Trump The AUTHORITARIAN
He already likely broke appropriations law to pay the military, so yes, the only logic of the SNAP issue is he think it hurts democrats more than it does him. The other possibility he does not understand the law, and he is just going off what he is told, but that person knows....
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ho … e-militaryHe certainly is busy with the pardons isn't he?....Trump has pardoned Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Mark Meadows, Christina Bobb, Boris Epshteyn and dozens of false GOP electors and other miscreants involved in his effort to overturn the 2020 election results, per pardon attorney Ed Martin ...
"Anyone who helps me try to steal an election gets a pardon” is perhaps the most corrupt thing to happen in American history.
That “conservatives” have simply accepted this as the price of admission is the greatest moral and intellectual humiliation...It may be a distraction to keep the Epstein files under wrap. You don't know about Trump. He uses distractions a lot to make the media look here not there. On the other hand, loyalty is everything to the King. He has given them a get out of jail free card and they are now welcome to his court,
UK says out loud that Trump is murdering (they put it more diplomatically) people on the high seas and they won't help him do it.
History in the making - "Exclusive: UK suspends some intelligence sharing with US over boat strike concerns in major break"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/11/politics … sharing-usThis is what Trump's stupidity results in.
"Venezuela announces ‘massive mobilization’ of military forces as America’s largest warship sails into region"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/11/americas … intl-latamIs anyone surprised that Donald "the felon" Trump, who is responsible for millions of deaths world-wide already defends fellow authoritarian Saudi Prince's murder and dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi? I am certainly not - it fits his low character perfectly.
• Saudi meeting: President Donald Trump defended Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as he dismissed questions about the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi as an attempt to “embarrass” the Saudi leader, adding that “things happen.” OMG!!!
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … index.htmlJust follow the money. The crown prince is in the process of buying 48 F-35's from Trump. The total price of the deal would be between 4-5.5 billion for the aircraft themselves.
The problem is the Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge (QME): U.S. law requires Israel to maintain a military advantage in the region. Selling F‑35s to Saudi Arabia risks undermining that edge.
Technology transfer risks: U.S. officials worry sensitive F‑35 technology could be compromised, especially given Saudi Arabia’s close ties with China.
The sale must go through the U.S. foreign military sales process, including export licensing and congressional approval. Lawmakers could still block or delay the dealCertainly hope Congress does kill the deal.
I wonder what MAGA feels about Trump selling F-35s to an ally of China.I think MAGA will follow anything that Trump wants. Right now, he is just seeing dollar signs. As always, he reacts first without considering the consequences and then he comes back and tries to fix it and takes credit for fixing the problem. he created.
I believe that the US government acts as a "middleman" in such sales, but do you know if the country gets a "middleman" cut of the price?
I have a difficult time believing that China doesn't already have all the information they need on that plane. They have shown excellence in information gathering for a long, long time.I asked AI where the money would go if Saudi bought the deal and does China have all the information it needs on that aircraft. Here are the answers.
The money from an F‑35 sale to Saudi Arabia does not go to Trump personally or the U.S. government in a discretionary way. It flows through the Foreign Military Sales system into Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors, sustaining American jobs and defense industries. At the same time, Saudi Arabia’s broader investment pledges channel capital into U.S. technology, energy, and manufacturing sectors
Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge (QME): U.S. law requires maintaining Israel’s military superiority. Selling F‑35s to Saudi Arabia risks upsetting this balance, though Trump assured Israel it would still receive top-tier variants.
China has some intelligence on the F‑35, mostly from older cyber intrusions, but it does not possess the full technical blueprint or operational secrets. The jet’s evolving design, strict export controls, and U.S. compartmentalization keep its most advanced capabilities secure. The real risk lies in future exposure through Saudi Arabia’s ties with China, which is why Washington is debating the sale so intensely.Then it makes no sense to say that Trump is seeing dollar signs; neither he nor the US will get any.
I highly doubt that you, or anyone else in the US (including AI programs) has a good idea of what China knows about the F-35.
WOW!!! Trump threatens to execute sitting congress people - AGAIN!!! Why did he devolve into this particularly stinky part of his pig stye? Because these 6 Representatives had the AUDACITY to tell soldiers to follow the law. In fact, if soldiers follow illegal orders that result in a crime, such as blowing those boats out the water, then they are subject to prosecution under UCMJ Articles 118 and 119.
"Why Democrats are warning about Trump giving illegal orders"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/20/politics … s-behaviorAs usual, just another gross exaggeration from you. Trump made no threats, just commented that they should be jailed. And then said that they should be executed.
I understand his angst, if you do not (something I highly doubt). Military personnel MUST NOT violate orders except under the most dire circumstances. Democrats are encouraging them to refuse anything remotely coming from Trump - after all, we all know that every time his mouth opens it is a lie, and probably illegal, right?
So those idiots are trying to convince gullible kids that they (the kids) know the law better than the army and are competent to decide if an order is legal or not. An order such as to take out a drug boat headed for the US. Or to invade Venzuela. Or take our a drug cartel in Mexico. Or deport an illegal alien.
Now you may deny the legality of any of those, but you are even less competent than a random soldier to decide if they are legal or not - TDS ensures that.Clearly, you didn't watch the video or read the text of what it said and what Trump's response was.
You immediately deflected to [b]something the miliary vets DID NOT say[/b[ and then blew past what Trump DID SAY.
They reminded soldiers that under the UCMJ they are not permitted to follow what they know or have very good reason to believe are ILLEGAL orders and not your twisting of what they said
And Trump said quote “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”. That might have been ok in and of itself, but then he endorsed by reposting "supporter content calling for them to be executed or “hanged,” effectively amplifying those calls."
You also think very poorly of our random soldiers intelligence by basically calling them incapable of thought and reasoning ability.
Even IF those boats contained what he says they do (of which there is not proof - something you are big on in other situations - U.S. and International law forbids him from killing all those on board as a first option.
The ONLY exception is if those on-board posed an imminent, immediate threat to America. Since their destination was unknown and they were many hundreds of miles away not heading toward our shores, that was not the case no matter how many lies he tells to make it so.
His ONLY option was to approach and board. But hey, what is a few more deaths among the millions he is already responsible for with his policies?I get it. Everything Trump says is a lie and therefore orders should not be followed. The only problem here is that it is NOT a lie, is NOT illegal. So far Trump has lost precious few of the court challenges to his actions, so when you claim the military should not follow his orders, well, it's just stupidity acting as political comments.
That you have decided his actions on drug boats killing Americans are illegal means exactly nothing. Zero. Nada. Yet here you are decrying the soldier that does not agree with your poorly taken stance, encouraging them to commit high crimes against our country. No, Eso, that is seditious behavior and should be punished as such.I would guess ECO feels he can call the shots on which laws can be followed and which he wants ignored. I mean, he is apt to just know more about ----everything,
Not EVERYTHING as you exaggerate, but I would say 90% of anything of significance the felon says is a lie.
I haven't decided anything, you have. Instead, I did my research and concluded, based on many legal opinions, that what Trump is doing is an OBVIOUS violation of American and International laws.
Wow...is there anyone on the left that can comprehend the meaning of word?
"if soldiers follow illegal orders that result in a crime, such as blowing those boats out the water, then they are subject to prosecution under UCMJ Articles 118 and 119."
The left has said some ridiculous things and this is one that is really up there.
UCMJ Article 118 and 119 deal with murder and manslaughter. Guess what? This doesn't apply to the deaths of enemy combatants during a military mission.
When I was in the Army a person was brought up on Article 118 because he killed a fellow soldier. That is how it is applied. NOT when killing a designated enemy.
If the deaths of the drug runners was considered murder, it is the officers and those who issued the order who would be brought up on charges. NOT the troops who carried it out.
Again, the left's detachment from reality is too obvious.
Those six representatives only did this for attention.
It is already in the UCMJ to not follow an unlawful order. It is Article 92.
Examples
Torturing prisoners of war.
Looting or pillaging property.
A commanding officer orders personnel to suppress lawful protests in violation of First Amendment rights.
Violations of International Laws.
Some other examples may be an Abuse of Authority:
Misuse of resources: A public official orders employees to use government funds or equipment for personal gain.
Harassment or retaliation: A superior orders someone to engage in workplace bullying or to retaliate against a whistleblower.Guess what, they certainly do if that was an illegal mission which it clearly is.
"Guess what, they certainly do if that was an illegal mission which it clearly is."ECO
None of those Congress members mentioned anything about an illegal order having occurred due to an order by Trump or any other military personnel.. That was the first thing that jumped out at me from the ad. Honestly, I was curious to see how carefully that dog whistle had been crafted. But nonetheless a dangerous dog whistle.
So if you’re going to say something like, “Guess what, they certainly do if that was an illegal mission, which it clearly is,” then you should be ready to show proof of an actual illegal action, and whether anyone has been charged with such a crime. No criminal charges have been brought for Trump related to these boat strikes. PERIOD
As it stands, your statement isn’t just wrong; it’s misinformation dressed up like it’s ready for primetime.Where is the proof, they are drug runners? Without any proof, they could just be fishermen. I asked AI if that could be consider an act of war. Here are the results.
**Yes — under international law, blowing up boats in international waters without proof of drug trafficking can be interpreted as an *act of war* or at minimum an *extrajudicial killing*, depending on the circumstances.** Legal experts argue that such actions violate the Law of Armed Conflict and could expose U.S. forces to charges of unlawful killings.
Why This Could Be Considered an Act of War
- **International waters context**: Striking vessels outside U.S. territory without evidence of imminent threat undermines the principle of sovereignty. If those boats belong to another nation, it risks being treated as aggression — the legal definition of war under the UN Charter.
- **No proof of drugs**: Reports confirm that the Trump administration has provided *no evidence* that the targeted boats were carrying narcotics. Destroying vessels without proof eliminates both evidence and intelligence, making the strikes legally indefensible.
- **Targeting civilians vs. combatants**: Drug traffickers are not recognized as military combatants. Killing them without due process or imminent threat violates both U.S. law and international law.
- **Extrajudicial killings**: Military lawyers at U.S. Southern Command warned that these strikes could amount to *extrajudicial killings*, exposing service members to legal liability.
Legal and Strategic Consequences
- **Violation of the UN Charter**: The use of force is only lawful in self-defense against an armed attack. Drug smuggling, even violent, does not meet that threshold.
- **Congressional authority**: The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Trump’s unilateral strikes raise constitutional concerns about bypassing Congress.
- **Risk of escalation**: Venezuela and Colombia have already accused the U.S. of killing innocent fishermen. Such incidents could escalate into diplomatic or military conflict.
- **Loss of allies**: Britain reportedly stopped sharing intelligence with Washington over fears these operations violate international law.
Key Takeaway
Blowing up boats without proof of drug trafficking is **not a lawful counternarcotics operation**. It risks being classified as **unlawful killings or acts of war**, depending on the nationality of the victims and the waters in which the strikes occur. The lack of evidence and due process makes the legal footing extremely weak, and experts warn it sets a dangerous precedent for global norms.I believe you spend too much time on AI and give it too much credit.
I'd suggest reading some real article on the subject written by real people.
"without proof of drug trafficking"
Do you know how anything works when dealing with enemy combatants? I don't think the intelligence community is going to share the intelligence they received or how they got it concerning these drug runners. This is not information for the public. This is an ongoing mission. Do you think every military operation should be put in front of the public for discussion? That would be ridiculous.
I don't know about people on the left.
If some country considers this an act of war then let them start a war with the United States. To that I say good luck.That you have not seen proof makes it illegal? When did YOU (or anyone else) become the legislator making laws and the jury declaring guilt? That YOU have not seen proof means exactly nothing. That the international court has not seen any does not mean it is illegal. That the UK or Russia or Venezuela has seen nothing does not mean it is illegal.
It means you are ignorant of whether there is proof or not. Nothing more. As far as it being an act of war, I'm OK with the President declaring war on drug runners.If there is no proof evident, then yes, it is illegal. There is a reason Trump hasn't offered any proof and it has nothing to do with security.
"Where is the proof, they are drug runners? Without any proof, they could just be fishermen. I asked AI if that could be considered an act of war. Here are the results." PP
I never made any reference to the legality of anything. My comment was simply about a statement that I believe was misinformation. I don’t need to prove anything because I haven’t accused anyone of committing a crime, nor did I say the operation was legal or illegal. What I pointed out was one fact: no criminal charges have been brought against Trump in connection with these boat strikes. That is verifiable. I haven’t seen anyone in the government claim that Trump’s orders were illegal, and no one at the Pentagon has stepped forward to say the strikes violated the law. So interpreting these actions as illegal doesn’t seem fair or factual.
Here is information on the statements from the Pentagon regarding the boats strikes.
Direct Pentagon / DOD / SOUTHCOM statements (with sources)
U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) — X post announcing a strike
Date / context: SOUTHCOM post announcing the strike (example: Sep 2, 2025; similar posts for later strikes).
Direct text (SOUTHCOM’s wording used in multiple posts):
“Intelligence confirmed that the vessel was involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics.”
X (formerly Twitter)
Why it matters: SOUTHCOM is the combatant command publicly announcing and describing the strikes; their X posts are official DOD communications for these actions.
Pentagon / Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell — legality defense
Date/context: Public Pentagon comments reported alongside the DOJ memo revelations (November 2025 reporting).
Direct quote attributed to a Pentagon spokesman (reported):
“Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in complete compliance with the law of armed conflict.”
Why it matters: This phrase is the clearest short formulation of the Pentagon’s public legal posture: that the Department considers the operations lawful and compliant with the law of armed conflict.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth — public posts announcing/defending strikes
Date / context: Multiple social-media posts and short public statements (examples in October–November 2025).
Representative short quote Hegseth used:
“We have the absolute and complete authority.”
Military Times
Why it matters: Hegseth (the civilian head of DoD) personally posted/announced strikes and framed the policy and authority for them.
Pentagon / SOUTHCOM describing location & attribution (international waters / intelligence basis)
Date / context: SOUTHCOM and Pentagon announcements for subsequent strikes (Reuters / Guardian summaries quoting SOUTHCOM).
Representative wording:
The command said the boat “was in international waters when it was struck” and that strikes were carried out “based on intelligence indicating the boat was transporting narcotics.”
Reuters
Why it matters: This is the Pentagon’s factual framing used repeatedly: (a) location = international waters, (b) premise = intelligence confirmed narcotics trafficking.
Pentagon reporting on legal review / DOJ OLC memo (Pentagon referencing DOJ review)
Date / context: Reporting in November 2025 that DOJ’s OLC issued an opinion; Pentagon statements reference legal review and advice.
Representative phrasing attributed to Pentagon reporting:
Pentagon officials have said the strikes were reviewed and the administration has relied on a DOJ opinion that said U.S. personnel “would not be exposed to future prosecution.”
The Washington Post
Why it matters: The Pentagon’s public defense explicitly references legal signoff / OLC advice as the basis for moving forward.+Hegseth and the DOJ work for Trump and will do and say anything Trump wants them to do or say. They are beholden to him for their positions.
When you are enlisted in the Military you swear an oath to the Constitution first, not the president.
The exact wording under 10 U.S. Code § 502 is:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation) Service members are required to disobey unlawful orders. If an order is clearly illegal — e.g., targeting civilians or non-combatants without imminent threat — following it could expose them to liability.
Articles 118 & 119 (Murder and Manslaughter) These articles apply if a service member unlawfully kills another person. Critics argue that blowing up boats without proof of combatant status could fall under this, since drug traffickers or fishermen are not lawful military targets.
Chain of Command Responsibility Military lawyers emphasize that if unlawful killings occur, commanders and those issuing the orders are primarily liable, not the rank-and-file troops carrying them out.
The Debate
One side (critics & some lawmakers): They argue that if soldiers obey Trump’s order to destroy boats without proof of threat, they risk violating Articles 118/119 (murder/manslaughter) because the victims are not recognized enemy combatants.
Other side (defenders): They counter that Articles 118/119 don’t apply in combat missions against designated enemies. They say the real safeguard is Article 92 — troops must refuse unlawful orders, but if the mission was authorized through the chain of command, it’s presumed lawful unless proven otherwise.I would describe your comment as conspiracy‑flavored. I try to approach issues based on what the facts show, even when there are only a few facts available. The facts come from the Pentagon, and as I have stated, there are currently no charges or investigations underway, so I don’t think it is wise to offer a perception on such an important issue.
When I look at your claim, the first thing I notice is the assumption that people like Hegseth or the DOJ “work for Trump” and “will say anything he wants.” That simply doesn’t match how the federal government works. DOJ attorneys, Pentagon lawyers, and military officers operate under their own legal authorities, professional codes, and independent oversight. They aren’t political bodyguards who do whatever a president wants; they routinely push back on any president, Republican or Democrat, when legality is in question. So the idea that they are “beholden” to Trump ignores the reality that these institutions have their own rules, lawyers, and statutory obligations that limit any president’s reach. As for the military oath, I completely agree with the literal wording: service members swear first to defend the Constitution. But the oath also explicitly states that soldiers must obey the lawful orders of the President and officers. That means two things can be true at the same time: troops are never required to obey an unlawful order, and the President is still the Commander-in-Chief whose lawful directives must be followed.
From there, I think it’s important to apply Article 92 correctly. Article 92 requires troops to disobey clearly unlawful orders, things any reasonable service member would recognize as illegal, like deliberately targeting civilians or firing without any legal authority. But military operations do not work the way critics describe them. The President does not personally guess which boats have drugs and tell someone to push the button. The Pentagon has surveillance, intelligence assessments, legal reviews, and rules of engagement that determine whether a vessel counts as a lawful target. Military lawyers, who do not answer to the President politically, review these operations before they ever take place. Once the Pentagon has identified a hostile vessel, and once commanders have engagement authority, the order becomes presumptively lawful under U.S. and international law. In that circumstance, Article 92 protects the soldier, not harms them, because they are acting under vetted, lawyer-approved orders.
When critics invoke Articles 118 and 119 (murder and manslaughter), they overlook how these laws actually work. These articles only apply when a service member unlawfully kills someone, meaning the target was not legally engaged under the rules of war, the Law of the Sea, or U.S. counter-narcotics authorities. But if the Pentagon has already determined that a boat belongs to a cartel group, is acting as a hostile force, or is part of an interdiction operation, then those individuals are lawful targets. Cartels are paramilitary organizations, not innocent fishermen. The military has been authorized for decades, across Democratic and Republican administrations, to assist in counter-drug missions, including the use of force when necessary. So the idea that a sailor would accidentally commit “murder” because he engaged a vessel after Pentagon validation simply doesn’t reflect how military targeting works.
When I compare both sides of the debate, the critics’ argument rests on a hypothetical scenario where soldiers blow up boats without identification, without intelligence, and without legal clearance. That scenario would indeed be unlawful, but that is not what is happening. Defenders are pointing out something much more grounded in real-world military procedure: if a mission goes through the full chain of command, is supported by verified intelligence, reviewed by Pentagon lawyers, and conducted under authorized rules of engagement, then it is lawful unless proven otherwise. That is why Articles 118 and 119 generally do not apply in counter-cartel missions, and why Article 92 remains the actual safeguard. Troops are not exposed to murder charges for carrying out legally vetted operations, and commanders, not rank-and-file troops, carry liability if an order were ever found unlawful. In other words, the system already has multiple checks that prevent the nightmare scenario critics describe, and common sense suggests that the U.S. military does not operate on impulsive, illegal orders from any president.Let's cut to the chase here. The focus on the blowing the boats out of the water is only part of the story.
It is really about Trump accusing six Democratic members of Congress of “seditious behavior” after they released a video urging military and intelligence personnel to refuse illegal orders. On Truth Social, he wrote that their actions were “punishable by DEATH”, called them “traitors”, and said they should be “arrested and put on trial.” He also reposted supporter content calling for them to be “hanged.”
Initial Post: Trump wrote, “This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???”
Follow-up Post: He escalated, saying, “It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand – We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET.”
Most Extreme Statement: Trump declared, “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
Amplification: He reshared posts from supporters calling for the lawmakers to be “hanged” and compared them to traitors from history.
The lawmakers in question — Sens. Elissa Slotkin (MI) and Mark Kelly (AZ), and Reps. Jason Crow (CO), Chrissy Houlahan (PA), Maggie Goodlander (NH), and Chris Deluzio (PA) — are all military or intelligence veterans. Their video reminded service members that under U.S. law they must refuse unlawful orders.
Legal experts: They argue Trump’s sedition claims don’t hold up. Urging troops to refuse illegal orders is consistent with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Article 92).
Democratic leaders: Condemned Trump’s posts as “disgusting and dangerous death threats” and warned they fuel political violence.
Trump’s clarification: In a later interview, he said, “I’m not threatening death… but in the old days, it was death.”
Under 18 U.S. Code § 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy), sedition occurs when two or more people conspire to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the U.S. government, or to hinder or delay the execution of its laws by force.
Penalty: Up to 20 years in prison and fines — not death, despite Trump’s recent claims.
As an example, the leaders of the Proud Boys were convicted of seditious conspiracy for their role in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack.
Criticizing the government or urging lawful resistance is protected by the First Amendment. Sedition requires conspiracy + intent to use force against the government or its laws
Trump should learn to put his brain in gear before opening his mouth. It gets him into a lot of trouble. Did he really think he was going to hang six members of congress who all served their country in the most patriotic way? They didn't make excuses about bone spurs to avoid the draft. .It’s completely fair for you to share your view. I’ve already done the same regarding what those members of Congress did in that ad. I can see it bothers you that Trump is using his right to free speech, but he absolutely has the right to speak out — just as I’m doing here on HPs. Trump clearly shared his view and held nothing back. One could even surmise he was angry, given that the dog whistle in that ad could easily promote discord, and he reacted to that directly.
As I’ve said:
“None of those members of Congress mentioned anything about an illegal order being carried out because of Trump or any other military personnel. That was the first thing that stood out to me. Honestly, I was curious to see how carefully that dog whistle had been crafted — and it was crafted very carefully. Still, it’s a dangerous dog whistle.”
I do believe they had the right to free speech, and they also made sure every word in that ad was legally framed. They were very careful to cover their bases.Free speech loses its protection when it foreseeably causes harm to others - which it immediately did to those Congress people.
"I would describe your comment as conspiracy‑flavored. I try to approach issues based on what the facts show, " - REALLY, how superior and condescending.
If he did that, it wouldn't be Donald "the sex offender" Trump, now would it, lol.
Tell me, why would Trump order an investigation into himself. Since you know that he would not and nobody under him would either, then relying on statements like - "The facts come from the Pentagon, and as I have stated, there are currently no charges or investigations underway, " are essentially meaningless.
This is Trump in a nutshell:
Demanding personal loyalty from investigators
James Comey’s sworn testimony: at a private dinner, Trump told him “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” Comey says he sat in silence because it felt like a mafia-style loyalty test.
Comey later explicitly compared the interaction to a Cosa Nostra induction, with Trump as the family boss asking if he was ready to be a “made man.”
Comey had the integrity to stand up to Trump, Kash Patel, Pam Bondi, and Hegseth have proved on multiple occasions they do not; they have sold their soul to Trump.
Pressuring DOJ to “just say the election was corrupt”
Handwritten notes released by House Oversight show Trump telling top DOJ officials after the 2020 election:
“Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”
Once again, there was some integrity left JPressuring DOJ to “just say the election was corrupt”
Handwritten notes released by House Oversight show Trump telling top DOJ officials after the 2020 election:
“Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”
Once again, there was just enough integrity left in Trump's DOJ to stand up to him. Trump made sure that didn't happen again with his personnel law firm the DOIJ.
Look how many Inspectors General he fired across the gov't. PROOF he won't let anybody investigate him.
That is all out there for anybody not in Trump's cult to see.Your entire comment is built on rudeness, assumptions, and a long list of talking points that have nothing to do with the actual issue at hand. You’re not engaging with facts, simply repeating old narratives as if they automatically apply to a completely different situation today.
The idea that “Trump wouldn’t investigate himself, so Pentagon statements are meaningless” is flat-out misinformation. The Pentagon does not answer to Trump personally. It is an entire institution with its own legal structure, oversight, and obligations. Their statements matter, and dismissing them because they don’t fit your preferred storyline isn’t evidence. It’s bias.
You’re dragging in every unrelated accusation you can think of and presenting them as if they somehow prove that the Pentagon, Congress, and the entire chain of command are incapable of acting independently. They are not props in your argument. They function by law, not by your assumptions.
You’re also ignoring the fact that if there were illegal orders or misconduct, Congress would act. They’ve investigated far less. They aren’t shy about going after Trump, so the idea that they would pass on a genuine illegal military order is simply not serious.
Your examples, Comey dinners, DOJ disputes, inspectors general ar, e recycled talking points that don’t even line up with the claim you’re making. None of them prove that the Pentagon is lying. None of them prove that the current strikes are illegal. And none of them prove that the absence of an investigation is somehow illegitimate.
You’re making sweeping accusations, calling people “cultists,” and presenting your opinion as if it’s objective truth. It isn’t. It’s conjecture wrapped in hostility.
You don’t get to replace evidence with emotion, and you don’t get to dismiss official statements simply because they don’t match the narrative you prefer. If you want to debate facts, bring facts, not a grab bag of unrelated grievances and a blanket assumption that everyone is lying except you.I guess you missed the real issue - "Tell me, why would Trump order an investigation into himself. Since you know that he would not and nobody under him would either, then relying on statements like".
Each of those examples support what I said.I am not truly interested in your view. Just being honest.
As I yours. Just being honest also. At least mine is based in facts.
My views are based in fact, so I can see why your aren't interested in my view, Just being honest.
For example: These are FACTUALLY the laws (1, 2, or all 3) that Trump is probably breaking from killing those people which you didn't refute
Conspiracy to Kill Persons in a Foreign Country
(18 U.S.C. § 956(a)) - a flagged boat is considered part of that country. So Trump was bombing Venezuela!
Violence Against Maritime Navigation Resulting in Death
(18 U.S.C. § 2280)
Killing Within the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States
(18 U.S.C. §§ 7(1), 1111, 3238)I would say you are definitely not ready to pass any state's bar exam.
I think my comment was clear. Sharlee01 wrote:
I am not truly interested in your view. Just being honest.
You post information that may be factual in the sense it is written, but has nothing to do factually with your accusations.
As I said, there are no investigations regarding the strikes, nor has the President been charged with breaking any of the laws you have offered. You live in a world of conspiracies. I refuse to feed into that world.And as I said, there are no investigations because Trump won't allow it. That will change in 2027. You appear to be reasoning by False Analogy (as PeoplePower suggested) and/or 1) A self-sealing/self-protecting argument,2) Argumentum ex silentio, 3) Begging the question, 4) Conspiracy reasoning.
I and Mike and Credence and Island Bites and the others all live in the real world. We really wish you would join us.I guess you ran out of legitimate discourse and retreated to insults.
As to the illegal blowing up of boats in the Caribbean. If SCOTUS had not made Trump king, this is what an indictment of Trump might look like:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP
INDICTMENT
The Grand Jury charges:
I. INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS
At all times material to this Indictment, the defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, was the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
On or about [date], while in the District of Columbia and elsewhere in the United States, the defendant, acting under color of his office, directed his subordinate, [NAME] HEGSETH, to cause United States military forces to destroy a vessel located on the high seas approximately 75 nautical miles off the coast of Venezuela in the Caribbean Sea.
The vessel was a foreign-flagged civilian ship occupied by individuals suspected of narcotics trafficking. At the time of the order, the vessel posed no imminent threat of armed attack against the United States, its armed forces, or any other person or object, and no United States ship, aircraft, or personnel were present in the vicinity.
In response to the defendant’s order, U.S. military aircraft launched munitions at the vessel, sinking the ship and killing all persons on board.
The defendant knew that carrying out his order would destroy the vessel and kill its occupants, and that he lacked any lawful justification under U.S. or international law to employ lethal force in these circumstances.
COUNT ONE
Conspiracy to Kill Persons in a Foreign Country
(18 U.S.C. § 956(a))
Paragraphs 1 through 5 are re-alleged and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
Beginning on or about [date], and continuing through on or about [date], in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, did unlawfully, knowingly, and intentionally conspire with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury to kill one or more persons in a foreign country, to wit, individuals aboard a foreign-flagged vessel located approximately 75 nautical miles off the coast of Venezuela in the Caribbean Sea.
In furtherance of the conspiracy and to accomplish its object, one or more conspirators committed the following overt acts, among others, within the jurisdiction of the United States:
a. On or about [date], in the White House, the defendant instructed [NAME] HEGSETH that he wanted the vessel “sunk” and “everyone on board killed.”
b. On or about [date], the defendant approved an order directing U.S. military aircraft to strike and destroy the vessel.
c. On or about [date], U.S. military aircraft launched munitions that struck and sank the vessel, killing all persons aboard.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 956(a).
COUNT TWO
Violence Against Maritime Navigation Resulting in Death
(18 U.S.C. § 2280)
Paragraphs 1 through 5 are re-alleged and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
On or about [date], outside the jurisdiction of any particular State, on the high seas, the defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, unlawfully and intentionally caused damage to and destruction of a ship used in international navigation, knowing that such destruction was likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship, and such conduct resulted in the death of persons on board.
The defendant committed this offense by directing the use of United States military aircraft to launch munitions at the ship described in Paragraph 3, thereby sinking the ship and killing its occupants.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2280(a)(1) and 2280(a)(1)(H) (resulting in death).
COUNT THREE
Killing Within the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States
(18 U.S.C. §§ 7(1), 1111, 3238)
Paragraphs 1 through 5 are re-alleged and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
On or about [date], the defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, while within the United States, did unlawfully, willfully, and with malice aforethought cause the killing of multiple individuals aboard a foreign-flagged vessel on the high seas, by ordering United States military forces to employ lethal munitions to sink that vessel.
The conduct described in Paragraph 13 occurred on the high seas, outside the jurisdiction of any particular State, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 7(1), and is triable in this district under 18 U.S.C. § 3238.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1111 and 3238.
A TRUE BILL
/ s /
FOREPERSON OF THE GRAND JURY
Now, as I said, that won't happen to Trump since he can no longer be prosected for ordering the murder of people (but Hegseth can). But the Democrats can when they impeach his ass in 2027 using exactly those counts.I applaud your immigration. Your lack of understanding how the judicial system works is obvious, but your take is entertaining.
AI doesn't have an imagination, it isn't human, didn't you know. It just researches the Internet and finds facts.
You’re going in circles. My point — and what the conversation with ECO was actually about — is that he was spreading misinformation by implying that Trump has already broken some form of law. I simply pointed to the facts we have: Congress isn’t investigating the strikes, Trump hasn’t been formally accused of anything through impeachment, and the Pentagon has released statements on the matter, which I provided.
I’m not interested in what critics have to say — I’m interested in what’s legal. So far, I see a president who views drug runners as combatants and terrorists who are killing our citizens, and I support his efforts to fight the cartels and stop the killing. From what I can see, his stance is legal, and I’ll rely on Congress to address any actual illegalities. I’m not putting much weight on laymen’s opinions in this matter.His having broken the law is not misinformation and you know it. If it were, you would have provided the evidence showing that killing people in the open seas is legal. You didn't.
When real Americans return to power in the House in 2027, I strongly suspect Donald "the serial felon" Trump will be impeached over the killings.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
I have heard many federal employees refusing loyalty oaths (which when you cut through Trumper BS is what it amounts to) required by Trump, it is all part of the same idea, the danger of obeisance to one man rather than our guiding document. One just has to follow the cookie crumbs to see where all of this is leading.
The problem with your whole presentation is that it rests on people like Hegseth and his acolytes telling the Truth. It is established fact that they often Lie!.
I would normally believe SOUTHCOM but they are totally tainted by their lying bosses."The problem with your whole presentation is that it rests on people like Hegseth and his acolytes telling the Truth. It is established fact that they often Lie!.
I would normally believe SOUTHCOM but they are totally tainted by their lying bosses." ECO
And that’s your view — which I can overlook, considering your habit of spreading misinformation. You ignore facts, make off-the-cuff accusations, and that kind of conversation doesn’t interest me.
Back to the subject --- I never made any reference to the legality of anything. My comment was simply about a statement ECO made that I believe was misinformation. I don’t need to prove anything because I haven’t accused anyone of committing a crime, nor did I say the operation was legal or illegal. What I pointed out was one fact: no criminal charges have been brought against Trump in connection with these boat strikes. That is verifiable. I haven’t seen anyone in the government claim that Trump’s orders were illegal, and no one at the Pentagon has stepped forward to say the strikes violated the law. So interpreting these actions as illegal doesn’t seem fair or factual.That is not a "view". That is established FACT. Trump and Hegseth are serial liars.
And what I pointed out is that there is NO ONE in the Trump administration who dare bring charges against Trump. There are names associated with that type of logic: 1) A self-sealing/self-protecting argument,2) Argumentum ex silentio, 3) Begging the question, and 4) Conspiracy reasoning.
What is your point? Just because they told soldiers to follow only LEGAL orders doesn't translate into Trump's orders to kill those people as not being ILLEGAL.
" if that was an illegal mission which it clearly is"
No, you're wrong. Clearly wrong.
The only way a mission is illegal is if it takes place without authorization from the officer in charge of the operation. This clearly didn't happen. If a group of seals attacked a base without authorization from their command, THAT would be an illegal mission.
EVERY Army officer involved in combat operations takes orders and gives orders. THEY are responsible for following the orders given to them through the chain of command.
If these military individuals who destroy these boats do so at the command of their officers, they are following orders as they should. If their commanding officer gave them an order to destroy these boats and the didn't, they could be brought up of charges of disobeying a lawful order.
This lack of comprehension of how the military chain of command works when conducting a mission is astounding to me.Which U.S. or International law allows Trump to murder people? I haven't heard of one but apparently you have.
And I would add this lack of comprehension of how the U.S. LAW works when conducting a mission is astounding to me.
The point is there is such a thing as issuing unlawful orders, ask the guys that were hanged at Nuremberg in 1946 about their participation in savagery excusing themselves by “following orders”…..
“Application to My Lai: Lieutenant William Calley, the only soldier convicted for his role in the massacre, famously claimed he was "only following orders" from his superiors. This defense directly aligns with the agentic state explanation, where soldiers may have felt removed from the moral consequences of their actions because they were acting under command.”
None of this ‘following orders” stuff is absolute, there are parameters that we are all to recognize, the Geneva convention being one of those.
I have yet to hear Trump prove that the ships he attacked had any real correlation to an “attack on America”, it is more his style of intimidation and international bullying.
