Trump 2025

[Mbappe09]

Ser ut som Taliban og Pakistan er i krig
 

 

[Neptun1]

Mbappe09 skrev (1 minutt siden):

Ser ut som Taliban og Pakistan er i krig
 

 

Og det skyldes Trump?

[Mbappe09]

Neptun1 skrev (2 minutter siden):

Og det skyldes Trump?

Nei, men orker ikke å lage ny tråd og dette kan være relevant for tråden ifm. at Trump var involvert i India og Pakistan. 

[Griever]

LuxFerre skrev (På 10.10.2025 den 13.56):

Trump er en mann som viser at han ikke bryr seg om fred men han ønsker å få Nobel Freds Pris så mye.

Trump er en sånn fyr som ville drept for Nobels Fredspris. 😂

[sedsberg]

2 hours ago, Mbappe09 said:

Ser ut som Taliban og Pakistan er i krig

Ingen fare! Trump avslutter denne fortere enn du kan si Epstein Files.

[JK22]

Mbappe09 skrev (2 timer siden):

Nei, men orker ikke å lage ny tråd og dette kan være relevant for tråden ifm. at Trump var involvert i India og Pakistan. 

Modi er innblandet. Han hadde nemlig gjenreist det afghansk-indiske forholdet på nytt i rekordtid. Da Taliban undertvunget seg Afghanistan i 2021, fulgt dette til et avbrudd fordi Kabulregimet støttes av de hinduistiske inderne som betraktes som vantroe av de islamistiske Taliban medlemmene. Men forholdet mellom Taliban og Pakistan meget raskt forsuret seg fordi de vil ikke stoppe Pakistansk Taliban fra å fortsette stridighetene i pasjtunsbefolkede land som utgjør en del av Pakistan - og som de gjort krav på til stor vrede for Islamabad. 

Jeg har aldri vært i stand til å forstå hva det pakistanske militæret og dets etterretningsbyrå ISI egentlig tenkt på, helt siden kuppet mot Bhutto som så en folkemordanklaget general, Zia-ul Haq, kom til makten i 1977 hadde disse meget tankeløst støttet militante islamistiske krefter først mot kongeregimet, deretter mot kommunistregimet - og tillatt en pervers islamforståelse etablere seg - den moderate ikke-arabiske muslimen i Pakistan bli ekstremistisk, hatsk og stundom ekstremt selvdestruktivt - som sendte Pakistan ut i et blodig kaos. Da Taliban tok makten for første gang, fulgt dette til dels isolasjon, nær-krig med Iran og terroristangrep uten stans i 1994-2002. USA var villig til å knuse Pakistan i oktober 2001 som respons på 11. september. Men til allmenn sjokk nektet pakistanere å stoppe sin støtte til Taliban, og dermed kunne Taliban returnere. Selve Osama bin Laden var skjult av det pakistanske militæret inntil Obama fikk ham drept. 

Hver gang disse konfronteres, kom de stadig med unnskyldning om "strategisk dybde", men dette er ikke realistisk i det hele tatt fordi Afghanistan er sterkt fjellrikt med seriøse topografiske begrensninger for at pakistanske tropper kunne retirere under en indisk-pakistansk krig. Pakistan i virkeligheten er bare en stor dyp dal på lavlandsplatå. Støtten til Taliban fulgt da til en terroristorganisasjon kalt TTP eller "Pakistansk Taliban" som vil enten bryte ut grenseprovinsen eller undertvinge seg Pakistan - og dette fulgt til ustanselige lidelser uten sidestykke. Flere hundretusener pakistanere mistet deres liv som et resultat av islamiseringsspredningen inn i Afghanistan og det var groteske angrep som så flere hundre skolebarn massakrert bare fordi deres fedre var militæroffiserer. Ennå - ENNÅ - nektet pakistanerne å ta til fornuften! 

Og nå er de i krig med Talibanregimet i Afghanistan. De bare har SEG SELV Å TAKKE!!! 

Trump eller Vance kan bli involvert i senere tid fordi Modi har ikke gitt opp hans ambisjoner om å ødelegge Pakistan som en trussel. 

[JK22]

How Silicon Valley Swung Right — And Why It Won’t Swing Back

How did Silicon Valley leaders go from heaping praise on Barack Obama to going all in on Donald Trump?

To hear characters like venture capital firm a16z’s Marc Andreessen tell it, much of their current support for Trump has to do with a Joe Biden administration that attempted to throttle tech innovation. In December, Andreessen said in a podcast that he and other tech figures had meetings with Biden officials that were “absolutely horrifying … we came out basically deciding that we had to endorse Trump.”

