Trump 2025

[halnes1]

jjkoggan skrev (3 timer siden):

Et fengsel impliserer at fangene har noe rettigheter og har blitt dømt skyldig av noe kriminalitet eller venter på deres sjanse å overbevise en jury de er uskyldige, ikke et sted hvor folk mistenkes av politiet og kan deporteres uten sjanse til å overbevise en dommer/jury at de er uskyldige.  

I følge loven kan en deportere ulovlige innvandrere hvis de har en kriminell fortid.
Så det er Homeland Security som bestemmer hvem ICE,CBP,FBI og flere som skal arresteres.

[Atib Azzad]

15 hours ago, Tussi said:

Hvorfor nevnes Peter Thiel som kristenkonservativ i denne tråden? Han er en gift homofil mann

Ja, det er kanskje mer korrekt å beskrive ham som kristen og konservativ/neokonservativ?

[Rune_says]

Tussi skrev (15 timer siden):

Hvorfor nevnes Peter Thiel som kristenkonservativ i denne tråden? Han er en gift homofil mann

Fordi han er milliardær, tett støttespiller til Trump og tett støttespiller til Israel via firmaet sitt Palantir.

Kristenkonservativ i USA idag er noe i nærheten av en nazist, men den nye typen nazist som ikke er like lett å definere.

Palantir er overvåkning på stereoider og antas å bygge en database over alle amerikanere som Trump kan bruke til å holde opposisjonen under kontroll.  ( Han er ellers for trans-humanisme - dagens trans er bagateller sier han, han ønsker f.eks. å finne en måte å downloade bevisstheten til en robot og leve evig eller evt andre teknologiske/fremtidige løsninger   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsJ-dZ2T5G0   )

 

Endret 19. oktober av Rune_says

[Rune_says]

halnes1 skrev (44 minutter siden):

I følge loven kan en deportere ulovlige innvandrere hvis de har en kriminell fortid.
Så det er Homeland Security som bestemmer hvem ICE,CBP,FBI og flere som skal arresteres.

De fleste i ICE fangenskap har ikke noe kriminelt rulleblad, men hovedproblemet er at de ikke får mulighet til å få saken sin hørt heller - dvs sannsynligvis mange justismord.

Sitat

Data from mid-2025 shows that 71.5% of ICE detainees had no criminal convictions. 

ICE går også etter høyprofilerte uskyldige.  F.eks. en som satt 43 år i fengsel. Nye bevis renvasket ham, nå skal ICE deportere ham til India selv om han har en familie i USA og kom til landet 9mnd gml https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgz85g6pj0o

Før han ble arrestert var han også amerikansk borger

Sitat

Mr Vedam, who is a legal permanent resident, had his citizenship application accepted before he was arrested. Both of his parents were also both US citizens.

Meget beleilig at staten ikke må betale noen millioner dollar i oppreisning

[JK22]

jjkoggan skrev (1 time siden):

Deres rettigheter krever mer enn 6 timer 

Are immigrants entitled to due process when facing deportation? 

Yes. The Fifth and 14th Amendments’ due process clauses protect every person within U.S. borders, regardless of immigration status. The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this, ruling that immigrants facing deportation under the Alien Enemies Act are entitled to the opportunity to challenge the legality of their detention before removal. The Court cited its ruling in Reno v. Flores, a 1993 case where Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles [immigrants] to due process of law.”

This means that a person accused of being in the country without authorization should have the right to a fair trial in immigration court. People should have a chance to see and challenge the evidence against them. This can prevent harmful injustices and the unchecked use of government power to detain, deport, and disappear people—many of whom are seeking safety and may have the right to stay rooted in their community.

Dette ignoreres helt av republikanerne, inkludert den føderale høyesteretten som nekte å sette et stopp på dette, ettersom gjeldende lov gjort det klart at alle personer uansett status innenfor grensene av den amerikanske unionen har rettsikkerhet ved at de kan prøve sin sak for retten, og at det ikke er tillatt å deportere folk uten en etterprøving av deres sak selv om det gjøres et unntak for disse som begår alvorlige forbrytelser. Et meget svimlende lite fåtall av disse som deporteres, hadde begått kriminelle handlinger. 

Trump perversere det amerikanske folket for hver dag som går, selv om han bli mindre og mindre populær; nå er han ned på cirka 36 % ifølge meningsmålingene. Det går altfor sløv, men det er nå bare 5 til 8 % igjen før han er på mellom 25 og 30 % - og andelen republikanere som eniges med hans politikk, er ved å komme under 60 %-tallet. Mange begynner å bli sint, men de må innser - de MÅ - at så lenge de ikke skifte om til demokratene er det ikke mulig for dem å tvinge republikanere til å kaste ut Trump, selv om flere oligarker skal ha begynte å støtte deler av MAGA for å stoppe Trump. Det eneste som vil få de folkevalgte til å beordre Trump settes i arrest, er om de står i fare om å miste hele støtten og ende opp som Høyre i Norge ved å bli utrydningstruet. 

Litt fra MSN: 

Donald Trump just suggested that hate is more powerful than love | Opinion

Donald Trump not only believes that his rule is absolute and that his word is law. He believes that he’s infallible – that he can do no wrong. To many in magaworld, he’s less president than the right hand of God.

In his opinion of the infallible ruler, love doesn’t count in religion.

Hate, however, is the One True Faith.

According to historian Claire Bond Potter, Trump’s “unprecedented statement” is a command that fits “the definition of truthful hyperbole: it asks an audience inspired by Charlie Kirk’s slick combination of bigotry, reason, and xenophobic patriotism to think big.”

Claire concluded:

“And the big thought from Donald Trump is this: You may be Christian — but don’t be a sucker. Hate is more powerful than love. Look at me — why, hatred made me president. Think what it could do for you.”

Hate is more powerful than love. That's what Donald Trump suggested at the Charlie Kirk memorial, where the audience was said to be filled with the followers of Jesus Christ. You noted the connection in one of your latest. Walk me through that please.

One of the things we know about social media is that negative emotions – anger, hatred, resentment – are animating for a mass audience. The maga movement has energized a populist audience with negativity. It's what is behind not just the policies they choose, but the reasoning behind those choices.

Dette kan lede til at militæret og politistyrkene må settes inn for å stanse MAGA-bevegelsen fordi det begynner å minne om de røde gardistene sluppet fri av Mao i 1960-tallet, som til slutt var blitt så oppslukt av hat og forakt at militære måtte gripe inn etter Mao innså at han hadde mistet kontrollen. Det var sendt ut stridsvogner på gatene, hundretusener måtte oppbringes og integreres, kannibalistiske orgier var stanset, og bombefly hadde endog blitt brukt. For før eller senere vil MAGA da angripe folk som disse hater, som fargede, indianer, asiater, latinos og andre hvite. Da Mao avsluttet de røde gardistenes skrekkveldet var minst en halv million mennesker drept. 

How Trumpism has 'twisted the American soul': analysis

Political polarization has surged in the United States in recent years as people increasingly view the opposing party’s supporters as hostile or dangerous rather than legitimate rivals.

In an article for The New York Times published Sunday, columnist David French argued that a recent scandal involving young Republican operatives is symptomatic of a deeper deterioration in American politics.

He recounted how a private group‑chat among young Republican staffers and activists contained shockingly vile language — referring to Black people as “monkeys” and “watermelon people,” fantasizing about putting political opponents in gas chambers or driving them to suicide. He noted that while the Young Republicans National Federation issued condemnations and some participants lost jobs, others, including Vice‑President J.D. Vance, rallied in defence of the participants.

French also mentioned the Democratic politician Jay Jones, the Virginia attorney‑general nominee who sent text messages wishing death on a Republican colleague, and observed that many on his side excused or minimized his actions because his election was deemed vital. He further contended that President Donald Trump’s success despite cruelty, dishonesty and illiberalism normalized such behaviours within his party.

"There’s a larger story here. When you combine all the elements — yet another Republican racism scandal, death wishes from a Democratic politician, Vance’s decision to excuse the inexcusable — you can see the ways in which 10 years of Trumpism has twisted the American soul," he wrote.

French argued that when the highest‑profile politician of an era embodies moral bankruptcy, the party aligned with him becomes structurally predisposed to reward those same vices. That dynamic, he wrote, pushes decent people out and pulls in those who mirror the dominant ethos. He warns that as radicals become mainstream and the previous mainstream drifts to the fringe, the stakes of politics escalate until victory becomes the only moral aim — accepting almost any lesser evil to avoid defeat.