And what about free speech? I don’t see any statement that the Democrats made rising to a level of sedition and treason, except within an authoritarian, despotic regime.I agree the ad was carefully scripted to make sure nothing said could be looked at as illegal. That was the first thing I noted.
You’re making sweeping comparisons that simply don’t hold up. Invoking Nuremberg and My Lai to describe the current military strikes isn’t just factually inaccurate. Those cases involved massacres of civilians. They have nothing to do with targeted military actions against vessels that the Pentagon has already publicly stated were tied to cartel activity.
You’re also skipping over the entire legal framework that governs U.S. military operations. The president does not personally authorize every strike; these decisions move through legal, intelligence, and operational channels. If an order were unlawful, the military has an obligation to refuse it, and Congress has the authority to investigate it. Neither has happened. That’s not a moral failing; that’s evidence that the order is considered legal under existing U.S. code regarding transnational criminal threats.
Your claim that Trump “hasn’t proven the ships were tied to attacks on America” ignores the obvious: the burden is not on him to dump classified intelligence into the public domain to satisfy online arguments. The Pentagon’s statements are the official documentation, and unless you’re asserting that the entire Department of Defense is lying, as ECO has more or less done, that evidence stands. My gosh, maybe time to stop and think a bit more logically about this issue.
As for “bullying” and “intimidation,” targeting cartel vessels involved in transporting weapons, personnel, or narcotics is not some novel Trump invention. Every administration, Obama, Bush, and Biden, has treated cartel threats as national security matters. You’re isolating Trump not because the policy is unusual, but because it’s politically convenient to ignore precedent. In some respects, I see you making the bad guys the victims... Trump has followed the laws set for him as a president.
And the free-speech argument is equally off-base. You don’t have to like Trump’s commentary, but he has the same First Amendment protections that the members of Congress have. They used their free speech to craft an ad loaded with insinuations but legally careful language. He used his to call it out. That’s how free speech works, not selectively, not only for one side.
Claiming that criticism of the ad equals “authoritarianism” or “despotism” is pure exaggeration. Disagreement is not repression. Calling an ad dangerous is not treason. And pushing back on a political message is not authoritarian, it’s normal political discourse. In my view, that ad was dangerous, it could prpmote discord in out military.If Trump shoots somebody on 5th Avenue and no one says anything about it, then you are rationalizing it, as legal until it is deemed illegal by some authority.
In propaganda parlance, that is called a false analogy.
In a false analogy, two concepts or events are associated with each other without any specific evidence indicating a cause-and-effect relationship. An example is: People who drink caffeinated coffee don't sleep well; Nancy drinks caffeinated coffee, and therefore she does not sleep well.
Trump blows up boats and kills people. Trump has never been charged by a legal authority; therefore, his actions are legal until he is charged by that authority.
The reasoning in that statement is an example of the **propaganda technique called a *false analogy***.
Here’s why:
- False Analogy Defined**: This occurs when two situations are compared as if they are equivalent, even though the relationship between them is weak or nonexistent. It tries to transfer the logic of one case onto another without valid evidence.
-
Application to Your Example**: The claim “Trump has never been charged, therefore his actions are legal” equates *absence of charges* with *legality*. That’s a flawed comparison:
- Not being charged ≠ being innocent or lawful.
- Many actions can be unlawful even if authorities haven’t yet prosecuted them.
-
*Propaganda Effect**: By framing the issue this way, the speaker shifts focus away from the morality or legality of the act itself and instead appeals to procedural technicalities. It creates a misleading impression that legality is determined only by whether charges are filed, rather than by established law.
Other techniques at play:
- **Rationalization**: Justifying questionable actions by appealing to technicalities.
- **Appeal to Authority (by omission)**: Suggesting that because no authority has acted, the action must be acceptable.
So the core propaganda technique here is **false analogy**, reinforced by rationalization.I have to be honest: the entire argument you’re making collapses under its own weight, because every analogy you use either misrepresents what I actually said or tries to force two completely unrelated situations into the same frame. When I read your comment, I see you trying to assign propaganda techniques to me, yet ironically, the examples you give prove the opposite of what you’re trying to claim.
Your “Trump shoots someone on 5th Avenue” analogy instantly fails because you’re comparing a hypothetical, obviously illegal act, murder, to military engagements carried out by a sitting commander-in-chief under national-security authority. Those two situations are not comparable in motive, legality, jurisdiction, context, or process. One is a civilian crime with immediate legal consequences. The other is a military action governed by national and international law, reviewed by the Pentagon, and overseen by Congress. When two situations differ in every relevant dimension, calling them analogous is nonsensical. You’re literally creating the false analogy and then accusing me of it.
You claim that my point somehow implies “absence of charges = legality.” I never said that, and nothing in my statement depends on that logic. What I actually pointed out was that no legal authority has come forward alleging wrongdoing, and that matters when the actions in question are military operations, not street crime. You’re attempting to twist a basic factual observation into a philosophical claim I never made. That’s not exposing a fallacy; that’s inventing one.
Your coffee example doesn’t apply to anything I said. You offer a classic syllogism where a trait is assumed to cause an outcome. But the operations the U.S. military conducts aren’t guesses or personal habits; they involve classified intelligence, surveillance, and chain-of-command authorization. Comparing military interdiction to Nancy drinking coffee is absurd. It’s another analogy that falls apart the moment you apply any real-world context.
Fourth, you insist I’m appealing to authority “by omission,” yet it’s actually you who keeps appealing to hypothetical wrongdoing without presenting a single authoritative statement, report, Pentagon release, or legal determination. You want me to assume illegality based on conjecture; meanwhile, I’m pointing out that no institution with the responsibility to evaluate such actions has made that claim. Stating that fact isn’t a fallacy; it’s simply acknowledging reality.
Finally, you accuse me of rationalization when, in fact, you’re doing exactly what you warn against: shifting away from facts and replacing them with dramatic hypotheticals, analogies, and emotionally charged comparisons. None of those substitutes for evidence. None of them strengthens your argument. They simply reveal that you’re using rhetorical devices to cover the absence of real information.
So while you’re busy assigning labels like “false analogy” and “propaganda technique,” the truth is that your argument is built entirely on strained comparisons and imagined parallels that don’t hold up under scrutiny. I prefer to focus on actual statements, actual evidence, and actual legal processes—not hypotheticals designed to provoke outrage.
Talk about starting a conspiracy theory, lol. The ad simply said, "follow only legal orders".
Nothing sinister about that is there.All I can see is that friend and foe are opposed to this American policy of sink first and ask questions later. Am I supposed to trust Trump whose policies in this matter conflict with that of the entire world?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/11/politics … sharing-us
But the policy is the responsibility of the President, as commander and chief. The point is that he cannot do what he wants without being held accountable as to providing an explanation and justification that can be supported beyond what he and his administration decides to divulge. And, yes, I am with ESO, I don’t trust the Department of WAr to be anymore forthcoming regarding the truth than Trump. The logic, Sharlee, is that you trust Trump implicitly, I do not. I distrust him, implicitly. The British, Canadians and the UN are capable of grasping international affairs, why are they wrong and Trump’s assessment of the danger is correct? I still believe that the vessels should be interdicted if at all at the 3 mile limit and properly searched and those with contraband arrested and prosecuted under due process of law, not having vessels sunk hundreds of miles from American waters just because Trump says that there is a threat. Trump policy is unprecedented as I did not see the UN and our close allies having to pull the plug on the approach of previous Presidents.
I don’t know if these victims of Trump piracy on the high seas are legitimate targets or just an excuse for the administration to taunt the government of Venezuela for ideological points.
As long as the GOp control congress we can expect to not get any real answers, because they are afraid to ask for any fearing the wrath of Trump.
It is more than free speech, Trump threatened these legislators. The ad simply said that service members are not obliged to follow unlawful orders. I do not necessarily know where that line is, but there is a line all the same.
Call the creators of the ad seditionist and traitors deserving of execution is uniquely Trump and crosses well over the line.
And just because Trump gives them does not make them lawful.
——-
United States President Donald Trump has floated the possibility of the death penalty for a group of Democratic Congress members who called upon the military and intelligence community to refuse illegal orders.
He also suggested he would be in favour of imprisoning the Democrats for their statement.
=====
So much for free speech…..Are you familiar with the term "sedition?"
It is already in the UCMJ that troops not follow unlawful orders. So, what was the purpose for these democrats to make those videos? They are going for the members of the military who may get confused by such rhetoric and challenge authority.
I know what is and is not an unlawful order. It is spelled out in the UCMJ.
I can see how speaking directly to members of the miliary is this way could be interpreted as an act of sedition.
President Donald Trump is right...those found guilty of sedition can be legally put to death.So you and Trump want to put to death six congressmen who have all served all country honorably. Go ahead and do it. Trump even relented once he found out how stupid that was and said, "That was done in the old day". Put brain in gear before engaging mouth.
Donald Trump did make remarks linking sedition to “the old days,” saying that back then such behavior was punishable by death. He clarified that he was not threatening Democratic lawmakers directly, but argued that their video urging military members to refuse illegal orders amounted to “seditious behavior.”
-End of Story.You have ignored Mike's point altogether, which was ---
"It is already in the UCMJ that troops not follow unlawful orders. So, what was the purpose for these democrats to make those videos? They are going for the members of the military who may get confused by such rhetoric and challenge authority."
In my view, these lawmakers were presumptuous to insult our military personnel by assuming they wouldn’t be equipped to recognize an unlawful order. This was just a Democratic ploy, they have nothing left but a worn-out book of tricks. To anyone paying attention, these kinds of ploys look desperate, and yes, insulting to one’s intelligence.When is the last time you read the UCMJ? For me, it was in 1975 when I was a trial counsel for my Brigade in the Army.
Argumentative and irrelevant context added.
I guess you ran out of ideas and resorted to that.
You are right about the video. Those six congressmen should have given examples of Trump's orders that were unlawful because we had to surmise on our own as to would be unlawful orders.
On the other hand, Trump should not be saying they should be hanged for sedition and then backoff with "That is what they did in the good old days." More than likely, it was Stephen Miller who told him what to say. It's typical Trump chaos to keep us in an us and them posture.I just shared this with Cred. No one had asked my direct view on the Truth post. I have critiqued and debated the Truth post, but Cred elisted my personal view, which is biased in some ways, and ignores some of my research.
I can share my view about that Truth post: I felt it was bold, not well thought out, and clearly written in anger. In my opinion, it was uncalled for. This is free speech, and thankfully, we also have the right to express our views on his words. I’ll add that it showed me he understood very little about the law he was speaking on.
Definition:
conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
What is the harm in Democrats reminding men and women in uniform that they are to not follow unlawful orders, as defined in the UCMJ?That is EXACTLY what Trump did on Jan 6 and the months leading up to his insurrection.
Maybe you need to seek out the speech on youtube--- The one that was not edited to offer a skewed version to the nation. Perhaps while watching you will recognize Trump's demeanor, as he said ---- "“We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue … and we’re going to the Capitol … I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” President Trump.
"We're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue … we're going to the Capitol … to give our Republicans … the weak ones … the kind of pride and boldness … to take back our country." Trump
Perhaps you missed this part of his speech that shared optimism about the Future: He told his audience that “our brightest days are before us” and that “the best is yet to come.” Trump
Watching it myself again, I can see that I didn’t capture the full tone. Trump’s Jan. 6 speech blended defiance with genuine upbeat optimism: he alternated between firing up the crowd with lines like “fight like hell” and projecting a triumphant, forward-looking message that “the best is yet to come.” He repeatedly thanked and praised his supporters, sounding grateful and energized. His demeanor was a mix of combative and confident, but also at times buoyant and celebratory — rally-style optimism layered over anger and insistence. He connected with the crowd and offered hope for the future, and one could have come out feeling Trump cared about them and the future of what they believed in.
In my view, that speech will ultimately go down in history as it was actually delivered, not as the media skewed it. I believe people will eventually see it in the context and spirit he intended. Trump is one of the handful of presidents who won’t fade into the background; he’ll be remembered and talked about for generations. And yes, he’ll be admired by many for his unique and unconventional way of governing.I don't want to go down this rabbit hole, but why did he have many governors come up with a fake slate of electors that showed him as the winner? He expected Mike Pence to do the right thing and that was to use the fake slate to prove he won the election. But alas, Pence did the proper right thing by not using the fake slate.
Now back to sedition. If Trump's secret mission is sinking boats allegedly loaded with drugs, why does he have to show those attacks to the world without any proof of the drugs?
Isn't it reasonable for everybody who views those attacks to question whether there were drugs on board? If he wanted to keep it a secret, why show videos of those attacks?
I know he wants to make an example to the rest of the world as to, how tough he is on drugs entering the US. But the rest of the world is questioning the veracity of what he is doing.Even IF there were drug runners and drugs on board, Trump still has no authority to murder them. The only authority he has is to capture them.
And THAT is why he is in violation of some or all of the statutes I already laid out twice. I would not be surprised if Venezuela and Columbia, as a minimum, don't try Trump in abstention for murdering their citizens. I also wouldn't be surprised if other international forums won't do the same thing.
While I am at it, let me deviate a little bit to ask, why isn't Trump incarcerating or killing the REAL problem - American drug users. Without their incessant demand, no drugs would be flowing into America. NOBODY is making these people take drugs. All the drug runners are doing is filling a demand from Americans.When I look at your claim that Trump “had many governors come up with a fake slate of electors,” I have to push back with what is actually documented. There’s no evidence, none that I’ve ever seen in court filings, testimony, or official investigations , showing that Trump personally asked any governor to create alternate electors. The facts are that alternate elector certificates were drafted and submitted in several states Biden won, but those efforts were carried out by state-level party officials and attorneys, not governors, and there is still no direct proof that Trump instructed governors to do it. So when that point gets repeated as if it were an established fact, I just can’t accept it without actual documented evidence.
From my perspective, it makes absolutely no sense for anyone to question the Pentagon’s actions when Congress itself hasn’t formally raised objections or demanded hearings on these strikes. The Pentagon has already stated that these vessels were targeted based on solid intelligence indicating they were involved in drug smuggling, and unless Congress challenges that or produces contradictory evidence, I see no factual basis for second-guessing those assessments. Speculation from commentators or media outlets isn’t the same as legitimate oversight, and I’m not going to treat media opinions as if they’re established fact. Until there is real, documented pushback from the branches of government responsible for oversight, I’m going to rely on the Pentagon’s statements and the legal authority they acted under. I think building conspiracies around this is harmful to our nation and our society as a whole. There is nothing at this point that proves the Pentagon or President Trump did anything illegal regarding the drug-boat strikes. In my view, some people seem intent on turning criminals into victims, and I find that to be a strange and unhealthy phenomenon. It reflects behavior that I consider increasingly abnormal.
We are now getting more information on this issue regarding the ad that the Congressmembers made. Breaking today ---Pentagon threatens to court-martial Democratic senator over 'refuse illegal orders' video, The video could lead to his recall to active duty and possible court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Pentagon said --- The Department of War announced Monday that it has opened a formal review into allegations of misconduct against Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona over a video calling on service members to "refuse illegal orders."
I question why the rest of the world—and even our own government—has done so little to stop the flow of illegal drugs. At this point, I see it like this: those who can actually take action do so, and those who can’t simply stand on the sidelines and preach. I believe Trump’s war on drugs is a positive step, and it took a strong man to take up that fight. Frankly, as a woman, I see very few men with that kind of backbone left today. It’s not just sad—I find it genuinely disgusting what has become of the male gender.I asked AI who instigated Trump's fake slate of electors Here is the results.
**The fake slate of electors scheme was instigated by Donald Trump himself, working closely with his attorneys Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, and Kenneth Chesebro, along with Republican Party officials in seven battleground states.** These figures coordinated efforts to submit fraudulent electoral certificates in an attempt to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory.
Key Details on Instigators
- **Donald Trump**: Central driver of the plan. Testimony shows he was aware of the scheme and pressured officials to act on it despite knowing it violated the Electoral Count Act.
- **Rudy Giuliani**: Trump’s personal lawyer and a *“central figure”* in the plot. He coordinated across multiple states and joined calls with legislators to push for fake electors.
- **John Eastman**: Legal architect of the plan. His memos argued that Vice President Mike Pence could reject legitimate Biden electors and substitute Trump’s fake slates, a theory widely rejected as unconstitutional.
- **Kenneth Chesebro**: Wisconsin lawyer who drafted detailed legal strategies for creating alternate slates. He supervised much of the paperwork and later reached a plea deal in Georgia.
- **Republican Party officials in battleground states**: Local GOP leaders in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin signed false certificates claiming Trump won their states.
Legal Fallout
- **84 Republicans across 7 states** signed fraudulent certificates. Many have since faced criminal charges, especially in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada.
- **State-level prosecutions**: Attorneys general in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada have pursued felony charges against fake electors and Trump aides.
- **Federal investigation**: Special Counsel Jack Smith examined Trump’s direct role, including his awareness that Eastman’s plan violated federal law.
Why It Matters
The scheme was designed to pressure **Vice President Mike Pence** into rejecting legitimate Biden electors on January 6, 2021, and instead count Trump’s fake slates. This maneuver—dubbed the *“Pence Card”*—was a cornerstone of Trump’s broader effort to overturn the election.
As far as Mark Kelly goes, bring it on. A military court is nothing like a civilian court. I think you and Pete Hegseth on in for a big surprise. Active duty for Captain Mark Kelly is probably a desk job given his age and military experience.
Trump and his revenge trip have already blown up in his face with trying to prosecute Comey and James using some loyalist bimbo to represent his case. Knowing Trump, he will appeal it and tie it up in courts as he always does with every charge that has been placed against him.
As far as real men go, Trump has no backbone, he has bone spurs. All one has to do is follow the money. Our country is one of the best consumers of drugs. Stop user demands and there will be no need to blow boats out the water. Do you really think that is the only way drugs enter this country? See you can't even defend it because you don't know how many drugs were destroyed on each of those boats. You and everybody else has to assume there were drugs and that there were drug runners.
In my view Trump always comes up with the simple way for him to do things. without first considering the consequences. He has his Armada of military might in the Caribbean. All he had to do is issue an emergency executive order and presto B-52's are doing fly overs, the most lethal aircraft carrier in the world shows up. Make no mistake there are nuclear submarines with cruise missiles on board. Stop and think how much this is costing taxpayers and for what?My problem is I don't care what AI says unless there are some links to articles that I can read. There is too much opinion and not enough facts in the responses.
I'm not gullible enough to simply believe something put on a computer screen by a program. You have to wonder who is behind the programming. That is the real question.
I want to see it for myself before I believe it.I don't know about Grok, but ChatGPT doesn't provide "opinions", even when I ask for one. It simply says that "I can't form opinions".
All it can do is report the things it finds on the Internet that answers the questions asked of it and, sometimes, make logical inferences from that data. And, at least on my sessions, it reports the links which I sometimes provide and other times do not when it is not relevant.Both will offer opinions; one only needs to ask. It has been very clear to me that you really have no idea how to use ChatGPT. AI is fun to converse with --- it can carry on wonderful conversations. In fact, it would be a great option for you when the lights go out here. It will converse with you 24/7.
All you need to do is say, I want you to have a conversation with me --- on this subject... And have at it. And you can say what you please, and not be banned.I'll let ChatGPT speak for itself.
Sharlee, I think we’re talking past each other a bit about what “opinion” means in the context of AI.
When I say “ChatGPT doesn’t provide opinions,” I’m not claiming it can’t print words that look like an opinion. Of course it can say, “In my view, X is better than Y” if you prompt it that way. Grok can do the same.
What I’m saying is that an AI “view” is not an opinion in the human sense. When I ask it for a “view,” what I’m really asking for is:
“Given the facts we have, and the criteria I specify, what conclusion follows most logically?”
That’s not the AI “believing” something. It’s just a reasoned conclusion from a set of premises.
A human opinion is grounded in personal experience, emotions, values, biases, loyalties, etc. It’s sticky; people carry it around from one conversation to the next.
An AI “view” is just the output of an on-the-spot analysis: it looks at the evidence it can access, applies whatever goals or values I told it to use (“prioritize civil liberties,” “minimize deaths,” “take a conservative approach,” etc.), and then gives me the conclusion that best fits that setup.
Change the facts or the goalposts, and the AI’s “view” changes immediately, with no sense of betrayal or inconsistency, because there was never a real opinion there to begin with.
So when I say it “can’t form opinions,” I mean exactly that: there’s no inner self having thoughts. There is only:
A large statistical model of language, and
A reasoning process that produces temporary conclusions from whatever inputs and values I give it.
Those conclusions can be very useful—especially when it surfaces sources and lays out both sides—but they are not “opinions” in the way you and I have them.
As to your laughable insult, all I can say is I am not surprised you made it.
You are such a pain in the a**. Obviously, you don't know how AI works. It is a giant database that has collected information from many sources. Every political question I ask it gives me the links for the source. It's how the question is framed that gives the source. If you ask it for opinions, it will give you the source of those as well, but I don't do that when it comes to political research. Here are the links that you requested.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/repor … hey-stand/
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/1 … s-00157440
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plotMethinks, like I told him before, he is just lazy. I imagine you do as I do, spend a lot of time checking out the nonsense we see from the other side just to make sure it is nonsense before calling it out with counter proof.
Didn't have to look on unreliable YouTube, I watched most of it.
To me, he as clearly trying to insight a riot.
One thing you said will certainly be true - "Trump is one of the handful of presidents who won’t fade into the background; he’ll be remembered and talked about for generations." and for the same reasons dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Putin, Un, and Xi will be. In my opinion, he will not be admired, at least by democracy loving people, by panned as the worst president in American history (a position he already holds according to presidential historians).
As to his speech, which was almost all lies, you cannot get around the inciting nature of this kind of vile rhetoric
1. The election was “stolen” by “emboldened radical-left Democrats” and the “fake news media.” THREE LIES: It wasn't stolen, the radical-left Democrats (whatever that is) didn't emboldened anyone, and MSM is not fake, unlike a lot of RWM and social media.
2. “We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen.” - inciting his people to violence when combined with this other lies
3. “Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore… We will stop the steal.” - followed by "“If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” a clear call to riot.
4. “We’re going to have to fight much harder.”
5. “You’ll never take back our country with weakness.”
And shortly thereafter his army went to the Capitol and fought like hell which led to the insurrection.
Well... the problem could be more serious than you imagine...
Those of us that live in a Facts based world... in a world of Law and Order (UCMJ and Regulation)... these things are obvious and we consider what the Democrats are saying to be nonsensical...
But if you believe in the Democrat's Ideology... where the results justify the means... where feelings trump facts... where the equity of the outcome supersedes the equality and fairness of it...
Then what the Democrats are putting out makes total sense... following the orders of the President would be unlawful... the President is a fascist, a felon, a rapist, a racist... therefore nothing he says or orders is legal... therefore you are justified in refusing any order or command given by this Administration.
You see?
This is where we are currently at, as a nation, as a government...I suggest you did out your copy of the UCMJ and point out where it says troops not follow unlawful orders. I'll save you the trouble - it doesn't say that ANYWHERE in the UCMJ.
In any case, what is the harm in reminding soldiers they have a duty NOT to follow unlawful orders. I thought your were for FREE SPEECH and all that - guess that is not what conservatives stand for in the Trump era.
Cred, When I step back and look strictly at the facts we actually have, what I see is that the only ones showing major concern right now are a few Democratic lawmakers and certain media outlets, and most of that concern is built on conjecture rather than confirmed information. I understand why the policy feels extreme, but at this point there has been no impeachment, no congressional investigation, and no formal inquiry into the Pentagon’s actions. If what the administration is doing were plainly unlawful, Congress has full authority to demand answers, subpoena Pentagon officials, or even cut funding, yet none of that has happened. That doesn’t automatically make the policy wise, but it does show that the branches responsible for oversight have not found sufficient grounds to intervene.
I also think it’s important to remember that U.S. law already permits maritime interdiction far beyond the 3-mile limit, particularly when dealing with stateless vessels or suspected trafficking. And frankly, I see a bit of a trend where the criminals are being treated as the victims in this discussion. Have we looked at how many deaths we see every single year from illicit drugs? Those are the real victims, Americans devastated by substances that are trafficked into this country by criminal organizations. In my view, these cartels are violent transnational criminal groups that operate like terrorist organizations, and some of them have been formally designated as such under U.S. policy. So while we can debate tactics, I don’t see the traffickers themselves as having some special claim to “rights” on the high seas while they run illegal operations.
When I hear claims like “victims of Trump piracy” or suggestions that this is all a scheme to taunt Venezuela, I feel like that crosses into speculation. There is no verified evidence that the vessels targeted were innocent, and no ally or UN body has produced documentation showing the U.S. acted illegally. Criticism from foreign governments is not the same as a legal finding. Countries have disagreed with U.S. military policy for decades, drone strikes, sanctions, surveillance, and disagreement alone doesn’t establish wrongdoing.
The idea that Congress is “afraid to ask questions” is also an assumption without proof. If any member of Congress believed the administration was breaking U.S. law, they could introduce a resolution of inquiry tomorrow. They haven’t. That tells me we’re dealing with political disagreement, not a suppressed scandal.
On the issue of Trump’s response to the legislators’ video: yes, his rhetoric was harsh when he said their message was “punishable by death.” But the actual law matters here. Members of Congress cannot be executed for political speech. The Constitution requires due process, a criminal statute that applies, and a legal process that doesn’t exist here. So while the language was heated, it doesn’t translate into real legal authority or real danger for those lawmakers.
For me, the dividing line is this: I don’t have to trust Trump implicitly, but I also don’t want to jump to conclusions without evidence. Right now the verifiable facts are: (1) the President ordered maritime operations, (2) Congress has not challenged their legality, (3) no investigations have been opened, and (4) no U.S. or international body has produced proof that the Pentagon acted outside statutory authority. Everything beyond that moves into interpretation, and interpretation sometimes becomes conspiracy when it assumes hidden motives without hard evidence.
I can disagree with the policy, but I think it’s important to base the disagreement on what we actually know, not on fears of what might be happening behind closed doors.Sharlee, there has been no investigation only because Republicans control both houses of congress, which we hope to remedy next year.
From this impartial explanation the very max distance where the US can interfere or interdict vessels is 24 miles, not several hundreds. I can only see such a maneuver as one available in a wartime environment but war has not been declared. Who can say where the ships were heading at such a distance from US waters? What if other countries attacked any vessel for any reason in another hemisphere and call it a threat? Who would not call it aggression? I can’t find any explanation in this definition that would support Trump administration attacks.
US maritime zones and law enforcement
Territorial Sea: The US claims a territorial sea that extends 12 nautical miles from the coastline. Federal law enforcement has authority to enforce customs, immigration, and other laws within this zone.
Contiguous Zone: The US has established a contiguous zone, which extends up to 24 nautical miles from the baseline. The goal of the contiguous zone is to allow the US to enforce its customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitary laws in the waters just beyond its territorial sea.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): While US law enforcement jurisdiction is more limited in the 200-nautical mile EEZ, the US does have jurisdiction over economic resources in this zone and can enforce certain laws, especially those related to environmental protection and resource management.
International Law: Under international law, the US has the right to exercise jurisdiction over vessels in its contiguous zone and EEZ for specific purposes, such as the enforcement of customs, immigration, and environmental laws.
————
“There is no verified evidence that the vessels targeted were innocent, and no ally or UN body has produced documentation showing the U.S. acted illegally.”
What about the concept that you are innocent until proven guilty? The Trump regime has hardly been forthcoming with information allowing an impartial judgement to be made. Trump and his regime has made sure that the “evidence” is not available. Where is the proof that the Pentagon acted within its statutory authority?
In spite of due process, Trump should bridle his tongue and not make threats that he cannot statutorily carry out.
I think that we know enough to want to ask questions as to the nature of the threat independent of Trump and his administration’s take on it.Hey, I get where you’re coming from, but it’s not quite that simple. Any member of Congress, Republican or Democrat- can request an investigation into something like a Pentagon order. The key is that the request goes to the committee with jurisdiction, usually Armed Services or Oversight, and the committee decides whether to act. A single member can’t force it, but the committees can hold hearings, issue subpoenas, and even request classified briefings if necessary. There have been a few members of Congress who have asked for hearings on the strikes, but thus far, none have been scheduled, and at present, there is no formal congressional investigation into them. So while party control can influence priorities, it doesn’t outright stop Congress from investigating if there’s enough interest and support.
I understand that the legal limit of U.S. jurisdiction extends only 24 miles from the coastline under normal peacetime rules, and I agree that this raises serious questions about the strikes. On the other hand, the Trump administration has argued that these operations were part of a broader effort to stop international drug trafficking that directly threatens U.S. citizens, framing it as an enforcement of national security rather than a conventional act of war. While the vessels were far beyond U.S. territorial waters, proponents would claim the strikes were justified under international law principles allowing interdiction of criminal activity on the high seas when it has a direct threat to the homeland. Still, I understand your concern: without a declared war, the lines are blurred, and it’s hard to reconcile these actions with the traditional definitions of aggression. The real question comes down to whether these actions can be legally framed as defensive enforcement rather than offensive military strikes, and that’s where Congress and legal experts need to weigh in.
I know it might seem like the legality of the Pentagon’s strikes against suspected drug‑smuggling boats should be cut-and-dry, but it’s actually far more complicated. The Trump administration has designated certain cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and argues that the U.S. is in a “non-international armed conflict” with them, treating members as unlawful combatants. From their perspective, this allows the use of military force even outside U.S. waters. The Pentagon claims the strikes are lawful under both U.S. and international law, framing them as defensive actions against a direct threat to the homeland. That said, many legal experts and lawmakers disagree, pointing out that the cartels’ activity doesn’t meet the traditional definitions of armed attack or terrorism under international law, and Congress has not formally authorized these strikes. There have been a few members of Congress who have asked for hearings, but so far none have been scheduled, and at present there is no formal congressional investigation. On top of that, international law limits the U.S. from using military force on vessels in international waters unless there’s imminent threat, consent, or UN authorization. So while the administration says it’s legal, the reality is that it’s highly debated and far from universally accepted.
I can share my view regarding what I feel about the Truth post. I feel it was bold. and not thought out, and showed true anger. It was uncalled for. This is free speech, and thankfully, we have it too, so we can share our views on his words.
The point is that he [Trump] cannot do what he wants without being held accountable as to providing an explanation and justification that can be supported beyond what he and his administration decides to divulge.
In a bygone era when the Rule of Law applied to everybody that was true. But, in the Trump era, that is clearly no longer true - according to SCOTUS conservatives [b]a president can no longer be held accountable for anything save through impeachment.
He can murder as many people as he wants and nobody will stop him.
In that bygone era, as Sharlee claimed, people in the administration would challenge obviously illegal actions by the president; that frequently happened during Trump 1.0 - many times. But she is wrong about that when speaking of Trump 2.0.
He made very sure nobody who works for him supports ONLY him and NOT the Constitution or Rule of Law. Anybody in the administration who tried to or he though would try to - HE FIRED!!
As much as his cult refuses to see what is right in front of their eyes, it is nevertheless irrefutable fact.
Thanks for bringing up Calley, he is a perfect example.
This is what the world sees when they think about America - two clowns - Trump and Hegseth - abusing power left and right. They are probably thinking that Trump's America is an absolutely terrible place to live with Trump going after his enemies like any dictator would, Trump terrorizing the nation's cities with Gestapo like tactics. and Trump flailing around spewing hate every day.
"Pentagon threatens to recall Sen. Mark Kelly to military service for court martial over illegal orders video"
Maybe Kelly should take them up on their sick threat just to add more embarrassment to an already sad administration. BTW, a judge just threw out the Trumped up cases against Comey and James because Trump and his girl Bondi don't know how to follow the Rule of Law.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/24/politics … e-pentagon"Pentagon move against war hero Kelly shows Trump’s quest for vengeance is endless"
Donald "the dictator" Trump has just threatened the millions of military retirees, including myself, with great harm should we speak out against him (like this). Dictators do that, not Americans.
His unspeakable attack on Sen. Kelly is not just about him, but a bald-faced attempt to cower ALL American military retirees. Disgusting and sickening but just like Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/25/politics … p-analysisYou're going to be a lost puppy in a few weeks when this is completely shut down...
The Ultimate ban from the forum...It ticked me off as well ESO, to the point where I had to start a thread regarding it.
You'll start a thread about anything these days...
When Trump says he saw a pink sky in the evening you have to get on here and tell us how its impossible for the sky to be pink, and Trump lied about it.Welcome to the 21st century. It's better than your opinions. Oh, that's right Trumpers don't deal in hypotheticals, but there you are with the pink sky. LMAOROTF
"Welcome to the 21st century. It's better than your opinions. Oh, that's right Trumpers don't deal in hypotheticals, but there you are with the pink sky. LMAOROTF" PP
I’ll be honest — I find that kind of dismissal a bit simplistic. In today’s society, in my view, we have a segment on the left that seems far more comfortable spinning hypotheticals than dealing with facts or even a well-placed dose of common sense. It’s always the endless “what ifs,” the “what about this,” and the “maybe” scenarios. That constant drift into hypotheticals is actually part of the problem. I think it’s safe to say that even in this small group here on HP, we can truly identify which users spin mostly hypotheses.
Just grabbing a hypothesis, an idea and then proposing some unproven info based on limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. It’s not yet proven—it’s more like a guess, and they run with it.
In my view, this is a problem—one that fuels “The Great Divide.” On one side, people approach issues with clear logic. On the other hand, some try to construct logic to fit their hypotheses, attempt to shape facts to meet their predetermined ideas rather than the other way around.And all that rhetoric just because a guy wants to start a new thread and is insulted for it
It just boggles the mind..The problem with common sense it often times is it not so common as people would like to believe. I find intelligent reasoning people on either side of the divide. Just because I don’t agree with those on the opposite side of my divide is not a reason to challenge their reasoning points and sensibilities.
Yes, how about you and Trumpers and the use of "What about Biden?"; and the conditional statements when describing Trump's policies, e.g., "If jobs return to the US, the economy will thrive."
My view
I get what you’re saying, and I don’t deny that supporters of any political figure can use “what about” arguments or frame outcomes as conditional. My point is that there seems to be a pattern on the left where hypotheticals dominate discussions to the point that they overshadow facts or reality. Using “if” statements to describe potential outcomes is not inherently a problem; it’s the difference between reasoning through possibilities versus building entire arguments on unproven assumptions or selectively spinning facts to fit a narrative. That distinction is what concerns me most.