But according to Jacob Silverman, author of the newly released book Gilded Rage: Elon Musk and the Radicalization of Silicon Valley, the tech industry flourished under Biden as well, benefitting in particular from increased cooperation with the defense sector. Rather, characters like Musk, Andreessen, Peter Thiel and David Sacks found common ground with Trump on many cultural issues, and realized that if they asked nicely, he would deliver them exactly what they wanted from the federal government.

“I would argue the tech industry was doing very well under Biden … What they probably didn't like were these mild acts of enforcement,” Silverman told POLITICO Magazine, referring to clashes over crypto and AI. “[But under Trump], they are getting pretty much everything they want. … I think [the alliance] is deeply reflective of the culture and politics and attitudes among the tech leadership itself.”

In an interview about how the tech-Trump alliance came to be, Silverman also discussed Musk’s potential involvement in the midterms, why the tech elite is worried about internal dissent and how democracy-skeptical Silicon Valley figures are trying to wall themselves off from American society.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

Early on in the book, you describe a meeting between tech leaders and Donald Trump after he was elected in 2016. Explain how things have changed from that meeting, when many tech leaders seemed already willing to work with Trump, to now. 

In 2016, that meeting was a bit of a surprise. Tech leaders coming into the open, giving their blessing, to some extent, to Trump. Certainly, I think a lot of people recognized a degree of expediency on the part of tech billionaires, thinking “Okay, we have to deal with the new ruling party.”

Also, as I described in the book, I thought that that meeting was pretty important because of the role of Peter Thiel as basically the kingmaker and the one deciding who was in attendance. It was a real validation of his early and pretty much unwavering bet on Trump. I think now what's different is it's a full embrace, and it's kind of an unembarrassed one. Among senior leadership in tech, there's kind of an exhaustion with woke politics and social justice issues. They don't want to have to have opinions on those kinds of things anymore. And there is, I think, somewhat a sense of relief that they could go back to just being craven capitalists and businessmen again.

What you see more now is a lot of talk about cooperation and mutual benefit for the country, the government and industry and basically everyone helping to Make America Great Again and make money along the way. There’s very little moral or political valence to the kinds of discussions or comments that you hear from tech leaders now. And again, I think there’s almost a sense of relief. If you're Mark Zuckerberg, who Trump has threatened to send to prison before, or if you're the CEO of Alphabet, which the government has been trying to break up, some of this is about personal interests and survival, but I think it's also deeply reflective of the culture and politics and attitudes among the tech leadership itself.

How does defense tech — relationships between tech companies and the U.S. military in particular — shape the politics of these figures?

In the early Silicon Valley history of the 50s and 60s, a lot of advancements in tech were the result of either investment or contracting agreements between Silicon Valley and the defense industry or the Defense Department. And then the DoD and DARPA helped give us the internet. But there was also this long period where tech saw itself as one of the inheritors of what was left of the counterculture, and that certainly has faded away to a great degree.

At first you had this revolving door between the tech industry and the defense industry that really increased in speed under Obama. And this is also a period where a lot of the War on Terror practices, including mass surveillance under the George W. Bush administration, became more institutionalized and codified under the law.

So, there’s been a general coming together of these two power centers where there's a lot of mutual profit and mutual interests. Of course, the government wants the data that the tech industry is collecting as a matter of doing business, and they want the products that tech is creating. And what you increasingly hear within the tech industry is that a reluctance to work for the state because you’re a libertarian or a “cyberpunk,” or a reluctance to make weapons, has gone away. In some cases, there's an outright enthusiasm for working in the defense industry. And this is where you get defense tech and companies like Palantir and Anduril, or even individual personalities like Palmer Luckey at Anduril. At least part of this new generation is very excited to make stuff for the state — it's kind of more like a “Call of Duty” type attitude, where they grew up on this War on Terror media. And instead of feeling conflicted about it, they got business ideas.

And it's also not just the defense tech startups. The big tech companies have also dispensed with a lot of their reluctance about being involved in military intelligence matters, and they pretty much all are going in that direction.

You write that “Under President Joe Biden, the tech industry and the U.S. government were arguably closer than ever, though their policy preferences diverged on antitrust matters. But on core issues of national defense and the tech industry’s role in it, there was little daylight between the two sides.” So, why is there now so much animus among this group toward Biden? If the sides kept working together, why do they hate him now?

I realize that might seem a little bit surprising to people, but I would argue that the tech industry was doing very well under Biden. Yes, there were some new challenges, especially in the form of the Federal Trade Commission and its chair at the time, Lina Khan. I would argue that the hatred of Biden actually gets at some of the irrationality and the reactionary character of these tech bubbles. I don’t know if they understood how good they had it. More specifically, you could say, hey, Eric Schmidt's drone company is operating in Ukraine. Anduril is certainly operating in Ukraine. Anywhere the Biden administration was on the national security front lines, tech companies were often involved.

