Ämne: Tips, Titta på Trumps invigningstal

[Börje__]

Ja det kan gå snabbt ner, få har börjat diskutera detta ännu offentligt, jag funderar lite samma, sälja nu, för att senare återköpa😅??
Timingen är så svår....

[nisse175]

Nu när Europa ökat att köpa gas etc från Usa så kommer Trump säkert dribbla med detta som hot med ökat pris eller strypt tillgång om dom inte gör som han vill. Just nu är nog förråd fyllda osv men lite dribbel från Trump kan det nog kosta att fylla på till nästa säsong. Därför bör man öka takten med förnybart så man får upp volymer så man kan få ner kostnad bla för elektrolysörer men även annat med. Så lite oberoende av andra som möjligt är nog bästa sättet.

[Rickard]

Jag tycker Norge och Storbritannien ska öka sin gasutvinning och dra fler pipelines till Europa.
På kort sig är det det enda som fungerar, och på lång sikt en utbyggnad av kärnkraften för att kunna elektrifiera mer.
Vindkraften har nått vägs ände som jag ser det.
Skadar natur, miljö, lokalbefolkningen, inte planerbart, finns inga energilager, kort livslängd, obefintlig lönsamhet.
Det finns så oerhört mycket som talar emot vindkraft att det borde stoppas om de som bygger inte kan garantera lagringskapacitet som räcker en längre tid.
Typ gigantiska sandlager eller pumpkraft.
Eller vätgaslager som kan omvandlas till el, med >60% energiförluster.

[rocas]

Media  hanterar ofta endast en stor nyhet i taget. Den senaste månaden är det Donald Trump.

Min gissning är att mediafokus ändras, när hans stora ord....inte blir verklighet.

[Rickard]

JO, det bidde inga tariffer mot Mexico nu när de lovat 10 000 soldater till gränsen för att stoppa olaglig immigration och knarksmuggling.
Blir troligen något liknande i Canada.
I EU får vi lova lägre tullar på varor från USA, och en försvarsbudget på 4-5% av BNP de kommande 10-20 åren.
Putin kommer pressas av att Ukraina fått fria händer att bomba som de vill, slå ut deras olja och raffenaderiverksamher, sen börjar man skruva igen möjligheterna för Rysslands skuggflotta att transportera olagligt, samtidigt som han hotar Kina och Indien med tariffer om de inte börjar köpa olja från Saudiarabien eller USA istället för från Ryssland.
Min gissning är förhandlingar med Putin inom några veckor, Putin vägrar gå med på några eftergifter, Trump steppar upp insatserna med mer effektiva vapen till Ukraina (Utan att säga något utåt) och stenhård koll på olagliga oljetransporter och länder som inte lever upp till sanktionerna.
Om det inte hjälper hotar han med att Ukraina ska få tillgång till de 300 miljarder dollar som de internationella bankerna frusit av ryska oligarker, och Putin själv.
Pengarna går då till att köpa Amerikanska moderna vapen.
Sen är kriget slut.
Om Putin dödas av oligarkerna, avsätts av parlamentet, eller förhandlar fram en fredslösning är mer oklart. 

Personligen skulle jag vilja att Ryssland demilitariserades totalt, men det lär väl aldrig hända.
När dammet lagt sig kommer Ryssland vara utfattigt, frågan är om det blir en stor flyktingvåg in i EU från Ryssland - det får vi nog vara beredda på.

De slutgiltiga förhandlingarna kan mycket väl föregås av att USA/Israel bombar sönder all vapentillverkning i Iran, för att statuera exempel, och minska inflödet av Terrordrönare från Iran till Ryssland.
Men att arrangera en statskupp i Iran kanske är väl mycket även för Trump så här de första 100 dagarna, det kanske måste mogna lite  mer.

[vvik]

Kanske köpa lite kryptovalua som man senare kan byta till en resa till Mars

[rocas]

Rickard, Donald och Elon Musk.....vilken handlingskraftig trio....

[Rickard]

HEHE, jodu, nu händer det saker. 
Det får gå nästan hur det vill, ÄNTLIGEN är det någon som gör något åt en samhällsutveckling som för länge sedan spårat ur totalt.
Om alla stjärnor står rätt på himlen kommer Trump lyckas få fred i både mellanöstern och Ukraina, USA:s handelsbalans blir mer hållbar, och kineserna förlorar stora delar av sin konkurrensfördel mot övriga världen.
Drogproblemen i USA minskar och USA:s regering startar färre försök att omkullkasta regeringar runt om i världen, med krig, inbördeskrig och terrorism som resultat.

Nåt liknande som Trump/Musk gör med USAID borde göras med SIDA (Sossarnas ickedemokratiska demagogiska avlöningssystem) för partivänner som inte får plats i de demokratiska församlingarna.
Sittande regering försöker, men det är ett mer eller mindre omöjligt uppdrag, även vi borde lägga ned SIDA helt och börja om med en transparent organisation styrd av demokratiskt valda politiker, inte nepotism och dolda partistrukturer som i sin tur går globala ickedemokratiska NGO-strukturers ärenden, stöttar terrorister och internationell socialism utan hänsyn till att stödet vi delar ut på olika sätt borde gynna Sverige.

[tipo874]

Skulle aldrig kunna titta på nåt längre tal av Trump, jag får rysningar bara av att se fjanten.