"The result is a push-pull dynamic that pushes people of good character out of the party and pulls in new leaders and new people who share the leader’s ethos. Every year, this cultural trend reinforces itself. Decency becomes rarer, and decent people feel more isolated," he wrote.

"By the time Trump leaves office in 2029, he will have been the dominant American political figure for roughly 14 years — since the weeks after he announced his first run for president and surged to the top of Republican primary polls," French warned.

Kort sagt; borgerkrig. Siden 2016 hadde Trump arbeidet hardt med å skape en stemning i det amerikanske folket som i virkeligheten er ment for å forberede grunnen for meget blodige "prosesser" - for når ingenting er lenge hellig, og når man kaste av seg alle siviliserte normer for sameksistens slik at bare den totale utslettelsen av hatobjektet talt, vil mange dø. Meget mange vil dø fordi en løgnaktig svindler uten moral eller etikk hadde tatt definisjonsmakten. 

Republicans seem to know they're being watched | Opinion

Nedstengningen tæret meget sterkt på de republikanske folkevalgte som innser at demokratene ikke er mindre sta enn dem, og at Trumps meget fiendtlige holdninger umuliggjør enhver forsøk på mellompartisamarbeid ettersom demokratene innser - bekreftes dag for dag - at det ikke er mulig å utøve sitt embete under slike forhold. De må dermed bare sette på bremsene inntil videre - kanskje for evig. Og Trump ignorere loven; han bryr seg ikke om at det er forbudt å bruke statsfinansene utover det nødvendige, og dermed for første gang på 250 år skjer det skattlegging uten representasjon. 

Opprøret i 1774 som i det neste året ledet til uavhengighetserklæringen, var rettet mot det britiske parlamentets motvilje å tillate amerikanske valgrepresentanter som skulle være medvirkende omkring beskatningen av kolonisatorene - “no taxation without representation.” Nå har det hendt. Trump fortsette med å kreve inn tollavgiftene, føderale avgifter og skatt, og deretter bruker statspenger etter egne valg som med hjelp til Argentina som vil være på 40 mrd. dollar - en voldsom sum uten kongressens medbestemmelse. 

First, it does not account for the administration’s habit of impounding congressionally appropriated funding. It has been breaking the law, and violating Article 1 of the Constitution, by refusing to send federal money wherever the Congress has said it shall go. This pattern became more pointed after the shutdown on September 30 in what Don Moynihan has called “ideological targeting.” The Times reported that $27 billion in funding is being expressly held from Democratic districts.

Even if the Democrats get what they want, and the president says yes to renewing Obamacare subsidies, the Democrats must still face the near-certainty that his administration will cheat them. (They must also face the House speaker’s stated intention to claw back, or rescind, money by way of reconciliation bills requiring only a simple majority.)

So already, the Democrats are demanding much more than help for Americans facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums. They are demanding that the president cede the power that he has taken through criminal means (with the Republican Party’s blessing). They are using their leverage, by way of the filibuster, to pull Trump back from the brink of dictatorship. That’s the whole story – or it was until this week.

Now, with news about military pay, the story takes a different and more consequential turn. In addition to illegally impounding funds appropriated by the Congress, the administration is now taking money that Congress intended for a particular purpose to be spent during a particular time, and moving it around to meet the president’s needs.

Specifically, the administration is moving money from an account the Congress intended to be spent on research and development, and moving it to an account to pay members of the armed services. I don’t know if that’s embezzlement, per se, but I do know it’s a violation of the Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the US Constitution, which was written to make sure the people don’t lose control of their money.

I know something else thanks to Bobby Kogan at the Center for American Progress. This move by the White House is a blatant and willful violation of the Antideficiency Act, a law meant to clear up any question about whether it’s a felony for anyone in government to spend any money on anything that’s not approved by the Congress.

And it is.

What’s also clear is Donald Trump’s latest crime (for now, let’s call it embezzlement) progressed from the previous crime (impoundment). That seems to me a logical evolution that began with the idea that the Constitution and subsequent federal law are mere suggestions. And that this progress happened is itself an indication that it will continue, if left unchecked. The worst-case scenario is no longer theoretical.

Under normal circumstances, blue cities and states subsidize red states. They send more tax dollars to Washington than they get in return. However, under a president who’s stealing the people’s power to control their money, the pattern could turn openly exploitative. Blue cities especially could be seen as no more than colonies whose wealth is to be extracted and whose populations are to be controlled. That future may not be plausible yet, but it’s not impossible, as it would be the natural, criminal consequence of taxation without representation.

Which brings me back to the Democrats. First, they can’t make a deal with Trump without being complicit in making any of the above horrors real. Second, they are the only remedy. Trump is not going to prosecute himself. Federal courts of law might be an option, but just getting a hearing would require proof of standing, which would be a high bar even if the Supreme Court were not corrupted. (The Republican Party, meanwhile, is happy to let all the criming happen.)

If a remedy cannot be found in federal law enforcement or the federal courts (or the national Republican Party), then what? If there is to be an American republic in more than name, there must be serious consequences for a lawless executive stealing “the power of the purse” from the American people. As New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, only the Democrats can be those consequences.

How? I can’t say I know exactly. What I can say is the Republicans seem to be aware of being watched. Senate Majority Leader John Thune referenced this weekend’s No King’s protest, for instance. Perhaps he fears the effect it might have on public perception of the shutdown.

People might understand the stakes are about far more health insurance premiums. If big enough, the protest could expose the lie that the Democrats are pandering to their base, increasing the legitimacy of their resistance to Trump. Most of all, the protest could affirm for us our origin story, which is that all men are created equal and that equality is impossible under the illegitimate rule of kings.

Republikanerne vil ikke innse at republikkstyret og det konstitusjonelle systemet ødelegges, og maktet ikke å fatte at Trump må vekk, ettersom han nå åpenlyst med støtte av Roberts som gav ham absolutt immunitet, har begått et tabubrudd som ikke hadde vært sett i 250 år - da Nixon prøvd seg på noe liknende, måtte kongressen og den føderale domstolen stoppet ham, dette i senere tid fulgt til utfallet av Watergate, da en samlet politisk bevegelse stemte ham for riksrett.

One third of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of economy: Poll

(Senest 13. oktober for en uke siden) Bare 36 % støtter Trump. 32 % mener økonomien ikke har forverret seg - men med ordene "somewhat good"

Broadly speaking, 30 percent of Americans say the country is headed in the right direction, while 69 percent say it is on the wrong track. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

Mellom 25 og 30 % av det amerikanske folket er "die-hard" trumpister og MAGA, mest notert nesten bare hvite amerikanerne (som også inkluderte hvit latinos og høykasteindere). Denne andelen kan reduseres meget kraftig om den rurale Amerika tar til fornuften og bryte helt med republikanerne som hadde behandlet dem som stemmekveg. Det er sett at det bli færre republikanere i urbane strøk, som oftest kom fra de rike og den velstående middelklassesekvensen som arbeidsgivere og bedriftseiere. 

Mens de hvite splittes, er det sett at minoritetsamerikanerne har begynte å stenge ut republikanerne, latinos, fargede, asiater og andre hadde i løpet av et halvt år trukket seg vekk, mange som lot seg lokkes av kristenfascistene og argumentet om illegale som stjele arbeider fra dem, oppviser sterk bondeangst. Republikanerpartiet bli snart meget kvitthvitt - men det virker som et lite majoritet (60 %) av de hvite som lot sine rasistiske fordommer styrer dem, ikke er på parti med Trump eller MAGA, og kan gå vekk. 

Wokeismen (Disney Egmont Medias norske avdeling har fått et stort woke-problem, et barn fortalt meg noe ufattelig; gå selv og lese førstesiden av Hallowen-tegneseriepocket) som utvilsomt hadde gått for langt, hadde fått mange hvite til å rasere fordi de vil ikke la deres fordommer kommer ut i lyset, men i dag kan de bli nødt til å erkjenne dette om ikke alt skulle ødelegges for dem. Da må de gå vekk fra republikanerne. 

Alle som En. 