The things that they saw as threats to themselves, I would argue, were rather overrated. Marc Andreessen said that his red line was this proposal to tax unrealized capital gains, which really would only affect billionaires and maybe a few very rich millionaires, and was something that was never even actually implemented. Andreessen also said that he went to a meeting at the White House and the Biden administration just wanted to destroy AI. Granted, I wasn't at that meeting, but that doesn't seem like a very accurate assessment of the Biden administration’s AI policy. So on the one hand, I would say they did have certain areas of friction with the Biden administration, and maybe some areas that actually would have effects on their bottom line.

But overall, this struck me as an industry that was still in full bloom, doing very well and finding new revenue streams with the government under the Biden administration. What they probably didn't like were these mild acts of enforcement and the fact that interest rates still weren’t where they wanted them to be.

So, you think they had a problem with not getting exactly what they wanted.

Yeah. A simple way to put it is that this is a group of people used to getting everything that they wanted, and they weren't getting everything that they wanted, and that became intolerable. And I think that's something we heard directly from them sometimes.

Do they feel like they’re getting everything they want under Trump?

I would imagine so. But there's always room for discontent. One thing I think is worth noting is that even someone like Musk, who's had this kind of psychodrama with Trump, hasn't experienced major financial consequences or legal consequences from his up and down relationship with the president. In fact, he's gotten multiple contracts for X-AI/Grok recently. So yes, if some of these electric vehicle subsidies go away, that would hurt a lot. But overall, I think he is doing rather well, and certainly other people around him are doing quite well.

What do you think Musk’s next move is? Was politics a quick distraction?

I think he may be involved in the 2026 midterms, but I wouldn’t expect him to take as much of a lead as he did in 2024, certainly in a place like Pennsylvania, where he was practically running operations. At the same time, I think something like a midterm election cycle suits Musk. He has a lot of political interests now, but maybe doesn't have the attention span and the commitment for a long political effort. I don't see him finally establishing this “America Party” or turning that into anything, but he could drop into some races and give a lot of money to Republican Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie or others who appeal to him.

I think also you'll continue to see his presence in foreign elections — he likes to beam into rallies with far-right leader Tommy Robinson in Britain or the far-right party AfD in Germany and tell them their country's at stake.

The other factor, though, which is really pulling on Musk, is he runs five or six companies. Some of them are facing hard times, especially Tesla. The government still needs SpaceX, but Tesla sales overseas are really doing badly and suffering from his political interventions. I think he will probably have to focus on Tesla and his other companies for now, at least.

You mention in the book the Covid-era concerns of Silicon Valley leaders that many of their employees were actually out to destroy their companies. How have they attempted in the intervening years to shape the politics of their rank-and-file employees? How have these companies changed? 

There's now very little tolerance for internal dissent or anything political that feels disruptive. In the book, I talk about Google responding to employee protests some years ago over Project Maven, the DoD image recognition project. They dropped that contract. More recently, in the last couple years, when Google employees have held silent protests over the company's work for the Israeli government, these Google employees have been immediately fired. It was 50 people. That seems pretty universal across tech. And again, I think that's consistent with this idea that they don't want to pay lip service to Black Lives Matter or #MeToo or other social movements. They really don’t want to have a public stance on Israel and Gaza, even if they have contracts related to these conflicts.

How does that work in a place that’s still largely liberal? 

It creates some discontent across the rank and file. I reported on Sean Maguire, the very voluble right-wing venture capitalist for Sequoia, who in a recent post on X said “[Zohran] Mamdani comes from a culture that lies about everything. It’s literally a virtue to lie if it advances his Islamist agenda.” One, there are a lot of people who agree with Sean Maguire and his kind of very jingoistic statements about Mamdani and Muslims more broadly. So, there is a class of people he represents. There are also a lot of rank-and-file people, or even some in executive level, who don't like that attitude, especially because there are a lot of Muslim workers in tech who are feeling the growing fault lines over Gaza especially. I think that conflict is actually going to grow and emerge from left-leaning tech workers and from a lot of Muslims and Palestinians in tech who don't like the politics of their investors or their leadership. The open tension has been tamped down, but that can’t go on forever.

How has the super-charged growth of AI — both in terms of its capabilities and investment in AI products — changed the politics of Silicon Valley?

Well, it certainly brought AI tech leaders closer to the government and sources of big capital and big infrastructure investing. Because pursuing AI and pursuing AGI or superintelligence seems to require unlimited amounts of capital and resources. That also makes it very dangerous, because it's not clear to me what the end point is here, or when enough is enough.