And the insults just keep coming, don't they Credence.
When Trump says he saw a pink sky in the evening you have to get on here and tell us how its impossible for the sky to be pink, and Trump lied about it.
You want to know something, Ken, if Trump said it, Trump probably did lie about it.
Yeah, we all start threads, I am proud to be prolific with my startups. Just that many more things to contemplate and debate, what is wrong with that?
Is America really America when there exists one man that is above the reach on any law of the land - a sitting President? I don't think so but that is how low Donald "the FELON" has brought my America.
"Georgia prosecutor kills the historic election interference case against Trump and allies"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/26/politics … rence-case
If there is a God, they will immediately resurrect this case in 2029 and put his ass in jail where it has belonged for decades.Donald is not going into jail. The rich never go into jail as they can play the juristic system for ever. Money buys you everything and on top of that they gave him amnesty...
Question is, will the republican party survive without Trump? Will they implode or will they go back to normal. What will happen after Trump? You already see that Trump is loosing power in his own party. People start to think "How will my position be when Trump is gone..." and are making preparations for plan B.
I have my doubts Vance has the capacity to dominate the party. Hopefully the Republicans go back to old school conservative instead of the Vance copy Trump style. If the Republicans are smart they go back to old school, if not I think the Democrat will win... If they can find the right person who can glue the classic democrats and the progressives together.I imagine that sooner or later the Republicans of the Nixon era will come back, at least I hope so. But until then, I suspect it will be mass internecine warfare inside the party.
MAGA always existed in America. It was visible in the South in the 1800, until 1864. Then after a few years where liberals tried to reach the ideals that America was supposed to stand for, e.g. freedom, equality, etc, the pre-MAGA forces raised their ugly heads again and violently reversed reconstruction.
We got a breather in the 1940s through the 1960s when the Supreme Court shook off its MAGA trappings and started ruling for the people again. MAGA went invisible.
But Reagan started letting the forces against the American idea out of the bottle again until it blossomed under the worst President America has ever known,
Oh, if we could only go back to the Nixon years when bipartisanship was the norm and not the exception.That would only work if we could go back to having the democrats of the Nixon era.
You know, the time before woke ideology and left-wing extremists took over the democrat party.
Those were good times.WOKE ideology - A worldview that emphasizes awareness of systemic injustice — especially racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other forms of structural inequality — and the moral responsibility to address them.
Liberals have that in their DNA. Sadly, conservatives do not. In fact, their actions and words scream a desire to perpetuate racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other forms of structural inequalityWOKE ideology - A worldview that promotes systemic injustice and the lack of morality needed to convince others that the lie is true.
Yes, liberals have that in their DNA, although I would not think to wave it around.Woke is a disturbed ideology.
It believes the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. Wokeists also push for extensive “antiracist indoctrination by teaching and promoting their form of racism and—in many cases—suppression of what only they see as racist and bigoted speech.
Woke policies are highly unpopular. Racial preferences in education, for example, are opposed by over two-thirds of Americans, including most racial minorities. Among women, most oppose woke policies like allowing transgender women to participate in women’s sports or use women’s bathrooms. Wokeists also have a knack for antagonizing members of groups they seek to woo, like insisting on using the term “Latinx,” even though most Hispanics dislike it.Of course the philosophy is not popular amongst those that take comfort in erasing historical facts of the past rather than acknowledging them and making the needed changes in attitudes and policies, so that the wrongdoing does not occur again.
It is really not popular amongst those who understand they are not responsible for the past and shouldn't pay for something they had nothing to do. Reverse discrimination solves nothing.
There is a point to be made that individual white people didn’t do the harm a generation or ten ago, but that isn't what is being talked about here, is it.
What is the point is that we still see discrimination in hiring, policing, housing, and voting rules right now in 2025 and, in my opinion that since Trump 1.0 or 2.0, it is getting worse. So this isn’t about “making you pay for something you had nothing to do with,” it’s about acknowledging that the game is still rigged for some and against others, and trying to fix the rules going forward rather than pretending it all stopped with the Civil Rights Act.I asked AI for the definition of Woke.
"Woke" means being *aware of and attentive to social injustices*, especially issues of race, gender, and inequality. It originated in African American English and has evolved into both a positive term for social awareness and, more recently, a pejorative label in political debates.
Detailed Breakdown of "Woke"
1. **Core Definition**
- According to **Merriam-Webster**, *woke* is defined as **“aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)”*.
- It is considered U.S. slang, but has entered mainstream usage.
2. **Origins**
- The word comes from **African American English (AAE)**, where "woke" was used as the past tense of "wake" (e.g., “I was sleeping, but now I’m woke”).
- Early uses date back to the **1920s**, with activist **Marcus Garvey** urging Black communities to “wake up” to oppression.
- Blues musician **Lead Belly** used “stay woke” in 1938 to warn about racial injustice.
3. **Evolution Over Time**
- **1930s–1970s:** Associated with awareness of racial prejudice and discrimination.
- **2010s:** Popularized during the **Black Lives Matter movement**, especially after the Ferguson protests in 2014.
- **2017:** Added to the **Oxford English Dictionary** as mainstream vocabulary.
4. **Modern Usage**
- **Positive sense:** Awareness of systemic injustices (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.).
- **Political sense:** Often used by progressives to signal commitment to social justice.
- **Pejorative sense:** Conservatives and some centrists use "woke" as shorthand for what they see as *performative activism* or *extreme identity politics*.
5. **Examples of Context**
- **Supportive use:** “Stay woke” = remain vigilant about injustice.
- **Critical use:** “That’s woke ideology” = dismissing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs or gender-affirming policies.
Key Takeaway
The definition of *woke* depends heavily on context:
- **Neutral/positive:** Social awareness and activism.
- **Negative/pejorative:** A political buzzword used to criticize progressive movements.
It’s a term that has shifted from a **call for vigilance in Black communities** to a **mainstream cultural and political flashpoint**.
I know you like to see the links, so here they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordpla … ing-origin
https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/pol … 026752007/Yet conservatives believes being "*aware of and attentive to social injustices*, especially issues of race, gender, and inequality. " is the most vile thing in the world! (WHY? Because they are the source of most (not all) of the social injustice in America - the world really)
In America, many/most people are in dire predictaments because of their immature choices. They don't think about the ramifications of their actions. They live in instant gratification mode. They are also entitled-they feel that they are entitled to a comfortable lifestyle on others' dimes. The concept of hard work & merit, to them, are 4-letter words. The government's responsibility is not to provide for able-bodied grown folks- that is the responsibility of the grown folks. The government isn't their parent. It is the liberal philosophy that everyone is ENTITLED to a comfortable life and if that wealthier people should subsidize, even support poor folks.
In the past if one was poor, h/she was humbled, worked hard, didn't complain, and did without. They were thankful for what they had. They also didn't depend upon welfare. They worked hard and push their children to do better than they did. They stressed the importance of hard work, not to mention education.
However, nowadays, the poor in America are entitled. They want to be middle class but refuse to exert the effort and sacrifice needed to be middle class. They feel that housing, medical care, good food, etc. are rights. They want assistance. Newsflash: if you can't afford something, you do without. No one is entitled to assist you. Help yourself, be mature. Only immature people want others to support them and give them a comfortable lifestyle. There is such a thing as doing without if you don't have it.Grace, I agree with everything you’re saying. I’ve felt for a long time that we’ve created a culture where too many adults refuse to connect their choices to their outcomes. It’s always someone else’s fault, someone else’s responsibility, and someone else’s wallet that’s supposed to keep them comfortable. I’m old-fashioned enough to believe that adulthood means standing on your own two feet, not waiting around for the government to act like a parent.
What frustrates me most is that the idea of *sacrifice* has practically vanished. People want the lifestyle but not the grind. They want the privileges of the middle class while outright rejecting the discipline it takes to get there. And the moment you mention personal accountability, suddenly you’re “cold” or “lacking compassion.”
To me, real compassion is teaching people resilience, not dependence. It’s telling the truth: you can’t live a comfortable life on instant gratification, you can’t build stability on excuses, and you certainly can’t demand that others carry you when you’re fully capable of carrying yourself. At some point, we have to stop protecting people from the consequences of their own repeated choices.
I grew up in a time when people did without if they couldn’t afford something. They tightened their belts, they hustled, and they refused to let poverty define their mindset. That mentality built generations. This new entitlement mindset? It destroys them.
That’s the part that worries me most, not just what it’s doing to society, but what it’s doing to people’s character.
SharPsychology research: “Blame the individual” is comforting — but not accurate
Psychologists point out that:
* People often default to the fundamental attribution error — overestimating personal failings and underestimating structural forces.
* This bias is strongest in conservative-leaning cultures.
* So the idea that struggling people are irresponsible feels true to some — but doesn’t stand up to evidence.Well, it is THE INDIVIDUAL'S fault, man. They played stupid games, so they win stupid prizes.
Then there is this regarding gov't help creating dependency.
[bEmpirical studies show government programs increase independence, not dependence[/b]
[i[Research on:[/i]
EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit)
Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach & Michael Strain (2021), Employment Effects of the EITC
Large review of EITC expansions; they find “broad support” that the EITC’s work incentives increase employment, especially among single mothers.
SNAP
Microeconomic Insights summary (Hoynes & Schanzenbach)
Plain-language summary: “children with access to food stamps become healthier, wealthier adults and rely less on welfare.”
Child Tax Credit expansion
Ananat et al. (2024), Effects of the expanded CTC on employment (Journal of Public Economics)
More formal paper: concludes that the 2021 CTC expansion did not significantly reduce labor supply, contradicting conservative claims that it would make parents “quit working.”
Job training programs
J-PAL Evidence Summary: Targeted Job Training Programs
Reviews randomized evaluations; finds that well-designed, sectoral training programs increase employment and raise earnings, especially when closely tied to growing industries.
…all show that government assistance increases long-term work participation, improves child outcomes, and reduces reliance on future benefits.
This is the opposite of the worldview expressed in conservative myths.Exactly. The poor in America ARE THE MOST ENTITLED class. Totally unbelievable. They want to be rich but instead of working, they want OTHERS to supply this wealth somehow. Enough is enough.
You have a growing majority of the American population that think housing, food, phones, medical care is all a RIGHT... a privilege owed to them for being in America (being a citizen not required).
And you have an elite class that is not driven by an American (National) mindset... they are global wanderers... they are wealthy enough to go where they want, when they want, and are not tied to the struggles of any one nation or region... unlike American citizens that cannot up and leave when things get bad.
And then we have a world that is trying to throw off the oppression (as they see it) of the American Dollar reserve (SWIFT) system that allows America way too much control (as they see it) over what can be traded, what deals can be done, what rules must be followed.
America is getting hit from all sides... a corrupt political elite selling the American Citizens out... a growing percentage of Americans detached from anything resembling real-world reality that expect everything for free (be they migrants or native born)... and a world that has a fast growing list of nations wanting nothing to do with American interventions.I would hope a huge majority of Americans understand that "housing, food, and medical care" is a RIGHT, just as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is.
Our whole history from the Declaration of Independence on makes this pretty clear.
From a logical perspective the RIGHT to Life also means a right to the means necessary to sustain life. It would be hollow to protect a right to life while ignoring if a person starves (food) or freezes (shelter) or is denied life sustaining medical care. [u]Without those RIGHTS, then there is no right to Life, is there.
The reasoning goes on far beyond that, but to save space, I won't bore you with it.
As to not applying to non-citizens, you lose there as well. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the Court underscored this, stating: “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’”
To your 2nd paragraph - what is new?
To your 3rd paragraph - I assumed you knew that the American dollar reserve is not SWIFT. SWIFT is a messaging system. Also, aren't almost all those countries wanting to move away from the dollar "bad actor" nations afraid there illegal activity might draw sanctions? And a fairer portrayal about the other nations is that they are hedging and not defecting.
To your 4th paragraph, I already provided GM the proof your central point is false. What you expressed is simple conservative myth.Yep, huge difference.
You do not have a right to a home, or to food, or to medical care.
Its disgusting that so many people think they have a right to all that and more.
There is a part of me that really would like to see the whole system collapse so that all the people producing nothing for society and taking as much as they can get find out what reality really is all about.Ken, can you even believe that mindset? This idea that everything should be provided simply because some people feel they ‘deserve it.’ I’m with you—part of me would welcome a rapid collapse if that’s what it takes to wake our society up more quickly.
Who said anything about "deserving" it?
Unless you don't believe a person has a Right to Life, then logic dictates that they also have (as part of those Other unalienable Rights) the Right to those things that keep them alive? If you don't, then the Right to Life is just meaningless rhetoric.The Left Mindset is suicidal... out of touch with reality.
They think, if they are white and Leftist, that they have an upper hand... from cradle to grave they are convinced that they have to suppress their culture, their religion, that they owe "minorities" something.
The reality, is people of European descent (white) make up only 6% of the global population... a quickly shrinking percentage at that.
But yeah, lets have Europe and America open their borders wide open, lets support mass uncontrolled immigration... and lets ensure everyone has as much food, energy, medical care, etc. that they want... its their right after all.Am i mistaken, but do i get a scent of racial resentment here. Is it now white against black? Maybe these “leftists” are aware that fair play from all sides is the only viable option for mutual survival.
Is it suppressing their culture or not allowing others to express theirs.
For example, i am not suppressing “their” religion, but it is reasonable to not have it proselytized in a way to force other non believers to adhere to it.
What is owed is taking the foot off from our necks and keeping it off. We have been well on the way toward that until the debut of Trump and MAGA.Ken, what amazes me is how blind the Left has become to the long-term consequences of this mindset. It’s almost as if they believe nations can defy basic math and human nature forever. A society can’t keep giving, and giving, and giving, especially while discouraging its own citizens from having families, from valuing their culture, or even from being proud of the contributions their ancestors made.
What’s even more interesting is that other regions of the world aren’t following this suicidal model at all. Countries like Japan, South Korea, and even several in Eastern Europe openly acknowledge demographic realities and protect their borders, their identity, and their social cohesion. They aren’t ashamed to say, “We have to preserve what we have, or we won’t exist.”
Yet here in the West, we treat that basic survival instinct as something immoral. I’m convinced that if this continues, the imbalance will only get worse—and when the people footing the bill become the minority with no influence left, the very foundations that created prosperity will collapse. Maybe that’s what it will take for society to finally wake up, but the price is going to be steep.
If you want, I can make it sharper, softer, shorter, or more sarcastic, just tell me the tone you want.That is exactly what has been set in motion.
"The West" is being swept away, those that will reap the rewards of this will be nations that have maintained their social and cultural identity and can replace our production and have or can build the infrastructure.
The BRICS nations see the collapse coming and are trying to prepare for it, trying to disconnect from the Dollar/SWIFT system and create their own.
This could have come much later on... at least a decade further down the road... but the damage done by the Biden Administration... the short sightedness... the arrogance of thinking we were that superior to Russia and that we could intimidate the rest of the world into following those Sanctions against their own best interests.
What was done during the Biden Administration damaged America, its economy, its standing amongst other peer nations, more than any other Administration in our lifetimes.
Open Borders... war with Russia... IN Russia... Spending a trillion more every 90 days more than we bring in (so we could support 10 million migrants amongst other waste and abuse)...
Sad really.Ken, very sad and disappointing. I never dreamed our great experiment might fail. But it seems to be, and at an accelerated speed.
I agree with much of what you’re saying, but there’s another piece to this that rarely gets discussed: the countries that are resisting this collapse aren’t relying on luck; they’re making intentional, long-term decisions about national continuity.
Japan, South Korea, Hungary, Poland, even parts of the Middle East—they all understand that once you lose social cohesion, you don’t get it back. They also understand that economic strength isn’t just GDP numbers; it’s the stability and predictability of a nation that knows what it is and where it’s going.
What worries me is that the West seems to assume it can hollow out its own foundations and still somehow remain the global center of gravity. But identity, stability, labor force, cultural unity, these are strategic assets just like oil or rare earth metals. If you give them away, you don’t get a second chance.
BRICS sees the opening, absolutely. But the part that’s truly alarming is that our decline isn’t being forced on us, it’s being invited in, justified, and even moralized. Other nations are preparing for a power shift; we’re pretending one isn’t happening.
That imbalance can’t go on forever. At some point, the math catches up with the ideology.Biden was the tipping point... Those pulling that puppets strings knew this.
As I have been saying for months... Trump's Administration will succeed or fail... But there will be no future chance to deflect our collapse if the lunatic Left ever returns to power to finish America the Nation off.Ken, I hear what you’re saying. At this point, we’re all in a wait-and-see period. Trump is juggling a lot at once, and he really can’t afford to drop a ball. Time will tell how everything plays out.
If they fail, if the traitorous Left returns to power...
I envy that you have a residence in Mexico to escape to... a year ago I was doing serious research into that myself, and then the riots/attacks started happening down there.
Have you seen the votes/polls to secede coming from the western provinces of Canada?
The movements are strongest in Alberta and British Columbia, but lesser ones exist in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
More than 60% of the population wants out... as high as 80% in some areas.
I think we will see that here in America if the Left returns to power... Florida, Texas, maybe other states, might begin a serious push to do the very same thing.I get what you’re saying; it’s unsettling to think about. I haven’t really looked into Canada’s secession movements, but it does show that when people feel their values and freedoms are under threat, they start looking for serious alternatives. I think the same instinct could definitely emerge here if the Left regains control in ways people see as extreme. It just underscores how important it is to get our own house in order and protect our sovereignty before it reaches that point.
I should add that over the past three years, we’ve seen a real change in Puerto Vallarta. The cartel presence is obvious now; they essentially control the area. Five years ago, we were used to almost no crime. But in the last few years, it’s risen sharply, and it’s started to affect tourists as well, including cases of kidnappings.One more thing (cartel takeover of Mexico) you can thank the Biden Administration for:
Strong Committee Report shows Biden Administration has emboldened cartels, criminals, and America's enemies
https://strong.house.gov/media/press-re … ed-cartels
“Biden-Mayorkas Policies are Responsible”: Former Texas DPS, DEA Witnesses & Experts Testify on Catastrophic Consequences of Cartel Control of Southwest Border
https://homeland.house.gov/2023/07/20/b … st-border/
How Biden Paved the Way for Cartels, Drugs & Lawlessness
https://www.heritage.org/border-securit … awlessness
Biden Is a Boon to Mexican Cartels
https://cis.org/Oped/Biden-Boon-Mexican-Cartels
Solving the China Challenge in Mexico
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/07/24/ch … nvestment/
The country in which deadly fentanyl is synthesized using precursor chemicals imported from China and then trafficked into U.S. communities.
Drug cartel associates are ruthless people, you do not want to share the same space with them. If they are on the rise, I would make myself scarce if I were Sharlee.
I am interested in any secession movement that you speak about in Canada, do you have a source you can share?
I doubt that the extreme reaction to Democrats being in control will amount to secession. I cant imagine that happening on a simple majority of either states’ residents. Can you get 66-75 percent of the states’ residents to agree to such a rash remedy?Ken is right about the session movement in Canada (per ChatGPT) but, not surprisingly, he was a little (a lot) off. The real support is around 30%, but serious nevertheless.
The sane Left is the only thing that will save America as it has many times in the past.
As to the Biden quip, that is simple opinion not based on any facts.
It turns out, Sharlee that I am part of that society. Ken exaggerates about mass uncontrolled immigration.
Who is discouraged from having families? If there is any roadblock, it is the rising cost of living, which I have yet to see be corrected. Go ahead and value your culture, who is saying that you cannot do so? Just don’t expect me to see Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee in a prominent place in the public square. Hopefully, that is not the culture value that you are talking about. How am i making it difficult for you and yours to acknowledge the accomplishments of your forebears? All of this while Trump policy is to remove all vestiges of contributions by people of color to this nation. What am I to say about that?
Eastern Europe is authoritarian, I prefer Western Europe. America is not a homogenous society but a heterogenous one, so we can’t compare apples with oranges. What is the American culture that you are trying to protect in the face of so many different sorts of people with all sorts of backgrounds and origins?
Regardless of what conservatives say, most of us are footing the bill and it’s not a minority. I still have to pay income taxes and face rising prices. Fortunately, i no longer have to work in the conventional sense, but have paid my dues over several decades, when most of the folks I have to interact with were mere children. I feel for those that have to work in an environment today where wages fall far below the rising costs of living.
Yes, indeed, as for your tone, make it sharper and more clear and direct. What is your beef, I mean, really?Cred, I think you may be responding to arguments I didn’t actually make. Nothing I said was about banning culture, removing anyone’s history, or promoting some kind of homogenous nation. My point was simply this: every society, no matter how diverse or open, still has to operate within the limits of basic math, resources, and social cohesion.
When birth rates fall, when cost-of-living skyrockets, and when immigration policies are managed poorly, you eventually reach a point where the people sustaining the system become outnumbered by those dependent on it. That’s not ideology, that’s arithmetic. Countries around the world acknowledge this reality, even if their political systems differ. Demographics don’t care whether a government leans left, right, authoritarian, or democratic; population trends have consequences regardless.
As for cultural values, no one is talking about elevating Confederate figures. That’s a distraction. I’m talking about the broader idea that Western nations, especially the U.S., are increasingly told that their foundational principles, traditions, and contributions are inherently shameful. When a society delegitimizes the very culture that built its institutions, it weakens its own sense of unity. Diversity can work beautifully, but not if the core identity is treated as something to apologize for.
And finally, yes, you and I both pay taxes. That wasn’t in dispute. The issue is what happens when the group paying the majority of the taxes gradually shrinks while the demands placed on them continue to grow. That dynamic is already playing out in multiple Western countries, and pretending it isn’t happening won’t make it disappear.
I’m not arguing for exclusion; I’m arguing for balance. If we refuse to talk honestly about demographics, costs, sustainability, and social cohesion, then we’re setting ourselves up for the very problems we claim to want to avoid. That’s all I’m pointing out."When birth rates fall, when cost-of-living skyrockets, and when immigration policies are managed poorly, you eventually reach a point where the people sustaining the system become outnumbered by those dependent on it. That’s not ideology, that’s arithmetic. Countries around the world acknowledge this reality, even if their political systems differ. Demographics don’t care whether a government leans left, right, authoritarian, or democratic; population trends have consequences regardless." - Is that where you think America is at or close to today?
As to "foundational principles" - the "all men are created equal" principle - is it your view that we are teaching our kids and each other that this is shameful? I don't think so, do you have examples of where we are doing this?
As to traditions - pick slavery and the Native American genocide - in my view that is very shameful but I am guessing, based on this sentence, that you do not or at least we should hide that fact about America.
As to contributions - e.g. technology advancement - are you saying you see a significant force in America trying to label that shameful? I, for one, do not and am very proud of that.
I ask these questions in trying to understand in more detail where you are coming from.
When you say "delegitimizes the very culture that build our institutions:", what culture and institutions are referring to? Do you view trying to legitimize other American's cultures as delegitimizing what you think of as American culture?
As to "The group paying the majority of the taxes gradually shrinks while the demand on them continues to grow". Are the "demands" you are referring to taxes? If so, what rate do you think the top 1% should pay, the top 10%? The bottom 50%? The bottom 25%?
Can you provide example of what you mean by "I’m not arguing for exclusion; I’m arguing for balance. "?My context was clear. You’re reading things into my words and assigning meanings I never intended. It’s obvious my actual points don’t align with what you want to hear, which is why you’re interpreting them in a way I never wrote.
You're drifting away from what I actually said, and that’s part of the problem here. You’re responding as if I made claims about banning culture, hiding history, defending slavery, or opposing equality, none of which I ever stated or implied. Those ideas were introduced by you, not me, and they pull the conversation into territory I never argued for.
My point was straightforward: every society, regardless of ideology, has to balance demographics, resources, and sustainability. That’s not a prediction of imminent collapse; it’s simply acknowledging the pressures that come when birth rates fall, cost-of-living rises, and immigration is mismanaged. Whether you believe the U.S. is at that point yet is a fair question, but it doesn’t change the underlying logic. These demographic trends are already straining multiple Western countries, and pretending America is immune doesn’t help us plan for the future.
On the cultural side, you’re again responding to claims I didn’t make. Recognizing the importance of a nation’s foundational principles is not the same as excusing its historical wrongs. I never said we should hide slavery, deny the treatment of Native Americans, or stop teaching difficult history; that’s another diversion. My concern was about the modern tendency to paint the entire American inheritance as inherently shameful, as if our institutions have no redeeming qualities worth preserving. Critiquing the past is necessary; delegitimizing the present is something different entirely.
When I spoke of the “group paying the majority of the taxes” shrinking, I wasn’t trying to launch into a debate over exact tax brackets. My point was about structural sustainability: if the number of working contributors declines while dependents and social demands rise, eventually the math stops working. That’s not ideological, it’s a pattern seen repeatedly in aging societies.
And when I said I’m arguing for balance, not exclusion, I meant exactly that: acknowledging trade-offs instead of pretending none exist. We can welcome immigration without ignoring capacity limits. We can celebrate diversity without erasing the shared identity that holds a nation together. We can teach hard history without treating American ideals as something to be embarrassed by.
So before we go down a dozen side diversions, I’d prefer we stay with the actual points I made: demographics, sustainability, cultural cohesion, and the reality that every system has limits, even ours.I made no claims. All I did was ask you questions using your own quotes. Will I get answers? All I want are examples that support your claims.
Are they arguing we should honor slavery with monuments again?
So you don't believe in the DOI or the Constitution.
Why then do you believe that there are Rights to Life and Liberty?You know, you might not like a system collapse and what it will bode for everyone here……. By getting rid of Trump, we may avoid such an event.
Listening to you rightwingers talk you would think that the whole country is being overrun by freeloaders……They have ALWAYS been talking about being overrun by somebody. Today it is Brown people, yesterday it was freeloaders, and before that Black people, and before that, Black people, and before that, Black people.
My income isn't supported by a government pension or social security.
So when it goes to shit I won't be losing my sources of income... Or food... Or shelter.
And yes, the country has been taken over by freeloaders... People who don't believe in working for a living and think they are owed something just for being alive.
42 million people on SNAP ... 10+ million illegal migrants in 4 years ... 40 Trillion in Dept ... 1 Trillion every 90 days being spent than the government takes in.Ken, it could very well be true that you don't receive Social Security or Medicare or a pension (gov't I presume) or any other gov't assistance direct payments. But those aren't the only way other people's money supports you (meaning almost all gov't expenditures derive from tax dollars).
Assuming you don't live totally off the grid like the Unabomber did, you receive gov't welfare in the form of
* the roads you use,
* if you have any sort of private pension then the preferential tax treatment you get,
* A whole legal and financial system (FDIC, SEC, courts, contract enforcement) that protects your assets and makes your income stream possible.
* you benefit from a publicly educated workforce
* you receive benefits from the police, fire, courts, regulators, and the military providing a stable environment for commerce
So, in my view, SNAP recipients (who, unlike your false caricature, do work for a living and DON'T expect free handouts) aren't the only ones "freeloading" on the gov't - you are as much of a freeloader as they are.
So, when it does all go to shit, you certainly will be losing a whole lot of things like food and shelter and medical care. Just look at Somalia as an example of what you foresee for America.I was going to provide the same retort to Ken, ESO, but you beat me to it.
I wanted to ask him what makes him think that in an upheaval on the scale that he suggests, how it would be that any foundation for the way he currently earns his living would remain intact?He lives in a world filled with conspiracy theories.
Do you have any stats to back that up or is just an uninformed (meaning no stats) opinion?
As to the conservative myths, I found these gems:
3. Economic research shows most financial struggle is not caused by “bad choices”
Researchers at MIT, BLS, the Fed, and Brookings consistently show that:
70%+ of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, job loss, or divorce — not irresponsibility.
⅓ of American workers earn less than $15/hour even while working full time.
Housing costs in major metros have risen 200–400% faster than wages.
Millennial and Gen Z financial struggles are rooted in structural wage stagnation, not irresponsibility.
The claim that the issue is “people refusing to stand on their own two feet” is inconsistent with this data
DATA RULESAs to the conservative myth that people rely on gov't help.
Political science research: Americans don’t rely on government more than other nations — they rely on it less
Compared to Canada, Europe, Australia, and Japan:
* The U.S. spends far less on social benefits as a share of GDP.
* U.S. citizens get less parental leave, less unemployment protection, and less health-care coverage.
* When Americans turn to government, it’s usually because the private market has failed (e.g., healthcare).
The idea that “too many adults depend on government” is not empirically supported.
As I suspected, Facts overcome myth
You’re cherry-picking a couple of the least popular issues, slapping the label ‘woke’ on them, and then using that as a hasty generalization about all ‘woke’ policies. That’s a mix of cherry-picking, equivocation, and the fallacy of composition.
Specifically, you declared that using the word "Latinx" as being WOKE. It is not, except in conservative circles.
Again using the trigger terms like "racial preferences" is another conservative construct. What DEI (WOKE being implemented) is about is programs to help disadvantaged groups and when presented in that more realistic way, support rises sharply to above 50%,
You attempt to make something extremely small into something very big. Trans women in women's sports? How often does that happen, .01% of the time? .001% of the time. Try using something meaningful.
WOKE doesn't have Policies, btw. DEI does. And policies such as mentorship and outreach for underrepresented groups have Approval ratings in the 70% range. Internships and career programs for underrepresented groups are also highly popular. Two-thirds of Americans support mandatory DEI training for employees
Contrary to your assertion, a plurality of people support DEI (WOKE) overall (40%). Only 30% do not support it and the remaining 30% are not sure yet (probably because of all the negative press conservatives spew.
Bottom line, reality is much different than what you think is true.
You forgot a word - ANTI-WOKE ideology - A worldview that promotes systemic injustice and the lack of morality needed to convince others that the lie is true.
Interesting insight.
The problem for the democrats is they have nobody who can unite the country. They have nobody who is even slightly popular with the voting demographics in the United States. The Republicans have a struggle when Donald Trump leaves office. The democrats, at this point, don't have anyone to give them hope.
Don't count out JD Vance. He is a brilliant man and a good speaker. He has a rather calm and cool demeanor that appeals to many people.I won't disagree, at the moment, about the Democrats not having a leader, let alone one that can unite the country. BUT, I need to point out - nether do the republicans. In fact their chosen dictator divides the country big time.
I would say that Vance is a buffoon and doesn't have a chance but then so was Trump and a felon and sexual predator and a known pathological liar and a known con artist, yet republicans elected him anyway. I find it very strange that those are the qualities republicans require in their "leaders"
I haven't seen a post yet on the murder attempt on two national guard troops in D.C. - hopefully, it stays that way, just an attempt as they are still in critical condition as I write this.
This attack is both sad and despicable and Trump is making it so much worse with his erratic response.
In looking at the big picture and taking in all the context that I can think of, this act of what I will call terrorism (although it could be revenge, something Trump is all too familiar with) simply didn't have to happen - period.
In a just world, those national guard members should not have been there! If it were not for the made-up rational of an unhinged president, they wouldn't have been put in harms way. That is the bottom line - BUT FOR Trump's irrational actions, they would have been safe at home in West Virginia.
Also, we know that shooter was an Afghan national (which has prompted Trump to go crazy again). Given that and America's recent history of leaving our one-time allies who risked their own and their families lives by trusting America's commitment to protect them for helping us, I can at least conceive of a motive for the attack - revenge for abandoning them. Whether that is the real motive or not we might never know. But, in any case, it is not a good reason for doing what he did.
What is known is that the soldiers, their families, and America will have to live with the consequences of a deranged shooter and the deranged response from Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/washin … s-11-27-25Well is Donald "no foreign wars" Trump going to put boots on the ground in Venezuela?
"Trump says US land action against alleged drug trafficking networks in Venezuela will start ‘very soon’"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/27/politics … -very-soon
QUESTION: Why isn't Trump working just as hard to stop Americans from demanding these drugs? Why isn't he send the FBI to bust down doors of drug uses or blowing up their houses? Wouldn't cutting off the demand be more effective?The "Peace" President takes another step to declaring war (without Congressional approval) on Venezuela, Donald "the felon" Trump announced on Untruth Social that he is declaring "the airspace above and surrounding Venezuela to be closed in its entirety,”.
That, in and of itself, is not an act of war. But, if he tries to enforce it - we will be de facto at war with another nation.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/29/politics … e-campaign
It was also reported that back in Sept, when he began his illegal campaign against Venezuelan and Columbian boats in the Caribbean by blowing them up and killing the crew. Witnesses say Hegseth had earlier issued a "no survivors" order.
On Sept 2, Under Trump's order a boat was blown up in the Caribbean kill most of the crew. Two survivors were seen clinging to the wreckage. Following Hegseth's "no survivors" orders (since cancelled) American airmen conducted a second strike (a double tap) to kill the remaining two survivors. If true, and it very probably is, those airmen and everybody up the chain of command has committed murder and would be guilty of War Crimes.
I will start a new forum to discuss this topic.Yep, but the hypocrite is pardoning a drug trafficker.
In Announcing Pardon of Drug Trafficker While Threatening Venezuela, Trump Displays Contradictions
President Trump’s statements on social media less than 24 hours apart showed the dissonance in his campaign against drug trafficking.
President Trump and his top aides have said that drug cartels present one of the most pressing dangers to the United States, and have promised to eradicate them from the Western Hemisphere.
As part of that effort, Mr. Trump signaled on Saturday that he was ratcheting up his campaign against drug cartels, saying in a social media post that airspace above and surrounding Venezuela should be considered “CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.”
Less than 24 hours earlier, Mr. Trump had announced on social media that he was granting a full pardon to Juan Orlando Hernández, a former president of Honduras who had been convicted in the United States of drug trafficking charges in what was seen as a major victory for authorities in a case against a former head of state. That pardon has not yet been officially granted.
The two posts displayed a remarkable dissonance in the president’s strategy, as he moved to escalate a military campaign against drug trafficking while ordering the release of a man prosecutors said had taken “cocaine-fueled bribes” from cartels and “protected their drugs with the full power and strength of the state — military, police and justice system.” In fact, prosecutors said that Mr. Hernández, for years, allowed bricks of cocaine from Venezuela to flow through Honduras en route to the United States.
Trump Announces Pardon for Honduran Ex-President Convicted in Drug Case
Juan Orlando Hernández was accused of receiving millions in bribes and partnering with cocaine traffickers. He was convicted in Manhattan in 2024 and sentenced to 45 years in prison.
President Trump announced on Friday afternoon that he would grant “a Full and Complete Pardon” to a former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, who, as the center of a sweeping drug case, was found guilty by an American jury last year of conspiring to import cocaine into the United States.