[JK22]

I-5 Shuts Down for Marine Corps Live-Fire Demo at Camp Pendleton

A 17-mile stretch of Interstate 5 in Southern California is set to close today from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. due to a live-fire military demonstration celebrating the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton.

The event, titled “America’s Marines 250: From Sea to Shore — A Review of Amphibious Strength,” includes a live ammunition exercise over the freeway, according to the California Highway Patrol (CHP). The closure affects both directions of I-5 between Harbor Drive in Oceanside and Basilone Road near San Onofre.

“Live ammunition will be discharged by the federal government over the freeway,” CHP said in a statement early Saturday.

Det vist seg at de føderale myndighetene hadde ikke underrettet delstatsregjeringen eller CHP om at artilleriet skulle skyte dypere inn i landet over kyststrekningen med en motorvei, en jernbanetrase og flere sideveger og da disse planene ble kjent senest fredag bare dagen før, reagert CHP øyeblikkelig ved å sette ut advarselstegn og forberede nedstengningen av den nasjonale I-5 motorvegen. 

Social media lit up with confusion and frustration, especially after conflicting statements from federal and state agencies. Caltrans confirmed it was briefed but said the final call came from federal authorities.

Californiske republikanerne hadde kritiserte Newsom for hans inngrep og kritikk mot avgjørelsen om å skyte med artilleri, men så bli det plutselig meget taus. For granater traff motorvegen! 

Shrapnel fell onto CHP vehicle during U.S. military live-fire exercise over I-5, agency says

En granat detoneres midtveis lik over motorvegen, akkurat der CHP hadde oppstilt en barriere for å hindre all trafikk - flere CHP politimenn opplevd dusj av granatsplinter over seg, heldigvis ble de ikke truffet, men en politibil og en motorsykkel ble påførte små skader. Artilleribruket ble stanset umiddelbart etter CHP slo på katastrofealarmen. 

“This was an unusual and concerning situation,” CHP Border Division Chief Tony Coronado said in a statement released Sunday.

“It is highly uncommon for any live-fire or explosive training activity to occur over an active freeway," Coronado said. "As a Marine myself, I have tremendous respect for our military partners, but my foremost responsibility is ensuring the safety of the people of California and the officers who protect them.”

Dette er intet mindre enn en skandale. Hva om det var vanlig trafikk der, og om flere granater enten falt for kort eller detoneres så splinter faller ned på flere dusin kjøretøyer som kjøres i høy hastighet på rundt 100 km/t? 

[halnes1]

Rune_says skrev (11 timer siden):

De fleste i ICE fangenskap har ikke noe kriminelt rulleblad, men hovedproblemet er at de ikke får mulighet til å få saken sin hørt heller - dvs sannsynligvis mange justismord.

ICE går også etter høyprofilerte uskyldige.  F.eks. en som satt 43 år i fengsel. Nye bevis renvasket ham, nå skal ICE deportere ham til India selv om han har en familie i USA og kom til landet 9mnd gml https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgz85g6pj0o

Før han ble arrestert var han også amerikansk borger

Meget beleilig at staten ikke må betale noen millioner dollar i oppreisning

ICE said in a statement that Vedam’s detention stems from his “criminal past.” Before his arrest for murder, he had pleaded guilty at age 19 to intent to distribute LSD. His family said it was a youthful mistake. Because Vedam was serving a life sentence, he was never deported then. With his exoneration, ICE has now reactivated the decades-old deportation order linked to that earlier case.

Er jo grufullt strengt mot en som har tapt mye av livet sitt i fengsel.

[Rune_says]

halnes1 skrev (Akkurat nå):

ICE said in a statement that Vedam’s detention stems from his “criminal past.” Before his arrest for murder, he had pleaded guilty at age 19 to intent to distribute LSD. His family said it was a youthful mistake. Because Vedam was serving a life sentence, he was never deported then. With his exoneration, ICE has now reactivated the decades-old deportation order linked to that earlier case.

Er jo grufullt strengt mot en som har tapt mye av livet sitt i fengsel.

Ja, det var en 2,5 års straff for "drug" tiltalen som var en del av en "plea" - dvs nedsatt straff for å innrømme skyld. Endel slike domfellelser har preg av utpresning da den tiltalte får valg om kort straff eller full rettssak med høy kostnad og risiko for mye lenger straff. I visse tilfelle planter amerikansk politi bevis.  Uansett ferdig sonet med god margin.

[halnes1]

Rune_says skrev (11 minutter siden):

Ja, det var en 2,5 års straff for "drug" tiltalen som var en del av en "plea" - dvs nedsatt straff for å innrømme skyld. Endel slike domfellelser har preg av utpresning da den tiltalte får valg om kort straff eller full rettssak med høy kostnad og risiko for mye lenger straff. I visse tilfelle planter amerikansk politi bevis.  Uansett ferdig sonet med god margin.

Ja det med planting av bevis har blitt mye lettere å avsløre nå når de fleste politifolk må bruke kamera.
Planter du narkotika eller våpen så bør en havne i fengsel over lengre tid.
Og lettere å få renske ut rett og slett dårlig politi, problemet er at hvis de får sparken for dårlig oppførsel så kan de få ny politijobb i en annen stat.
Mye å rydde opp i der borte.

Endret 20. oktober av halnes1

[JK22]

Trumps fornærmelse mot Petro og trusler mot den colombiske suvereniteten har fått konsekvenser, ambassadøren drar hjem fra USA samtidig som det er tegn på at det amerikansk-colombiske samarbeidet mot narkokriminaliteten kan bli satt på pause. Dette er veldig farlig for USAs interesser, ettersom nesten samtidige latinamerikanske land holdt seg unna enhver forpliktelse med USA - og det hendt samtidig som Trump provoserte argentinerne på det groveste ved å ville kjøpe dem for 40 mrd. dollar om de holde på Milei. 

Trump offered to help Argentina. It Backfired - The New York Times

Argentinerne tok ikke nyheten om at hjelpen avhengiges av om Milei skulle vinne mellomvalgene, ganske godt. For argentinerne er et stolt folk, som ikke har glemt USAs støtte til kuppregimet i 1970- og 1980-tallene. Over 60 % av argentinerne misliker Trump, og Milei hadde tross alt bare vunnet presidentvalget med 55 %, med en basisvelgergruppe på "bare" 30 % av stemmene fra den første valgomgangen. 

"Trump could have sabotaged his favorite president, giving him at the same time too much support and too little support," said Benjamin Gedan, senior fellow and director of the Latin America Program at the Stimson Center, a nonprofit in Washington.

Milei hadde vekte mye sinne med hans reformer som skaper store sosialøkonomiske ringvirkninger og han hadde tross alt ikke mye makt i parlamentet hvor flesteparten ikke setter pris på hans nyliberalistisk reformspolitikk. Politisk sett er Argentina en føderasjon som består av autonome provinser, slik at det er tre sett valg; de provinsielle, de parlamentariske og sist presidentvalg. Milei tapte de provinsielle valgene i august-september 2025 så det sang. Alene i Buenos Aires fikk han mindre enn 34 % av stemmene den 7. september. Nå skal parlamentsvalgene finne sted den 26. oktober. Det som er litt merkelig med argentinske valg, er at disse skje trinnvis, så bare en del utsettes for valg om gang - i denne dagen skal halvparten av setene i huset og en tredjedel av senatplassene velges. Ifølge meningsmålingene er Mileis parti ikke høyest enn 30 % gjennomsnittlig, men det som hendt i Buenos Aires - som var en viktig bastion - hadde fått mange til å spå et smertelig nederlag. 

På den ene siden er MAGA og bøndene sint, på den andre siden er argentinske velger sint. 

Og så har vi på nytt bråk omkring Trump i forholdet til den russisk-ukrainske krigen, det er tydelig at han ikke bryr seg om annet enn å trekke til seg Russland med "alle midler" og endog var villig til å forråde de europeiske allierte - da han konfronteres med de lekkerte opplysninger mange timer senere, var det tydelig at noen hadde pratet ham tilbake fra avgrunnen. Han istedenfor vil ha våpenstillstand uten territoriale avståelse omkring der fronten går mellom de russiske og ukrainske styrkene. Men han nektet å stoppe hans tvangstankene om å ta Putin inn i varmen, mange i USA reagert skarpt mot planer om en landforbindelse mellom russisk Sibir og amerikansk Alaska. Trump helt ignorere at støtten til Ukraina har ikke blitt svekket i den amerikanske opinionen, ettersom hele 90 % vil ikke ha et vennligstemt forhold med Putin. 