And what it also means is that they need a lot of capital and favors from the U.S. government. They need a lot of money from Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds and from dictatorships like Saudi Arabia. And they need land and favors from local governments and environmental reviews and all kinds of things that position tech as much more of a big power player and a big political mover, rather than some insurgent or countercultural force like it's often styled itself as.

There is a widespread belief that AI is the next thing, and perhaps the only thing. Some people call it the last invention. It's seen as something that will basically fix everything, including climate change, somehow retroactively. And it’s a little disturbing that [Silicon Valley leaders] have this almost religious faith that they just need to keep pouring in hundreds of billions of dollars or trillions of dollars into AI development and it's going to be worth it. In fact, as Mark Zuckerberg recently said, he’d rather risk misspending a couple $100 billion than miss out on superintelligence.

Some of the people you mention in the book are skeptical of democracy writ large, to the extent that just supporting any political candidate will only go so far in dismantling the system in the way they want. What else are they doing to realize these goals? 

The main presiding figure here is Peter Thiel, who has long been skeptical, at the very least, of democracy. Democracy interferes with his idea of true freedom. Those feelings are more widely felt now among the tech elites than they were when Thiel was a little bit lonely on that front in the late 1990s. Some of these guys are listening to Curtis Yarvin or reading Nick Land and some of these theorists, and I think they broadly agree that democracy is kind of an outmoded piece of government software.

And so, there are some practical things they are trying to do, like various attempts at charter cities and securing actual physical sovereignty over a piece of land. These are projects like Próspera in Honduras or the Solano County project California Forever, which is a little more within the bounds of democratic mores, but is still going to be some kind of company town. There's also Musk’s various efforts in Texas to establish his own private communities, or even on a smaller level, you have something like the school that Mark Zuckerberg established during the pandemic.

These are all attempts at what’s sometimes called “exit,” a way to secure your own sovereignty by making your own currencies with crypto, to escaping the education system, to ultimately securing land and creating your own communities. One thing I’ve heard is that some of the politically connected people in the charter cities movement, people receiving investment from Thiel and others, were very excited about the prospect of the U.S. taking over Greenland. I think that their vision for the kind of escape that they want is unrealistic to a great degree, and I think it’s one of the ultimate flaws with the people my book is about. They seem to have become rather anti-social and almost xenophobic; they don't really want to be among the rest of us.

And some of this, I argue in the book, came out of the perceived social failures and political failures of San Francisco, the city for tech, where a lot of them came from. They see the city as a failure and irredeemable to some extent, and that has also fed into this idea that “We need to get out of here. We need to build our own sovereign communities.” I think they'll continue to do that any way they can, but I don't expect it to necessarily be new countries, even if some people would like it that way.

Was there anything that came up in your reporting of this book that surprised you?

One thing is, these guys are rather sincere in a lot of ways. They say a lot of what they think. Yes, there's trolling and joking and irony, but they post a lot, and a lot of them have podcasts, or go on other people's long podcasts, and some of them give public speeches or go on TV. I think they're often truthful about their view of the world. And yes, we have to analyze that critically, but I think it's worth engaging with that. Related to that, they are so online that a lot of their view of the world is mediated through their phones and social media. So where some of us might go to San Francisco or other urban areas and maybe see some problems, their sense is that America's urban areas are riven by crime, that there are migrants attacking people at all times and are war zones, as Trump describes it.

I think that doesn't match a lot of everyday people's experience, but it does seem to be a mindset that these guys have fully bought into. I think that's partly attributable to their media intake, and I think it's partly attributable to the fact that while they may occasionally go through San Francisco, it's usually in the back of a black car and not on foot. They have removed themselves to some degree, and they're just consuming Laura Loomer content on their phones and things like that.

What comes after Trump? Are these tech elites you’re describing all in on JD Vance? How are they reacting to some Democrats’ efforts to win them back?

I think the tech industry, more broadly, would be very excited about Vance, because he's one of them. He's a Thiel disciple, and has written about how much Thiel influenced the course of his life. He was a venture capitalist and had his own small VC firm. He has financial interests with some of the people we've been talking about. So, while he's not necessarily the kind of charismatic leader like Trump is or a movement leader, I think tech elites will be very happy to support Vance.

I think the Democrats, in some ways, still may not understand what they're dealing with. I'm sure there are tech elites who will donate and vote Democrat. But there is also the factor of the cryptocurrency industry, which is obviously part of the tech industry. And I think Democrats think that they can still do something with that industry, or get some of their donations and support. But I see the crypto industries pretty firmly aligned with MAGA and Republicans and pretty unbending in its goals, and it's also gotten a lot of what it's wanted. So, I see it as much more of an adversary for the Democrats than a force they can win over.