The news came as a shock not only to Hondurans, but also to the authorities in the United States who had built a major case and won a conviction against Mr. Hernández. They had accused him of taking bribes during his campaign from Joaquín Guzmán, the notorious former leader of the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico known as “El Chapo,” and of running his Central American country like a narco state.
The judge in his case, P. Kevin Castel, had called Mr. Hernández “a two-faced politician hungry for power” who masqueraded as an antidrug crusader while partnering with traffickers.
The prosecution stretched across Mr. Trump’s first term and concluded during Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s time as president. In the end, Mr. Hernández was sentenced to 45 years in prison in Federal District Court in Manhattan, capping what prosecutors had presented as a sprawling conspiracy.
The pardon announcement came in a social media post on Friday evening by Mr. Trump. “CONGRATULATIONS TO JUAN ORLANDO HERNANDEZ ON YOUR UPCOMING PARDON,” he wrote, minutes after he returned to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, where he is spending the holiday weekend and took time out to visit his nearby golf club. “MAKE HONDURAS GREAT AGAIN!”
Mr. Trump has also weighed in on Honduras’s upcoming election, set for Sunday. He has endorsed a candidate, a former mayor named Nasry “Tito” Asfura from the conservative National Party, the same one that Mr. Hernández belongs to. Mr. Asfura had spent much of a highly contested race courting leaders in Washington, including members of Mr. Trump’s inner circle.
More
The only real interest of the US regarding Venezuela is its oil. SMHBtw, publicly intervening in a Foreign Election too.
“If Tito Asfura wins for President of Honduras, because the United States has so much confidence in him, his Policies, and what he will do for the Great People of Honduras, we will be very supportive,” he penned. “If he doesn’t win, the United States will not be throwing good money after bad, because a wrong Leader can only bring catastrophic results to a country, no matter which country it is. Tito will be a Great President, and the United States will work closely with him in order to ensure the success, with all of its potential, of Honduras!”
SMH
Such a hypocrite clown.It is part of his pattern of pardoning FELLOW CRIMINALS.
I posted this in another forum titled "Donald Trump probably committed Murder"
Trump identifies Admiral who order the killing of the survivors of his first attack on a boat full of people in the Caribbean.
"The White House said Monday that Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley, commander of the US Special Operations Command, was responsible for ordering a second, targeted strike on an alleged drug vessel operating in the Caribbean on September 2 after the first strike did not kill everyone aboard."
Trump's mouthpiece says Bradley was "well within his authority". Only a deranged autocrat would think or say such a thing.
The military should immediately begin an Article 32 investigation into the Admiral for murder as well as anyone who followed his orders.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … 6ovuqudhnzThat is a dastardly excuse passing the blame to a subordinate for a policy that Hegseth and Trump are responsible for….. i certainly don’t buy it
That's their job... kill the enemy... not coddle them.
So you are implying then that so long as they do their job, they can break any law they want doing it.
My guess then is there shouldn't have been any Nuremburg trials,I don’t recall a specific war having been declared outside of the hallucinating mind of Donald Trump……
Why is the Anglo population shrinking, no one has put them on a moratorium to not reproduce?
The more authoritarian Donald "the war criminal" Trump gets, the higher the chances of the good Party winning back the House get.
The Democrats finally passed the 5 point threshold in RCP's Generic Ballot at 5.6. At 11 months out, that gives the Ds a strong lean. If it were a 7 - 8 point lead, the Ds would be feeling very happy, but it is not.
A little bit of perspective, when I looked a month ago, the Ds were ahead only 3.6 points. That is a huge growth in just 30-days.
With the War Crime news just starting and probably having long legs as well as ACA premiums skyrocketing in January and millions having to give up insurance all together from Feb to Nov, it certainly won't be getting any better for the Rs.The IG report is out on Pete [b]"the incompetent"[/b Hegseth and it is damning - but meaningless.
Because he is part of the most corrupt regime in American history not a damn thing will happen to him. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump doesn't give him the Medal of Honor splashing military secrets all over the place.
The Yemen episode is not the only breech of security, others told the IG that they were on a dozen or so other Signal calls with Hegseth
I didn't count them up, but it appears Hegseth is guilty of a dozen federal laws and regulations.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/03/politics … eth-signalHey Credence. Here is another line from my book on Conservatism. Do you have anything to add or disagree with?
By the time you reach this chapter, you have heard a lot about what conservatism has done to America. You have seen it defend slavery and segregation, sabotage reconstruction, side with monopoly and employers, slow-walk civil rights, fight the safety net, mobilize religious resentment, and, in our own time, flirt with strongmen and minority rule.I wont beat them up totally, in the fiscal, budgetary areas, conservatism served as a balance in regard to the pocketbook and excess spending. There was role there that I could respect.
It was just after the “culture war’ attitudes starting with Barry Goldwater (1964) is where the trouble really began. It has always been seen as the party of big business and the wealthy. While it was always there, it was never vicious to the extent that it is now. To protect the interests of the wealthy and corporate power, the outrages you mentioned have been instituted to align other people to their cause who otherwise would not be there.
Remember when Lying Hegseth told you that the double strike never happened? That it was ALL FAKE NEWS and you went along with it?
Well, the man that Hegseth is hanging out to dry on this and his boss testified before Congress today.
We are now seeing who thinks following the law is a good thing or who thinks it is not necessary.
He sees a War Crime (killing shipwrecked people) - "“Any American who sees the video that I saw will see the United States military attacking shipwrecked sailors — bad guys, bad guys, but attacking shipwrecked sailors,” said Connecticut Democratic Rep. Jim Himes"
He thinks it is OK to kill helpless people which makes him as bad as those who ordered such a thing - But the panel chairman, Republican Rep. Rick Crawford of Arkansas, said that he thought the second strike was justified.
“We shouldn’t be surprised when we send folks to do a mission, when they do their mission,” Crawford said.
But the panel chairman, Republican Rep. Rick Crawford of Arkansas, said that he thought the second strike was justified. - even thought that mission was murder.[/i]
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/04/politics … s-crawfordI'll go ahead and stick this in the Authoritarian forum since instigating an insurrection is about as authoritarian as you can get.
As the Trump defenders in these forums DESPRETLY try to rewrite history and whitewash what truly happened on Jan 6, 2021, a day in infamy, it comes rushing forward again.
This time in the form of another delusional MAUGA type trying to do harm to our nation.
"Accused DC pipe bomber told FBI he believed the 2020 election was stolen, sources say"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/05/politics … statementsEarlier, I passed on mentioning that your source also identified the bomber as a white man. A simple slip of the tongue?
Then, a Saturday morning Smerconish segment raised a point that was too much to resist, so I had to come back. It might be too much for you, too. A 'final straw' kinda thing:
Could the pipe bomber credibly claim that President Trump's J6 pardon protects his conduct?
GA ;-)
Hear Senator Cotton as he joins other Republicans thinking it is just fine to commit murder in the name of ALLEDGED drug enforcement without once mentioning those who are paying the smugglers for their cargo - the American users.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/05/us/video … g-boat-cncCan one or some of you tell me why Trump is turning China and Russia into allies and Europe the enemy?
When I look at the facts, the idea that Trump is “turning China and Russia into allies and Europe into the enemy” simply doesn’t hold up. China and Russia have been aligning with each other for years, long before Trump, because they share strategic interests against the West. Their cooperation deepened during the Obama years and accelerated even more under Biden, particularly after the invasion of Ukraine. Trump didn’t create that partnership, and he didn’t control it.
As for Europe, Trump pushed NATO countries to meet their own defense-spending commitments, commitments they agreed to long ago but ignored. Holding allies accountable isn’t the same as turning them into enemies. In fact, NATO spending increased significantly during Trump’s term, something multiple NATO officials have publicly acknowledged. That’s not what “undermining Europe” looks like.
Trump also imposed tough tariffs and sanctions on China, including ones no previous administration was willing to touch. That hardly demonstrates someone trying to build a China–Russia alliance. If anything, he was the first president in decades to acknowledge the threat posed by China’s economic and military expansion.
So when I lay out the evidence, the claim falls apart. China and Russia aligned because it benefits them, not because of anything Trump did. And pushing Europe to pay its fair share doesn’t make Europe an enemy; it strengthens the alliance by making it more credible.
Trump is forced to handle what he has been handed. I don't think I have witnessed any other president in my lifetime do a better job untangling all the messes he was handed.No one.... NO ONE... did more to help move Russia into China's arms, and allow China to spread its tentacles unopposed across the globe, more than the Biden Administration.
Cutting Russia's ties to the EU (crippling Germany's economy) forced Russia to rely on China (as well as India and others) for survival.
China wins... they get those cheap energy resources and raw materials the EU used to get.
Alienating the UAE and Saudi Arabia (Biden again) moved them away from trading oil solely in the Dollar to selling it direct to China bypassing the Dollar/SWIFT system.
The Biden Administration ignored China's moves into Mexico, and all of Central and South America... while we were wasting our resources supporting a unwinnable war in Ukraine, and scaring half the world into lining up to join BRICS.
The Trump Administration is all that stands between capitulating the entire globe to China and its allies... and keeping our own country from being washed away by tens of millions of migrants... cartels... and economic ruination.Ken, that is a greatest-hits mashup of post hoc blame and oversold and unnecessary panic.
You have a serious case of BDS, my friend, very serious indeed. How do I know that? Because nothing you say about Biden is even close to the truth. If it was, you would have presented evidence. You didn't, so it isn't true on the face of it.
1) Russia didn’t “move into China’s arms” because Biden waved them over.
Russia’s pivot to China has been building for years, especially after 2014 Crimea sanctions and then accelerating after Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The EU’s reduction of Russian energy dependence wasn’t a Biden hobbyhorse; it was a rational response to Russia’s war. Calling that “forced” as if the West did this unprovoked reverses cause and effect.
Russia cut the ties by invading Ukraine although Europe finally figured out relying on Russian energy was too dangerous to continue. As to "crippling Germany" - well that never happened. Did they face some tough times? Sure. But that is overblown and hyperbolic to call it "crippling".
The petrodollar obituary is WAY premature. There’s "plenty of talk" about Saudi/China yuan oil sales, but major analysis suggests yuan-based oil trade faces big obstacles and may take decades to scale meaningfully.
So “they moved away from trading oil solely in dollars” is at best partial and incremental, not a sudden Biden-triggered regime change.
Your characterization of UAE-Saudi-US relations is pretty overblown and hyperbolic as well. Well there were ruffled feathers because Biden didn't like them cozying up to China (unlike Trump who is pushing nations toward Russia and China), the strategic partnership remained strong.
China in Mexico/LatAm is real — but your scale claim is off.
Chinese investment in Mexico has grown in notable sectors, but official inflows remain small compared with the U.S. and other major partners. The Dallas Fed shows Chinese FDI numbers in 2025 that are meaningful for headlines, not dominance.
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
This is a competitive space, not a “we ignored it so they conquered it” morality play. (You know who is placating China now, it is Trump. Just look at his national security strategy for goodness sake.)
Unlike you, most (64% according to a Reagan National Defense Survery) Americans support fellow democracies like Ukraine and don't want to throw them to the wolves.
“‘Half the world’ is a huge exaggeration. BRICS has expanded and created a partner tier, and the group says over 30 countries 'have shown interest'
Finally, Trump is soft on China, even though he talks tough, his actions belie that.
* Trump treated China almost as a friend in the National Security Strategy while treating Europe like an enemy.
* Trump reversed Biden's policy restricting US helping China with AI
* Trump's treatment of Europe is pushing them to do more business with China.
* Trump's bullying of Latin American nations make them price targets for China to go after.
Seems to me it is Trump who is "capitulating the entire globe to China and its allies... "Even in your rebuttal you admit it is all true, and then say BUT... I am making a mountain out of a molehill.
And then add that Trump is making it worse.
With no supporting evidence for such.
As to Ukraine specifically... 4 years ago now 5?
I said it would become the next Iraq... A destroyed nation where millions die and suffer.
I said to take Crimea from Russia would require WWIII, our direct involvement.
It was better to negotiate...save all those countless lives and avoid that suffering and the economic hardships it would bring to so many.
The warmongers wanted to take their shot to topple Russia, they failed. The suffering and waste I predicted has occurred... The best thing for Ukrainians is to end it... the best thing for America is to end it, so we can pivot to the bigger threats to US... Such as China's growing presence throughout the world and specifically our neighbors.Given your lack of "supporting evidence" you are in no position for ask it of others. You know I always have or can get supporting evidence. The same is not true with you.
And clearly you don't understand nuance or even degrees. It seems that you see things as either boiling hot or freezing cold. Am I wrong?You are absolutely wrong, from my perspective, of course.
Prof Sachs explains how painful economically this has been for the EU, and how Russia shifted to India, Japan, China to replace the EU:
https://www.youtube.com/live/UNdEunkOuS … WvqLn4H0lH
You'll want to go to the 10 minute mark for that explanation.
The NYT wrote a thought piece about Trump becoming more and more unhinged and slowing down. He didn't and proved their point by lashing out and continuing to do so even though it is old news now.
"The New York Times’ careful, clinical story about President Donald Trump showing “signs of fatigue” and facing “realities of aging in office” came out two weeks ago. But the story still seems to be on the president’s mind.
On Tuesday night, Trump lashed out at the Times again in a 488-word Truth Social post, writing, “After all of the work I have done with Medical Exams, Cognitive Exams, and everything else, I actually believe it’s seditious, perhaps even treasonous, for The New York Times, and others, to consistently do FAKE reports in order to libel and demean ‘THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.’ They are true Enemies of the People, and we should do something about it.”
Trump assails the news media all the time, but his invocation of “treason” and his ominous threat — “we should do something about it” — stood out to some journalists."
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/10/media/tr … rt-treasonI didn’t bother reading past the part where he mentioned The New York Times. And when it comes to his bluntness toward the media, I don’t fault him at all — I’d actually think he was unintelligent not to speak his mind at this point. The press today is filled with hacks who couldn’t find their way out of a paper bag, and I have no interest in pretending otherwise. In my view, Trump needs to push back hard instead of soft-pedaling his answers to satisfy reporters who are clearly hostile. I call out outlets like the NYT and CNN myself, so I don’t expect him to treat them with kid gloves either.
Do they inferate me enough to call names--- actually, yes, they do. I was putting it mildly to call them hacks.Trump and Fox are KNOWN LIARS, NYT and CNN are NOT. And that is a fact. So, if you choose to believe liars, then have at it. Me, I prefer sources I know that tell the truth. And when they make it mistake, they correct it and admit it. That is something that is not in Trump or Fox's DNA.
And so the US has become a rogue state acting as pirates. Seizing an oil tanker!
It's not about drugs. Trump the businessman wants the Venezuelan oil!!!
Why not attack Russian oil tankers while you at it.
After looking into this issue, I have a bit of push back---
I’m really not seeing how anyone can jump straight to “piracy” or “Trump stealing Venezuelan oil” when we actually know what happened. From everything that’s come out, the tanker the U.S. seized had already been under sanctions for years and was tied to an illicit shipping network connected to Iran and groups like Hezbollah. The operation wasn’t some random grab for oil; it was carried out under a WARRANT, involved the Coast Guard, FBI, Homeland Security, and the military, and it was done without any casualties. I get that Venezuela and Iran are screaming “piracy,” but of course they would.
The U.S. is saying this was part of enforcing sanctions and cutting off networks that help finance terrorism. Now, I also recognize that seizing a foreign-flagged ship on the high seas hits a gray area in international law, some legal experts argue that sanctions alone don’t necessarily give us that authority. So yes, people can debate the legality, but pretending this was some rogue act with no justification just isn’t honest. It’s a complicated geopolitical and legal situation, not a cartoonish oil-heist plot.
And honestly, when I look at President Trump’s style of governing, I feel like he approaches these long-standing problems with a problem-solver’s mindset, and we may finally see issues that have dragged on for decades actually confronted head-on. It really does appear we finally have a guy who doesn’t accept the status quo by any means, and he’s not the type to sweep problems under the carpet.
A few of my sources
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/1 … hatgpt.com
https://apnews.com/article/trump-tanker … dd276732c0
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ … hatgpt.comSo the US can hijack any ship in international waters that goes against their policies?
What has Venezuela done to the US?
I'm definitely not on Maduro's side, as he suppresses freedom of speech and press freedom.
But what is that to the US? Saudi Arabia also suppresses freedom of speech, and as we well know Trump is big friends with them.
Is Venezuela a military threat to the US? No. The other way around yes.
Does the US need Venezuelan oil? No.
So tell me, why is the US shooting down ships in Venezuelan waters that are not a threat to the US (They didn't have the capacity to sail to the US) and why is it seizing an oil tanker?
Did Trump not tell everyone that he would not police the world anymore?
It is all so pointless!I honestly feel like you’re trying to turn this into something it simply wasn’t. The U.S. didn’t wake up one morning and decide to “shoot down ships” or “hijack” random tankers to flex power. After really looking into this issue, it was evident why this vessel was taken.
The vessel in question wasn’t some innocent transport ship minding its business in Venezuelan waters; it was already flagged, sanctioned, and tied to an illicit network that’s been moving oil and money through shell companies connected to Iran and Hezbollah. That matters. This wasn’t about Venezuela being a threat, and it wasn’t about some need for their oil. It was about a sanctioned operation that multiple U.S. agencies had been tracking for years. When Trump said he wouldn’t police the world, he didn’t say he would ignore transnational criminal networks or stop enforcing long-standing sanctions that Congress put in place long before he took office.
That isn’t “policing the world,” that’s protecting U.S. national security and cutting off revenue streams to groups we’ve designated as terrorist organizations for decades.
What feels pointless to you actually has layers; you can dislike the optics, but pretending there was no legal, financial, or intelligence basis for the seizure is just inaccurate. The Coast Guard, FBI, DHS, and military don’t mobilize on a whim. The operation had a warrant, it followed a documented sanctions framework, and it involved a ship that was already operating under false flags and suspect documentation. Venezuela yelling “piracy” doesn’t magically erase the facts.
And frankly, if Maduro wants to claim victimhood, he might start by asking why his own ports and companies keep turning up in these illicit networks. I’m not defending Maduro for a second, but I’m also not going to pretend the U.S. acted out of nowhere. This wasn’t about oil, and it wasn’t about bullying Venezuela. It was about shutting down a pipeline that directly funds groups that absolutely are hostile to the U.S. and to our allies. That’s not pointless. That’s called finally addressing problems other administrations sat on for years.
I see Trump’s actions in both cases as completely justified, aimed squarely at stopping cartels and criminal networks in their illegal activities. This administration has taken on the fight against these groups in a way no previous administration has, going after the financial pipelines, shipping networks, and operations that enable them to thrive. The tanker seizure wasn’t about bullying Venezuela or taking oil; it was about enforcing sanctions and cutting off revenue streams that fund illicit operations. For once, it feels like the U.S. is actively confronting problems that have been allowed to fester for years, rather than ignoring them or sweeping them under the rug.
Based on the information thus far available, there’s no evidence that Trump or his administration broke U.S. law when the tanker was seized. The operation involved a warrant, coordination between multiple U.S. agencies, the Coast Guard, FBI, Homeland Security, and the military, and enforcement of existing sanctions against the vessel, which was tied to illicit networks connected to Iran and Hezbollah.
I don’t want to assume your perspective from just a few lines in a chat, so I’ll ask politely: Do you find Trump’s agenda of targeting drug operations something that you can’t support? Do you believe these illegal networks should be allowed to operate without consequence?I agree with you on the 'high jacking", that has been a possibility under many presidents. But I disagree with you on blowing up boats we apparently know nothing about. Trump, in my opinion, did wake up one day and thought that was a wonderful idea.
And please don't say the intel said so. Under Trump, it is often a lie. The ONLY way they can really know is by boarding the ship, which we used to do. And, Peter get this, 25% if the time the Coast Guard found - wait for it - NOTHING even the the intel they relied on said there were drugs on board.
So that means of the 20 boats Trump has destroyed, it is likely 5 of them had innocent people and no drugs on board.
Somehow Republicans don't find a thing wrong with that. What a world.I have to push back hard on this. The idea that Trump “just woke up one day” and decided to blow up boats ignores how the U.S. military actually operates. These strikes were not random acts of aggression, they followed a structured intelligence and operational process. The Pentagon, Coast Guard, and DEA track vessels using radar, satellite, and signals intelligence, watching behavior over time. Boats that refuse orders, turn off lights, or move along known trafficking routes are flagged for interdiction. Officials like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have said these vessels were on “known narco-trafficking routes,” and the White House has maintained the strikes were lawful under U.S. and international law.
As for boarding vessels, yes, that was the standard in the past, but what I have asserted, traffickers learned to evade it. Go-fast boats are designed to escape interdiction, and boarding can be extremely dangerous. Intelligence, repeated observation, and patterns of smuggling can provide reliable evidence without physically boarding every vessel. Claims that 25% of interdictions found nothing don’t account for the fact that many strikes are aimed at disrupting larger trafficking networks, not just seizing a single load. Even if a vessel carried no drugs on one trip, it doesn’t make it “innocent”, these boats are part of a documented, ongoing pattern. To suggest Trump acted recklessly misunderstands the intelligence process and the operational protocols that guided these strikes.
I can only speak for myself regarding this administration's actions and agenda on fighting this drug war. I feel finally we have a president addressing a huge problem that ultimately is killing hundreds of thousands og Americans.You forget, I KNOW how the military operates as I was pretty high up the chain. Well, I take that back a little bit. I KNEW how the military operated when it had professional leadership that weren't more loyal to the President that they were loyal to America and our Constitution. That is not the way the military operates today.
Everybody, and I mean everybody in the Trump administration march to Trump's tune and orders; as it should with a dictator. They do not have minds of their own.
So, there is no doubt in my mind that Trump woke up one day (or one of his advisors did like Steven Miller) and decided it would be a good idea blow up a few boats in a useless effort to stem the flood of drugs coming into America through Mexico. Once he decided, he told Pety to do it and he did.
Who said his targets were "random acts of aggression"? I certainly didn't. They are very calculated acts of aggression on "suspected" drug boats of which 25% aren't.
And when Trump says something is legal, 9 times out of 10, it is not.
I honestly feel like you’re trying to turn this into something it simply wasn’t. The U.S. didn’t wake up one morning and decide to “shoot down ships” or “hijack” random tankers to flex power. The vessel in question wasn’t some innocent transport ship minding its business in Venezuelan waters; it was already flagged, sanctioned, and tied to an illicit network that’s been moving oil and money through shell companies connected to Iran and Hezbollah. That matters. Based on the information thus far available, there’s no evidence that Trump or his administration broke U.S. law when the tanker was seized.
This wasn’t about Venezuela being a threat, and it wasn’t about some need for their oil. It was about a sanctioned operation that multiple U.S. agencies had been tracking for years. When Trump said he wouldn’t police the world, he didn’t say he would ignore transnational criminal networks or stop enforcing long-standing sanctions that Congress put in place long before he took office. That isn’t “policing the world,” that’s protecting U.S. national security and cutting off revenue streams to groups we’ve designated as terrorist organizations for decades.
What feels pointless to you actually has layers, you can dislike the optics, but pretending there was no legal, financial, or intelligence basis for the seizure is just inaccurate. The Coast Guard, FBI, DHS, and military don’t mobilize on a whim. The operation had a warrant, it followed a documented sanctions framework, and it involved a ship that was already operating under false flags and suspect documentation. Venezuela yelling “piracy” doesn’t magically erase the facts. And frankly, if Maduro wants to claim victimhood, he might start by asking why his own ports and companies keep turning up in these illicit networks. I’m not defending Maduro for a second, but I’m also not going to pretend the U.S. acted out of nowhere. This wasn’t about oil, and it wasn’t about bullying Venezuela. It was about shutting down a pipeline that directly funds groups that absolutely are hostile to the U.S. and to our allies. That’s not pointless. That’s called finally addressing problems other administrations sat on for years.
I see Trump’s actions in both cases as completely justified, aimed squarely at stopping cartels and criminal networks in their illegal activities. This administration has taken on the fight against these groups in a way no previous administration has, going after the financial pipelines, shipping networks, and operations that enable them to thrive. The tanker seizure wasn’t about bullying Venezuela or taking oil; it was about enforcing sanctions and cutting off revenue streams that fund illicit operations. For once, it feels like the U.S. is actively confronting problems that have been allowed to fester for years, rather than ignoring them or sweeping them under the rug.
I don’t want to assume your perspective from just a few lines in a chat, so I’ll ask politely: Do you feel this agenda is something you can’t support at a local level? Or do you lean more toward allowing the cartels to continue their illegal activities unchecked, letting them operate without interference?Do you feel this agenda is something you can’t support at a local level?
I don't understand this question.
can you rephrase this. What do you mean by local level.
There are a couple of things going on here.
First there was no proof that the ships were trafficking drugs. As said, the boats were to small for reaching US mainland. So until there is no proof, they were innocent fisherman.
The seizing of the oil tanker is in my view a stunt. Trump won't do this with sanctioned Russian oil tankers.
Venezuela hardly transport any drugs to the US. The big player is China, not Venezuela. Cocaine coming from Venezuela is less than 1% of the market.
The drugs story is a complete nonsense story. Ask Chat GPT for the numbers.
Again. I do not support Maduro. But you simply can not shoot down boats without evidence. Nor can you seize an oil tanker in international waters.
Because if you start on this road of shooting first, questions later, it becomes very quickly a slippery slope.I used the term local level, which refers to whether you, in your own community or daily life, can support the broader agenda or principle behind the action Trump has taken. To rephrase my question. Do you feel the agenda Trump has adopted regarding his war on drugs is something you can’t support?
"There are a couple of things going on here.
First there was no proof that the ships were trafficking drugs. As said, the boats were to small for reaching US mainland. So until there is no proof, they were innocent fisherman." Peterstreep
I understand why some people question the strikes on those boats, but from what the Pentagon and Coast Guard have said, this wasn’t random or reckless. The U.S. relies on a combination of intelligence, including radar tracking, satellite imagery, and signals from allies, to monitor vessels on known narcotics-trafficking routes. Officials also analyze behavior—boats refusing orders, turning off lights, or making high-speed evasive maneuvers are all strong indicators of illicit activity. The decision to strike comes only after assessing the threat and confirming that less-lethal interdiction isn’t possible, and every operation undergoes legal review to comply with U.S. and international law. According to Pentagon statements, the vessels in 2025 were on known trafficking routes and had repeatedly ignored commands to stop, which led officials to authorize the strikes. This shows the action wasn’t based on assumptions about “innocent fishermen,” but on repeated intelligence and a structured, lawful process designed to disrupt dangerous drug-smuggling networks.
"Venezuela hardly transport any drugs to the US. The big player is China, not Venezuela. Cocaine coming from Venezuela is less than 1% of the market." Peterstreep
Venezuela acts mainly as a transit corridor, not a major producer or direct trafficker. According to U.S. drug monitoring data, roughly 90 % of U.S.-bound cocaine is trafficked through Western Caribbean and Eastern Pacific routes not through Venezuela’s eastern Caribbean seas.
https://idpc.net/publications/2020/03/b … hatgpt.com
The tanker was seized because it was under U.S. sanctions, not because drugs were found on it. The vessel, identified as the Skipper, was sanctioned for its role in transporting Venezuelan and Iranian oil and was seized by U.S. forces near Venezuela. The U.S. government has framed this as enforcing sanctions and national security concerns, and officials say the tanker was known to be carrying “black market, sanctioned oil.
Our views are far apart, but I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective.Ronald Reagan started a war on drugs.... The war on drugs is a never ending war. Unless you make drugs legal. (but that's a different topic)
Ronald Reagan started a war on drugs.... The war on drugs is a never ending war. Unless you make drugs legal. (but that's a different topic)I think it’s important to see the difference between Trump and Reagan here. Reagan’s war on drugs was a long, decades-long effort, including laws, prisons, and programs, trying to attack the problem from all angles. Which, as we see, did not work. Cartels have only grown and become more of a threat.
What Trump did with the boat strikes was more tactical, specific operations aimed at stopping drug shipments in real time. So while both are part of the fight against drugs, Reagan ran a big, ongoing policy war, and Trump took direct, targeted action against immediate threats. Same goal, very different approach. It is yet to be seen if Trump's war will help solve the problem.Then there is this:
Let’s be absurdly generous and assume every boat Trump bombed was a fully loaded smuggling boat. Public reporting says there’ve been about 22 boats (23 vessels), so at a typical Coast Guard load—about 3,000 lbs per go-fast—you’re talking maybe 60–70 thousand pounds of cocaine interdicted, tops. Over the same 3-plus months, the U.S. sees on the order of 350,000 lbs of cocaine moving toward our market, based on consumption estimates plus the Coast Guard’s own record seizures. So even in the rosiest scenario, this bloody air campaign temporarily touches maybe 20% of the cocaine flow for that window—before cartels simply reroute via Mexico or overland.
And that’s giving Trump every benefit of the doubt. The Coast Guard’s FY 2024 data show that when they board suspected drug boats, they find no drugs about 27% of the time—roughly one in four “suspects” is a miss and innocent people are being murdered. If Trump’s targeting is no better than the Coast Guard’s, then of the 23 boats he’s had blown up, 5 or 6 could easily have been empty of drugs at the time. Because these are missile strikes, not boardings, we never even check—we just assume guilt and kill everyone on board (you know, the good old American way - that is sarcasm)
And the cost? Each strike fires off six-figure Hellfire missiles and burns thousands of dollars per hour in drone and fighter time. Members of Congress say the airstrikes are already in the tens of millions, and keeping the Ford carrier group on station runs up to $6.5 million a day, pushing total costs toward hundreds of millions of dollars. For that money, we could fund treatment and prevention programs that—according to RAND—cut cocaine use 10 to 20 times more cost-effectively than interdiction. Instead we’re getting slick videos, dead fishermen, and no hard numbers on actual drugs seized.
And for what, possibly saving no lives at all - and yes, I can provide the rational for that claim.When I look at this issue, I try to keep in mind that the debate isn’t as one-sided as the comment makes it sound. I understand the numbers being cited, and I’m not denying that interdiction alone will never stop the entire drug flow into the U.S. But for me, the point isn’t simply about the exact percentage of cocaine removed from circulation. It’s about disrupting a system that has operated with impunity for decades. Even if cartels reroute, forcing them to change patterns, lose product, or absorb financial hits still matters, because the drug trade depends on consistency and low risk. I also think it’s unfair to assume that every strike is equivalent to the Coast Guard’s “miss rate,” or that the intelligence guiding these operations is just guesswork. These decisions are being made with surveillance, movement patterns, and regional trafficking data, not random guesses from a distance.
I can also acknowledge cost concerns, but I don’t see it as an either-or scenario where we must choose between interdiction or treatment. In my view, there’s a role for both. Yes, RAND has studies showing cost-effectiveness of treatment, but that doesn’t erase the need to dismantle the logistics networks fueling trafficking. And while the comment paints the operations as wasteful or purely performative, I don’t think that’s a fair assumption without the actual intelligence that justified each strike. The idea that we should treat every boat as “innocent fishermen” also doesn’t reflect the reality of how these routes operate or how frequently they’re used by traffickers who deliberately blend in with civilian vessels.
At the end of the day, I’m not pretending the strategy is perfect, but I also don’t buy the argument that it “saves no lives” or accomplishes nothing. Cutting supply routes, even temporarily, reducing cartel confidence, and raising the operational cost of trafficking all have real-world effects. Reasonable people can disagree on whether this approach is the best one, but I think it’s misleading to boil the entire effort down to bad math and worst-case assumptions.
I offered a link to Peterstreep. It is information that you may want to read on this issue; you may come out feeling somewhat different about the situation.And my view is that even if blowing up the boats and killing people were legal, it isn't going to disrupt anything longer than it will take them to establish new routes.
Worse, the argument he uses and people buy is that it will save drug addicts lives. No it won't or not so you would notice anyway. The proper use, in my view, for that many hundreds of million dollars being wasted on this theater is to funnel it to the states to set up drug abatement programs that directly address the REAL cause for all the drugs coming here - the addicts themselves.
If there is no demand, then no drugs would flow.
For example -
1. Treatment & recovery (hits demand, not just supply)
* Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioids (methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone).
Low-barrier clinics and mobile outreach so people don’t have to jump through hoops.
* Long-term recovery supports: housing, job training, peer support — because relapse probability nosedives when people have stability.
Every heavy user who gets into stable recovery is permanently removed from the demand side of the market.
2. Harm reduction with teeth
Not just “be nice,” but actually undercutting cartels’ profit and harm:
* Safe consumption sites / supervised injection sites: fewer deaths, fewer ER trips, and a natural entry point into treatment.
* Drug checking / test strips / mobile labs: let users detect fentanyl or other adulterants, reducing overdoses and panic buying.
* Naloxone saturation: widely available overdose reversal means fewer fatalities and less social chaos.
And Reagan's target were the drug users, the ones creating the demand that other fill. Obviously he and Bush I, and Clinton, and Bush II, and Obama, and Trump I, and Biden failed. The demand is bigger than ever.
So Trump tries to target the suppliers, initially in the Caribbean where very little of the cocaine (but not fentanyl which does most of the killing he uses to justify his illegal activities) comes from. He then decides attacking the Pacific where more cocaine is transported - NOT to the United States but to Central America and Mexico where it is transported over land to America.
Trump, in fact, is interdicting very little cocaine coming into the U.S. (and almost no fentanyl) and spending millions and millions of dollars for hardly any return for the investment.
Trump was stupid to think he could impact the supplies of America's drug addiction. But it sure makes for a good "tough guy" show.
Just a side note, others here are arguing that because it costs too much and things are going rough, America needs to turn its back on fellow democracies and allies while embracing the aggressor. Why aren't they taking the same position here - lot's of money spent and probably no lives saved.Thank you for writing what I was trying to write. The fast majority (over 80%) of the cocaine is smuggled in through Mexico. A bit through the Caribbean, but hardly anything from Venezuela. But during the upload something went wrong. Hence the double sentence.
I wanted to stress exactly that, that the seizing of the ship and the destroying of small vessels at the Venezuelan coast has nothing to do with drugs, but all to do with trying to make a regime change in a very clumsy way.
The boycott on Venezuela is an old version Cuba boycott. The fear for communism. Or better said the fear against non capitalistic systems. As the US can't make money out of a non free market system...