Europeerne er sint, i likhet med den amerikanske sikkerhetsbransjen som er likedan sint etter Bolton ble siktet og anklaget for tvilsomme omgang med konfidensielle opplysninger - til tross for at det er på sterkt sviktende grunn. 

Og etter å ha utløst konflikt med Colombia - USAs viktigste allierte sør for Rio Grande - risikere man at all arbeid mot narkosmugling kan settes på hold. Mange reagere i sjokk da en ubåt som kunne ha blitt tatt intakt, var sprengt i filler (på norsk finnes det IKKE teknisk begrep på "submersibles", så ordet "ubåt" benyttes i mangel) - og det vist seg at minst et par av alle sprengte narkobåter kan ha vært fiske/smuglingsbåter. En av disse båtene var i colombiansk farvann. 

[Tussi]

JK22 skrev (6 minutter siden):

Men han nektet å stoppe hans tvangstankene om å ta Putin inn i varmen, mange i USA reagert skarpt mot planer om en landforbindelse mellom russisk Sibir og amerikansk Alaska. Trump helt ignorere at støtten til Ukraina har ikke blitt svekket i den amerikanske opinionen, ettersom hele 90 % vil ikke ha et vennligstemt forhold med Putin. 

Jeg har vanskelig for å se for meg at det kan bli en landforbindelse der, det går jo minst 1 subduksjonssone i området som vil rasere en slik forbindelse fullstendig ved bare et moderat sterkt skjelv på havbunnen

[Maskinfører]

Tussi skrev (26 minutter siden):

Jeg har vanskelig for å se for meg at det kan bli en landforbindelse der, det går jo minst 1 subduksjonssone i området som vil rasere en slik forbindelse fullstendig ved bare et moderat sterkt skjelv på havbunnen

Enig med @Tussi

[JK22]

Nå sist nytt fra MSN:

GOP May Be Reaching Breaking Point With Trump, Says Political Strategist

Is the Republican Party finally cracking under Donald Trump’s grip, or is this just another Beltway fantasy? Veteran strategist Simon Rosenberg believes something real is happening. In a new analysis, he points to “little cracks” appearing inside the GOP that could quickly become fractures as the government shutdown drags on and Trump’s approval numbers sink.

“My response, of course, is that little cracks can become big cracks, and you just never know in politics,” Rosenberg wrote, warning that the party’s loyalty to Trump might finally be eroding.

Rosenberg argues on his blog that Trump “is now consistently more unpopular than Joe Biden was after his disastrous debate performance,” and that Republicans face a stark choice on the ongoing budget standoff. To keep the government running, he says, GOP lawmakers would have to effectively “ratify the president’s authoritarian fantasies” and “ongoing sabotage” of the country. “Can they get 60 votes for that?” he asked. “Can they even get a majority of Republicans, including those facing competitive elections next year, to vote for that?”

The situation, Rosenberg believes, is becoming untenable. “Basically, Trump is a huge f**k up,” he wrote. “His agenda is toxic, his powers are ebbing, and voting for all this will make it more likely that vulnerable Republicans will lose their elections next year, and that the country itself will be harmed.”

Even among Trump’s usual defenders, the unease is visible. House Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has criticized her own party’s leadership for the chaos surrounding the shutdown, saying the lack of strategy is “hurting real families.” Senator Ted Cruz has publicly expressed frustration over what he called “the party’s lack of discipline.” Conservative commentator Laura Loomer, long one of Trump’s loudest cheerleaders, recently complained that his administration’s handling of national security issues “has made people not want to vote.”

For Rosenberg, those rumblings matter. He cites “small pockets of resistance” inside the GOP, lawmakers who are beginning to push back on Trump’s demands. They are small, but notable in a party that has remained almost completely united behind the former president for years.

Rosenberg believes Republicans “are in a far darker political place than the current discourse reflects,” arguing they are being forced to defend “the worst government in our history, one that is doing clear, material, intentional harm to the country.” He suggests many are aware of the danger but too afraid to challenge Trump publicly. “Will they start to walk away from it all, the health care cuts, the tariffs, the ICE expansion, him, to attempt to mitigate the damage?” he asked. “Will little cracks become big cracks? Or will they stay the course out of fear and cowardice?”

The question remains open. Some within the GOP are beginning to acknowledge Trump’s drag on their electoral chances, while others still cling to his base’s fervent support. Rosenberg’s view is that the tension cannot hold forever. “The party can only lose two votes in the House and three in the Senate,” he wrote, describing how narrow majorities could unravel quickly.

For now, the cracks are hairline fractures, but in politics, pressure has a way of widening them. Whether the GOP’s long-awaited breaking point with Trump arrives in weeks or years, Rosenberg believes the strain is already showing.

Jeg vil ikke holde min pust for dette. Men republikanerne nærmere seg punktet hvor de risikere folkeflukt som et resultat av Trump og disses kontrarevolusjonær politikk. 

Americans can’t afford their cars any more and Wall Street is worried

Den varslede bilkrisen er nå synlig i Wall Street. Ikke bare blir færre biler kjøpt og hyret, det vist seg også at mange hadde kjøpt bokstavelig talt på lån - som disse hadde måtte betale for i lang tid, slik at summen blir større og større - nå er gjelden på 1,66 trillion dollar. Mange klarer ikke lenge å betale for seg, og stadige flere biler beslaglegges eller legges ut for salg - i et marked hvor kjøpekraften har falt massivt i de siste årene. Elbiler og brukte biler fra utenlandet som kunne ha rettet ut noe av ubalansen, motarbeides av republikanere. Selv om fossilmotorfremstilling gjør nyere biler altfor kostbart i forholdet til motorløse elbiler, hvor kostnaden egentlig skyldes tilgang på batteri og sjeldne metaller - som blir dyrere pga. Trumps handelskrig mot Kina. Alle alternativer brenner opp for håpefulle bilkjøpere. 

Det er mye gjeld omkring bilhold i USA, når det i tillegg er tegn på liknende gjeldsproblemer knyttet til hushold/eiendom, energitilgang og vitale tjenester som helse etc. Når bilprisen stiger hele 35 % mellom 2019 og 2024, sier det seg selv at det er blitt for meget. Selv middelklassefolk sliter. 

The evidence of Trump's coup is easy to find if you know where to look | Opinion

Det er tegn om at Trump aktet å gjøre om det amerikanske militæret til et lojalt maktapparat, ikke minst ved å renske ut de ansvarlige som skulle opprettholde de juridiske forpliktelsene knyttet til krigsregler og maktbruk ved både amerikansk og internasjonal lov. 

At the Washington Post, David Ignatius asks why the military has not spoken out against Trump’s attacks on boats off the coast of Venezuela and what I characterize as his unconstitutional deployments of troops against American civilians. Ignatius answers his own question in the article’s second paragraph:

“One chilling answer is that the Trump team has gutted the JAGs — judge advocate generals — who are supposed to advise commanders on the rule of law, including whether presidential orders are legal. Without these independent military lawyers backing them up, commanders have no recourse other than to comply or resign.”

Judge Advocate Generals, or JAGs, are the institutional safeguard against unlawful orders: they advise commanders on rules of engagement, the Geneva Conventions, and the limits of presidential authority.

Men dette kan få alvorlige konsekvenser fordi flesteparten av offiserene er minoritetsamerikanerne som har sverget deres ed mot konstitusjonen, og så mye som to tredjedeler av samtidige militære i USA er ikke-hvite, de fargede utgjør et stort flertall i de mekaniske og motoriserte troppene. Det var latt merke til at bare hvite soldater var utkommandert i de amerikanske byene. 

At the same time, the Secretary has transformed Pentagon press controls. This week, the Washington Post exposed how Hegseth used Parlatore to help draft sweeping restrictions on journalist access and movement within the Department of Defense.

Under the new rules, similar to the way the Kremlin operates, reporters are required to sign pledges stating they won’t gather or use unauthorized material (even unclassified), or risk losing their Pentagon credentials if they stray. The policy also limits reporter mobility within the Pentagon and curtails direct contact with military personnel unless escorted.