En veldig skremmende artikkel som forklarer oss at disse ansvarlige for hele digitaliseringen av det vestlige samfunnet er falt i hender på et klikk som har blitt helt oppslukt av ukontrollert korrupsjon - de har blitt altfor maktkorrupt, altfor grådig og altfor avsondret fra resten av samfunnet slik at disse ikke bare forrådt deres verdier, men også blitt fanget inn i en informasjonsboble uten å fatte dette, den ufattelige suksessen som var sett med digitalisering av kommunikasjonsteknologi hadde fulgt til at disse har helt mistet hodet. Så meget, at de har blitt korrupt inntil punktet at de ikke klarer å innse det. Et viktig ordtak er at hvis du vil teste en persons integritet - gir ham eller henne litt makt. Her ser det ut at techoligarkene har helt feilet i denne integritetstesten. De var blitt digitale røverbaroner akkurat som disse industrimagnatene i "den forgylte æren" i 1870-1900, som i slutten gjort seg lite likt fordi de var blitt maktmisbrukere. 

De har også fått en voldsom tro på AI-utvikling, som fram til dette året skulle reguleres for å unngå skadevirkninger, siden 2016 hadde mange politikere og eksperter innsett at SoMe og algoritmer samt kryptovaluta kan ikke få fortsette usjekket, men dette ville ikke techoligarkene akseptere. De vil se en høyrevriding i Europa fordi de vil hindre regulering og redusere den politiske makten - så vanlige folk vil miste deres makt. De har allerede begynte på dette i USA, og de er voldsomt opptatt med å få arabermaktene med seg. Men den teknologiskeptiske Putin som bare så på nettet og digitalisering som et våpen å ødelegge uten å bry seg om konsekvenser, og det mektige partiet i Kina under Xi er ikke med dem. Spesielt Xi, som hadde brukt kraftige midler for å knuse liknende techoligarkutvikling. Xi vil ha streng statlig kontroll og ha muligheten til å sette lokk på AI om det skulle bli for farlig. 

En melding fra USA om at det kunne gjøre mesteparten av arbeidsstokken arbeidsledig ved å erstatte nyttearbeid med AI, kan tyder på at techoligarkene ikke bryr seg om hva som skje, de har helt mistet koblingen med nødvendigheten om å ivareta folkets behov og interesser. De heller ikke bryr seg om de kan miste kontroll over AI fordi de lot til å tro alt kan fikses - som hvis disse har seriøse planer om å avskaffe menneskelig ledelse til fordel for Super-AI som Terminator-filmenes Skynet - som utryddet mesteparten av menneskeheten. 

Det gjærer veldig sterkt blant techfolk i Silicon Valley og annetsteds, de har begynte å innse, spesielt etter bruddet mellom Trump og Musk, at deres sjefene hadde fjernet seg for meget fra dem og blitt for fremmedartet for dem. Techoligarkene er nå blitt så korrupt, at de er villig til å legge ned demokrati og enhver for å få inn mer og mer penger, de hadde arbeidet hardt med å få Trumps korrupte tilhengere til å inngå et pakt med oljesjeikene - inntil punktet at det kan få MAGA til å måpe. Da Hegseth kunngjort at Qatar vil ha en militærbase i USA var det mange som nekte å tro det. Selv om det egentlig er snakk om mindre fasiliteter, er det fremdeles underlagt et fremmed militærvesen på amerikansk grunn. Selv ikke under 2.vk var dette sett. 

Det kan også ha vært dette som fikk Trump til å sette hardt mot hardt omkring Gaza, ikke bare hadde oljesjeikene kommet med tydelige antydninger om straffereaksjoner, mektige pengesterke krefter fra Silicon Valley var også involvert fordi for dem er Israel ubetydelig i sammenligning med oljesjeikenes svimlende formue. 

Vi har et alvorlig problem fordi hele det digitale samfunnet utenom Kina er i hender på hyperkorrupte og virkelighetsfjerne personer som mener demokrati og endog menneskestyring kan forkastes. De mener også at menneskehetens skjebne kan ignoreres inntil man har "Mirakelkuren" som kan berge det som er tilbake. 

... det minner om den meget skremmende filmen "Don`t Look Up"... 

[halnes1]

JK22 skrev (2 timer siden):

Vi har et alvorlig problem fordi hele det digitale samfunnet utenom Kina er i hender på hyperkorrupte og virkelighetsfjerne personer

Mye rart en leser.
Menn når noen på står at CCP ikke er ultra,mega og utenom jordiske korrupte da sier det at personen bak de lange Fablene her på forumet er en av tentaklene til det CCP-kinesiske kommunistiske parti.