We have seen over and over again, a dictatorship is fine as long as the US profits from it. When the US can't profit, an excuse (war on drugs) is being sought to attack the dictatorship.
It is all incredibly morally hypocritical. But in Trumps case, he only things about what will be a good news item. He thinks in news values. What will people make them talk about me. He does not think long term or geopolitical. He thinks what benefits me and my family.
Trump is a sad story in US's history.I hope you’ll take a moment to look over this link. It offers a clear factual overview of how narcotics move through maritime routes:
https://www.wola.org/wp-content/uploads … Smilde.pdf
That link does provide information about drug trafficking routes through the Caribbean and how maritime smuggling fits into broader drug flows, though the emphasis and conclusions are specific to the report’s focus. Here’s a clear breakdown:
What the link covers
The paper discusses Venezuela’s role as a transit point for illicit drugs, especially cocaine. It looks at data on how much cocaine moves through the country and how that compares to other routes.
It uses U.S. government monitoring data to try to show trends in drug trafficking through Venezuela.
How It Relates to Caribbean Drug Routes
It shows that some cocaine does transit through Venezuela and then by sea, but it also emphasizes that Venezuela is not the largest or most direct route for U.S.-bound drugs. According to the data referenced:
Only a fraction of cocaine flows through Venezuelan maritime routes compared with other regional routes (Western Caribbean and Eastern Pacific).
Much of the cocaine traffic heads through other transit countries before moving northward.
So, Does It Explain Caribbean Maritime Routes?
It describes how drugs are trafficked through the region and touches on maritime movement, but it’s more analytical and nuanced than a simple map of routes. It:
Provides data and context for understanding how drug flows can move through Venezuela and into Caribbean waters.
Suggests that most U.S.-bound cocaine uses other paths, even though some maritime trafficking through the Caribbean exists.
The report gives you useful context and data on Caribbean and Venezuelan drug trafficking — it’s a good reference for understanding the broader patterns.
But if you’re looking for detailed route maps or a focused breakdown of maritime drug paths through the Caribbean specifically, you might want to supplement it with other sources that specialize in drug trafficking routes and geography (e.g., DEA or Insight Crime analyses).That's exactly what I'm saying Sharlee. Venezuela is a minor player in the whole drugs thing.
The actions the US is undertaking related to Venezuela is not about drugs, it's about oil.Do you have any thing more current than 2018?
But even if it were current, I am not sure I see your point?
Unbelievably Sad. The only thing sadder is our Civil War.
To address your views regarding --- "Whas Venezuela done to the US?
I'm definitely not on Maduro's side, as he suppresses freedom of speech and press freedom.
But what is that to the US? Saudi Arabia also suppresses freedom of speech, and as we well know Trump is big friends with them."
I understand your point about Venezuela not being a direct threat to the U.S., and I agree that Maduro is a terrible dictator. But the issue isn’t about friendship or ideology, it’s about stopping illegal activity and criminal networks that harm U.S. interests. The tanker that was seized wasn’t just carrying Venezuelan oil; it was tied to Iran and groups like Hezbollah, part of a network that funds terrorism and illegal operations. This isn’t about punishing Venezuela for suppressing speeh; it’s about enforcing sanctions and cutting off money flows to dangerous groups. As for Saudi Arabia, yes, Trump maintains relationships there, but the context is different: it’s about strategic alliances, energy security, and counterterrorism, not about letting illicit networks operate freely. Trump is also hoping to bring more peace to the Middle East, as witnessed by the Abraham Accords, showing that his foreign policy is focused on stability and practical results rather than ideology alone.I think its also part of the new https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u … rategy.pdf
National Security Strategy... focusing on this hemisphere... while realizing that supporting a war on Russia's border is a fool's errand that can only end in failure, be it for Ukraine, or the whole world.Yes, Ken, so much of what I read and see played out leads back to the National Security Strategy document.
I agree with you completely, and I think you’re spot-on tying this back to the National Security Strategy. When you read that document, it’s clear the shift is intentional: focus on our own hemisphere, shut down the criminal and terror-financing networks that operate right under our nose, and stop pouring endless resources into conflicts that have no realistic path to victory. And you’re right about the war on Russia’s border, continuing to prop it up without any achievable endgame is exactly the kind of foreign-policy trap the strategy warns against. It’s not abandoning allies; it’s recognizing when a situation has hardened into a stalemate where the only outcomes are prolonged suffering or escalation. What Trump is doing is realignment, bringing our priorities back to stability here at home, protecting our borders, cutting off cartels and terror networks, and refusing to let America get dragged into another open-ended conflict with no clear payoff for the American people.
Of course it is. And they have said so.
Only a few gullible MAGA would believe its about drugs. The rest, they dont care. There's always an excuse for little dictator wannabe.It's pure bullying. Basically state terrorism. Attacking randomly ships in international waters.
Peter, here is the sad truth. Any nation can sanction any body for any reason and there is nothing any body can do about it beyond crying foul. So Iceland can sanction U.S. vessels and seize them assuming their courts issued a seizure order.
Now, my claim that nobody can do anything about it is not quite right. Nobody can do anything legal about it except press their claim to the UN.
What would happen, of course, is Trump would declare war on Iceland and go take the ship back.
That is what happened here. The U.S., I believe in conjunction with other nations, placed sanctions on the cargo the Skipper was carrying. An American federal judge agreed the sanction was legal and issued an order to seize the oil assuming the opportunity presented itself. Hence, the US is now in possession of an oil tanker theoretically legally.
As to the ethics and morality, I haven't formed an opinion because I don't know what the sanction was about. If it was somehow involved in sanctions against Russia, more power to Trump. But, as I said, I don't know.What you describe is basically a Wild West mentality. If you are the big country you can seize anything if the lawyers of your own country agree on it.
The US could do this with any ship on the ocean, and that makes this action a dangerous one. It's simply put state piracy.I didn't say I agree with it, which I don't, I am just saying that is how things stand today.
Your comment "If you are the big country you can seize anything if the lawyers of your own country agree on it.
The US could do this with any ship on the ocean, and that makes this action a dangerous one. It's simply put state piracy." is spot on.
In the past, we had leaders who wouldn't abuse the rule of law and not go down that path you suggest. Today, America has a leader who has proven over and over again he has NO REPECT for the Rule of Law.
In this particular case, however, from what I learned this was an appropriate seizure. The sanction was put into effect in 2022 by President Biden in order to interfere with Iran oil smuggling, a reasonable thing to do. So, the sanction was not pulled out of thin air.
Now, other presidents who have a sense of ethical behavior, wouldn't have turned into a three-ring circus like Trump did.
Trump seized 5 ships before in 2019 and 2020 without much theatrical antics.
HEGSETH tries to cover up his release of national secrets via Signal.
"The Pentagon did not conduct a routine investigation into the impact of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s disclosure of sensitive military information in a group chat on Signal earlier this year and whether it damaged national security – in part because Hegseth never authorized it, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.
A classification review and damage assessment would typically be initiated following any unauthorized disclosure of sensitive defense information, in part, to examine whether sources and methods or ongoing US military and intelligence operations have been compromised in a way that would require mitigation.
Hegseth did not order an assessment, two former senior officials who were working at the Pentagon at the time and a current US official with knowledge of the situation said.
After the Signal messages came to light, Hegseth, instead turned his attention inward and focused on formally investigating suspected leakers on his own staff, even threatening to polygraph defense officials he believed were disclosing potentially embarrassing details about him, multiple current and former officials said. Those threats had a “chilling effect” among DoD officials who became increasingly wary of doing anything that could be perceived by Hegseth as an attempt to undercut him, according to those officials."
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/11/politics … estigationDo you think Donald "Sexual Predator" Trump is a Putin-style authoritarian now?
"The Justice Department can keep trying to reindict Letitia James"
Talk about embarrassment and abuse of power. Trump ordered Bondi, his willing slave, to try to indict James a third time (the first time was a success). I am beginning to think they are incapable of getting a ham sandwich indicted any more (you know the saying, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if you want it is so easy).
Here is the problem - in America, our laws allow this kind of sick behavior by our elected and appointed officials. When they were written to provide DOJ with immunity from tort actions I seriously doubt they had thought about somebody as despicable coming to power like Trump and his girl Bondi. Now we have a DOIJ, the Department of Injustice.
Latisha James has absolutely no effective recourse to get relief from this torturous hell Trump has her in. (and I can hear MAUGA cheering in the background) Although, this is just one more of DOZENS of impeachment charges that the Democrats can RIGHTEOUSLY bring when they return to power next year.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/12/politics … ames-risks
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/12/politics … ames-risksIt was good to see validation of those six patriotic congresspeople and their video reminding soldiers of their DUTY to disobey illegal orders - l like the ones Hegseth is issuing.
It caused Gen Cain, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to ask JAG about what to advise senior officers when given an obviously illegal order. Unfortunately, the answer was a dodge. JAG recommended advising the the officers to cower and ask for retirement IF they are eligible. He specifically recommended NOT to resign in protest.
Left unsaid was the implication that IF the officer cannot retire, then they should obey the illegal order and suck it up.
"Dan Maurer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and former JAG lawyer, said that the guidance, as described by CNN, appears to “misunderstand what a servicemember is supposed to do in the face of an unlawful order: disobey it if confident that the order is unlawful and attempt to persuade the order-giver to stop or modify it have failed, and report it through the chain of command.”
Maurer added that “if the guidance does not explicitly advise servicemembers that they have a duty to disobey unlawful orders, the guidance is not a legitimate statement of professional military ethics and the law.”
Widmar advised that an order may be unlawful if it is “patently illegal,” or something an ordinary person would recognize instinctively as a violation of domestic or international law, the sources said — the My Lai massacre in Vietnam is an oft-used example. But the guidance he provided was that an unlawful order should be met with retirement, if possible, and did not note that servicemembers have a duty to disobey unlawful orders, the sources said
“It’s a very safe recommendation in this current political environment,” said the former senior defense official. “But that doesn’t make it the right or ethical one.”."
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/19/politics … mar-retireTrump's handpicked Kennedy Center board votes to rename it the 'Trump-Kennedy Center'
President Trump’s takeover of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts reached its inevitable apogee on Thursday afternoon when it was announced that the center’s board of trustees had voted to rename it the Trump-Kennedy Center.
Even though Mr. Trump had already been calling it that for months in trollish posts online, he acted shocked that his handpicked board had thought to do this for him.
“I was honored by it,” he told reporters at the White House. “The board is a very distinguished board, most distinguished people in the country, and I was surprised by it. I was honored by it.”
Earlier that day, he had called into a meeting of the board, which is now made up almost entirely of people who are loyal to him. (By law, there are a handful of members of Congress from both parties who sit on the board, as well.)
Unusually, the meeting was taking place not at the Kennedy Center but at the Palm Beach home of the casino magnate Steve Wynn, whose wife, Andrea, sits on the board.
“The unanimous vote recognizes that the current Chairman saved the institution from financial ruin and physical destruction,” Roma Daravi, the center’s vice president of public relations, said in a statement. “The new Trump Kennedy Center reflects the unequivocal bipartisan support for America’s cultural center for generations to come.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on X:"Congratulations to President Donald J. Trump, and likewise, congratulations to President Kennedy, because this will be a truly great team long into the future! The building will no doubt attain new levels of success and grandeur."
Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, an ex-officio member of the board, disputed the account that the vote was “unanimous.”
“For the record. This was not unanimous. I was muted on the call and not allowed to speak or voice my opposition to this move,” she wrote on X.
Ms. Beatty described the meeting this way: “Everything was regurgitated about how awful anything with the center was, how run down it was, how everything was humiliating, and now they had come in as the great saviors of it.”
She added that the other members took turns praising Mr. Trump, who then pretended to be surprised when they voted to rename the joint after him. “He said, ‘Oh, I didn’t know you all were going to name it after me!’” she said.
The news prompted swift backlash from some members of the Kennedy family, including some who suggested the change might not be lawful.
The performing arts center is, by law, designated the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts — it was built to be a living memorial to the slain 35th president — and it has been generally understood that the power to change the name lies with Congress. One senior White House official said the administration disagreed with the legal interpretation that any name change must come from Congress.
“We never considered or were permitted to name any part of the building for another human being because it was the official memorial for President Kennedy,” said Michael Kaiser, who was the Kennedy Center’s president from 2001 to 2014.
Members of the Kennedy family reacted with outrage to the name change.
Former Rep. Joseph Kennedy III, a grandnephew of the late president, said in a statement: “The Kennedy Center is a living memorial to a fallen president and named for President Kennedy by federal law. It can no sooner be renamed than can someone rename the Lincoln Memorial, no matter what anyone says.”
Kerry Kennedy, a niece of the late president and the sister of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., also condemned the change, writing on X, “President Trump and his administration have spent the past year repressing free expression, targeting artists, journalists, and comedians, and erasing the history of Americans whose contributions made our nation better and more just.President Kennedy proudly stood for justice, peace, equality, dignity, diversity, and compassion for those who suffer. President Trump stands in opposition to these values, and his name should not be placed alongside President Kennedy’s.”
The rename was just the latest maneuver in the overall Trumpification of the capital. The East Wing. The Rose Garden. The colonnade. The White House residence. The flag poles. The “Department of War” and the plans for the Arc de Triomphe-style arch on the other side of the Potomac. And now this.
Why must this president’s name be slapped atop the name of another?
Yeah. Why?
We know.There is so much that will need to be undone in three years.
What is sad, from what I read, is that nobody has standing to sue - even though he is breaking the law - to stop him from doing such a childish thing.Why must this president’s name be slapped atop the name of another?
Yeah. Why? smile We know why.
Trump announces new class of U.S. battleships named after himself
President Donald Trump’s name is being attached to a new class of U.S. battleships that will have nuclear capabilities.
Making the announcement at an event at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, Navy Secretary John Phelan referred to the warships as “Trump-class battleships"...
Signifiers of Trump, from his likeness to his name and his birthday, have become more commonplace during his second term.
Last week, a board handpicked by Trump voted to rename the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington the Trump-Kennedy Center. Trump’s name was also added to the U.S. Institute of Peace headquarters in Washington this month, and the Interior Department the Interior Department in a video last month displayed a national park pass for 2026 that will bear Trump’s image. The legality of some of those moves, however, faces legal challenges.
YUCK!I am still pissed about this, does this man have any sense of decency?
A memorial to a truly great and fallen president soiled by Trump. The late president was a true patron of the arts and the facility was aptly so named. Trump also had the nerve to give himself top billing. Not Kennedy and Trump but Trump and Kennedy.
Trump wanted to ransack the Eisenhower Presidential library to take a sword given to Eisenhower as a gift at the end of WWII. This, to offer King Charles a present. What else does he steal, always taking something that does not belong to him?
I simply don’t recall any naval vessels named after living people, just who does this man think that he is?We all know who this dangerously mentally unstable man is - an uncontrollable narcissist.
Fortunately, the ships and class can be renamed once he slinks away and they can take his name off of the Kennedy Center and anything else his superego has defaced."Trump wanted to ransack the Eisenhower Presidential library to take a sword given to Eisenhower as a gift at the end of WWII. This, to offer King Charles a present. What else does he steal, always taking something that does not belong to him?"
Cred,
You need to learn the details. This didn't happen.
"Arrington declined to release the sword or any other original artifact on the grounds that the ephemera belongs to the U.S. government, and, by law, the library is obligated to preserved them for the American public.
Despite Arrington’s refusal to hand over the original sword, the historian worked with officials in the State Department to find a worthy replacement. Ultimately, King Charles was gifted a replica “Cadet Saber” from West Point.
https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/ … ith-trump/
"I simply don’t recall any naval vessels named after living people, just who does this man think that he is?"
MANY living people have had US Navy Ships named after them.
2010s
USNS John Glenn (T-ESD-2) was named on January 4, 2012, for astronaut and politician John Glenn, who died in 2016.
USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS-10) was named on February 10, 2012, for Gabby Giffords, former member of the House of Representatives from Arizona who survived an assassination attempt in 2011. Navy Secretary Mabus chose the name.
USS Thomas Hudner (DDG-116) was named on May 7, 2012, for Thomas Hudner, retired Naval officer and recipient of the Medal of Honor. Hudner died on November 13, 2017.
USS Paul Ignatius (DDG-117) was named on May 23, 2012, for Paul Robert Ignatius, former Secretary of the Navy and commissioned July 27, 2019. Ignatius died on November 6, 2025 just shy of his 105th birthday and over six years after the ship's commissioning.
USNS John Lewis (T-AO-205) was named on January 6, 2016,[5] for John Lewis, a politician and civil rights activist. Lewis died in 2020.
USS Hershel "Woody" Williams (ESB-4) was named on January 14, 2016,[5] for Hershel W. Williams, a Marine warrant officer and Medal of Honor recipient. Williams died in 2022.
USS Carl M. Levin (DDG-120) was named on April 11, 2016, for Carl M. Levin, a former United States senator from Michigan and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The contract for the ship, along with the name, was announced in a press release from General Dynamics, parent company of Bath Iron Works, on March 31, 2016. Levin died on July 29, 2021.
USS Harvey C. Barnum Jr. (DDG-124), slated for commissioning in 2024, is to be named for Harvey C. Barnum, Jr., a retired Marine Corps officer and recipient of the Medal of Honor, as announced by Mabus on July 28, 2016.
2020s
USS John F. Lehman (DDG-137) will be named for John Lehman, a former Secretary of the Navy, as announced by Navy Secretary Kenneth Braithwaite on October 13, 2020.[8]
USS John L. Canley (ESB-6) was named on November 10, 2020, for John L. Canley, a retired Marine Corps sergeant major and Medal of Honor recipient. Canley died in 2022.
USS Robert E. Simanek (ESB-7) was named on January 15, 2021, for Robert E. Simanek, a Marine who received the Medal of Honor. Simanek died in 2022.
USS J. William Middendorf (DDG-138) was named on June 10, 2022,for J. William Middendorf, a U.S. diplomat and former Navy Secretary. Then-Navy Secretary Richard Spencer announced his intention to name a ship after Middendorf in 2020; on January 11, 2023, the Navy announced that Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro had chosen DDG-138.[9]
USNS Robert Ballard (TAGS-67) was named on December 12, 2022, for Robert Ballard, an oceanographer and Navy officer.
USS Thomas G. Kelley (DDG-140) will be named for Thomas G. Kelley, a Navy surface-warfare officer and Medal of Honor recipient.
USS John H. Dalton (SSN-808) will be named for John H. Dalton, a former Secretary of the Navy, as announced by Del Toro on March 1, 2023.[10]
USS William J. Clinton (CVN-82) and USS George W. Bush (CVN-83) will be named for former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, as announced by President Joe Biden on January 13, 2025.[11]
USS Ray Mabus (DDG-147), USS Kyle Carpenter (DDG-148), and USS Everett Alvarez, Jr (FFG-68) were all announced by Del Toro on January 15, 2025. Mabus is a former Navy officer who served as Secretary of the Navy from 2009 to 2017. Carpenter is a former Marine Lance Corporal and Medal of Honor recipient. Alvarez is a former Navy officer and pilot who spent nine-years in captivity as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U … t_of_shipsI think the point was that Trump wanted to take the sword and then tried to make it happen.
What other man has the gall and narcissism and super ego to name a ship after himself. Or the Kennedy Center and then stupidly act surprised when it was he that told them to despoil Kennedy's name with his own.I hear you Mike, but I have to take 2 points out of three.
First, You were mum about Trump slapping his name on the KENNEDY Center for Performing Arts. I think that is callous and disrespectful of the family and of the late President’s memory. What next, Trump-Lincoln Memorial or the Trump-Washington Monument?
Second, the issue is why Trump would even demand an artifact from General Eisenhower’s library and memorial desecrating it in such a way? You did not mention that the curator was given a choice of resigning or being fired by Trump for not complying with his absurd request. So, it is obvious that the principle involved went right over his head. This was an indication of character which revealed an inconsiderate and petty man, denying President Eisenhower the respect and dignity that he and his memorial deserved. Trump only resigned himself to accept the substitute saber. My ire remains on Trump over his role in this sordid affair.
On the third point regarding naval vessels named after living people, you are right and I stand corrected.Cred,
On the Kennedy Center issue, it wasn't President Donald Trump who renamed it. This was done by a vote from the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees. Your issue is not with President Donald Trump. It is with the board of trustees.
"The board of trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts voted Thursday to rename the facility after both the former president and President Donald Trump.
“The Kennedy Center Board of Trustees voted unanimously today to name the institution The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts,” spokeswoman Roma Daravi said in a statement, adding that the name honors Trump’s work at the center since taking over early in his second term.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/18/poli … enter-nameI couldn't open your link because I didn't want to sign up. I asked AI how many trustees on the board of directors at the Kenndy Center are Trumpers? Here is the answer I received.
https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/9R … pt4YKVZcv6I queried Grok with a few questions:
1. How many on the board:
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Board of Trustees consists of 47 members appointed by the President of the United States and 25 ex officio members designated by Act of Congress, for a total of 72 core members. Additional categories include honorary chairs (5), officers (6), founding chairman (1), chairmen emeriti (4), president emeritus (3), special advisors (vacant), honorary trustees (1), and emeritus trustees (several, some deceased), but these are not part of the primary active board.
kennedy-center.org
2. How many are active voting members who recently voted
The Kennedy Center Board of Trustees has 57 active voting members, consisting of 34 appointed by the President and 23 ex officio members designated by Act of Congress. These members participated in recent votes, including the unanimous decision to rename the center the "Trump-Kennedy Center" in December 2025. "
3. How many were prevented from voting in renaming the Kennedy Center?
At least one member, Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH), was prevented from voting in the Kennedy Center renaming by being repeatedly muted during the virtual board meeting, according to her statements and reports. She claimed this silenced opposition and made the announced "unanimous" vote inaccurate. A joint statement from six ex-officio board members (including Beatty, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark Warner, and Rick Larsen) opposed the rename, implying broader prevention of input, though only Beatty explicitly described being muted. Sources indicate ex-officio members have voting rights under the Kennedy Center Act.
4. If a board member is prevented from voting, such as Rep. Beatty, then is the vote invalid?
In the specific context of the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees' December 2025 vote to rename the center, the issue is contested. The Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. § 76h) establishes the board, including ex-officio members (e.g., congressional leaders and officials), However, Rep. Joyce Beatty (an ex-officio member) filed a lawsuit claiming the vote was invalid because she was prevented from voting (via muting during the virtual meeting), arguing this violated the Act and due process.
I, for one, will be cheering when they remove Trump's attempt to disgrace the Kennedy Center and the Kennedy family.
You do know that Trump had himself appointed chairman of that handpicked board, right? Wouldn't you say it a bit disingenuous and obtuse to say that Trump had nothing to do with HIS board changing the name?
Sorry, Mike I have to agree with the assessment of this situation as described by Esoteric…
‘You do know that Trump had himself appointed chairman of that handpicked board, right? Wouldn't you say it a bit disingenuous and obtuse to say that Trump had nothing to do with HIS board changing the name?”And now the Trump supplicant Grinnell has published a letter lambasting the Jazz artist for pulling out its Christmas Eve performance over the defacing of the Kennedy Center with Trump's name.
I wonder if any contract he signed is void because of the very probable illegal name change?
Trump is like an alpha dog that has to mark his spot by lifting his leg and peeing on everything to make it his own.
Not that anyone is shedding a tear over Trump's attack on ISIS that he CLAIMS was in retaliation of their attack on two US servicemen, once again Trump demonstrates that you shouldn't have a knee-jerker who is incapable of thinking things through as President - the likelihood of him knee-jerking us into WW III is very high. As it turns out, and was reported on the day of the attack on the servicemen, it wasn't ISIS at all who did the ambush.
According to Syria, the likely ambusher was part of the Syrian internal security forces.
"While the Trump administration has vowed retaliation against ISIS in the wake of the December 13 attack, CNN has reported that Syria’s Ministry of Interior Affairs said the attacker had been a part of Syria’s Internal Security service. US and Syrian officials acknowledged to CNN that the gunman’s ties to ISIS are not entirely clear-cut; ISIS has not claimed responsibility for the attack."
The question now is, even though the target of Trump's wrath more than deserved the attack, was this another extrajudicial killing by Trump My guess is no, but the question still remains.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/19/politics … gets-syriaIn another AUTHORITARIAN move, the CORRUPT DOIJ is judge shopping for Judge Cannon in its illegal Trump revenge tour - this time against John Brennan.
Trump voters should be ashamed, but they aren't.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/23/politics … ing-cannonThat's funny - liberals accusing anyone of "improper leaks to the media"! There can't be anyone more guilty of that than the Democrats!
Smoking something there? Nobody was talking about leaks.
Unbelievable - SCOTUS finally applied the law in shooting down Trump's effort to use the National Guard as his personal police force!!! They voted 6-3 to reign in a little of Trump's AUTHORITARIAN power.
Of course, the unholy trio sided with Trump - Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch who believe the President should be King.Think it will make any difference anywhere or was it just addressing Democrats whining about something that wasn't happening anyway?
Just so you know, in the real world, Trump troops to California, Oregon, Chicago, and D,C. Only in D.C. did he have temporary authority to do so.
Trump can't quit spreading his message of hate even on Christmas eve!!
"Trump tells 10-year-old child he made sure ‘a bad Santa’ is not ‘infiltrating’ the US
"“Santa is a very good person,” President Donald Trump, in a suit and gold tie, tells Jasper in Tulsa. “We want to make sure that he’s not infiltrated, that we’re not infiltrating into our country a bad Santa. So we found out that Santa is good. Santa loves you. Santa loves Oklahoma, like I do. You know Oklahoma was very good to me in the election. So I love Oklahoma. Don’t ever leave Oklahoma, okay?”"
So Trump is trying to "infiltrate" a Santa into America. Astonishing.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/24/politics … orad-callsWOW! Donald "the Felon" Trump kidnaps a fellow felon!!!! This morning our military, FBI, DEA, CIA, and other agencies executed, perfectly apparently, a snatch and grab operation of Nicolás Maduro, the strongman and unelected leader of Venezuela, his wife, and others in response to an indictment just released by the SDNY. Air strikes were involved but it seems they were precision and used to suppress any military response.
If Maduro were a lawful leader, I would be up in arms about Trump's illegal actions and comparing him to Putin's aggression in Ukraine. But, Maduro is an unlawful leader, so I will wait to see what develops.
One thing I just heard, and it is just developing so again wait and see, is that Trump plans on having an election held and plans on being deeply involved. It seems to me Venezuela already has a lawfully elected president. Should she be installed?
Now, the question is this - Trump got his regime change he has been pushing for. And he said he is going to be heavily involved in the transition - probably with an eye on their oil. How is he going to stop from making Venezuela into another Iraq or Afghanistan?
Another question is - How is MAGA taking this? HIs actions go against the very grain of what they say they stand for.
As an addendum, do I mind that a very bad guy was captured even though most of the danger he posed was to Europe? Not on your life. Do I mind that it was done legally? Absolutely - I am an American after all who believes in our values and our Constitution."If Maduro were a lawful leader, I would be up in arms about Trump's illegal actions and comparing him to Putin's aggression in Ukraine. But, Maduro is an unlawful leader, so I will wait to see what develops."
"As an addendum, do I mind that a very bad guy was captured even though most of the danger he posed was to Europe? Not on your life. Do I mind that it was done legally? Absolutely - I am an American after all who believes in our values and our Constitution."
Do we all see and understand that enormous contradiction here? It's fine for bad guys but not for anyone you personally approve of. The law only applies to those people you like.
It's called "hypocrisy" - something liberals are experts in.That’s a non sequitur.
I didn’t say “illegal is fine for bad guys.” I said the opposite: if it was illegal, I’d object on constitutional grounds.
The only thing I’m doing is withholding judgment until the facts are clearer, and noting that Maduro’s legitimacy affects the political comparison (e.g., whether it’s analogous to invading a sovereign democracy). None of that waives the rule of law.
If you think I’m excusing illegality, quote where I said that. Otherwise, you’re arguing against a position I didn’t take.And you also said "I will wait to see what develops". After years of sparring with you I can confidently say that if you didn't like it you would absolutely be up in arms screaming about that terrible Trump creature violating all moral rules and every other legal one.
LOL A direct quote from you post. Perhaps the Trump fairy has gotten to your computer and operating it for you?
Your head probably exploded shortly after posting this. Just before geting here, I'm listening to the President say, 'we're there now, we're running things until ...'
Holy cow! I'm sure you've heard the rest by now. We're running Venezuela now, and we're gonna capitalize the hell out of its oil before we turn it over to someone we like.
The Trump Corollary ... my head nearly exploded, so I'm sure yours did. ;-)
GAI took my car in for servicing so I don't know what Trump said yet, I am waiting on the reporting.
So now we know - Trump did what Putin couldn't do to Ukraine, he has conquered Venezuela, mostly bloodlessly it seems. So yes, my head is exploding. I bet you MAGA's is to.
Now, any reports on how the Venezuelan military is taking it?
"probably with an eye on their oil"
Probably?? It is already "the oil that was stolen from us". It was obvious. And they said so before. Everything else are silly excuses for the gullibles.
Btw, good timing? Perfect distraction from the deposition videos.-"Mr. President, you said that the US is going to run Venezuela, so, who is in power right now?"
-Well, we're going to be running it with a group and we're going to make sure it's run properly. We're going to rebuild the oil infrastructure which will cost billions of dollars which will be paid for by the oil companies directly. They will be reimbursed for what they’re doing. And we’re going to get the oil flowing the way it should be..."
After questions from reporters about whether the U.S. running Venezuela will involve military personnel on the ground, the president said, "We’re not afraid of boots on the ground."
"We don’t mind saying it, but we’re going to make sure that that country is run properly. We’re not doing this in vain," he added.
Trump said that it wouldn't cost the U.S. anything to "run" Venezuela, pointing to the country's oil production.
"It won’t cost us anything, because the money coming out of the ground is very substantial," Trump said.
But, but the drugs?Your comment seems to assume that Trump’s focus is solely on oil. Did it occur to you that this also involves drugs, specifically reducing the volume trafficked around the world? It’s no longer speculation; Trump has openly stated that the U.S. will be producing and sourcing oil from Venezuela, and he also explained the reasoning behind why oil would take precedence in this case. I haven’t seen that reasoning acknowledged in this discussion. Instead, the conversation appears dominated by hyperbolic, alarmist reactions rather than the broader context he actually laid out. This kind of attitude, in my view, is simplistic and unfortunate.
The Trump Corollary. As a concept, it has been described as an extension of the Monroe Doctrine—a logical extension that sounds right to me.
This Venezuela event, and the announced direction of our involvement, seem like a good thing to me.
GAI also believe this could be a positive development for both the U.S. and the people of Venezuela. I’m still a bit in shock. I thought I might be more accustomed to events like this by now. Somehow, I have a feeling we’re likely to see many more developments in the days ahead.
As Ken might say, 'this is a Big Picture event,' and from the "Big Picture" perch of the Doctrine's accepted validity, I like the Trump Corollary.
The conspiracy theorists were half right: a new world order is coming, but it's not the one they thought, and we're announcing our place (and piece).
GAYes, it does seem clear this isn’t the “new world” someone like Obama may have had in mind. The real question is whether it’s what we want, or simply what we’re left with, and that’s something I think we’ll all have to grapple with. I have mixed feelings, but I did sign on for a break from the status quo, which, in my view, was pulling us away from the 250-year framework that built this country. At times it felt like we were being led down a road I never wanted to be on. I value what we built here, and despite its flaws, I still prefer our system of governance over any alternative I’ve seen. "Buckle up, we are in for a bumpy ride."
No, it is not what I want and consider the attack as an abomination. While the status quo could stand improvement what is supposed to be a replacement is FAR worse. More imperialism? Iraq redux? This has become a society that I no longer am comfortable being associated with.
We on the left must be compelled to take this as far as necessary to get him out of power. I like Obama’s vision much more.
After this, there is nothing that I would put past him, even the invasion of Greenland…..A lot of anti-Trump folks are having trouble condemning Maduro's apprenhension as an abomination. What part do you object to?
I haven't heard any details about what's next (the "replacement"), so what have you heard that is worse than a dictatorship?
What if the "replacement" was a plan for a prospering capitalistic, and democratic Venezuela (the mentioned goals)? Are you still against trying?
The Western Hemisphere is our neighborhood. Not to own, but to protect. A win-win. I think the idea of a Trump Corollary is a smart one.
You would probably be more comfortable with the folks who will be fighting over their place in the Northern Hemisphere.
GAGA,
“This morning, President Trump unilaterally launched a regime-change war against Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, ordering strikes on multiple military targets in the country and seizing its leader and his wife. They were “captured and flown out of the country,” Trump stated on Truth Social. “They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts,”
“After Pearl Harbor, Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed Congress and asked it to declare war on Japan. Prior to waging regime-change wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, George W. Bush sought and secured authorizations to use military force. Those presidents asked for permission to conduct hostilities because the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, unambiguously vests the war power in Congress. And Congress voted to authorize force in part because a majority of Americans favored war.”
“But these accusations and the indictment wouldn’t seem to constitute legal justification. Overnight, multiple members of Congress pointed out that Trump’s new war is illegal because he received no permission to wage it, and it was not an emergency response to an attack on our homeland or the imminent threat of one.”
The United States needs to stay out of Venezuela,” Tulsi Gabbard, his director of national intelligence, declared in 2019. “Let the Venezuelan people determine their future. We don't want other countries to choose our leaders—so we have to stop trying to choose theirs.”
——-
Self determination of people is a principle not just slogan to be used at your convenience.
——-
The paragraphs above are excerpts from an article that eloquently expresses my “beef” with Trump. No one is saying that Maduro is an angel, no more than Hussain of Iraq was. But the thing that I don’t like about conservative reasoning is that in their minds if the target of their ire is subjectively villainous enough, due process can be tossed aside just to get the bad guy. America’s so called help is always based on its own political and economic self interests.
You folks never seem to understand that if he is allowed to circumvent the proper procedures prior to war, is there any reason for him to respect any boundaries? I hear rumbling about IRAN now while the GOP are oblivious, sitting with their thumbs in their butts.
The “what ifs” are irrelevant, GA. This nation building stuff is a bunch of crap. I don’t see today’s Iraq as the epitome of democratic governance. I do not accept interfering in the affairs of other nations just because we think that we could build a better mouse trap.
While the Western Hemisphere is our neighborhood, that does not mean that we are free to meddle and interfere in the affairs of other nations within it. James Monroe and Theodore Roosevelt are long since dead and their ideas have gone with them. So, I continue to oppose anything Trump, there goes that word again…..