The reaction was swift. Dozens of media organizations — Reuters, the Times, the Post, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, the Atlantic — refused to sign Hegseth’s pledge, citing constitutional concerns and the chilling effects of such controls. Only the far-right One America News agreed. Meanwhile, the Pentagon Press Association declined to sign and warned that these rules constitute “a disturbing situation” intended to limit leaks and suppress accountability.

Selv om utmarsjen fra Pentagon ved det første inntrykket var et PR-nederlag, hadde Trump fått det han ville, stengt ut pressen fra Pentagon dermed hindre mediefolk fra å ha omgang med militære personell som kan formidle ukritiske opplysninger til mediene. 

A military coup doesn’t typically happen in one dramatic moment, even though it appears that way when it reaches a climax. It begins through personnel decisions, institutional erosion, secrecy, and incremental normalization of power. The moment the legal counsel corps stops buffering against rash orders, the moment the press is muzzled, the path darkens.

We’re closer to that moment than many — including across our media — realize or are willing to acknowledge.

So the question now is whether there are still Republicans in Congress who will demand hearings, whether military leaders will raise alarms, and whether citizens will recognize the stakes.

Saturday's “No Kings Day” wasn’t just a slogan. It was a literal call to defend the republic. The time to act is before the tanks roll, not after.

Because what’s happening right now may not look like a coup to the average American, but it is unmistakably the preparation for one.

Istedenfor kan dette lede til at det amerikanske militæret kunne komme i oppløsning når soldater og offiserer nekte å følge ordre fra andre soldater og offiserer, det kan i verste fall lede til at militære vil utsettes for fraksjonsdanning som sett i mange andre land, som da kan lede til indre konflikter og i verste fall en caudillismo som i de latinamerikanske bananrepublikkene hvor militæret ble åstedet for politiske fraksjonsstrid med kupp, motkupp, militant politiske manøvrering og sist borgerkrig eller mer presist innbyrdeskrig - akkurat som i det romerske keiserdømmet i det første århundret etter Augustus` død. 

MAGA is playing a dangerous game with consequences they can't comprehend | Opinion

This week, blind to constitutional law and US history, Trump Border Czar Tom Homan said that protesting ICE “could lead to bloodshed and people dying.”

By suggesting that masked ICE agents could kill protestors for simply shouting hateful things at them, Homan was building the permission structure for federal agents to use “full force” violence against non-violent protestors.

More than that, his statement was meant to groom the public. The Trump administration is trying to get US citizens used to the idea that federal agents could use lethal force — to the point of killing people — against anyone who exercises their constitutional right to peacefully protest government actions they don’t like.

On too many videos circulating on social media to count, masked ICE agents have been recorded getting more and more aggressive with members of the public, deliberately escalating non-violent exchanges into violent ones.

Federal agents have been caught on video body slamming people to the ground, kneeling on people’s necks, and pointing armed weapons at close range. More than 20 people have died at ICE’s hands, including US citizens, but this tally is artificially low because the Trump administration tightly controls media access to ICE detention facilities.

Team Trump has no idea what the First Amendment means

Homan, like Trump, seems oblivious to what the First Amendment says.

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … or the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”

This protection was extended from Congress, or the federal government, to the states in 1868 through the passage of the 14th Amendment.

It was the very first amendment to the Constitution, and was the key to getting states to go along with the Constitution at all. Many states refused to sign or support the Constitution after it was drafted in 1787 because they were fearful of a strong federal government with no constraints to protect people from overreach. It was the sticking point that refused to yield, as the objecting states would not support the Constitution without a guarantee of individual liberties, including freedom of religion and, most importantly, the freedom to speak openly, to gather, and to criticize the government.

James Madison rose to the challenge and drafted the First Amendment, the language of which remains to this day, and has never been changed.

The world is envious of our freedom of speech

Freedom of speech beyond the reach or control of the government stands as a beacon of freedom throughout the world, a marker of man’s evolution from the Dark Ages when rulers often punished and tortured people for their beliefs.

That’s why Trump’s Executive Order declaring that the federal government would now punish dissenters, whom he labelled “domestic terrorists,” sends chills down the spine of anyone who has the slightest concept of world history.

People in MAGA who support Trump’s centralized thought control have no concept of what it’s like to live under authoritarian rule. In China, Xi Jinping has installed facial recognition software into China's public security apparatus, where it records everyone at cross lights, bus stops, transport hubs and in public spaces. Xi uses it for mass surveillance, to record, identify, track and persecute anyone who criticizes the government.

Russia’s Vladimir Putin is just as bad. Aside from famously having critics poisoned, or pushed out of helicopters and windows, Putin has imposed severe prison sentences of up to 15 years for spreading "deliberately false information" about the Russian military.

Last week, Trump’s Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth tried something similar. Hegseth announced new rules threatening journalists’ access to the Pentagon if they did not agree to publish only information that he wants released, and was shocked when most of the press refused to go along with it.

The faction of MAGA clamoring to relax the division between church and state today have no idea what they are asking for either. Trump’s Christo Nationalists claim the U.S. was founded by and for Christians, and that its laws and government should therefore impose Christian values over all of society. They have no understanding of world or human history, or that freedom of religion grew out of the Inquisition, when torture was common.

James Madison would be proud of No Kings Day

Yesterday, huge crowds marched in major cities, as smaller gatherings sprung up across small town USA for “No Kings” protests against the Trump administration.

There were more than 2,500 events in all 50 states, predicted to be one of the largest demonstrations in US history.

Demonstrators spoke out against Trump’s policies, including perceived threats to democracy, ICE raids and Trump deploying military troops in US cities. The signs speak for themselves.

As I marched inside my bear inflatable, I’ve never been more proud to be an American.

Han har rett. Det er synlig for alle at Trump og MAGA, og deretter republikanere, er blitt antiamerikansk ved å ignorere og forbryte seg mot 1789-konstitusjonen og de grunnleggende amerikanske idealene. 

[JK22]

How the Supreme Court placed ICE above the law

By now, you’ve probably seen some of the videos of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as well as other federal law enforcement agencies, attacking immigrants and unarmed Americans protesting President Donald Trump’s immigration policies. In one, officers shoot a pastor in the head with a pepper ball. In another, an officer sprays pepper spray directly into the air vent of a protester dressed in an inflatable frog costume — in an apparent attempt to fill the suit with noxious gas. (det er drapforsøk!) 

This administration’s abuse of immigrants, protesters, and Trump’s perceived enemies appears to be systemic. An August report by Sen. Jon Ossoff’s (D-GA) office identified 510 “credible reports” of human rights abuses in immigration detention facilities since Trump took office in January. ProPublica found that over 170 US citizens have been held by immigration officials, some of whom were beaten or worse.

Even high-ranking elected officials are victims. Last May, for example, federal law enforcement forcibly arrested Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D) after Baraka sought a tour of an immigration detention facility. After those charges fell apart, the Trump administration indicted US Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ), who attempted to shield Baraka from arrest. In a video cited by McIver’s attorneys, one of the officers claims that Baraka’s arrest was ordered by US Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Worse, the Supreme Court — or, at least, its six Republicans — appears to be entirely on board with these tactics. In September, the Republican justices voted to block a lower court order that, among other things, forbade ICE from targeting suspected undocumented immigrants solely because of their race. That case is known as Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo.

The Republican justices rarely explain their decisions when they rule in Trump’s favor, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh did write a concurring opinion explaining why he voted the way he did. His assertion that someone targeted by ICE’s “apparent ethnicity” was “relevant” to law enforcement deciding whom to stop has received the most attention, as Kavanaugh seemed to blow off fears that federal law enforcement is targeting Latinos because of their race. But Kavanaugh also strongly implied that no one victimized by ICE may seek an injunction prohibiting ICE from engaging in illegal tactics in the future. (In the wake of this decision, many commentators are now referring to ICE’s tactics as “Kavanaugh stops.”)

So are there any legal avenues left to challenge abusive tactics by ICE, or by other law enforcement agencies controlled by Trump? The short answer is that a few narrow pathways still exist, but they are unlikely to provide a meaningful check on ICE’s behavior.

Broadly speaking, there are five ways that the law could constrain federal law enforcement: 

A federal court might issue an injunction against a law enforcement agency, barring it from continuing to engage in a particular illegal practice. Kavanaugh’s opinion in Vasquez Perdomo, however, suggests that this Supreme Court will not allow such an injunction to stand.