Dere står hardt på for å skape splittelse i den vestlige verden, mens dere sender ufattelige mengder kjemikalier til kartellene i Mexico og til den kinesiske mafiaen i Canada slik at de kan produsere FENTANYL.
Og det er mye på grunn av dere har ikke kommet over opiums krigen enda.

Så mens den vestlige verden går videre og i lag med tyskere og det japanske folk, så furter dere.
Til og med Vietnam har gått videre etter deres angrep på dem, et angrep som ikke var veldig vellykket.

[DukeNukem3d]

Skurupu skrev (På 10.10.2025 den 11.35):

Dette eksisterer bare i ditt eget hode.

Dessverre ikke. Folk her inne tilhører den fornuftige ikke-voldelige venstresiden som tror på debatt og ytringsfrihet. En god del andre der ute, f.eks de som møtte opp utenfor Ullevåll gjør ikke det og jødehatet er økende.

[skaftetryne32]

DukeRichelieu skrev (På 9.10.2025 den 10.35):

Jeg sier jo eksplisitt at norske medier ikke er like ille som amerikanske.

Og dermed sammenligner du dem, ikke sant? Ille, men ikke like ille, er det ikke det du sier? Jeg er uenig, norske medier er stort sett veldig dyktige og nøytrale i det de gjør, de kan ikke sammenlignes, og hva nå enn journalistene velger, det er faktisk opp til dem, så lenge de gjør jobben sin så ser jeg ikke et problem, og det gjør de. 

 

DukeRichelieu skrev (På 9.10.2025 den 10.35):

Men vi vet jo at norsk presse er rødgrønn. Dette har jo vist seg igjen og igjen og vært forsket på. Er ikke mine ord.

Noe de blåe får gjøre noe med, det er ikke de rødgrønne sitt problem at konservative ikke velger den utdannelsen, og norske media er fremdeles nøytrale.

 

DukeRichelieu skrev (På 9.10.2025 den 10.35):

Om du tror norsk hovedstrømspresse er helt nøytral, så er det vel fordi den sammenfaller med dine synspunkt og politisk overbevisning, og dermed er du tilfreds.

Da forstår du ikke hva nøytralitet er, nei jeg og media sine synspunkt sammenfaller ikke, men jeg forstår at et nøytralt media er saklig å objektivt, uten å formidle følelser verdier holdninger, nøytrale media formidler nyheter, ikke meninger forkledd som nyheter, noe som er blitt altfor vanlig og akseptert av blant annet SOME brukere.

[sesar]

Dette måtte komme siden ingen autoritære regimer liker at befolkningen har våpen.

trump_is_building_a_federal_gun_owner_registry/

 

Selv om det er et register over medlemmer og ikke hvem som eier våpen så kan vi vel anta det går for det samme i USA.

Når kommer de etter våpnene tro?

Først kommer de etter illegale invandrere

deretter legale innvandrere

deretter demokratenes våpen

til slutt MAGA gjengens våpen siden Trump allerede har sin private milits.

Vil tro MAGA gjengen på en eller annen måte vil beskylde Biden og demokratene for det også.

 

Endret 11 timer siden av sesar
Endret link

[JK22]

JK22 skrev (9 timer siden):

Vi har et alvorlig problem fordi hele det digitale samfunnet utenom Kina er i hender på hyperkorrupte og virkelighetsfjerne personer som mener demokrati og endog menneskestyring kan forkastes. De mener også at menneskehetens skjebne kan ignoreres inntil man har "Mirakelkuren" som kan berge det som er tilbake. 

Conservative Rick Wilson Warns MAGA Loyalists: Trump ‘Will Be Dead Sooner Than You Imagine’

Hyperkorrupsjon alltid leder til motreaksjoner. Denne opinionen er fra en ekte konservativ som oppriktig ment Trump med hans skremmende svindlerkarisma hadde så langt beskyttet disse "som forråder det amerikanske livet" (han burde tar Roberts med i regnskapet) - en konservative som avvist den høyreekstremistiske "falske konservatismen" som i virkeligheten er skalkeskjul for rasisme og klasseskiller. 

“Those who betrayed this nation in the service of Trump,” he wrote, “will be tried and handed punishments so severe that generations to come will remember that America is, by its very DNA, engineered to destroy tyranny.”

Rikingene over hele verden som hadde begynte å tro de kan omveksle sin pengemakt i politisk beskyttelse på bekostning av folkets ve og vel og politisk innflytelse for å bli rikere som med en viss kampanje som har egen tråd her i forumet, har visstnok glemt noe essensielt, nemlig at hvis samfunnsbalansen rakner vil det få meget seriøse konsekvenser. Røverkapitalismens herjingene i Russland fulgt til Putin som nå daglig drepe og rane oligarker mens russerne flest bare smilt - og Xi enten fengslet eller sette hjernevakt på de kinesiske oligarkene. Og da har vi ikke kommet til revolusjoner/folkereisning som nylig sett i Nepal - og den franske revolusjonen hvor de rikeste mistet deres hoder i giljotinen. Misunnelse er en naturkraft i seg selv.