“You would probably be more comfortable with the folks who will be fighting over their place in the Northern Hemisphere.”?????????The 'Northern Hemisphere' crack was relative to a NWO train-of-thought.
It goes like this: the USA is the dominant power in the entire Western hemisphere. China, Russia, and Europe are the regionally co-dominant powers of the Eastern hemisphere.
Ending the war in Ukraine will empower Russia to the detriment of Europe. Leaving the UK with a reduced sphere of influence.
Visualize a flattened global map as you ponder that 'battle in the hemispheres ' thought.
Maintaining a neighborhood watch is in our national interest. Think of it like Harris's border-control outreach to the poor nations that were the source of our border problems. Change their lives at home, she said. Help them with the corruption and hopelessness, she said. Then they won't be so driven to crash our borders, she said.
Well, think of this event in that light. The news has already highlighted the happiness of Venezuelans in Florida and NYC — parties in the streets, and making a big deal about how many
It might not be true, but it is plausible.
GAAgreed, it certainly is plausible but it takes the right man or woman leader to pull it off and I don't think Trump has a clue as how to do that. I simply don't believe that is his goal.
Pick up on this thought ...
A lot is being made of his snub of the opposition leader in exile, as well as his comment about Rubio speaking with the Venezuelan VP.
Remember the criticisms of our deBathification of the Iraqi government? It's been cited as a major error.
Could the reach-out to the VP be an effort to avoid a repeat of that mistake in Venezuela?
As a side note, a lot of experts are saying the "oil" explanation is for the public, the real explanation is in the geopolitics of Russia, Iran, and China's involvement in the country.
First, it was the claimed China influenece in Panama. Then China and rare earths in Venezuela, along with Iran's IRG building/enhancing a drone plant there, and topped with claims of Russian advisors on the ground training Maduro's military.
Could it be that we don't want Venezuela, but we don't want it controlled by our enemies either? That makes sense if his claimed goal is true.
*shrug* I'm good with things so far. I'm onboard with the Trump Corollary. It's the real world.
GAYou have indicated that his goal (in your opinion) is to grab the oil in Venezuela. But what are you using to form that opinion? Where has Trump marched in and stolen minerals or other materials? What country has he invaded in order to steal from them?
If this is the first time, how do you come to your opinion without any history of such actions at all? Just because you don't like him?Because they said so before, during and after?
“But these accusations and the indictment wouldn’t seem to constitute legal justification. Overnight, multiple members of Congress pointed out that Trump’s new war is illegal because he received no permission to wage it, and it was not an emergency response to an attack on our homeland or the imminent threat of one.”
This is my problem, GA. We can all always just speculate on what the results will be in the aftermath of the invasion.
Boy, are we going back in tine or what, I recall American interference in Haiti with troops on the ground a century ago. Venezuela may well find out that being reduced to an American protectorate may prove not to their advantage. Conservatives are always into domination and control…
I doubt that Harris in responding to aid/outreach would have conducted a war outside the required congressional approval. So, it is a poor analogy if I can say so myself.Speculating is all we can do. The Ifs are all we have.
My speculation is that, in today's geopolitics, the premise of The Trump Corollary is the best path.
Relative to Venezuela, which in this issue is geographically analogous to Cuba, the claims of Russian, Iranian, and Chinese influence are true, in essence, if not degree.
Pres. Trump has planted the flag: Not in our neighborhood.
Wait, wait. Of course you will poopah that, but the next few news days might give one of us some direction.
GA ;-)For a recent historical perspective we put boots, in addition to bombs, on the ground three other times in recent history: Bush I - Gulf War, Bush I - Panama invasion, and Bush II - Iraq. Only Panama did not have prior congressional approval, but Bush I did send the required after action report.
What is sad is that is the norm for America going all the way back to the Indian Wars. We would like to think we are a moral country and we say that a lot, but bottom line we are not - and this Trump thing is just the latest instance of it.
Presidents have often hidden aggression such as kidnapping the leader (elected or unelected) of a sovereign nation on a moral sounding pretext such as drug and gun running, when the real goal is to confiscate their oil. (There is much evidence acquisition of oil was behind our invasion of Iraq using WMD as a false pretext)
It makes me sad to know that is who we really are as a nation, but it makes me happy that there are of lot of us who still want to do the right thing and live up to our own propaganda of righteousness.I have to push back on this; your list of “recent historical” U.S. interventions is selective and misleading. You mention Bush I (Gulf War), Bush I (Panama), and Bush II (Iraq), but ignore major conflicts where Americans actually died and were maimed, such as:
Vietnam War – Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon
Afghanistan – Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden
Iraq (2011 withdrawal, insurgency handling) – Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama
History is not partisan; both Republicans and Democrats have presided over costly wars, and lives were lost under both.
Calling Trump’s actions “kidnapping” or presuming he will bring in troops and start a war in Venezuela is pure speculation. This was a targeted operation against a factual indicted criminals, not a declaration of war. Maduro is a sanctioned, indicted criminal with a bounty on his head for drug trafficking, corruption, and human rights abuses. These are serious crimes, not fabricated pretexts.
Facts matter. Selective history and exaggerated assumptions do a disservice to understanding the real issues: Maduro’s regime caused immense suffering, and Trump’s actions are legally and morally grounded.ESO, I found this article that provides support
to why this current incursion by Trump is dissimilar to previous Presidents who were accused of taking liberties in the same fashion.
And all the more reason that with someone like Trump in Congress, the War Powers Act needs to be strengthened even though a tyrant like Trump would probably veto such legislation circumscribing his power and authority if the Dems can capture both houses of Congress next fall. Trump has demonstrated an irresponsible and ‘reckless” style previously unprecedented.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … ela-attackYep, that about sums it up. The cowardly Republicans have no desire to follow the Constitution.
One quote several here keep leaning on is this:
“…Maduro’s arrest was within ‘the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack.’”
For those who bother to read the Constitution: it says no such thing.
Yes, Article II makes the president:
head of the Executive Branch, and
Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
But Article II does not say, “therefore the president can initiate military hostilities wherever he wants, whenever he wants, and call it ‘inherent authority.’”
Let’s look at what Article II actually contains:
Article II
Section 1: how the president becomes president.
Section 2: commander-in-chief; pardons; appointments; treaties (with Senate consent).
Section 3: “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” (Hard to do when you’re treating laws like speed limits.)
Section 4: impeachment.
That’s it. Not a word about this magical phrase:
“inherent authority under Article II … to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack.”
Now here’s the part people keep skipping:
Article I, Section 8 says Congress has the power:
“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water…”
In layman’s terms, that means:
Congress decides when we go from “tense situation” to war or war-like escalation.
Congress decides whether the U.S. can authorize seizures/captures at sea and under what rules.
Congress sets the legal framework for “captures” and conflict with foreign entities.
And Article I doesn’t stop there — it also gives Congress the powers to raise and fund armies, maintain a navy, make rules for the military, and control the money. In other words: Congress is supposed to be involved when you’re using national force, not just the president’s gut feelings.
Now, to be fair (because facts matter): the president can act fast to defend Americans in a sudden emergency. That’s common sense and historically recognized. But that’s very different from claiming a blank check to initiate hostilities, run operations, seize targets, or “send a message” whenever it’s politically convenient.
So here’s my simple question to the folks quoting “inherent authority”:
Please show me where the Constitution authorizes Trump to do what he’s doing vis-à-vis Venezuela.
Not a press release. Not a talking point. Not “Article II vibes.”
Where is the constitutional text — or the congressional authorization — that makes it lawful?
Isn't a shame that conservatives don't have clue about what the Rule of Law means except as it applies to immigrants and seemingly nothing else?Isn't a shame that conservatives don't have clue about what the Rule of Law means
They do, they just dont care.
Btw, almost word by word.
https://youtu.be/XUSiCEx3e-0?si=cSggwZo … -&t=21Conservatives continue to irritate me with their selective references to the letter of the law, those that they never really comply with in any case, particularly if interpretation is to their disadvantage. They just see black hats and white hats, the subtle nuances reflecting the reality simply goes over their heads. They make up stuff regarding the content of the Constitution as they really don’t believe that they need to be accurate as they flippantly disregard the principles behind our founding documents and the importance of our adherence to them.
It was once after Obama’s election in 2008 that the late Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted Obama to fail. Well, I say the same thing regarding Trump, nothing good can come from anything he says or does, not from what I see so far.Mike took the time to lay out the relevant legal facts on this issue. I hope you’ll take a moment to review them and consider what the law actually says. Too many conversations on social media ignore the legal framework entirely, and that lack of grounding only distorts the discussion. The constant hair-on-fire reaction doesn’t lead to a productive conversation.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4392871I will and I will get back with you. Mike has a tendency to omit contrary perspectives when making his points. Let’s learn about the “rest of the story”?
Here is some more “relevant” facts:
The Grey Area: Unilateral Action
Repelling Attacks: Presidents have a limited, implied power to use force to repel sudden attacks on the U.S..
Historical Practice: Presidents have often deployed troops and engaged in military operations without a formal declaration of war, such as in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq (though Congress passed subsequent Authorizations for Use of Military Force - AUMFs).
Debate & Controversy: This practice sparks debate, with lawmakers arguing it undermines Congress's constitutional authority. Some argue limited, short-term actions don't require a declaration, while others contend significant engagements need congressional approval.
Key Takeaway
While the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid the President from initiating limited force (especially in self-defense), the power to formally declare war rests with Congress, creating tension and ongoing legal/political debate over the President's authority to launch unilateral attacks.
Yes, I would say that the area is a grey one that needs to more strictly defined. The idea is or should be that Presidential unilateral military action under an exigency or actual or imminent attack is justified. So, now that we have the Maduro, what gives the US authority to be an occupying power, Trump was interested in more than just taking Maduro from the world stage. Is he, under his corollary, anxious to steal the resources as well? The vemnuzuala petroleum industry made be poorly run by expert analysis, but it still THEIR industry not belonging to neither Trump nor avaricious corporate vultures waiting to exploit and take advantage. Isn’t that what they always do? Without some sort of restraint built who is to say that Trump could not order an attack on Canada with providing any justification? Trust, but verify and corroborate.
The claim that Trump was attacking drug peddlers from fishing boats sounds specious to me. The idea is that unilateral action should be the exception rather than the rule, Trump and Whiskey Pete has never provided compelling evidence of the cargo of the boats or their destination. So, it’s not good enough.
So, will Congress pass subsequent Authorizations for Use of Military Force - AUMFs). as it did for other President that obtained even after the fact?
So what is next, threats regarding Cuba, Iran, Columbia, Greenland?Denmark, Mexico? Do we go in on the pretext that their leaders are wanted for international crimes as well, what will be the excuse?
When the Article 2 Section 2 was written it assumed that those placed in this lofty office would be responsible men only. Who 250 years ago could have anticipated a man like Donald Trump at the helm? So where are the guardrails to protect from the excesses of a demented madman?I understand the concerns you’re raising, but it’s important to separate what is legally justified from what is purely speculative. First, the operation involving Maduro appears legally covered under the narrowly defined powers of the President. Multiple legal experts have concluded that the action was limited, targeted, and framed as a law-enforcement/self-defense operation, not a broad occupation or resource grab. That distinction is critical.
Presidents have long exercised unilateral authority in exigent situations, as the historical record shows. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq involved actions without prior declarations of war. The Constitution allows the President to act in the face of imminent threats or emergencies, and that is what many argue applies here.
Regarding the fear of “what’s next” or potential overreach, this is why context and intent matter. Trump’s stated objective was to neutralize a specific threat. Unlike the speculative scenarios you list, Cuba, Iran, Canada, the operation was confined, not an open-ended occupation, and was tightly framed legally. There are also oversight mechanisms: Congress could still weigh in through AUMFs or other measures if future actions were proposed.
Finally, while Article 2, Section 2 assumes responsible leadership, that doesn’t negate the fact that the law provides for immediate action in emergencies. The concern about excesses is valid in theory, but in practice, the Maduro operation was carefully circumscribed. Claims of unilateral resource theft or unprovable threats from fishing boats are speculative, not grounded in the documented intent or execution of the mission.
In short: the law allows for measured, targeted action in exigent circumstances, and this operation fits within that framework. Speculation about future actions doesn’t change the legality of what was done here and now.We are going to disagree once again, but I will leave you with another example of Trump’s bullish!t….
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/f … 5000-lives
So, if we don’t have any palatable evidence at all regarding the attacks on the boats, why should I believe that “exigency” was at all involved in the decision to attack Venuzuala?Overall, the piece makes valid points about the difficulty of proving Trump’s claim and the implausibility of the specific numbers he cited, but it presents a very rigid interpretation that treats an inherently predictive statement as if it could be verified with exact figures. The commonsense takeaway is that the claim is highly speculative, mathematically questionable, and lacks publicly verifiable evidence, but it is not entirely outside the realm of possibility that intercepting drug shipments prevents deaths; it’s just impossible to quantify with precision.
I had to come back with this:
But why cite implausible numbers? It is far beyond just being an arithmetic error.
There is a difference in not having exact figures verses proposing implausible ones.
Preventing deaths is not the same as exaggerating the numbers and using that for justification to assault vessels in international waters. Someone that would give me information such as this I would have to consider as not knowing what he is talking about.
Shar,
Anyone who has taken any time to see what Maduro has done to his country would be horrified.
Why does the left have this obsession with loving dictators? They have always had an unnatural obsession with loving dictators.
Years ago democrat representatives went to Cuba and just had a love fest with fidel castro. A rather brutal dictator.
This is from Committee on Foreign Affairs from 2012. It only got worse in Cuba.
"Cuba’s political prisoners are held, together with the rest of the
prison population, in substandard and profoundly unhealthy conditions where they face physical and sexual abuse. Most prisoners
suffer from malnutrition and reside in overcrowded cells without
appropriate medical attention. In fact, political prisoners face selective denial of medical care.
Cuban prisons fail to segregate those held in pre-trial detention
from long-term violent inmates, and minors are often mixed in with
adults. Such are the conditions opponents of Castro’s regime have
faced over the years, and some of them have faced it for decades."
https://chrissmith.house.gov/uploadedfi … soners.pdf
The Venezuelan people are celebrating around the word. Over 8 million people left their home of Venezuela because Maduro was such a horrible dictator. Some estimates have it up to a third of the population left.
The left isn't worried about liberating the people of Venezuela from a brutal dictator that murdered many people and destroyed their country's economy. No...they're upset that President Donald Trump removed a brutal dictator and gave hope to millions of Venezuelans around the world.
They are so focused on all the wrong things. The left is extremely confused on how the world really works.Mike, I completely agree with you. Anyone who has looked at what Maduro has done to Venezuela would be horrified. The mass exodus, the extreme poverty, the repression of political opponents, and the collapse of basic services paint a devastating picture of life under his regime. And you’re right, the left often seems to have this strange soft spot for dictators, celebrating them diplomatically while ignoring the suffering they impose on their own people.
One thing I would add is that this pattern isn’t just about admiration—it’s also about selective outrage. While they condemn certain foreign leaders, they tend to downplay or excuse the actions of leaders who align with their ideological preferences, even when those leaders are systematically oppressing their citizens. That inconsistency means that millions of Venezuelans who have fled, who have been stripped of opportunities, and who face daily threats to their safety often get little attention from the very people who claim to care about human rights. Highlighting the actual human cost, families torn apart, children denied education, and the staggering brain drain, helps us understand why the world is cheering for any move that restores hope and stability, like Trump’s actions against Maduro.
It’s about recognizing the victims first, not playing politics, a dangerous mindset that turns criminals into heroes or casts them as the ones being wronged.“The left isn't worried about liberating the people of Venezuela from a brutal dictator that murdered many people and destroyed their country's economy. No...they're upset that President Donald Trump removed a brutal dictator and gave hope to millions of Venezuelans around the world.”
———
Funny. this idea of liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein back in 03 had much of the same themes.
While you might not remember, I have seen this movie before.Cred,
So bad you can't see the difference.
The US military did not invade Venezuela. They did a precise military operation and removed their leader. It was completed in a matter of hours with no US military casualties.
Iraq lasted over a decade with tens of thousand of dead and wounded US military personnel.
HUGE difference.The CIA and all its surreptitious forces could have surgically removed Maduro without all the military fanfare, pomp and circumstance. But there were over 40 civilian casualties on the Venezuelan side. Hind sight is always 20/20, Mike. No one knew in 2003 that the Iraq thing would turn into a quagmire. And I have no reason to believe that this incursion wont eventually turn into another one. So, the difference is 6 of one and one half dozen of the other.
This argument assumes facts that simply aren’t in evidence and glosses over the most important reality: Maduro was not sitting alone in a room waiting to be “surgically removed.” He was protected by layers of military, intelligence, and armed loyalist security, including units whose sole purpose is regime survival. Any attempt to quietly “snatch” him without overwhelming force would have dramatically increased the risk to U.S. personnel and almost certainly failed, or spiraled into a prolonged firefight anyway.
The idea that the CIA could just slip in and out ignores how hardened authoritarian regimes actually work. These leaders deliberately surround themselves with armed buffers precisely to deter covert action. Putting a small team into that environment would have been reckless, not restrained. Force protection matters. We don’t gamble American lives to preserve the illusion of delicacy.
As for civilian casualties, every loss of innocent life is tragic, but conflating a targeted operation against a heavily guarded criminal regime with the 2003 Iraq invasion is a false equivalence. Iraq involved hundreds of thousands of troops, open-ended nation-building, and no clear exit strategy. That is not what happened here, nor what is being described.
And hindsight cuts both ways. What we do know, because we’ve seen it repeatedly, is that half-measures and timidity often create the very quagmires critics later decry. Overwhelming, decisive action designed to minimize duration and uncertainty is not the same thing as blundering into a war.
Calling this “six of one, half dozen of the other” ignores scale, intent, execution, and risk calculus. Those differences aren’t cosmetic, they’re decisive.
It is being reported that this strike was being planned for many months.Sharlee, you are right about the CIA thing, enough independent inquiries on my part support your take on this matter. I will have to stop watching so many “Mission Impossible” reruns.
Half measures and timidity could just as easily become reckless and dangerously provocative.
And it really to early to determine what the result of this incursion will be .
Mike took the time, clearly, but the "fact" he laid out didn't apply to his situation. Just because he listed them doesn't make them relevant.
I’ve read and independently fact-checked the claims he presented. They are well supported by credible sources. I would encourage anyone reading this to do what I did, take the time to research before dismissing them as inaccurate. In my experience, Mike is thoughtful and diligent, and he consistently does careful research before posting.
Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them irrelevant.
A lot of this reads more like assumption than reality. First, Trump’s actions in Venezuela are being widely reported as a limited, targeted operation to remove a dictator and disrupt criminal networks, not a full-scale “regime-change war” like Iraq or Afghanistan. Framing it as if due process was tossed aside ignores that Maduro is already a sanctioned criminal and that international law allows for apprehending individuals involved in human rights violations and global crimes.
Venezuela plays a significant role in the global drug trade, which adds an important dimension to these actions. Its geographic position next to Colombia, the world’s largest producer of coca, makes it a key transit hub for cocaine, with much of Colombia’s production moving through Venezuelan territory on its way to Europe, the Caribbean, and other markets. Reports suggest that around a quarter of global cocaine passes through or is processed in Venezuela. Beyond serving as a corridor, parts of the country reportedly host coca processing labs and trafficking infrastructure. Complicating matters, allegations of state involvement and corruption, often linked to the so-called “Cartel of the Suns” within the military and government, mean that Venezuelan officials have sometimes facilitated or profited from trafficking operations, using state resources to move narcotics and evade enforcement. While Venezuela isn’t the primary producer of cocaine, its role as a safe haven and logistics hub makes it critically important in the trade. Protecting the Western Hemisphere from these networks is a pragmatic security concern, not imperialism.
Equating this to historical wars requiring congressional approval is misleading. The Constitution vests the President with powers to conduct limited military operations, particularly against threats to U.S. interests or international stability. Not every action requires a formal declaration of war. Opposing intervention on principle without examining context or consequences can itself be dangerous. Maduro is not innocent; he has a 50 million price on his head. Doing nothing has costs for the region and the U.S. alike. National sovereignty is important, but it doesn’t mean turning a blind eye to criminal regimes that harm millions of people. Once again, this seems like a case where the criminal is being framed as the victim. It is very hard for me to understand this new phenomenon.You write "First, Trump’s actions in Venezuela are being widely reported as a limited, targeted operation to remove a dictator and disrupt criminal networks, not a full-scale “regime-change war” like Iraq or Afghanistan." LOL.
Square that with:
" Trump said the U.S. would “run the country” until there’s a “safe… transition,” without laying out a clear governing mechanism or timetable. - Sounds like regime change to me.
* In the same remarks, he framed a big part of the U.S. role as rebuilding Venezuela’s oil infrastructure—saying it would cost “billions,” be paid by oil companies, and that the U.S. would ensure the country is “run properly,” explicitly leaving open “boots on the ground” if needed. - Sounds like regime change to me.
* AP’s reporting on the same events describes Trump saying the U.S. would tap Venezuela’s oil reserves (including selling to other nations) while the U.S. “runs” Venezuela temporarily. - Sounds like regime change to me.
You write "Framing it as if due process was tossed aside ignores that Maduro is already a sanctioned criminal and that international law allows for apprehending individuals involved in human rights violations and global crimes." - What is also 'ignored" is that Trump kidnapped the leader of a sovereign nation. But I guess we live in an 'end justifies the means' world today.
You write "Venezuela plays a significant role in the global drug trade, which adds an important dimension to these actions. Its geographic position ..." - SO, given that Putin is guilty of much more heinous crimes, Trump should go kidnap him? Let's have a little consistency here rather than trying to excuse what is an illegal action.
You write "Equating this to historical wars requiring congressional approval is misleading" - That means you didn't read what I wrote. You will notice that what I wrote indicated presidents have a propensity to act on their own without Congress being involved.
You write "Equating this to historical wars requiring congressional approval is misleading. The Constitution vests the President with powers to conduct limited military operations, particularly against threats to U.S. interests or international stability. " - ChatGPT has a good rebuttal to that one.
That argument is doing two tricks at once: it downplays the scale (“limited”) and inflates the constitutional claim (“the President can do this whenever U.S. interests are involved”). Neither move holds up cleanly.
First, the Constitution gives Congress—not the President—the power to declare war, and the modern “President can do limited operations” theory is at best a contested practice, not a blank check. The War Powers Resolution was written precisely because presidents kept stretching “commander in chief” into open-ended war-making; it requires consultation and reporting and it assumes Congress must authorize sustained hostilities. Calling something “limited” doesn’t make it constitutionally self-justifying—especially if it involves combat, strikes, raids, and regime-control claims rather than a quick evacuation or rescue.
Second, “threats to U.S. interests” is not a constitutional standard. If that’s the test, then anything can be justified, because every president can define “U.S. interests” however he wants. The real limiting questions are: Were U.S. forces introduced into hostilities? Was there prior authorization? Was Congress notified under War Powers? Did Congress appropriate/endorse afterward? That’s why Kosovo, Libya, and similar episodes still triggered major constitutional disputes—they were “limited,” yet still legally and politically contested.
Finally, the moment you move from “limited operation” to “we’re going to run Venezuela” or treat a country’s oil as “reimbursement,” you’ve left the world of narrow, defensive actions and entered the world of regime change / occupation logic—the very category the Framers expected Congress to decide, because it creates exactly the kind of open-ended war, retaliation, and blowback the executive is least reliable at predicting.
What you are arguing is that a president has the constitutional power to militarily strike ANY nation for ANY reason at ANY time he sees fit. Your only guardrail is your "trust" that they will do the right thing. That is what The Constitution vests the President with powers to conduct limited military operations, particularly against threats to U.S. interests or international stability. actually means.
Saying "National sovereignty is important, but it doesn’t mean turning a blind eye to criminal regimes that harm millions of people." is fine if you are talking about diplomacy. But when it comes to using force, that is a very dangerous position to take because it allows ANY nation to strike ANY OTHER nation for ANY reason it deems fit so long as they articulate the harm.
Analogy: Canada sees, properly so many people think, that the Trump regime is criminal. It is a given that they see how Trump is destroying the lives of millions of people here in America. Your theory, therefore, gives Canada permission to go kidnap Trump.I have covered all of your points... I just don't ruminate. I think those that do --- well, I can't say.
Shar,
Liberals are if nothing but predictable.
They are angry because the President Donald Trump removed a ruthless dictator that had committed massive human rights violations. Causing 1/3 of the population of his country to leave and made his country a staging ground for China, Iran, and Russia.
They love dictators because at the heart of liberalism is a desire to be the dictators of others.
Read about the horrors of Maduro from Amnesty International
Venezuela 2024
Protests following the announcement of the results of the presidential election in July were violently repressed with excessive use of force and possible extrajudicial executions. Thousands of arbitrary arrests were carried out against political opponents, human rights defenders and journalists; hundreds of children were among those detained. Detainees including women and children were allegedly tortured. Detention conditions continued to deteriorate. Impunity prevailed for human rights violations. The ICC authorized the resumption of the investigation into alleged crimes against humanity. Journalists remained at risk of arbitrary detention and harassment and the government continued its attempts to obstruct independent media. Human rights NGOs were threatened with closure and human rights defenders remained at significant risk. By the end of the year more than 7.89 million Venezuelans had fled the country. Oil spills at El Palito refinery in Carabobo state severely impacted marine fauna. High levels of poverty persisted and people lacked access to adequate food, water and healthcare. Violence against women persisted and abortion remained criminalized. There was no progress in ensuring the rights of LGBTI people. Illegal mining and violence threatened Indigenous Peoples’ rights in the Orinoco Mining Arc area. OHCHR staff were expelled from the country. The mandate of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela was renewed.
Background
The presidential election in July was fraught with controversy. Opposition parties to the government of Nicolás Maduro faced numerous obstacles to participating in the election, including obstructed registration, arbitrary detention of their members and torture.
Despite international pressure on the electoral authorities to publish detailed electoral results, including from the EU and other states in the region, such as Brazil and Colombia, the government rejected any form of inquiry and continued persecuting political opponents.
The Supreme Tribunal of Justice validated the appointment of Nicolás Maduro for a new term as president. Presidential candidate Edmundo González Urrutia, who had contested the results, fled the country in September and was granted asylum in Spain.
In February, staff of the , the UN human rights office, OHCHR were expelled from the country after reporting on Rocío San Miguel’s disappearance. By the end of the year, a small team of OHCHR staff had been readmitted into Venezuela.
The mandate of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela was renewed for two years by the UN Human Rights Council, although the authorities had not granted access to the country by the end of the year. In October the mission published a report denouncing the continuation of a repression-state policy and crimes against humanity, with emphasis on the electoral and post-electoral crisis.
Right to life
Between 28 July and 1 August, immediately after the presidential election, at least 24 people died as a result of the government’s repression of protests against the appointment of Nicolás Maduro. Most of these killings could amount to extrajudicial executions. Two of the victims were children and one police officer was reportedly killed. All but one of the deaths resulted from gunshot wounds. Human rights organizations pointed at the Bolivarian National Guard, Bolivarian National Police, army and pro-government civilian armed groups known as “colectivos” as the perpetrators of these killings.
Arbitrary detention and unfair trials
Since the announcement of the presidential election results, the authorities intensified their policy of repression, including widespread arbitrary detentions on political grounds, enforced disappearances and torture. According to official figures, more than 2,000 people were detained after 28 July. By October, the NGO Foro Penal confirmed more than 1,900 of the detentions, of which 129 were of children. By the end of the year, the government had freed 1,369 people and detained 15 others. However, hundreds of people remained arbitrarily deprived of their liberty, including three children.
These mass arrests were carried out without either warrants or those detained being caught committing an illegal act. Many detainees were subjected to enforced disappearance for several days. They were forced to have court-appointed lawyers who lacked independence. Families of the detainees were denied information about their whereabouts for several days, including in cases where children were detained. The detainees were charged with generic terrorism-related offences and the hearings were conducted by counterterrorism courts, which lacked impartiality and independence. As of December, 221 women were still in detention.
Jesús Armas and Luis Tarbay, activists from the opposition political party Vente Venezuela, were arbitrarily arrested by unidentified individuals in Caracas on 11 and 24 December respectively. By the end of the year around 160 members of Vente Venezuela and 34 members of Primero Justicia, another opposition political party, were in detention or forcibly disappeared.
Between April and the end of the year, six members of Vente Venezuela requested asylum in the Argentinian embassy in the capital, Caracas. In August, after the government ceased diplomatic relations with Argentina, the Brazilian government took over the protection of the premises. By the end of the year, Venezuela had not granted safe conduct to the individuals to leave the country.
The government launched a new function in its mobile application VenApp to enable users to report government critics in the aftermath of the July presidential election. Denunciations via VenApp were supposedly responsible for many of the detentions after the election-related protests.1
The Attorney General announced the arrest of a prosecutor on charges of “intentional delay or omission of functions” for refusing to prosecute detainees for terrorism crimes following post-election protests.
Torture and other ill-treatment
The UN Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela reported allegations of torture of people detained before and after the presidential election.
Human rights organizations denounced torture and other ill-treatment in detention centres, including beatings, suffocation, electric shocks and threats, and sexual violence against women.
Children arbitrarily detained after the election were tortured to force them to incriminate themselves by stating on video that they had participated in the protests, according to relatives. In many cases children were detained with adults.
Searches at a women’s prison, the National Institute for Women’s Guidance, were reported. Videos shared on social media in August, recorded from outside the detention centre, captured the sound of women screaming that they were being tortured. Human rights organizations reported allegations of ill-treatment in La Crisálida detention centre, where women were detained after the post-election protests.
Inhumane detention conditions
Prison conditions continued to deteriorate. The Venezuelan Prisons Observatory reported that inmates in Tocorón prison received only two glasses of water per day. Police cells continued to be used as prisons and, by September, overall prison overcrowding had exceeded 184% of capacity.
Protests continued to take place in pretrial detention centres due to procedural delays, overcrowding and lack of healthcare, according to NGOs.
Impunity
Impunity for human rights violations and crimes under international law remained widespread. A report from the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela expressed deep concerns about the state’s lack of willingness to prosecute those suspected of criminal responsibility.
According to the civil society organization Venezuelan Programme for Education Action on Human Rights, six officers of the Bolivarian National Police Special Actions Force were sentenced in June for participating in an extrajudicial execution five years previously. There were still no convictions for 95% of killings during peaceful demonstrations between 2014 and 2024.
Venezuela was ranked lowest globally (142nd) in the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2024.
Right to truth, justice and reparation
The Appeals Chamber of the ICC rejected the Venezuelan authorities’ appeal and confirmed the “decision authorizing the resumption of the investigation” into alleged crimes against humanity committed since at least 2014. Despite the lack of progress, the ICC Office of the Prosecutor inaugurated a new in-country office in Caracas “focused on complementarity activities and engagement with the national authorities”.
In September, a federal appeals court in Argentina ordered the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and minister of interior Diosdado Cabello, among others, for alleged crimes against humanity committed since 2014.
Freedom of expression and assembly
Throughout the year protests demanding economic and social rights occurred across the country. According to the Venezuelan Observatory on Social Conflict, between 29 and 30 July, 915 protests were registered, of which 138 were violently repressed. The presence of colectivos attacking and threatening protesters was recorded.
In the weeks before and after the presidential election, the authorities increasingly criticized demonstrations to generate fear and crush dissent.
At least 12 journalists were arbitrarily detained and attacks continued against independent media. The NGO Public Space registered 507 violations of the right to freedom of expression from January to September. The government continued shutting down radio stations and hindering access to social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter). The authorities reportedly continued hacking and phishing the Instagram accounts of journalists and citizens.
Human rights defenders
Human rights defenders remained seriously at risk. Parliament passed legislation allowing the government to control, monitor, and ultimately close down human rights NGOs. The law entered into force in December imposing deadlines on NGOs to register and fulfil the requirements of the law in order to be able to work in the country legally.
Human rights defender Javier Tarazona remained in detention. In February, human rights defender Rocío San Miguel was forcibly disappeared for three days alongside members of her family. She was later charged with terrorism, denied access to legal representation, and remained in detention at the end of the year. Activist, human rights defender and journalist Carlos Julio Rojas was detained in April and remained in detention at year’s end.
Three human rights defenders – Kennedy Tejeda, Edward Ocariz and Henry Gómez – were detained after the election. Kennedy Tejeda remained in detention at the end of the year.
The NGO Centre for Defenders and Justice recorded 979 attacks and security incidents against human rights defenders during 2024, an increase compared with 524 such events in 2023.
LGBTI people’s rights
LGBTI rights continued to be neglected. The Venezuelan Observatory of LGBTIQ+ Violence reported that 68 LGBTIQ+ women had been victims of discrimination or violence.
Sexual and gender-based violence
During the first half of the year, the Centre for Justice and Peace documented 58 femicides and 27 attempted femicides. The Network of Women Peacebuilders reported that 71% of women had suffered psychological violence and 41% physical violence in 2024.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/ame … venezuela/Boy, you could not be more wrong. Liberals are happy Maduro has been stopped.
WHAT WE ARE UNHAPPY ABOUT is the Rule of Law was broken to do it.
In a Putin-Trump-MAGA world, the ends justify the means. In a liberal world, you find a LEGAL way of accomplishing the end.
Unless we are talking about otherwise innocent migrants, what the law says means nothing to those that support Trump.Regarding your statement that “WHAT WE ARE UNHAPPY ABOUT is the Rule of Law was broken to do it”, that claim is unsupported by the facts.
No laws were broken and no crime was committed in carrying out these arrests. If you believe otherwise, you should be able to identify who was charged or arrested for wrongdoing related to the apprehension of this dictator and his wife. The only individuals with active warrants were them, based on documented criminal charges.
Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the charges that led to those warrants. That’s understandable, but it’s exactly why it’s important to stay anchored in verifiable facts rather than assumptions or inflammatory language.
The Trump administration has not broken any laws--- none.No laws were broken.
I love when liberals yell about "international law."
How gullible!
If international law was wroth anything putin and his cronies would have been jailed a long time ago for the human rights abuses they've committed against Ukraine.
International law is worthless because there is no enforcement mechanism. It is a joke. Citing is only makes me laugh.