A court might order an individual law enforcement officer to compensate the victim of that officer’s illegal action. The Republican justices, however, have largely cut off this avenue in two decisions handed down in the past five years.

A victim of illegal behavior by a federal law enforcement officer might sue the United States and seek compensation. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Millbrook v. United States (2013) suggests that this avenue remains open — although it is unlikely that either Trump or any individual officer will change their behavior because they fear that the US Treasury may have to pay out some money at some future date.

A law enforcement officer, or perhaps a senior law enforcement official, might be criminally prosecuted. Such a prosecution would depend on whether an existing criminal law already prohibits the officer’s activity (or potentially, whether it prohibits an order to an officer given by a senior official). And it is unlikely that any such prosecutions will happen for as long as Trump controls the Justice Department.

Finally, until recently, Trump himself could potentially have been prosecuted if he gave an order that violates federal criminal law. But the Republican justices gave Trump sweeping immunity from prosecution in Trump v. United States (2024).

Let’s look at each of these options in a bit more detail.

“Kavanaugh stops,” and injunctions against law enforcement

It is quite difficult to obtain a court order prohibiting a law enforcement agency from committing an illegal action in the future, and it has been for more than four decades. The seminal case is City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983), which held that Adolph Lyons, a man who was allegedly placed in a chokehold by police officers without provocation, could not obtain a court order forbidding the Los Angeles Police Department from using these chokeholds in the future.

Lyons held that “past exposure to illegal conduct” does not permit someone to seek an injunction prohibiting similar conduct in the future. Instead, the Court concluded that “Lyons’ standing to seek the injunction requested depended on whether he was likely to suffer future injury from the use of the chokeholds by police officers.”

To prevail, in other words, Lyons had to show that he personally was likely to be choked a second time, at some point in the future, by a Los Angeles police officer.

In Vasquez Perdomo, Kavanaugh claimed that the plaintiffs’ argument challenging ICE’s actions in that case “largely tracks the theory rejected in Lyons.” The plaintiffs in Vasquez Perdomo alleged that they were stopped by ICE for impermissible reasons, including because they are Latino. But Kavanaugh claimed that they have “no good basis to believe that law enforcement will unlawfully stop them in the future based on the prohibited factors.”

As a factual matter, Kavanaugh’s claim is dubious. A federal appeals court found that “at least one individual with lawful status was stopped twice by roving patrols in just 10 days.” So the fact that ICE targeted this one individual twice in such a short period suggests that they were likely to be targeted again unless a court intervenes. The Trump administration also repeatedly targeted certain businesses where they believed that undocumented people worked — one car wash was hit four times in nine days, according to Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent. So the workers in that car wash sure seemed to be likely to be targeted again in the future.

Ultimately, however, the real facts underlying a Supreme Court case matter a whole lot less than what a majority of the justices say about the facts of a case. Both the Court’s decision in Vasquez Perdomo, and Kavanaugh’s reliance on Lyons in his defense of that decision, suggest that this Court is unlikely to allow anyone who is illegally targeted by ICE to seek an injunction against that law enforcement agency — even if in reality, these very decisions give the Trump administration permission to target the same people over and over again.

The death of Bivens: Why ICE officers can no longer be sued for breaking the law

More than half a century ago, in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971), the Supreme Court held that the victim of an unconstitutional action by a federal law enforcement officer could sue that officer and potentially collect money damages directly from them. Bivens explained that an officer who acts unlawfully “in the name of the United States possesses a far greater capacity for harm than an individual trespasser exercising no authority other than his own.” And so it follows that there should be a meaningful remedy to discourage officers from abusing their power.

But this view of accountability has long been out of favor with a majority of the justices. And, in two recent cases, the Court’s Republican majority have come very close to overruling Bivens outright.

In Hernández v. Mesa (2020), the Republican justices ruled that a US Border Patrol agent who allegedly shot and killed a 15-year-old Mexican boy in cold blood could not be sued, even if the boy’s parents could prove that the shooting was unjustified. And, in Egbert v. Boule (2022), the Republican justices immunized Border Patrol agents who allegedly used excessive force against an innkeeper from lawsuits.

Both decisions were exceedingly hostile to Bivens. In Egbert, for example, Justice Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion concluded that courts should reject Bivens suits if there is “any rational reason (even one)” to do so.

Given these decisions, it is safe to say that the current slate of justices will not allow an ICE officer to be sued by their victim, even if the officer clearly violated the law or the Constitution.

Suits against the United States: A weak, but still viable, remedy

The Federal Tort Claims Act frequently permits the United States to be sued if a federal law enforcement officer engages in “assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights.” And the Supreme Court took a fairly expansive view of how this law applies to bad actions by law enforcement in its unanimous decision in Millbrook v. United States (2013), a case about a prisoner who sued corrections officers who allegedly threatened and sexually assaulted him.

So it is likely that even this Supreme Court would allow some victims of illegal activity by ICE, or similar agencies, to sue the federal government and seek compensation from the United States Treasury.

That said, it is doubtful that this remedy will do much to deter future lawless behavior by ICE. Neither an individual law enforcement officer, nor the senior Trump administration officials giving them orders, are likely to change their behavior because, maybe a year from now, a federal judge might order the US Treasury to pay money to someone who was victimized by ICE.

The whole point of Bivens was to impose consequences personally upon rogue officers, so that they will be deterred from breaking the law. A lawsuit requiring US taxpayers to compensate victims is unlikely to achieve the same goal.

Criminal prosecutions: Maybe in the next administration?

Finally, to the extent that any individual law enforcement officer violates a federal criminal statute, they might be prosecuted for doing so. That’s highly unlikely to happen, however, for as long as Trump rules the Justice Department. Any future prosecutions are likely to turn on who wins the 2028 election.

One person who will suffer no criminal consequences, however, no matter how many laws he breaks, is Donald Trump. The Republican justices’ decision in Trump v. United States (2024) held that Trump is immune from prosecution for his official acts as president. That decision even said that he is immune if he orders law enforcement to target someone “for an improper purpose.”

Moreover, even if some law enforcement officer — or maybe some Trump political appointee — is prosecuted for unlawful actions, there is always some risk that the same Republican justices who invented the concept of presidential immunity from prosecution will also decide to immunize officers who were carrying out Trump’s orders. Trump could also use his pardon power to protect them.

So if you hope that ICE officers, and other federal officials who have abused their powers, will someday be held to account for their actions, the news is not good. The Supreme Court has cut off the most effective ways of ensuring that federal law enforcement officers comply with the law.

Jeg ser bare en løsning på det; så snart Trump og republikanerne er vekk fra makten må disse seks dommere arresteres og siktes som forbrytere. Disse høyesterettsdommere nå oppfører seg som de står over selve loven - et kjennetegn på korrupte dommere - anført av Roberts, som tar fordelen av å ha to unge dommere med ekstreme holdninger og to korrupte dommere på sin side sammen med en identitetsforvirrende farget mann som mente seg "liberalist" selv om han er den meste antiliberalistiske dommeren i USAs historie. Alle høyesterettsavgjørelsene som disse hadde stått for, må annulleres - og det er mulig for kongressen å gjøre det med et ekstraordinært vedtak selv om det betyr et majoritetsvedtak likestilt med endring av konstitusjonen. 

Roberts selv burde få dødsstraff. Spesielt hvis USA enten går opp i flammer eller forsvinne for godt. 

[JK22]

Tussi skrev (1 time siden):

Jeg har vanskelig for å se for meg at det kan bli en landforbindelse der, det går jo minst 1 subduksjonssone i området som vil rasere en slik forbindelse fullstendig ved bare et moderat sterkt skjelv på havbunnen

Tror du Putin og Trump vil bry seg om dette? Kertsjbruen var nemlig ikke anbefalt av ingeniørene og det er tegn om at denne bruen vil ikke overleve de neste ti til femten årene. Putin presser meget sterkt på denne landforbindelsen - og dette skal ha blitt mottatt positivt av Trump, som ikke bryr seg om de geologiske hindringene. 

[SilverShaded]

JK22 skrev (4 timer siden):

At the Washington Post, David Ignatius asks why the military has not spoken out against Trump’s attacks on boats off the coast of Venezuela and what I characterize as his unconstitutional deployments of troops against American civilians. Ignatius answers his own question in the article’s second paragraph:

“One chilling answer is that the Trump team has gutted the JAGs — judge advocate generals — who are supposed to advise commanders on the rule of law, including whether presidential orders are legal. Without these independent military lawyers backing them up, commanders have no recourse other than to comply or resign.”