Exclusive-Peter Thiel in talk on 'Antichrist' says he told Elon Musk not to give wealth to charity

Thiel har visstnok helt tørnet, han babler om antikristen og hadde prøvd å stoppe all gavmildhet mot de sårbare og fattige, blant annet ved å overtale Musk som nå lever stort på SpaceX. 

‘Something dramatic has happened': Robert Reich says U.S. is finally seeing Trump's true impact

"Something dramatic has happened," Reich said onstage Wednesday, Oct. 8. "Something has come out into the open that a lot of people who are on the edge, a lot of independents, a lot of people who really don't know their politics, who are a little bit afraid - they are now seeing the news. And they're saying, ‘What, the Texas National Guard is coming into Chicago over the objections of the mayor and the governor of Illinois, and they are coming in there and they are doing what? And the president is saying what? '"

Bell added, "They're raiding apartment buildings, filled with people in the middle of the night, pulling them out of their beds and zip-tying children."

Reich said that the optics of such policies are so awful that it "activates."

"It enables people to see something that is not just political," he continued. "It's not right versus left, it is not Democrats versus Republicans, it's fundamental: democracy versus facism."

ICE tre seg nå meget sterkt krenkende, og et raid mot en leilighetsblokk i Chicago sjokkerte folkeopinionen fordi flere hundre var trakassert, arrestert og utsatt for krenkinger - et opptak vist nakne barn sammenbundet ute i nattemørket - dette har fulgt til enorm debattaktivitet over hele USA og mange sier nå at det er ved å gå for langt. Samtidig opplever folk at det blir dårligere tjeneste og dyrere matpriser. Kjøttproduksjonen hadde gått nedover pga. tørke og arbeidsmangel under kjøttbearbeiding - uten at etterspørselen falt. Mange kaffeavhengige amerikanerne fant ut at de måtte enten kutte ut eller få ned kaffeforbruk fordi det har blitt dyrere. Mange blir nå skremt fordi de ser militære i bygater uten å skjønne hva det mene. 

En stemningsendring kan være i emningen. Oppslutningen omkring Trump er fallende, 38 % så langt, og mange støtter demokratene fordi de vil ikke ha kutt i livsviktig velferdsordninger, men de har også omsider begynte å skjønne hvor uforsonlige og hatsk republikanerne egentlig er i det politiske livet. 

"I believe that what's happening in Washington now, and even Donald Trump, is not the cause of what's ailing this country," Reich observed. "It's the culmination, the consequence, the ultimate result of 40 years or 50 years of us letting things happen. Not keeping our eye on the ball, getting off track, letting money dominate politics. "I mean, we've got to get big money out of politics, don't we? Republicans and Democrats have been drinking at the same trough, and it's time for them to stop."

Han har rett. den republikanske kontrarevolusjonen og den falske konservatismen ville ikke ha lykte om det ikke var for det amerikanske folkets ignoranse og den voksende korrupsjonen som hadde kunne etablere seg på grunn av Roberts i den føderale høyesteretten. 

Korrupsjon kan ødelegge hele imperier - og det har hendt. Flere ganger i løpet av historien. I Øst-Asia, spesielt Kina, er korrupsjon i maktatferd som beriking ansett å være mer ødeleggende enn folkemord og sivilisasjonskollaps fordi flere dynastier falt pga. korrupte makthavere som "mistet Himmelens mandat". 

[JK22]

sesar skrev (16 minutter siden):

Dette måtte komme siden ingen autoritære regimer liker at befolkningen har våpen.

trump_is_building_a_federal_gun_owner_registry/

 

Selv om det er et register over medlemmer og ikke hvem som eier våpen så kan vi vel anta det går for det samme i USA.

Når kommer de etter våpnene tro?

Først kommer de etter illegale invandrere

deretter legale innvandrere

deretter demokratenes våpen

til slutt MAGA gjengens våpen siden Trump allerede har sin private milits.

Vil tro MAGA gjengen på en eller annen måte vil beskylde Biden og demokratene for det også.