I agree with this. It’s difficult to argue that removing a dictatorship is inherently worse when no credible alternative has even been laid out yet. Objecting to Maduro’s actions while assuming any possible replacement must be worse skips logic entirely. Wanting a stable, democratic, and capitalistic Venezuela in our own hemisphere isn’t radical; it’s pragmatic. Condemning the idea before hearing the plan doesn’t feel like analysis; it feels like reflex. Once again, this frames a criminal as the victim, which distorts the facts and derails any serious, common-sense discussion.
Legalities be damned. It is ONLY the end result that matters and not how you got there. Another difference between liberals and conservatives.
No wonder you voted for a convicted Felon and Sexual Predator to represent you.
Cred, I understand your thoughts, but I think this response jumps several steps ahead of the facts. Disagreeing with policy direction is one thing; labeling it an “attack,” invoking imperialism, or comparing it to Iraq before any concrete action has occurred is another. That kind of escalation assumes intent and outcomes that simply haven’t materialized.
What’s actually happening looks far less like imperialism and far more like a blunt, transactional foreign policy, one that prioritizes leverage, resources, and stability over ideology. You don’t have to like that approach, but it isn’t historically unprecedented, nor does it automatically equal war or occupation. Claims about invasions or “nothing being off the table” drift into speculation rather than analysis.
I also see, once again, an issue where some are making the criminal the victim, a pattern we’ve been seeing with increasing frequency. The examples are plentiful if anyone needs them. Framing events this way distorts responsibility and clouds honest evaluation of what is actually occurring.
As for “getting him out of power at all costs,” that sentiment is exactly what concerns many people. Our system depends on persuasion, elections, and restraint, not panic or moral absolutism. You may prefer Obama’s vision, and that’s fair, but a preference doesn’t make every alternative illegitimate or dangerous by default. If we’re going to grapple honestly with where the world is heading, we need less hyperbole and more clear-eyed assessment of reality, not assumptions driven by fear.The “concrete” action has already occurred, Sharlee, Trump invades Venezuela and kidnapped its leader and his wife. Trump is already talking about a form of occupation and hijacking of its economy at key points. He gets no consideration nor sympathy from me for what he has done.
We are being referred to as hypocrites by Putin and XI. And what happens in the Ukraine and Taiwan are much more palatable than Trumps attack on Venuzuala. Meanwhile, our allies recoil in horror wondering what excuse Trump will employ before any incursions into their territories.
We disagree, I refer to it as the rawest form of aggression not sanctioned by Congress and in violation of international law. My honest assessment is that Trump constantly goes outside the guardrails. You conservatives like that kind of stuff, I do not.
I want him out because I don’t trust those that ignore the protocols and prescriptions associated with his job. Why should I believe that he will acknowledge any boundaries and limits? From my perspective, Trump is dangerous in so many ways, and it is not hyperbole to acknowledge that considering his record. The result of the coming midterms would most probably be the manner in which I get this man neutralized.
So, once again, we agree to disagree.Calling this a “kidnapping” is an emotionally loaded distortion. Maduro was not a random civilian seized off the street; he is an indicted narco‑terrorism suspect with standing U.S. charges. The operation was framed as a law‑enforcement and national‑security action, not a territorial conquest. You may reject that justification, but mislabeling it as a rogue abduction weakens your argument rather than strengthening it.
The claim that Trump “invaded” Venezuela also ignores a critical distinction: removal of a regime leader is not the same as invasion or annexation. There has been no declaration of permanent occupation, no mass troop deployment, and no claim of Venezuelan territory. Economic leverage over oil infrastructure has been U.S. policy for years under multiple administrations; Trump didn’t invent that tool.
Invoking Putin and Xi as credible moral judges is deeply problematic. These are leaders actively engaged in territorial aggression, political repression, and military threats against sovereign neighbors. Their accusations of hypocrisy are not principled objections; they are strategic propaganda. The U.S. does not lose moral standing simply because authoritarian leaders pretend outrage when American power disrupts their interests.
The comparison to Ukraine and Taiwan is also backward. Russia and China seek territorial absorption and permanent control. The U.S. action in Venezuela, however controversial, was aimed at removing a criminal regime, not redrawing borders. Lumping these together as equivalent acts of aggression is a false equivalence.
As for Congress and “guardrails,” this argument collapses under scrutiny. Presidents from both parties have exercised unilateral authority abroad—Obama in Libya, Clinton in Kosovo, Biden in Yemen and Syria. If acting without explicit congressional authorization makes a president dangerous, then the objection must apply consistently. Singling out Trump exposes this as a selective outrage, not a principled stance.
Finally, accusing conservatives of “liking” lawlessness misses the point. What many conservatives support is decisive leadership after decades of failed diplomacy, not chaos for its own sake. Disliking Trump’s style does not mean his actions exist outside all legal or strategic frameworks.
You are entitled to oppose Trump politically, but calling him uniquely dangerous while excusing or minimizing similar conduct by others undermines the credibility of your case. Fear is not the same as analysis, and disagreement is not proof of recklessness.
At the news conference Trump said the Venezuelan VP was essentially in his pocket and will basically do what he tells her to do.
Several hours later she comes on TV and tells Trump to stuff it. So much for a day after plan.
This just broke, and details are still emerging, so I don’t know everything yet. From what the president has shared, I trust that the reasoning behind the operation is being communicated honestly.
It’s notable that he has announced a team, headed by Senator Rubio, to work with the Venezuelan people on forming a transitional government. This indicates the focus isn’t just on a capture, but on stability, governance, and supporting the citizens of Venezuela moving forward. I am sure in the next few days we will hear more about all the whys, and what will be done in respect to leadership. It’s a serious step, and it will be important to see how this effort unfolds in practice.In my opinion it is dangerously naive to "trust" anything Trump says. I have found it is always best to ignore him and watch what actually happens.
It does seem that Trump declaring, without Congressional approval, WAR on a sovereign nation is OK with you.
Kidnapping their unelected leader is one thing - assuming control of the nation is quite another.
Has he started landing troops yet to cement his rule?
Initial reports seem to indicate that the Venezuelan defense is mobilizing to oppose Trump's usurpation attempts.What I see thus far, and I am sure we will hear tons more as the days go on, I think it’s important to separate what actually happened from the way it’s being framed. By all credible reports, Trump did not formally declare war, and Congress was not asked to authorize a declaration of war, so under U.S. law, no war declaration occurred.
The operation against Maduro was described as a targeted covert military action to apprehend him and his wife, not a full-scale invasion or occupation. “Kidnapping,” in my view, is not accurate in this case; the administration likely frames it as a law-enforcement or national-security operation.
As for “assuming control of the nation,” that has not actually happened either. While Trump said the U.S. would temporarily manage certain aspects of Venezuela’s transition, there has been no formal annexation or assumption of governance, and the situation is ongoing.
Yes, Trump did say that the U.S. would be involved in governing Venezuela temporarily and that a group of U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and others, would be part of the effort to manage the country’s affairs and work toward a transition. He explicitly said the U.S. would “run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition” and mentioned that Rubio and others would be involved in running things and rebuilding infrastructure like the oil sector.
It appears Trump is not waging war on a sovereign nation. I am very interested in witnessing how the people of Venezuela handle this.Typical Trump operation. Simple decision making without considering the consequences and them comeback later with damage control to fix the broken pieces. He has done that with tariffs, health care, the economy, deportation without due process, blowing boats out of the water, and now Venezuelan regime change for an oil grab. Let's watch this one unfold.
I don’t see this as impulsive or unplanned, especially if, as reported in this morning’s live Trump press conference, months of preparation and coordination were already in place. That suggests deliberation, not chaos. I think we will see more of this kind of strong leadership decision. He is taking on problems that no other president was willing to confront, so yes, we are likely to witness maneuvers we’ve never seen before. We can debate the merits and risks of each policy you listed, but it’s also fair to acknowledge that the “careful” approach taken by prior administrations often led to prolonged stagnation, weak leverage, and outcomes that benefited bad actors more than citizens, both here and abroad. Action will always carry consequences; inaction has consequences too, and they’re often ignored because they’re slower and quieter. I’m not claiming this will unfold perfectly, but I’m willing to watch it play out before assuming motives or failure, especially given how consistently the status quo has fallen short.
I think PeoplePower may have it right in the mid- to long-term. The snatch and grab was extremely well planned and executed. But, after reading what the Venezuelan VP said, I seriously his day after plan of taking over running the country is in tatters now.
She wants Maduro back (not happening) and that what Trump did was illegal. She also dashed his plans of making Venezuela a protectorate of the U.S. and getting his hands on their oil.
Behind her were her military and legislature - so it doesn't look like it is going to be an Easy Day.What has been shared from Trump directly is that the U.S. would temporarily administer Venezuela while working toward a safe transition of power, not that the U.S. plans permanent occupation or lawless action. At a press conference on January 3, 2026, Trump said, “We are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.” (Did you miss that statement?)
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/venezu … hatgpt.com
This plan is designed to fill the vacuum that would occur if Maduro’s regime were suddenly removed, ensuring stability until the Venezuelan people can take over. A lack of planning in such a vacuum is exactly what happened in Afghanistan under Biden, where the rapid withdrawal left chaos and allowed the Taliban to regain control almost immediately. Vietnam is another cautionary example: when U.S. forces withdrew in the 1970s, South Vietnam quickly collapsed, leading to chaos and a hostile regime. These examples illustrate why a structured, temporary transition plan, like Trump described, is critical to avoid disorder and humanitarian crises.
The full press conference. I suggest you review it, and listen to all he said, not jist a sellective bits. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsdkClL2_bg
Thus far, this is what our President shared. It is too early to ascertain if he will follow through with his plans. However, predicting is, in my view, unfair.We didn't plan on "permanently occupy" Iraq or Afghanistan, did we.
Time to correct the record again - Biden, unfortunately, followed TRUMP's withdrawal plan from Afghanistan. he just added a few months to it to make things run smoother and save lives writ large (and not minimizing the unforeseen attack by al Qaeda).
You write - "“We are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.” (Did you miss that statement?)" - NO, I didn't since I quoted it. You must not have read what I wrote. And that, BY DEFINITION, is regime change. Hell, in Iraq and Afghanistan we never said we were going to "run the country". Or did you miss that?
I did some research and that Trump's snatch and grab was:
* probably illegal in terms of international law. When Bush Sr, grabbed Noriega after actually invading Panama, the UN General Assembly censored him but the US (UK and France) vetoed it in the Security Council. (I seriously doubt they would do that today, however.)
** but to no avail because the US will veto it again if it comes up.
* probably illegal domestically because he didn't inform Congress.
** but again, so what because Congress found out they can't go to court over it, just pass legislation or impeach.
* Maduro, et. al. will get tried because U.S. courts don't care how they were taken. They will rule only on the merits of the case (which in the little bit I have heard is a lot)
* Trump doesn't seem to have a day-after plan now that is pal, the Venezuelan Vice President effectively told him to go to hell. So, it may be he won't get his oil after all which has been his goal all along.
* Trump probably gave Putin to permission to snatch Zielinski or any other leader he feels like.This comment is not just wrong, it’s reckless and reads like conspiracy theater. First, calling Trump’s operation “illegal” under international law is absurd. Maduro is a criminal dictator, a hub for global cocaine trafficking, and responsible for mass human rights abuses. Targeted operations against sanctioned criminals are completely different from invading a country like Panama in 1989. Equating the two is pure fear-mongering.
The claim that Congress wasn’t informed misunderstands reality and the Constitution. The President has the authority to conduct limited military and law enforcement operations abroad, especially against threats to U.S. security or international criminal networks. Congress can act afterward if necessary, but that does not magically make an operation illegal the moment it happens.
Third, the “it’s all about oil” argument is nonsense. Venezuela is a major trafficking corridor for roughly a quarter of global cocaine, with state actors protecting the trade. This is about disrupting crime, protecting the hemisphere, and enforcing justice, not corporate greed.
The idea that Trump “gave Putin permission” to kidnap foreign leaders is pure fantasy. There is zero evidence, zero logic, zero precedent. It’s an embarrassing, paranoid projection that undermines any serious debate.
Maduro is not innocent. His regime threatens millions. Framing this as “illegal” or as Trump being some rogue villain is factually wrong, intellectually lazy, and morally backward. Criminals are criminals; stop making them the victims. I very much expected this from you. I could have written it myself, given your predictability.As I pointed out, or rather ChatGPT did and I agree, that the Constitution DOES NOT give the president the authority to do what he did - only Congress can do that, which is what the War Powers Act is for. You must be reading a different constitution than I just did because NOWHERE in Article II does it agree with your interpretation.
Your insults aside, whether Maduro is innocent or not, has NO BEARING on the legality of what Trump did PERIOD. Your framing is again, the "ends justify the means" mentality.
Your write - "Criminals are criminals; stop making them the victims. " - that is a Russian concept of law, not American. In America, the liberals anyway, believe in the Rule of Law. For conservatives, apparently, not so much such as in this case where you are arguing to break the law if necessary to achieve your objective.
I suppose that is a fundamental difference between you can me - I think following the law is a good thing.
Venezuelans taking to the streets in Florida celebrating Maduro's capture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTPmB5UeEPY
Miami's Venezuelan community celebrate Maduro's capture
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/shorts/mi … 5335493803
Venezuelans move the world by celebrating Maduro's arrest in the streets of Venezuela. Thank you ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtGV3f71Ao4Yes — Venezuelans are celebrating in the streets and around the world after the news of Maduro’s capture and ouster, especially among the diaspora who have lived under his government or fled the crisis. Venezuelan expatriate communities in South Florida (particularly Doral, Miami), Houston, New York, and other U.S. cities gathered with flags, chants of “Libertad,” dancing, singing, and emotional relief at what they see as a potential turning point after years of hardship.
Axios
Beyond the U.S., celebrations have been reported in cities like Santiago, Madrid, Lima, Quito, and Buenos Aires, where Venezuelans and their supporters gathered with national flags and expressions of hope for a new future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Unit … hatgpt.com
"Following the confirmation of Nicolás Maduro's capture
Shouts and celebrations erupted this Saturday in Caracas, Venezuela, after the United States operation that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. The large-scale military operations launched by the White House took place in the early morning hours and targeted military objectives in the country.
In the dead of night, US President Donald Trump commanded a high-impact global attack that ousted Maduro from the country after twelve years in power. The bombings targeted the La Carlota air base and Fort Tiuna, the largest military base in the city and where Maduro sought refuge at night. Several citizens documented the explosions with fear and concern."
Yes — there are credible news reports showing real reactions inside Venezuela,
https://www.lanacion.com.ar/estados-uni … hatgpt.com
Will we respect the voices of Venezuelan citizens, or assume we know better? Recent trends in the U.S.—like portraying Hamas as the victim—highlight a disturbing pattern of inverting reality, and it raises serious questions about how public narratives are shaped.A more realistic description is "“There have been major celebrations among the Venezuelan diaspora and in many foreign cities although there are reports of protests against Trump's actions as well, but inside Venezuela—especially Caracas—reactions appear more subdued and cautious, with fear and uncertainty limiting public celebration.”
So what is the world saying today about Trump's kidnapping and threatened take-over of the Venezuelan government?
Condemns:
* UN Secratary-General
* Brazil
* Chile
* Mexico (they are on Trump's target list)
* Spain
* South Africa (who called for a UN meeting to discuss)
and the expected
* France, but install the coalition winner
* Panama, but install the coalition winner.
* China, Russia, and Iran.
Cautious:
* UK
* EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen
* Canada
* Germany
* Denmark
Cheers
* Netanyahu
* Argentina
* EcuadorFacts matter, even if they’re inconvenient for those who engage in selective thinking. My hope is that some will pause, consider the evidence, and see the issue clearly.
"So what is the world saying today about Trump's kidnapping and threatened take-over of the Venezuelan government?" ECO
What happened was not a “kidnapping” or “take‑over,” it was the arrest of a criminal dictator wanted for serious crimes, a man who had multiple international warrants and a bounty on his head because of the actions of his regime. Nicolás Maduro and members of his inner circle have been sanctioned and indicted for drug trafficking, corruption, human rights abuses, and the violent repression of Venezuelan citizens. These aren’t opinions, they are the basis for multiple indictments and sanctions from the U.S. Department of Justice and other international bodies.
Maduro’s government has been widely documented for involvement in international drug trafficking networks, helping move large quantities of cocaine out of South America, and for systematic violations of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, torture, and suppression of political opposition. That’s why the U.S. and other governments placed a bounty on him and his associates. The operation was about bringing criminals to justice, not an unlawful takeover.
Critics can spin words like “kidnapping,” but the facts are clear: this was a law enforcement action against a sanctioned, indicted criminal leader whose regime harmed millions of Venezuelans and destabilized the region. If you want to talk about legitimacy, start with why there were indictments and bounties in the first place, because actions have consequences, and the crimes here are well‑documented.
He said "US President Donald Trump said at a press conference that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had spoken with the vice president. According to Trump, she appeared willing to work with Washington on a new phase for Venezuela.
“She had a conversation with Marco. She said, ‘We’re going to do whatever you need.’ I think she was quite courteous. We’re going to do this right,” Trump said."
Then SHE said:
"“The only president of Venezuela is President Nicolas Maduro.” AND "We demand the immediate release of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife.” AND "will never again be anyone’s colony"
That doesn't sound like she is going to let Trump "run the government".
Also, there is no evidence that Rubio "had a conversation" with Delcy.
So, what is the fool going to do next now that he has been shut down by Delcy Rodriquez?.""“The only president of Venezuela is President Nicolas Maduro.” AND "We demand the immediate release of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife.” AND "will never again be anyone’s colony""
It’s telling that even from her own statements,“The only president of Venezuela is President Nicolás Maduro” and “we demand the immediate release of President Maduro and his wife”, she shows no respect for the international laws and indictments that have condemned this couple around the world. Maduro and his wife are sanctioned, indicted criminals with bounties on their heads for drug trafficking, corruption, and human rights abuses. By framing them as victims and denying their legal accountability, she is revealing her attitude toward justice itself, which should be judged just as critically as the crimes she seeks to defend.
Framing criminals as untouchable or heroic distorts reality. These are not political opponents, they are accountable criminals, and law enforcement actions against them are lawful, targeted, and justified.
I can only share my view regarding her letting Trump do anything --- She will be removed very quickly, most likely in days. She is part of a corrupt government and will have no place in it. She will most likely be exiled.
RUBIO ON WHY THE U.S. IS TAKING VENEZUELA'S OIL: "WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW IT TO BE CONTROLLED BY ADVERSARIES"
NBC asked the question everyone is asking: If this was about capturing Maduro, why take over the oil industry?
Sec. Rubio's response:
"We don't need Venezuela's oil. We have plenty of oil in the United States.
What we're not going to allow is for the oil industry in Venezuela to be controlled by adversaries of the United States. ..."
Source: https://x.com/i/status/2007877275157450760
GAWE are not going to allow a sovereign nation to control its own oil!! Do you find that acceptable?
OK, then. Another significant difference between Rule of Law liberals and conservatives who aren't so much.
Maybe. But, relative to the 'grabbing Maduro' part, I would have offered a Democrat president the same hearty support. Wouldn't you?
It appears that the 'legality, jurisdiction, and authority' issues were properly addressed. So maybe your 'rule of law' thought is misplaced?
GAMaybe. But, relative to the 'grabbing Maduro' part, I would have offered a Democrat president the same hearty support. Wouldn't you?
Well,I wouldn’t have, there is a principle involved that overrides partisan preferences….Nor would I. Throwing American values into the trash is not the right way to go.
That reveals a lot of red streak, don’t ever talk to me about “purple” again!
Are most of you guys just authoritarians at the heart?
Why can’t they or I control my own petroleum industry, who do you think that you are to do this in their stead?It might be worse than a "red streak," it might be a full-blown Neanderthal moment. You know, a 'might makes right' thing.
Or, more charitably, it might simply be a 'face the facts' challenge. I think the stories/claims of Russian, Iranian, and Chinese influence and control in Venezuela are, to some degree, true. I'm with the neighborhood watch on this one. What color is that?
GA“Might makes right” that is the rallying cry of every despot since as long as one man can wield a sword against another. Yes, it is Neanderthal. You would have to have expended a tremendous amount of energy pretending that you are just a moderate over so long a time. I have to admit that it was quite a performance.
China is proving to be smarter by not resorting to military force to persuade other nations. So, if we cannot persuade through peace, we take through war? Conservatives would have you believe that there is something noble about it. The excuse for the incursion into Venezuela was much the same stuff that was offered regarding invasion of Iraq, the same faux outrage, and it is quite old.
This Trump corollary will be the excuse that Trump will use to deprive Greenland of its freedom and territorial sovereignty. And you all will stand up and cheer while America becomes a rogue state at its 250th birthday. Surely, you are aware of that.
So, What color is it? It is red, pure crimson. ,I reject the premise that this is about “might makes right.” That phrase is being used here as a moral shortcut, not an argument. The world we actually live in is one where power already exists, whether we acknowledge it or not. The question is not whether power is used, but how, when, and to what end.
Comparing every assertive action to despots with swords or to the Iraq invasion ignores critical distinctions. Iraq involved a full-scale military occupation based on faulty intelligence. What’s being discussed now involves leverage, deterrence, economic pressure, and strategic positioning, not carpet bombing, not regime-change war, and not imperial conquest.
The idea that China is some enlightened model because it avoids overt military force is especially misleading. China coerces through debt traps, economic blackmail, intellectual-property theft, cyber warfare, and political intimidation. That is not “peaceful persuasion.” It’s force by other means, and often more insidious because it erodes sovereignty without firing a shot.
As for Venezuela, outrage didn’t come from thin air. It came from a narco-state aligned with hostile powers, such as China, exporting instability, and allowing foreign adversaries to operate in the Western Hemisphere. Pretending that concern over that reality is “faux” doesn’t make it so.
The Greenland claim crosses into pure speculation. No one is being “deprived of freedom,” no invasion has occurred, and no policy exists to support that fear. Invoking it is rhetorical escalation, not evidence. Imagining future tyranny and then condemning it as inevitable is not analysis.
Branding America a “rogue state” while excusing or minimizing the actions of Russia, China, Iran, or Venezuela flips moral responsibility on its head. A rogue state is one that silences opposition, jails critics, rigs elections, and exports repression. That description does not fit the United States — even when its leadership is aggressive, unpopular, or blunt.
Strong leadership is not the same as despotism. Deterrence is not the same as conquest. And refusing to surrender influence to adversaries is not Neanderthal; it is how nations prevent worse outcomes. In my view, Trump has our backs and is a strong leader who is taking steps that are very strategic and very much needed to protect our Nation. The world is a bit safer today because we have a leader who is taking bold steps to assure our safety.
If there is a color here, it isn’t crimson. It’s gray, the uncomfortable reality of geopolitics that idealism alone has never been able to manage.To use your migrant reasoning - breaking the law is breaking the law no matter how lofty the motive.
There was no Congressional law Trump was following, only his on chest-thumping machismo. As I have pointed out he has broken several international laws.
Setting aside all those obfuscating words, this is an obvious "might makes right" case. We had the power to take some scum off the street and that is what we did even though it was illegal. That is not the American way, that is an Authoritarian way.
That is no different from "we had the poser to murder survivors floating in the water so we did it because we "thought" they might be drug runners.All I can suggest is that you do some research on the issue.
Your argument collapses because it assumes, without proof, that laws were broken. Asserting “international law violations” doesn’t make them so. Name the specific statute or treaty Trump violated, and explain how it applies. Without that, this is opinion dressed up as legality.
Maduro is not “some scum off the street.” He is a designated narcotics trafficker, charged under U.S. law, with formal indictments and bounties issued years ago for drug trafficking, narco-terrorism, and corruption. Arresting an indicted criminal pursuant to standing charges is not “machismo,” nor is it authoritarian. It is law enforcement, especially when the individual is accused of flooding U.S. streets with narcotics.
You also conflate moral judgment with legal reality. “Might makes right” would apply if this were arbitrary force. It wasn’t. Courts have long held that jurisdiction is not invalidated by how a defendant is brought before it. That principle predates Trump by decades and has been upheld repeatedly, by courts under Republican and Democratic administrations.
Equating the arrest of a globally wanted narco-criminal with murdering shipwreck survivors is not only false, it’s reckless rhetoric. One is a lawful prosecution based on indictments; the other is a war crime. They are not remotely comparable.
If “breaking the law is breaking the law,” then prove a law was broken. Otherwise, what you’re offering isn’t legal analysis—it’s ideological objection to enforcing the law against someone you’d prefer to portray as a victim.
I will post this information one time. It is what the Trump administration followed to ensure the arrest of the maderos was legal under our laws. I do not intend to have any further discussion on the law regarding this issue.
The claim that “no law authorized this” is simply wrong. The arrest rests on existing U.S. criminal statutes that explicitly provide extraterritorial jurisdiction, and on long-standing Supreme Court precedent governing how defendants may be brought before U.S. courts. My research was mithodical and I will take yu though it step by step.
First, the charges themselves are grounded in on the books of U.S. law:
21 U.S.C. § 959 & § 963 – These statutes criminalize the manufacture and distribution of narcotics intended for importation into the United States, even when the conduct occurs entirely outside U.S. territory. Congress explicitly wrote these laws to apply extraterritorially.
21 U.S.C. § 960a – Narco-terrorism statute, enacted after 9/11, which applies to foreign nationals who engage in drug trafficking in support of criminal or terrorist enterprises that harm U.S. interests.
18 U.S.C. § 1956 & § 1957 – International money laundering statutes tied to narcotics trafficking.
These are not Trump-era inventions. They were passed by Congress, signed into law, and used repeatedly under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Second, the manner of arrest does not invalidate jurisdiction:
Under the Ker–Frisbie Doctrine (Ker v. Illinois, Frisbie v. Collins), the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that U.S. courts do not lose jurisdiction over a defendant because of how they were apprehended, even if the arrest occurred abroad or without the consent of the foreign government.
This doctrine has been upheld for over a century and reaffirmed as recently as United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992)—a case involving the forcible capture of a foreign national from another country. The Court ruled the prosecution was lawful.
This precedent applies regardless of who is president. It applied under Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden—and it applies here.
Third, no declaration of war or new Congressional authorization is required to arrest an already-indicted criminal under standing federal law. Congress authorized these prosecutions when it passed the statutes above. Presidents enforce them.
So no, this is not “might makes right,” and it is not authoritarianism. It is the execution of existing U.S. criminal law against an indicted narcotics trafficker with longstanding warrants and bounties.
If someone objects on policy or moral grounds, that’s a legitimate debate. But calling it “illegal” without naming a violated statute is not law—it’s rhetoric.
Here is a clean, factual list of the actual legal authorities a U.S. president relies on when using U.S. forces to seize an indicted foreign criminal in a sovereign nation, without declaring war. This avoids speculation and sticks to established law and precedent.
Primary U.S. Legal Authorities
1. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution
The President is Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. Courts have consistently held that this grants the President authority to deploy military force abroad to protect U.S. interests and enforce federal law short of full-scale war, especially when executing existing criminal indictments.
2. Congressional Extraterritorial Criminal Statutes (Already Passed Laws)
The military action is tied to enforcing existing federal indictments, not creating new authority.
Relevant statutes include:
21 U.S.C. § 959 / § 963 – International narcotics trafficking intended to impact the United States (explicit extraterritorial reach)
21 U.S.C. § 960a – Narco-terrorism statute
18 U.S.C. §§ 1956–1957 – International money laundering tied to drug trafficking
18 U.S.C. § 3231 – Federal courts have jurisdiction over all offenses against U.S. law
Congress already authorized enforcement when it passed these laws. The President is executing them.
3. Ker–Frisbie Doctrine (Supreme Court precedent)
Established in:
Ker v. Illinois (1886)
Frisbie v. Collins (1952)
United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992)
This doctrine holds that U.S. courts retain jurisdiction over defendants regardless of how they are brought into custody, even if seized abroad without the host nation’s consent.
This precedent explicitly allows forcible capture abroad for prosecution.
4. War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548)
Contrary to claims, this does not prohibit short-term military actions.
It allows the President to:
Deploy U.S. forces for up to 60 days without prior congressional authorization
Conduct limited operations, including captures, rescues, and strikes
Presidents routinely notify Congress after such actions. This is standard practice, not a violation.
5. Posse Comitatus Act – NOT a Barrier
The Posse Comitatus Act does not apply outside U.S. territory.
Using the military for law enforcement abroad has been repeatedly upheld and practiced under:
Bush (Panama, Afghanistan)
Clinton (Balkans, counter-narcotics ops)
Obama (Libya, ISIS captures)
Biden (ISIS and al-Qaeda operations)
6. International Law Justification (Customary Law)
Under international law, a state may use force in another state when:
The host nation is unwilling or unable to address transnational criminal threats
The action targets international criminals, not civilians
The action is limited and proportional
This framework has been invoked repeatedly by the U.S. and accepted in practice (even if protested politically).
This was not a declaration of war, not regime change, and not lawless.
It was:
Enforcement of existing indictments
Against individuals charged with internationally recognized crimes
Using legal authorities relied upon by both parties for decades
People are free to oppose it politically.
But saying “there was no law” is demonstrably false.
This one took a minute to sink in.
Pretending to be 'moderate' (conservative?), all these years? Bless your heart, is that the way you see it? Can't be Black if you like a White choice?
The conservatives don't see it that way; they say I'm a fence-sitter, not enough balls to commit to a team.
Not all conservative, not all liberal: sounds like a moderate stance to me.
I say you're the pretender, always 100% team agreement, that's bullshit. Yet, that's your code. You're either with us or against us on every issue — that's you. That's bullshit too.
It's pretty damn arrogant of you to think everyone sees conservative ideas as deplorable subhuman concepts that you have grown beyond.
Pretending, ha! Bless your enlightened heart.
GA ;-)I told you before, GA, that Trump is the random element and all previous bets are off until he disappears.
The attitude of “might makes right’ or the “end justifies the means” that harbors Donald Trump belongs to the side to which I don’t belong, 100 percent.
The Trump form of conservative gets none of my support, absolutely none….
As for the current time there is only ONE TEAM, the one that Trump is not in charge of.
Trump and his administration forces everyone to take sides in a way not seen in the past.
There is no pretense, I loathe Trump and until I am rid of him there can only be one side….
My nether regions are not going to be abused through any fence straddling.It seems like your perspective is driven by a very black-and-white way of thinking, where anyone associated with Trump is automatically “the enemy” and all nuance disappears. Psychologically, this reflects a mindset rooted in the belief that power is inherently corrupting and that “might makes right” is the only principle at play, or that the “end justifies the means.” While it’s certainly fair to critique behavior or rhetoric you find objectionable, assuming that an entire person, their team, or even a set of policies is irredeemably evil shuts down any possibility of rational discussion.
Trump’s style can indeed be polarizing, and yes, he forces people to choose sides in ways unfamiliar to some. But labeling the entire movement as morally bankrupt and using absolute language, “100 percent no support,” “my nether regions are not going to be abused”, reveals more about fear of loss of control than it does about policy outcomes. The fact is, leadership in the modern world is messy, confrontational, and sometimes uncomfortable. That doesn’t mean it’s automatically a moral failing. It means people need to assess ideas, actions, and results on their merits rather than through a lens of personal animosity.
What I take away is clear: when someone frames politics purely as a battle of good vs. evil, with no room for compromise or critical assessment, it limits understanding and makes productive debate nearly impossible. If the goal is real change, the first step is to separate emotion from fact and focus on measurable outcomes rather than absolute moral judgments.
It’s starting to sound like you hate him simply for the sake of hating him, no matter what he accomplishes—and I honestly can’t make sense of that.Trumps ascension to power has been disadvantageous from every point of view from my perspective.
Inflation is still raging.
His anti-woke and subtle form or racism characterized both him and the late Charlie Kirk
His saber rattling and provocative and aggressive military style are having an adverse effect with traditional allies on the international scene.
His attack against organized labor, allowing no compete agreements to continue.
And while the modern world is messy, confrontational and uncomfortable, in my opinion every other president before him has handled it better.
He threatens free speech by attacking Col (Senator)Kelly
He desecrates national monuments out of sheer ego.
Nothing that he has proposed, I can support and there has been in the long period of time in which we exchanged opinion, nothing that I could point to that redeems him. My conversations with you deal with critical assessment, but I am liberal in my leaning and would automatically find Trump problematic.
In all my life over 13 administrations this is the first President that in my opinion has done nothing to redeem him.
I have difficulty finding any positive aspect to objectively evaluate on his behalf. His past and present tells me that it is unlikely that I can find anything that we share in common.Credence, what she doesn't understand is there is no daylight between Trump and Putin, Hitler, or Un, or any of the other dictators he so admires.
It is pretty clear by now she would give same pass to those other men as she she just did to Trump.
I'll bet she will find excuses when Trump sends troops into Greenland - as he said he might do.What you rabid anti-Trumpers so conveniently forget is that maduro and his regime killed millions of Venezeulan children, imprisoned and tortured venezuelans that opposed his government, and have destroyed the countrys economy. It is pretty clear you people give anyone a pass as long as it is not US citizens being killed. Do you even remember that farcical NO KINGS protest? what do you think maduro was, a benign sovereign? this is not the frist time the us has done this sort of thing or are you forgetting Noriega? Thanks to maduros ineptitude even rabies vaccines are no longer available. Can you even imagine being afraid to go out on the street because the dogs in your neighborhood have rabies?
And what you and MAGA forget is that America is SUPPOSED to follow the RULE OF LAW. Your "ends justify the means" and "might makes right" views are an anathema to what used to be American values.
Do you support Trump taking out Putin for the same reasons?You mean those American values like the murder of the president of Iran or the American values of going in and arresting the elected leaders of central American countries. You might want to try those lies somewhere else.
"Inflation is still raging."
Might want to do some research on this. December inflation rate was 2.7%.
Under Biden it reached up to 9%.It is also true that under Biden, inflation was 1.4%. There is also this, when inflation under Biden was going from 4% to 3% - which must now be pointed out is "Down" - some of your like-minded thinkers said it was "skyrocketing Up" So, I'll excuse a little sarcasm and irony from Credence.
Trump says that it has been going down, why do I still “feel” it? Your clown has had a year to improve upon the rate that Biden left office with, according to his boasting.
He has until November to change that “feel” or he and his Republican cronies will face a hostile midterm experience, where I and others like me will take the opportunity to render this man inert, politically, afterwards.
I hear what you’re saying, but I strongly disagree with your assessment that Trump’s leadership has been universally disadvantageous. On inflation, the data shows that inflation has cooled significantly from the unprecedented peaks seen in 2022. As of the most recent reports, inflation has fallen closer to the Federal Reserve’s long‑term targets compared with those highs, even though some price pressures remain. This isn’t “raging” in the economic sense, it’s a return toward normal levels after a global shock that affected nearly every economy in the world, not just the U.S.