I første omgang så har admiral Alvin Holsey trukket seg fra militæret. Han er (ut året) sjef for United States Southern Command, som vil si Latin- og Sør-Amerika og havområdene rundt. Han går av fordi han ikke ønsker å være med på Hegseth/Trump's dødelige bombe-operasjoner mot påståtte "narkobåter" i havet utenfor Venezuela. Han er vel den første som har kommet i en slik direkte situasjon mht. tvilsomme "full force" ordre. Men hvis den mildest talt kjølige stemningen under Quantico-sirkuset er en slags målestokk, blir det antagelig flere som tar sin hatt og går. 

[VifteKopp]

JK22 skrev (4 timer siden):

Tror du Putin og Trump vil bry seg om dette? Kertsjbruen var nemlig ikke anbefalt av ingeniørene og det er tegn om at denne bruen vil ikke overleve de neste ti til femten årene. Putin presser meget sterkt på denne landforbindelsen - og dette skal ha blitt mottatt positivt av Trump, som ikke bryr seg om de geologiske hindringene. 

Trump klarer ikke bygge en simpel mur mot Mexico en gang, han vil aldri klare å lage en tunnel som vil være dobbel så lang som verdens lengste på åtte år.

Større sannsynlighet for at Donald er død og at Russland har kollapset innen den tid. 

 

[JK22]

Top GOP strategist quits job as 'accomplice' to the Republican 'cult'

Miles Bruner, a top Republican strategist who "worked inside GOP circles through Trump’s takeover of the party" is quitting the party and encouraging others to do the same, he writes in The Bulwark.

Under President Donald Trump, the Republican party, he writes, has "devolved into a cult of personality that mirrors the worst authoritarian regimes of the last one hundred years."

But Trump hasn't worked alone, Bruner says. "While Trump and his supporters in Congress have been the driving force behind the right’s descent into despotism, it would not have been possible without the thousands of consultants, aides, and politicos working behind the scenes to fully execute their systematic dismantling of American democratic norms," he writes.

For 12 years, Bruner worked in various facets of the GOP, from grassroots voter outreach to digital fundraising.

"I worked inside GOP circles through Trump’s takeover of the party, his initial downfall, and his resurgence in 2023–2024. At every step along the way, I rationalized, compartmentalized, and found excuses to stay tethered to the party, even as I grew to believe it was undermining the foundations of our constitutional republic," he says.

Bruner says he could no longer rationalize any of it, leading to his decision to leave the party.

"But over the last few months, the compartmentalization and coping stopped working to silence my conscience," he says, using this piece in The Bulwark as his resignation letter.

"I quit. I quit the Republican party and my job as an accomplice to the party in the throes of an authoritarian cult. Today, I resigned from my career as a senior fundraising strategist for one of the leading Republican digital fundraising firms in Washington, D.C," he says.

Bruner says his decision was twofold: "first, to shed light on why someone would continue to work for an increasingly corrupt and authoritarian political party despite their divergent ethical and political beliefs; second, to convince any number of consultants, staffers, and former colleagues to follow their consciences and leave with their integrity still intact."

Bruner says that he wasn't fully on board with Trump at all in the beginning and he didn't take him seriously either.

"The thinking was that Trump’s candidacy was a joke—why alienate the sliver of voters Trump was holding when he’d be out of the race in a few months? From that point on, my anxiety began to fester," he says.

As political coordinator for Republican Janet Nguyen’s state senate campaign in California, Bruner says they were horrified at the Charlottesville, Virginia white supremacist rally which Trump excused with that now infamous "good people on both sides" statement.

"We buried the condemnation of Trump on Twitter, believing that fewer of her Republican supporters would see it," Bruner says, but within minues, Nguyen was attacked by Trump supporters.

"It was the first time I should have drawn the line and said I quit. But, again, I stayed," he said. And it weighed on him.

"The emotional and mental weight one feels when one’s career suddenly conflicts with one’s beliefs," he says. But when a new job came along, Bruner found himself deeper in the Trump world.

"In my new position, I became enmeshed in the D.C. Republican consulting ecosystem that was now fully orbiting around Trump," he says, and his clients were "100 percent pro-MAGA."

After President Joe Biden won and the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol happened, Bruner thought Trump would go into exile at his Palm Beach country club "as a political pariah."

As Bruner's career took off during the years after, which went by "uneventfully," Bruner writes, "at a superficial level and putting my ethics aside, I was living the life I had imagined having as a teenager."

And it wasn't Trump that broke him out of his "comfortable cocoon," Bruner says. "Rather, it was the rightward lurch of the Supreme Court and the lengths to which the right was willing to go to undermine established legal precedents and access to reproductive rights."

Bruner says it was his and his wife's experience trying to start a family that broke him out of his staunch pro-life stance and he "slowly became pro-choice."

To a degree, I understood the selfishness of my reaction. I had been willing to work in a system and for a party that had allowed rulings like these to take hold—that had celebrated them, in fact—only to find it unbearable when I felt personally attacked," he admits.

"It is not to excuse my actions that I note that sometimes a personal experience is what it takes for an awakening like this to occur," he adds.

That's when he began plotting his exit from the Republican party, and while he previously excused Trump's role on Jan. 6, "his lack of leadership during the COVID pandemic," and his "migrants are rapists tirade," Bruner says "our nation has arrived at a moment in its history where staying silent for personal comfort isn’t an option anymore."

"I know now that if I continue to stay, I won’t be able to explain to my children why I didn’t take a stand when I had the chance," he says. "I wish I had realized this sooner and I applaud my colleagues who did so long before me."

Bruner's clarion call encourages those who care about the country to speak out and do something.

"If you believe in this country now is the time to refuse to ferry its destruction for a tainted livelihood. Take a stand. Speak out. Show your pride as an American who believes in the Constitution and the values we grew up with. Today, I quit allowing my complacency to destroy America, and I urge you to quit, too."

Vi kan bare håpe på at så mange republikanere som mulig slutte og trekke seg ut av partiet snarest mulig. Men de må også fordømme disse som ødela det amerikanske republikanerpartiet - i særpregenheten de kontrarevolusjonære. Velgerne må også gjøre det, de må bare SLUTTE med å stemme republikansk. For dette partiet er ikke annet enn bedrageri. 

Brit Hume’s Hot Take On ‘No Kings’ Protests Gets Royally Roasted: ‘Come On’

Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), a vehement critic of Trump, replied to Hume’s post: “Come on. You know what this means. Of course he’s not a literal king because we won’t let him be. But our nation was founded on anti-corruption, disseminating power to the people, holding all equal under the law.”

Kinzinger reminded Hume how Trump “tried to overthrow a free election, pardoned 1000 criminals, and has placed congress on their knees. Oh not to mention the Epstein files, and his 400 million dollar free jet that we will pay 1 billion to upgrade and give to him.”

“Gold palaces and ballrooms and massive arches are not the works of someone who seeks humble power,” he concluded.

Trumpism, It Was Ever Thus

Amerikanerne - spesielt de hvite - har et meget stort problem med vulgær språkbruk og krenkende oppførsel i det politiske livet, som allerede i 1800-tallet var observert av en fransk observatør som i ettertiden mente dette burde ikke være eksempel for oppfølgning i andre land. I kontrast til hva amerikanerne flest tror, den demokratiske vekkingen på det europeiske kontinentet er IKKE inspirert av den amerikanske revolusjonen eller IKKE basert på ønske om etteraping av det amerikanske styresettet. Alt dette har sin begynnelse i 1848-revolusjonene som fulgt til en gradvis demokratisering som først nådd hele kontinentet med unntak av Serbia i 1992. Franskmannen var ikke alene om å ha avsky for det som var sett i USA hvor det ofte var sett mobbens velde ifølge disses tolkninger. 

Over and over and over, I read, meet, or talk to people who are shocked by Donald Trump’s relentless trolling, his thoroughly vulgar and outlandish demagogy. Why, they’ve never seen the like! How could this be, in a country with a storied constitution and a two-party system in which partisans rotate in government without attempting to destroy each other?