 

Vi har det samme i Norge, så det er noe å ønske velkomne i USA hvor flertallet vil ha våpenkontroll. Men på den andre siden kan dette misbrukes - spesielt ved å ta fordel av andres stupiditet. Det er en meget god grunn for at de autoritære verden rundt, fremst i Russland og Kina, ikke tror Trump vil lykte med å velte demokratiet i USA. Simpelt fordi statlig voldmonopol og streng våpenkontroll er essensielt for at et regime kan undertrykke befolkningen uten å gå til grunn. Den norske våpenkontrollen, som forresten er minst 700 år gammelt her i landet, bunnet i befolkningens aksept av statens autoritet som også innbar retten til å utdele våpenrett. Det var også likedan i USA fram til John Wayne dukket opp på TV. 

[Red Frostraven]

sesar skrev (24 minutter siden):

Dette måtte komme siden ingen autoritære regimer liker at befolkningen har våpen.

trump_is_building_a_federal_gun_owner_registry/

 

Selv om det er et register over medlemmer og ikke hvem som eier våpen så kan vi vel anta det går for det samme i USA.

Når kommer de etter våpnene tro?

Først kommer de etter illegale invandrere

deretter legale innvandrere

deretter demokratenes våpen

til slutt MAGA gjengens våpen siden Trump allerede har sin private milits.

Vil tro MAGA gjengen på en eller annen måte vil beskylde Biden og demokratene for det også.

 

Denne ble tegnet for over to år siden:

Administrasjonen jobber bokstavelig talt med å gjøre det å være trans til en sinnslidelse igjen -- på tross av at vi bokstavelig talt vet bedre. 

https://apnews.com/article/trump-hhs-rfk-transgender-therapy-53c20e8ba65b2d9e4750d5c3314492cc

Mens de arbeider med det, så holder også juristene med "lawfare" for å tillate konverteringsterapi for homofile.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/listen-live-supreme-court-hears-case-on-colorados-conversion-therapy-ban

Noen av oss advarte mot dette -- og mot at Trump og republikanerene ville innskrenke abortlovene -- allerede under første administrasjon.

[DukeRichelieu]

skaftetryne32 skrev (7 timer siden):

Og dermed sammenligner du dem, ikke sant? Ille, men ikke like ille, er det ikke det du sier? Jeg er uenig, norske medier er stort sett veldig dyktige og nøytrale i det de gjør, de kan ikke sammenlignes, og hva nå enn journalistene velger, det er faktisk opp til dem, så lenge de gjør jobben sin så ser jeg ikke et problem, og det gjør de. 

 

Noe de blåe får gjøre noe med, det er ikke de rødgrønne sitt problem at konservative ikke velger den utdannelsen, og norske media er fremdeles nøytrale.

 

Da forstår du ikke hva nøytralitet er, nei jeg og media sine synspunkt sammenfaller ikke, men jeg forstår at et nøytralt media er saklig å objektivt, uten å formidle følelser verdier holdninger, nøytrale media formidler nyheter, ikke meninger forkledd som nyheter, noe som er blitt altfor vanlig og akseptert av blant annet SOME brukere.

Kan du underbygge dine meninger og følelser? Eller er det bare følelser? 

[skaftetryne32]

DukeRichelieu skrev (1 minutt siden):

Kan du underbygge dine meninger

Jeg har jo gjort det, hvilke meninger er det du mener jeg ikke har underbygget?

 

DukeRichelieu skrev (2 minutter siden):

Eller er det bare følelser? 

ingen følelser, hva mener du er føleri her? 

[DukeRichelieu]

skaftetryne32 skrev (1 minutt siden):

Jeg har jo gjort det, hvilke meninger er det du mener jeg ikke har underbygget?

 

ingen følelser, hva mener du er føleri her? 

Du påstår at norske medier er veldig dyktige og nøytrale. 

[skaftetryne32]

DukeRichelieu skrev (17 minutter siden):

Du påstår at norske medier er veldig dyktige og nøytrale. 

Noe jeg også har begrunnet, om du mener at den begrunningen ikke er god nok så må du neste ta neste steg og begrunne dine egne følerier, du vet, de om at de ikke er det, kan ikke være en regel for meg og en helt annen for deg. 

https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom

 Norway (1st) remains the only country in the world to enjoy a “good” rating across all five indicators of the Index. It held on to its top spot for the ninth consecutive year, increasing its lead over other countries. Estonia (2nd) moved up to second place, closely followed by the Netherlands (3rd), which overtook Sweden (4th) in the world’s top three.

Endret 7 timer siden av skaftetryne32

[:utakt]

"The Biden FBI". Mens Donnie var president. 

Veldig bra.

[jallajall]

3 hours ago, sesar said:

Dette måtte komme siden ingen autoritære regimer liker at befolkningen har våpen.

trump_is_building_a_federal_gun_owner_registry/

 

Selv om det er et register over medlemmer og ikke hvem som eier våpen så kan vi vel anta det går for det samme i USA.

https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Reese-judgment-motion.pdf