressed, and marginalized. Contrary to Johnson’s claim, politics shapes conservatives’ interpretation of biblical truth rather than biblical truth shaping their politics.

Conservatives have upheld private enterprise through two seemingly contradictory but complementary strategies. They have endorsed government intervention to benefit big business, while simultaneously dismantling taxes and regulations related to civil rights, the environment, worker safety, finance, labor relations, and consumer protections.

Properly understood, Donald Trump is the culmination, not the contradiction, of American conservatism. He won the Republican nomination for president because he articulated conservative principles more boldly and forthrightly than any other candidate. His cultural wars faithfully follow the conservative vision of Christian teachings. Although his tariffs have a mixed impact on business, he has otherwise gifted enterprise with significant tax breaks, deregulation, anti-union initiatives, and the opening of federal lands to private interests. Republicans in Congress have bowed to nearly every Trump appointment and policy, not primarily because they fear him, but because his agenda mirrors the party’s conservative priorities.

Og dette hadde gått helt forbi mesteparten av det amerikanske folket som ikke klarte å fatte at de hadde blitt svindlet i førti år, fordi de hadde blitt så individualistisk at de raskt kom i uenighet og deretter konflikt med hverandre. All snakk om "mindre stat" i virkeligheten er snakk om LØGN - de vil ha en retur til reguleringsstatens ære, da staten regulere alt som involvere privatliv i enhver i 1800-1960, "i religionens navn" eller "moralens navn". Det forklarer hvorfor de delstatlige republikanerne ser ut til å ville ødelegge deres delstatenes suverenitet og går inn for en nasjonalistisk sentralisering (Solbergs "fylkesreformen" kom i tanker) samt intensivere deres angrep på demokratistyrte delstater. 

I dag er det nå mange som endelig se hva som er det "republikanske" partiets sanne ansiktet; et nær-fascistisk parti som livnære seg på rasefordommer, statlig kooperativisme og brutalisme basert på bevisste manipulering og forfalskning av kristne verdier - dette er et Jim Crow-parti. Jim Crow-regimet var ikke bare rettet mot de fargede; det var utviklet som et nasjonalt identitetsmarkør for hvitebefolkningen i 1870-1914 perioden hvor den moderne rasismen oppsto, og som fascismen som nazismen henter sin inspirasjon fra. Helt til Trump endelig revet av masken på "republikanerne" i 2025 da han gir dem frislipp for alt disse lyster etter, hadde de færreste forstått hva som skjule seg i dette partiet. 

Nå flere artikler om utviklingen i økonomien, det går ikke bra. Kort sagt; Trump er i ferd med å bli en katastrofe.

The Economy Is Turning Into a Black Box

Trump takes hit as consumers lose confidence in the economy

U.S. Leading Indicators Continue to Show Weakening Economy

Jeg tror "republikanerne" i kongressen egentlig ikke bryr seg om den økonomiske utviklingen.