This pearl-clutching angst is profoundly ahistorical. American politics over the past two centuries has been littered with leaders who practiced Trumpism avant la lettre (a fancy way of saying “they got their first”). After antiwar activists blocked President Johnson’s motorcade in 1968, Alabama’s Governor George C. Wallace declared to huge roars of approval that “if you elect me the president…and some of them lie down in front of my automobile, it will be the last thing they ever want to lie down in front of!” He went on to win five Deep South states that November. In June 1951, Senator Joseph McCarthy called General George C. Marshall (the most distinguished American military leader in modern times) a witting Soviet agent in the “great conspiracy” to “diminish the United States in world affairs, to weaken us militarily, to confuse our spirit with talk of surrender in the Far East and to impair our will to resist evil.”

Their voters ate it up, and we can easily find more recent examples in both parties. Philadelphia’s Police Commissioner Frank Rizzo was elected its Democratic Mayor from 1972 to 1979 after (and because of) his raiding Black Panther Party headquarters and making young Black men stand on the street almost naked, in the cold.

The politics of cruelty, vindictiveness, and gleeful resentment has deeper roots. Peacock-strutting, nose-thumbing performances have always played well with white voters in the South, whether in 1825, 1925, or the present. Most people who saw the Coen brothers’ Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? likely thought that Mississippi Governor Pappy O’Daniel, played by Charles Durning, was a laughable lampoon. Not so! This character was modeled on the actual Pappy O’Daniel, an on-air flour salesman who parlayed his celebrity (“Pass the biscuits, Pappy!”) into the Texas governor’s mansion in 1938 and then to the Senate from 1941 to 1949.

The South abounded in colorfully vicious figures like this, including the South Carolina’s “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman, Mississippi’s Theodore “The Man” Bilbo, and, of course, the Kingfish, Huey P. Long. But my favorite, if I can use that word, is Mississippi’s James K. Vardaman, the Great White Chief, as he liked to be known. Look at the picture above and imagine yourself in some dirt-poor town when he rolls in, sitting on bales of cotton in his white suit, pulled by a team of white oxen, hailing the common people. A sight worthy of a Roman conqueror, and his voters were tickled pink. They sent Vardaman, a man who exulted in racial terror (”If it is necessary every Negro in the state will be lynched; it will be done to maintain white supremacy”) to the governor’s seat in 1904 and the Senate in 1913.

Of course, none of these men ever caught the gold ring, the presidency, although Wallace ran very creditably in the Democratic primaries in 1964, 1972, and 1976. Trump trumps all of them in that regard. He went straight to the heart of the Republican Party. Who can forget those debates in 2016, watching him pulverize poor Jeb Bush, the heir apparent?

So get over yourselves, readers! What we call Trumpism is bred in the bone, and you fool yourself in foolish ways if you assume it is predicated on being stupid, ignorant, or uneducated. None of these white men fit that profile. Like all charismatic political figures, they forged a direct connection with their audiences in a vernacular that resonated powerfully. No more of this vacuous tomfoolery, as in Joe Biden’s repeating rote-like, “This is not who we are.” He was sadly mistaken—Trump’s brand of politics is deeply, fundamentally American.

Og ennå hadde amerikanerne i alle tider nektet å erkjenne dette, fordi det vil gå løs på deres egne selvbetraktning. Men franskmannen så dette, han så hva som amerikanerne alltid mente var forbigående; mobocracy. 

"Jeg vet ikke om noe land der det er så liten uavhengighet i tanke og virkelig frihet som i Amerika. I enhver konstitusjonell stat i Europa kan en hvilken som helst religiøs eller politisk teori fritt bli preket og utbredt, for det fins ikke noe land i Europa som er så kuet av en enkel autoritet at en mann som hever sin stemme i sannhetens navn, ikke blir beskyttet mot konsekvensene av sin freidighet. Hvis han er uheldig nok til å leve under et absolutt styresett, vil folket være på hans side; dersom han bor i et fritt land, kan han, om nødvendig, søke tilflukt bak tronen. Den aristokratiske del av samfunnet vil støtte ham i noen samfunn, demokratiet i andre. Men i en nasjon hvor det finnes demokratiske institusjoner organisert som i de forente stater, er det kun en autoritet, ett element med styrke og suksess, og ingenting hinsides dette." (1830-tallet)

Han påpekt at toleransen for avvik var langt mye dårligere i USA den gang enn i Europa, med en voldsom trang etter konformitet først og fremst på det lokale grunnlaget, hvor det som stemtes som annerledes, fremmedartet og "uamerikansk" risikeres både lovlige og ulovlige sanksjoner fra lovvedtak til mord bokstavelig talt. Dette i praksis er mobbens velde, som europeerne hadde meget smertelige erfaringer med fra den franske revolusjonen og andre tilsvarende revolusjoner, som en koalisjon av både konstitusjonelle og autokratiske monarker slo ned etter over tjue år med uavbrutt krig som druknet Europa i blod. Franskmannen og mange andre deretter demonstrativt tok avstand fra vulgariteten innenfor demokratisering og politisk praksis, slik at det sjeldent kom fram - som med fascistene i mellomkrigstiden, først og fremst av Mussolini og Hitler. 

Denne vulgariteten har aldri blitt stanset fordi konformitetstrangen og svak toleranse for avvikere forbli sentralt, spesielt i rasesegregerte og sosiale segregerte samfunn, i særpregenheten sørstatene hvor undertrykkelse av fargede og "alt som ikke passe" inn var en del av de hvites identitet, så sent som i 1950-tallet kunne en latino myrdes uten konsekvenser. Det som talt til Trumps fordel var at vulgariteten "gikk ut på dato" etter Nixon ble kastet ut i 1974, da hadde den andre rekonstruksjonen, Vietnam og Nixons polariserende politikk fulgt til et metthetspunkt som gjør at det som kjennepreger mobokrati glir ut av folkebevisstheten. Helt til republikanerne dels gjenopplivet dette i 1996, og da anonyme kunne uttrykke seg vulgært og krenkende på nettet, spesielt i debattforum og SoMe, etter 2005-2009. Valget av Obama fikk det til å eksplodere, de underliggende tendenser hos de hvite spring fram - og Trump utnytte dette. Han innså at amerikansk intoleranse er så sterk, at de har ekstraordinær høy toleranse for vulgær, nedrakkende, ondsinnede og amoralsk - og grusomme - retorikk. 

Men det finnes som regel en grense til enhver tidspunkt. De fleste amerikanerne foretrekke å glemme at de akseptere grusomhet og at de er grusom mot andre, slik at de fikk meget kort hukommelse, så de stadig gang på gang nekte å lære inntil det svir skikkelig på dem. På dette punktet driver de med virkelighetsbenektelse. 

"Den amerikanske toleransen" er en myte opprettholdt og ivaretatt med voldsom iver av amerikanerne inntil punktet at det bli sterkt selvskadelig. Nå har Trump tatt bort dette skjoldet og lagt det bar for alle. Drapet på Kirk vekker raseri, men før eller senere vil det ligge seg ned - og da vil angsten kommer. Hver. Eneste. Gang. 

[:utakt]

"morra di"

Det er altså hvordan pressetalskvinnen i det hvite hus svarer journalister hun ikke liker. Hun la ut en skjermdump av tekstmeldinger, og tenker det skal sette henne i et bedre lys?

Spørsmålet fra journalisten var godt. Jeg tror ikke jeg tar feil hvis jeg sier at dette hadde ikke Leavitt den minste peiling på, og da er angrep det beste forsvar. Hvertfall hvis du er fjorten år mentalt og fullstendig ukvalifisert. 

 

[Delvis]

Tussi skrev (13 timer siden):

Jeg har vanskelig for å se for meg at det kan bli en landforbindelse der, det går jo minst 1 subduksjonssone i området som vil rasere en slik forbindelse fullstendig ved bare et moderat sterkt skjelv på havbunnen

Har ikke registrert noe om de planene før nå, men det er forsåvidt et interessant tema. Det skal ha vært en landforbindelse der før under istiden da havet sank så mye at det ble landtørt. Det er på den måten vitenskapen mener at mennesker emigrerte fra asia og over til amerika for tusener av år siden.
Det er typisk stormanns-imperialistisk å få slike ideer. Vet ikke hva som vil skje om man bare fyller og fyller på opp, men kanskje man ser for seg gigantiske flytebroer?