Hittat på fejan.
---
The best, most cogent and elegantly simple explanation into the inexplicably destructive negotiating processes of the president, by Prof. David Honig of Indiana University.
Everybody I know should read this accurate and enlightening piece...
“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.
Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed Trump lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call "distributive bargaining."
Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump's world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.
The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.
The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.
One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker.
There isn't another Canada.
So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is  impossible. And we see that already.
Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.
Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run.
For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us.
Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.
From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”
— David Honig

[tipo874]

Someone asked "Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?"
Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England, wrote this magnificent response:
"A few things spring to mind.
Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.
For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.
So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.
Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing - not once, ever.
I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility - for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.
But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.
Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.
And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.
There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.
Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.
Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.
And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.
Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.
He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.
He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.
And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.
That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.
There are unspoken rules to this stuff - the Queensberry rules of basic decency - and he breaks them all. He punches downwards - which a gentleman should, would, could never do - and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless - and he kicks them when they are down.
So the fact that a significant minority - perhaps a third - of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
* Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
* You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.
This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.
After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.
God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.
He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.
In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws - he would make a Trump.
And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:
'My God… what… have… I… created?
If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set."

[tipo874]

United States Army General Mark A Milley

Milley was a highly decorated Commanding General in the Army, served in many operations, and was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from September 30, 2019 to September 30, 2023. He considered resignation several times, most notably when Trump had pulled Milley from an important meeting to use as an escort to get through the fog of tear gas at the capital during a protest so that Trump could get his picture taken holding a Bible in front of a church. This letter was not handed in, as he tried to continue serving our country as best he could. Finally, Trump took office a second time, and this man has been removed from office along with many, many others who opposed or voted against Trump.
Please read Milleys own words as follows :
"The events of the last couple weeks have caused me to do deep soul-searching, and I can no longer faithfully support and execute your orders as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is my belief that you were doing great and irreparable harm to my country. I believe that you have made a concerted effort over time to politicize the United States military. I thought that I could change that. I’ve come to the realization that I cannot, and I need to step aside and let someone else try to do that.
Second, you are using the military to create fear in the minds of the people—and we are trying to protect the American people. I cannot stand idly by and participate in that attack, verbally or otherwise, on the American people. The American people trust their military and they trust us to protect them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and our military will do just that. We will not turn our back on the American people.
Third, I swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States and embodied within that Constitution is the idea that says that all men and women are created equal. All men and women are created equal, no matter who you are, whether you are white or Black, Asian, Indian, no matter the color of your skin, no matter if you’re gay, straight or something in between. It doesn’t matter if you’re Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jew, or choose not to believe. None of that matters. It doesn’t matter what country you came from, what your last name is—what matters is we’re Americans. We’re all Americans. That under these colors of red, white, and blue—the colors that my parents fought for in World War II—means something around the world. It’s obvious to me that you don’t think of those colors the same way I do. It’s obvious to me that you don’t hold those values dear and the cause that I serve.
And lastly it is my deeply held belief that you’re ruining the international order, and causing significant damage to our country overseas, that was fought for so hard by the Greatest Generation that they instituted in 1945. Between 1914 and 1945, 150 million people were slaughtered in the conduct of war. They were slaughtered because of tyrannies and dictatorships. That generation, like every generation, has fought against that, has fought against fascism, has fought against Nazism, has fought against extremism. It’s now obvious to me that you don’t understand that world order. You don’t understand what the war was all about. In fact, you subscribe to many of the principles that we fought against. And I cannot be a party to that. It is with deep regret that I hereby submit my letter of resignation."

[nisse175]

Här är intressant hur det speglar Trump, 3 avsnitt. Likheter är ganska otroliga med tanke på kapitolium och det som nu händer internt i Usa.


https://www.svtplay.se/video/KZm2NrN/julius-caesar/1-sa-skapas-en-diktator

[Börje__]

Someone asked "Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?"
Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England, wrote this magnificent response:
"A few things spring to mind.
Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.
For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.
So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.
Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing - not once, ever.
I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility - for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.
But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.
Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.
And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.
There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.
Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.
Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.
And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.
Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.
He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.
He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.
And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.
That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.
There are unspoken rules to this stuff - the Queensberry rules of basic decency - and he breaks them all. He punches downwards - which a gentleman should, would, could never do - and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless - and he kicks them when they are down.
So the fact that a significant minority - perhaps a third - of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
* Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
* You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.
This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.
After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.
God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.
He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.
In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws - he would make a Trump.
And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:
'My God… what… have… I… created?
If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set."

😂😂😂😂😂

Edit, ångrar mitt skratt lite, då det ju tyvärr är en riktig analys, även om väldigt välformulerad.

[Zyberdude]

Frågan är om han är ännu tokigare än grannen i öst? Putte vill väl återskapa Sovjet, medan trumpeten vill ha mark överallt, nu ska han ”ta” Gazaremsan och bygga upp det för alla utom åt de oönskade. Historieböckerna skrev om en man på 1930-40 talet som också ansåg vissa vara sämre än andra.

[Carl N]

Frågan är om han är ännu tokigare än grannen i öst? Putte vill väl återskapa Sovjet, medan trumpeten vill ha mark överallt, nu ska han ”ta” Gazaremsan och bygga upp det för alla utom åt de oönskade. Historieböckerna skrev om en man på 1930-40 talet som också ansåg vissa vara sämre än andra.

Detta bekräftar väl bortom varje rimligt tvivel att han inte bara är infantil utan även imbecill.
Diplomater runt jättebäbisen försöker tona ner uttalandet och menar att han är feltolkad.
Trump 2.0 har bara börjat.