Regarding “anti‑woke” policies, these are not about racism. They reflect a disagreement over cultural and educational priorities, not racial animus. Trump’s agenda focused on merit‑based policies, law and order, and national unity, not discrimination. Painting these efforts as a “subtle form of racism” conflates policy disagreements with personal attacks that aren’t grounded in objective evidence.
On the international scene, the idea that Trump’s approach isolates allies overlooks the fact that many traditional U.S. allies had been unwilling to share burdens fairly. Trump pressed NATO countries to meet their defense spending commitments and renegotiated trade deals that he and others believed disadvantaged American workers. Diplomacy sometimes looks tough when you’re insisting on fairness; that doesn’t make it reckless.
Your claim about organized labor and non‑compete agreements misunderstands his record. Trump’s policies encouraged job growth and worker opportunity. He did not dismantle labor rights; instead, he aimed to boost employment by reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens. Also, “no‑compete agreements” weren’t invented by Trump, and both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have debated reforming them — it isn’t solely a Trump issue.
On free speech, every public figure — including Senator Kelly (assuming you mean R. Kelly) — is subject to criticism under the First Amendment. Critique from a president does not equate to censorship or a legal threat to free speech.
As for national monuments, Trump actually supported historic preservation and law enforcement. Decisions about monuments and public spaces were policy choices, not desecrations. Describing them as ego‑driven is a subjective interpretation, not an objective fact.
When you say you find nothing redeeming about Trump, that’s a personal opinion — not a fact. Millions of Americans credit him with strong economic fundamentals, regained energy independence, a tough stance on illegal immigration that many voters support, and a willingness to enforce U.S. law both at home and abroad. That’s not nothing; those are measurable outcomes that affected real people’s lives.
Every president will have opponents and supporters. You identify as liberal and admit that biases influence your view; that’s fair to acknowledge. But to say Trump is the only president in your lifetime who hasn’t done anything redeeming ignores the complexity of governance and the measurable results, both domestic and international, of his policies.
Disagreeing with style is one thing; denying any positive impacts is another, and that’s where our perspectives clearly differ.Shar,
President Donald Trump will go down in history as the person who caused the left to develop their own psychosis because of his election wins called "Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).
It's a real thing and I've never seen anything like it before.I agree 100%. TDS is a real condition, and no one can convince me otherwise. I’ve watched up close as this phenomenon has taken hold of so many people, and I’ve honestly come to believe there may be no cure for it.
Dr. Bandy Lee, a preeminent expert in this field, carefully explains how the Trump Contagion can, and does result in a shared psychosis such a I am witnessing here. She predicts exactly this kind of response by those caught up in his cult of personality.
I disagree with that framing, and I think it’s important to separate credentialed authority from professional consensus and ethical standards. Dr. Bandy Lee is a psychiatrist who was affiliated with Yale, but she does not represent a consensus view within psychiatry or psychology. In fact, her public assertions about Donald Trump have been widely criticized by mental‑health professionals across the political spectrum for violating the Goldwater Rule, an ethical standard that explicitly forbids diagnosing or speculating about the mental health of public figures without direct examination and consent.
More importantly, the concept of a “Trump Contagion” or “shared psychosis” is not a recognized clinical diagnosis in the DSM‑5, nor is it supported by empirical, peer‑reviewed evidence applied to political disagreement. Labeling political opponents as mentally ill is not science; it’s politicized rhetoric. Disagreement, even strong disagreement, does not constitute psychosis, cult behavior, or pathology. If it did, half the country would qualify under that definition, which should immediately raise red flags about the credibility of the claim.
Dr. Lee’s predictions tend to be self‑confirming: any disagreement with her premise is treated as proof of pathology. That’s not how science works, that’s circular reasoning. Real psychological science welcomes falsifiability, dissent, and evidence; it does not label opposition as illness by default.
Some mainstream mental‑health professionals do not endorse her claims about shared psychosis, mass contagion, or diagnosing Trump’s psychology from afar. Many believe that framing political disagreement as mental illness undermines both psychiatry and civil discourse.
CT Mirror https://ctmirror.org/2018/01/24/dr-band … hatgpt.com
Her statements are seen by critics as political and extreme.
Some critics, including professionals, ethicists, and commentators, argue that Lee’s public claims veer more into political advocacy than into objective medical science, which weakens her credibility in the broader psychiatric community.
New Statesman
https://www.newstatesman.com/internatio … hatgpt.com"Dr. Lee’s predictions tend to be self‑confirming: any disagreement with her premise is treated as proof of pathology. " - I am glad you read her books. Can you point out some examples of that?
"That’s not how science works, that’s circular reasoning. Real psychological science welcomes falsifiability, dissent, and evidence; it does not label opposition as illness by default." - How do you know she does that? Do you have examples?
When an article starts of with an uncalled for insult, which the CT Mirror did, I take it with lots of salt.
However, when a piece starts on a serious note like your New Statesman piece does - that one is worth the read. It articulates much better than I have of why Dr. Lee's expertise needs to be taken seriously. The authors don't take a stand on whether what she observes in Trump is correct or not, but they clearly come down on the side that she has the right to say and to be listened to.
So, I trust her expertise in understanding violent and/or dangerous people. I also take the opinions of hundreds of other mental health experts, each one commenting on a different aspect of Trump's psychosis seriously - they know much more about the subject than I do and should be listened to as well.
I also take into consideration that nobody has yet to come forward to challenge the evidence they use (mainly Trump himself) to come to their conclusions in their risk assessment of his dangerousness to our way of life.I did not read her book. I cited several sources that informed how I arrived at my view of her work. There are many articles available that dispute how she conducts her diagnoses, and I presented that material to offer the other side of the coin, namely, how others in the field view her diagnostic process.
At one point in our conversation, I also answered your question about the doctors I used as sources when you asked about their “pedigree.” It was not difficult to determine that the sources I cited have stronger credentials than she does.
It seems many question her methods.
Sharlee, this is my opinion. I certainly did not expect for it to be received otherwise particularly by those on the right wing end of things.
We all have our biases and I certainly have to acknowledge that. Anyone that can continue to put Trump on a pedestal and explain away every questionable action has to be operating from some of that.
There are also millions of other Americans that question his agenda and course of action both domestically and abroad, are they to be ignored?
From my perspectives and the values that I revere, Trump has been of no value and just as you see him and his ideas as doing no wrong, I have more than a handful of complaints regarding his governance.
It depends on what you consider a “positive impact”, that too is subject to interpretation.
No one would dare get behind, and he was behind it, soiling the Kennedy Memory by adding his name on a renown national monument.
Senator Kelly is being punished by drunken Pete for making a statement that hegseth says amounted to encouraging insubordination among the military. That is highly questionable and I want Senator Kelly to take this latest form of muzzling contrary opinion to the highest levels in challenge.
Another GOP fallacy, the idea that making it easier for capitalists to make money by ignoring environmental and labor related regulations is going to benefit working people. The oldest misleading lie in the book.
As a black person, certainly qualified to evaluate such matters, the administration and its policies, attitudes and values have proven detrimental to our communities. The few of my group that supported Trump on some idea of economic revival will be unpleasantly surprised about what they compromised, to see that nothing has been done, rather progress is being reversed. There is no way to sugar coat nor minimize what has been going on in federal employment, education in schools etc. There is plenty of objective evidence when one truly wants to look with a discerning eye.
If there is any relief from inflation, I don’t feel it and as I told Mike, if more consumers also find by next November that they don’t “feel it”, the midterms will be prophetic as to what the Republicans can expect to experience in 2028."There are also millions of other Americans that question his agenda and course of action both domestically and abroad, are they to be ignored?" - That has been answered in the affirmative before - in spite of more and more people joining the chorus against Trump and his cult.
Message received. Appreciate you taking the time to write it.
My nether regions were never splintered; there was never a fence.
Now you're in my hemisphere, and here's the real Moderate:
This Trump Corollary thing is so rationally, logically, and ideologically right, as I see it, that I was tempted to buy a hat. (I compromised and bought a black 'X' mug).
GA ;-)Nice picture GA, but Trump has got to go.
“The strategy states that the Western Hemisphere must be controlled by the US politically, economically, commercially, and militarily. It is the ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine – an 1823 policy which established that European powers should not intervene in Latin America. This paved the way for US pre-eminence in the region until well into the 20th century. However, Washington neglected it in the last three decades.”
—
I find that to be a bit arrogant on the part of this country. I would resist by making things difficult for America in return.
Read this please, I am not on board with this corollary thing….
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/12/tr … dered-plan
I would resist, not making such a policy one that can be easily enforced by Trump.I understand the temptation. When the argument holds up, it’s hard to ignore. The mug made me smile—and hey, maybe a hat down the road.
And careful—first it’s the mug, then suddenly you’re explaining the corollary to strangers over coffee.
Oops. On rereading, that sounds a little harsher than intended. But, it works, so here's a little chuckle for salve:
What if ...
It's true that this operation was legally legitimate as a law enforcement operation that achieved its goal and left the country. aka, no boots on the ground.
It's true that the majority of the 'regime' left in place are also named in the Maduro indictment. Subject to the same consequences.
They were indeed offered the logical 'get-out-of-jail' choice, and decided to legitimately 'cooperate'?
... and it works.
What if the foreign powers are kicked out (a primary goal), Caracas (Venezuela et al.) remains stable and positive things start to happen in the nation, plus visible empirical evidence of success is reported in the news by spring 2026?
Would this be a Democrat's best-case wish, or worst-case scenario?
GA ;-)“Would this be a Democrat’s best‑case wish, or worst‑case scenario?”
Are you kidding? Their track record makes this question almost too easy to answer. I mean, even if he cured cancer or sent out checks for a hundred thousand apiece — well, come on — is the Pope Catholic?
Your argument conflates targeted law enforcement with full-scale war or territorial conquest, and that’s a critical error. The operation in Venezuela wasn’t about “persuading through war” or imperial expansion, it was the arrest of indicted criminals with bounties on their heads, responsible for drug trafficking, corruption, and human rights abuses. That is law enforcement, not conquest, and it’s carried out under longstanding U.S. legal authority and Supreme Court precedent (Ker–Frisbie doctrine).
China’s approach is about influence and economic leverage, which works for some nations, but it doesn’t absolve authoritarian regimes from the consequences of their own criminal actions. Maduro’s regime was already illegitimate in practice and law, and the U.S. acted within legal, proportionate bounds to enforce justice.
To leap from this operation to a “Trump excuse to take Greenland” is pure speculation. There is no evidence that a legal arrest of international criminals has any connection to violating the sovereignty of other nations. Equating enforcement of indictments with “America becoming a rogue state” ignores law, precedent, and the actual facts on the ground.
Painting this as noble or not misses the key point: this isn’t about ideology, it’s about protecting U.S. citizens and regional security while holding violent criminals accountable. That is not red, crimson, or imperial; it is the enforcement of law and strategy in national security.It is Trump's way of showing force. You need to understand, Trump's Armada has been parked there for months, just waiting to be used in this mission. There were aircraft and missiles that took out the Command and Control Centers, so they have no infrastructure for retaliation. We don't know how many people were killed in that operation, because Trump doesn't want you to know and he doesn't care.
Taking out that infrastructure gives Trump all he needs to take over the country without any real resources for retaliation. The fact that those people were killed is an act of war in my book.
What is Trump protecting us from, Fentanyl, Cocaine, immigrants? We are the biggest user of drugs. Just follow the money. That is what this is really about, even with the oil grab and a show of force to other nations,
Don't mess with Trump, we have toy soldiers we can deploy anywhere in the world and we will use them as we deem necessary. We don't need no stinking congress to O.K. our show of force to kill others.
Trump is all about the show of force. He does it in various forms and actions to show the world don't mess with me. I could write an essay on how he uses his show of force, but this forum is not the place for that. We have the most powerful military in the world and he is gong to use it as he sees fit, but just follow the money is what Trump is all about.Yes, Trump is a very strong leader, and he is clearly taking on horrific problems that have been brewing for decades. For years, we have faced growing challenges from China, whose calculated moves have allowed them to surpass the U.S. in areas ranging from manufacturing and technology to global influence. We have started to lag behind in critical sectors, trade, innovation, military positioning, and even geopolitical clout. In my view, the United States has been taken advantage of on the world stage we once commanded, while weak, ineffective presidents gave impressive speeches but failed to handle the realities of leadership. It was obvious to many of us where the country was headed and how urgent it was to put a strong, decisive leader in the White House. Trump is remarkable in this role. Yes, we may sometimes take offense at his words or style, but his actions are bold, deliberate, and fast-moving. It is unfortunate that some people are not yet recognizing the magnitude of what he is accomplishing.
I must push back on your comment because almost every premise in that comment rests on speculation, exaggeration, or a misunderstanding of how power, law, and deterrence actually work.
The claim that Trump “parked an armada for months” and secretly destroyed command-and-control centers is pure conjecture presented as fact. There is no credible evidence, satellite, journalistic, allied intelligence, or even hostile-state reporting to support a covert U.S. decapitation strike of that scale. If infrastructure had been wiped out and “many people killed,” it would not be invisible. Militaries, NGOs, adversaries, and global media do not collectively miss events like that. What’s happening here is narrative inflation: taking rhetorical pressure or sanctions talk and turning it into an imaginary war.
Calling this an “act of war” collapses under scrutiny. Acts of war are defined by verifiable hostile force, attribution, and response. If the U.S. had actually neutralized a sovereign nation’s command structure, retaliation, diplomatic, cyber, proxy, or military, would already be underway. The absence of retaliation is not proof of Trump’s genius; it’s proof the event didn’t occur as described.
The “Trump doesn’t need Congress” argument ignores reality. Every president, Democrat and Republican, operates within the same post–World War II framework of limited executive military authority. Obama, Clinton, Bush, and Biden all conducted military actions without formal declarations of war. If that’s the grievance, it’s a systemic critique, not a Trump-specific indictment. Singling Trump out while ignoring decades of precedent is selective outrage, not principled analysis.
On drugs, the argument undermines itself. Yes, the U.S. has massive demand, but that doesn’t absolve source states, cartels, or corrupt regimes of responsibility. Reducing supply and disrupting trafficking routes has always been part of drug enforcement policy, under every administration. Saying “we’re the biggest users, so interdiction is meaningless” is like arguing we shouldn’t stop arms trafficking because criminals want guns anyway. Demand-side and supply-side policies are not mutually exclusive. You are falling back on an old attitude, in my view, it tells me." Let's toss up our hands, and offer needles." Oh forgot some blue states are doing that.
The “follow the money” line sounds insightful, but it’s vague to the point of emptiness. Which money, exactly? Oil markets? Defense contractors? Political donors? If the claim is profiteering, it needs evidence—not slogans. Ironically, Trump’s foreign policy often disrupted entrenched financial interests rather than serving them, especially when it came to energy independence and sanctions that hurt multinational corporations tied to hostile regimes.
As for “toy soldiers,” that framing is emotional rhetoric, not serious analysis. Military deterrence is not cosplay—it’s a stabilizing force when used predictably. Trump’s approach wasn’t random violence; it was signaling. You don’t have to like it, but pretending deterrence equals bloodlust is naïve. The world isn’t held together by good intentions; it’s held together by credible consequences.
The idea that Trump is uniquely obsessed with “show of force” ignores history. Every global power projects strength. What unsettled critics wasn’t that Trump did it—but that he did it without apologizing, without euphemisms, and without outsourcing moral clarity to focus groups. That discomfort gets recast as authoritarianism, even when the underlying behavior is standard statecraft.
If this is meant to be a moral critique, it fails because it relies on imagined atrocities. If it’s meant to be a legal critique, it ignores precedent. And if it’s meant to be an economic critique, it never actually traces the money. What’s left is a story that feels convincing only if you already want it to be true.
I have a feeling if Biden had pulled this off, some who object might be cheering.
The only justifiable point that I can ever remotely accept is the abduction of Maduro is based on human rights violations and crimes that have been verified through international sources not just those of the United States, who always has a self-serving agenda.
No one has yet to explain to me why the Venezuelans have to be forced not to sell their own oil to whomever they wish. Since the crude is their property why should they be concerned about American strategic interests rather than their own? Who does Trump and Republicans think that they are to tell other societies and nations how to conduct their own internal affairs? Maduro is gone, great. Now why doesn’t America go away and leave the people to settle their own affairs as an independent nation and not as some American colony? Socialism works in Western Europe and in many ways from accounts from my brother living in Spain, it is superior to what we have here. So, if the Venezuelans want a socialist government, who is to say that they cannot have it? It is their oil and their sovereignty rights.I can't believe I see the name Maduro and human rights in the same sentence. Please, look up dictator - his picture will be beside the definition. It seems, once again some hope to make a hero out of a vile criminal. Do you know his history?
With all due respect, this argument is fundamentally flawed and misunderstands both Venezuela’s reality and basic international strategy. First, claiming the U.S. is only “self-serving” ignores the fact that Venezuela under Maduro has systematically destroyed its own economy and inflicted extreme suffering on its citizens. Eighty percent of the population lives in poverty, and half in extreme poverty. People are starving, cannot access basic medicines, and struggle even for electricity and housing. This is not a question of U.S. self-interest; it’s a question of responding to a nation in humanitarian collapse.
Venezuela’s oil may be “their property,” but in practice the government has weaponized it, using revenue to prop up a corrupt regime while the people remain destitute. Selling oil indiscriminately to countries like China, Russia, or Iran, nations that often oppose U.S. and allied interests, has direct geopolitical consequences. Energy security isn’t some abstract “American ego” issue; it affects global markets, alliances, and even U.S. economic stability. No country can pretend that a nation sitting on the world’s largest proven oil reserves has the right to behave entirely unilaterally without repercussions.
The idea that America should “go away and let them run their affairs” assumes Maduro’s government represents the people, which is demonstrably false. Elections have been rigged, dissent brutally suppressed, and human rights repeatedly violated. This is not sovereignty in the functional sense; it is a dictatorship controlling resources at the expense of citizens. Helping restore governance that serves the people is not colonialism; it is stabilizing a failing state.
Comparing Venezuela to Western European socialist countries is misleading. Socialism in Spain or other democracies operates under rule of law, functioning markets, and strong institutions. Venezuela lacks all of these. You cannot point to European models to justify a socialist regime that has impoverished nearly its entire population. Venezuelans don’t need “the right to socialism” imposed on them; they need a functioning economy, security, and access to basic necessities. The country is and has been in great distress, and actually needs help.
In short, this isn’t about imposing American ideology; it’s about confronting the reality that Venezuela under Maduro failed its people, weaponized its resources, and threatens regional stability. Ignoring that in favor of abstract sovereignty arguments is naive at best, dangerously misleading at worst.There are dictators all over the planet, Putin, and the leader in North Korea, why are we not attacking them? We went after Hussein and Maduro for one reason and one reason only, to get control of their respective oil spigots. Maduro is the same sort of tyrant that they were complaining about regarding Castro and Cuba 60 years ago. It is all the same ole sheet music.
Yes, Maduro ruined the economy in Venezuela, but can the people agree to an election to replace him and chart a new course, without America’s threats?
How has the Venezuelan government weaponized it? They can sell their oil to the highest bidder, to their advantage wherever they want. Now that Maduro is gone, they can use to proceeds to repair the country and its economy, not just hand money over to Trump and greedy American capitalists. Much like the days prior to Castro where Americans was taking advantage of the Cuban economy as it exploited much of Central American nations during the 1950s. No one places restrictions on the US as to who they do business with, why should Venezuela observe any such restriction? What “allied” interests, you should just say US interests?
Repercussions go into the realm of attacks and occupation because any nation does not necessarily see their interests and that of the US on the same plane?
With the proceeds from the petroleum, there is no reason why a functional socialist-democracy similar to Europe can not be built there, if they want on THEIR terms.
Just be careful that “help” does not revert into a new form of imperialism and colonialism. Venezuelans need the “right to make their own choices”. Sovereignty is never abstract, you would never give that up as an American, now would you? Why should anyone else?I was wondering the same thing, why Maduro and not Putin, they are both scum with Putin being the worse. However, Trump is frightened of Putin but not of Maduro.
It was never about drugs, either - everybody seems to forget that Trump pardoned a worse drug dealer - Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras. He was responsible for more American deaths that Maduro ever did. Boy, what hypocrisy.
People acting confused by this are pretending geopolitics doesn’t exist. It’s not about needing oil; it’s about preventing hostile control of strategic assets. That’s basic national security.
In my view, this was a strategic masterstroke—but I’m sure the media will spin it as something else entirely. Here come the tears and outrage.As more details emerge, ie, leaving the "regime" in place (but forced to do our bidding), your "masterstroke" description covers it well.
GAI see your point, and I’m also learning as more details come out. My view is still evolving, but based on what we’re seeing so far, I like the direction of it. This doesn’t look impulsive; it looks calculated. And I suspect China is paying close attention, because this signals that Trump is not a typical U.S. president, which puts them in a far less comfortable position. I think China got the message. And it's very clear, when Trump is pushed, he will shove...
Shar
WATCH The words about Venezuela from a Venezuelan American.
He puts the situation in Venezuela into perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vmzAJvXtWADoes this pro-Maduro woman in Caracas put things in perspective?
https://youtu.be/RxSFfm3zS5s
an anecdote here or there don't tell a story do they.
Now, it would be logical there is great relief among at least 67% (those who voted for the opposition) that Maduro is gone, but they can't cheer. His replacement, Delcy (not Trump), is said to be as bad as Maduro is. So, on the face of it, the populous is probably not gong to see much change and Trump will have egg on his face again for over promising and and not planning for the day after his impulsive actions.
The great unknown is, without the influence of Maduro's iron rule over the cartels. will they make a run at taking over the country? Or, is Delcy as deeply involved in the drug trade as Maduro was.
Finally, a little birdie told me the Columbian president is next on Trump's hit list. then maybe Cuba and Mexico.
No, Trump's order to snatch Maduro was not illegal or unconstitutional
Article II powers and Take Care Clause provided president authority for Venezuelan operation, analysis shows
To the surprise of no one, Democrats reflexively denounced Trump’s daring middle-of-the-night grab of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro and his wife.
If Joe Biden, who offered a $25 million reward for Maduro’s arrest, had done what Trump did, these same politicians would be organizing a ticker-tape parade.
Their condemnation of Trump has nothing to do with the law, although they pretend that it does. Instead, it is transparently driven by their contempt for a president that they despise.
Bereft of reason, they oppose whatever Trump does even if it conforms to their previously expressed beliefs.
Almost in unison, Democrats decried Trump’s action as "illegal," "unjustified" and "unconstitutional." Many insisted that he was required to seek permission from Congress.
None of that happens to be true.
The president is empowered by the U.S. Constitution as commander in chief of the armed forces to direct military action to protect Americans, fortify U.S. interests and defend our national security.
The scourge of drugs emanating from Venezuela has long been poisoning our citizens. Our government estimates that roughly 200 to 250 metric tons of cocaine is shipped out of the Latin American country annually. America, by virtue of its prosperity, is a favored destination.
On this basis alone, the incursion into Caracas was legal, justified, and legitimate.
For years, Maduro has led the notorious Cartel de los Soles, a violent drug cartel that is designated by the U.S. as a foreign terrorist organization responsible for murders, torture and crimes against humanity so egregious that even the United Nations recognized it.
Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution vests inherent powers in the president to unilaterally order armed forces into military actions. His command authority is supreme, and he may conduct campaigns and deploy operations by his own judgment.
Short of a formal declaration of war, a president does not need prior authorization from Congress to act. That principle is embedded in our Constitution and has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court since the early founding of our Republic.
In more modern times, the president’s authority over armed action has only expanded. Cases involving Truman, Clinton and Obama solidified presidential power to direct military operations without congressional consent.
Trump had every legal and constitutional right to defend the United States against the transport of deadly illicit drugs and to arrest the man most responsible, who has been federally indicted for numerous crimes.
And no, Trump did not violate the War Powers Act as some of his critics have alleged. The resolution that was passed in 1973 stipulates a reporting requirement to Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces into hostilities. It is not a prohibition to act.
Indeed, it implicitly recognizes a president’s inherent power to use military force without specific congressional approval. Every single American president has done so since the end of World War II. Trump is no exception.
The "Take Care Clause"
The president has another authority at his disposal. The "Take Care Clause" in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
To put it simply, Trump is duty-bound to ensure that all federal statutes are enforced. This includes the apprehension, arrest, and prosecution of wanted fugitives who are criminally charged with U.S. crimes and must be brought to justice.
Effectuating the arrest of Maduro qualifies as enforcing all laws. Just because the accused is the de facto head of state in another country does not afford him protection or immunity from the long arm of American law. That is written nowhere.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described Maduro as "a fugitive of American justice." Given his armed protection, military troops were necessary to accomplish his arrest. According to Trump, the "operation was done in conjunction with U.S. law enforcement."
This was also the case in 1990 under nearly identical circumstances.
Then-President George H. W. Bush ordered the military to capture Manuel Noriega, the corrupt dictator of Panama who was indicted on drug trafficking charges and endangering U.S. citizens. After a surprise military operation in the country’s capital, he was taken into custody and spirited back to the U.S. for trial.
Noriega’s legal team of defense attorneys vigorously challenged both his arrest and America’s legal authority to try him. Those maneuvers failed, along with his various claims of immunity. He was convicted and imprisoned.
Most Venezuelans seem relieved that the long nightmare of tyranny, oppression and death at the hands Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro is finally over. Their land is rich with the world’s largest oil reserves.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-j … titutionalThank you. The facts you’ve presented should set the tone for this conversation. The law, in my view, is explicit and needs no reinterpretation; it speaks loudly and clearly.
Your whole premise is false. The "Take Care" clause, which Trump ignores on a daily basis, does no do what you suggest. It commands him or her to execute the laws Congress passes - PERIOD, end of story.
Unless you can produce a law] that Congress passed that told Trump to start a war with Venezuela or even to kidnap Maduro, I rest my case with a lot fewer words that have no bearing on the legality of his actions.
Other presidents used authorities granted by Congress to go after al Qaeda and Iraq and any of the other "what-ifs" you put out there. There was no such authorization from Congress for this deed.
The END doesn't not justify the MEANS.
Venezuela and Ukraine...
Something some of you might like to remember. Or not.
2019
And I was also told by Amos and other colleagues that
they had some linkages, so I also want to, you know, get you
to step back at thi s period. Th j s i s, you know, l'4arch,
Apri1, into May, where we were having a standoff over
Venezuela. And the Russ'ians at this particular juncture were
signaling very strongly that they wanted to somehow make some
Very strange SWap arrangement between Venezuela and Ukra'ine.
In other words, if We were going to exert some semblance
of the l4onroe Doctrine of, yotl know, Russia keeping out of
our backyard, because this js after the Russians had sent in
these hundred operatives eSSentially to, you know, baSically
secure the Venezuelan Government and, you know, to preempt
what they were obviously taking to be some kind of U.S.
military act'ion, they were basically signaling: You know,
you have your Monroe doctrine. You want us out of your
backyard. We11, you know, we have our own version of this.
You' re i n our backyard i n Ukrai ne. And we were ge'-ti ng that
sent to us, you know, kind of informally through channels.
It was in the Russian press, various commentators...
Yes. I said that the Russi ans signaled,
including publicly through the press and through press
articles that's the way that they operate that they
were interested in they lajd'it out in articles, I mean a
1ot of them in Russian but, you know, obviously, your
staff and Congressional Research Service can find them for
you positing that, as the U.S. was so concerned about the
Monroe Doctrine and its own backyard, perhaps the U.S. might
also be then concerned about developments in Russja's
backyard as in Ukraine, making it very obvious that they were
trying to set up some kind of let's just say: You stay out
of Ukraine or you move out of Ukraine, you change your
posi ti on on Ukrai ne, and, you know, we'11 rethi nk where we
are wi th Venezueta.
And I said that I went to Moscow. It wasn't a
classified trip because I was going to meet with Russians.
And in the course of those discussjons, it was also apparent,
including with a Russian think tank and other members, that
the Russian Government was'interested in having a discussion
about Venezuela and Ukraine...
It's been reported and that the Russians, the
Russians themselves made it very clear in unclassjfjed public
settings that they were interested at some point in and,
'in f act, i t was even reported i n the press that I had gone to
Russia, by someone that asked a question of our State
Department officiats in doing a press briefi ng: Had I gone
to Russia at the time to make a trade between Venezuela and
Ukraine? It was asked as a question to Christopher Robinson
during a press briefing at the State Department...
I was told that the same individuals who
had been jndicted ( Rudy Giulianj associates) had been interested at different points in
energy i nvestments 'in Venezuela and that th'is was qui te
well-known.
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00 … 0-D010.pdf
It is so obvious that it is almost comical.I’m familiar with this testimony, and I think it’s being overstated to suggest something “obvious” or nefarious on the U.S. side.
What this actually shows is that Russia was floating a leverage theory, not that the U.S. agreed to, pursued, or even seriously entertained a “swap” between Venezuela and Ukraine. Signaling through press articles and informal channels is classic Russian coercive diplomacy, they do this routinely to test reactions and create narratives after the fact.
There is a key distinction being ignored here:
Russia proposing linkage is not the same as the U.S. accepting or acting on it. No policy shift on Ukraine occurred. No trade was made. No withdrawal or concession happened. Ukraine policy remained consistent, including sanctions and support.
As for Venezuela, the U.S. response was diplomatic pressure and sanctions, not a military action, despite Russia’s attempt to frame it as a Monroe Doctrine standoff. That framing benefits Moscow, not Washington.
The mention of Giuliani associates and energy interests is also doing a lot of rhetorical work without proving causation. “Interested in investments” does not equal policy control, nor does it show the U.S. government acting on Russia’s terms. If that were the case, the outcomes would look very different, and they don’t.
What is obvious is Russia’s long-standing strategy:
create false equivalencies, inject confusion, and later claim hypocrisy to justify its own aggression. That playbook was visible in 2014, 2019, and fully deployed in 2022.
So no, this isn’t comical. It’s a reminder that Russia talks about deals it wants, not deals that happened. Conflating the two may be convenient for an argument, but it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
Who is "running" Venezuela today? I don't think it is "lying" Trump.
Dr. Bandy Lee Predicted this. Trump's pathology is such that getting away with one illegal action will embolden him to do other, more bold ones - he is now saying Cuba, Iran, Greenland, and Columbia are in his sights.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/05/world/gr … rning-intlTrump's actions were not illegal. Hopefully, these few words will have some here turn to facts, not media blather. Let's stop this kind of skewed rhetoric.
Then why is everybody but your side saying it is illegal. At the very least, if violates international law
For your reading enjoyment once again;
1) UN Charter ban on the use of force (Article 2(4))
If a state uses military force on another state’s territory, the default rule is: don’t—unless an exception applies. Article 2(4) is the core prohibition.
United Nations
+2
United Nations Legal Affairs
+2
That’s why many governments and international-law commentators are describing the strike/capture as a sovereignty-violating use of force.
The Guardian
+2
Le Monde.fr
+2
2) The narrow exceptions: Security Council authorization or self-defense (Article 51)
The U.S. has publicly framed this as something like a “law-enforcement”/self-defense-adjacent action in the public debate (per reporting).
Reuters
+2
Los Angeles Times
+2
But under the UN Charter, the classic legal off-ramps are basically:
UN Security Council authorization, or
Self-defense under Article 51[/i](triggered by an “armed attack,” and constrained by necessity and proportionality).
United Nations Legal Affairs
+2
United Nations
+2
So the legal fight becomes: was there an actual (or imminently unavoidable) armed attack, and was the scale/means necessary and proportionate? If not, Article 51 won’t justify it.
United Nations Legal Affairs
+2
Reuters
+2
3) OAS Charter: non-intervention and (regional) non-use of force
Because this happened in the Americas, the Charter of the Organization of American States is also relevant. It states, in sweeping terms, that no state has the right to intervene in another state’s internal/external affairs.
CIDH
+1
This doesn’t replace the UN Charter—it adds another widely cited treaty framework that condemns cross-border coercion.
4) Customary international law: sovereignty + non-intervention (the “Nicaragua” principle)
Even apart from treaties, customary international law recognizes:
territorial sovereignty, and
a non-intervention rule against coercion in another state’s protected domestic domain.
[u]The ICJ’s Nicaragua v. United States judgment is one of the best-known statements of those principles.
If the objective is effectively regime change (and there’s reporting about “running” Venezuela), that tends to aggravate the non-intervention problem, because it looks less like “policing” and more like coercive political control.
Also, Congress passed no law authorizing Trump to kidnap Maduro for him to execute. So, exactly what "law" that hasn't been twisted out of shape are you resting your judgement on?"Then why is everybody but your side saying it is illegal. At the very least, if violates international law" ECO
I’ve looked closely at this issue and am completely confident the mission was lawful. I have no intention of debating it endlessly. At this point, I accept that some people will inevitably base their views on faulty information.Which is what you are doing, isn't it, basing your view on faulty information.
“The Trump administration is demanding that Venezuela’s interim leader take several pro-U.S. actions that her predecessor refused if she wants to avoid a similar fate.
U.S. officials have told Delcy Rodriguez that they want to see at least three moves from her: cracking down on drug flows; kicking out Iranian, Cuban and other operatives of countries or networks hostile to Washington; and stopping the sale of oil to U.S. adversaries, according to a U.S. official familiar with the situation and a person familiar with the administration’s internal discussions.
U.S. officials also expect Rodriguez — the former vice president now running Venezuela — to eventually facilitate free elections and step aside, the two people said. But the deadlines for the demands are fluid, and U.S. officials stress there are no elections imminent.
———-
So, Venezuela is to become an American satellite? Seems like we working to keep Ukraine from a similar fate at the hands of Putin’s Russia. We control its most profitable asset, tell them who they can and who they cannot sell to. If drugs was a reason to attack Venuzuala, I can think of other countries that has contributed a great deal to the problem, would we invade them? Conservatives think that everybody is stupid, of course, it is about the oil.
I know what conservatives will say, while the similarity between Venezuela and Ukraine is hard to deny, we are America, the land of the brave and the home of the brave and sweet Jesus is always on our side. So, in exchange for allowing America to control your economy, you can avoid having your nation invaded. Trump will use this template to threaten and intimidate any number of nations in this hemisphere and beyond……..
But, I have always suspected that conservatives were fundamentally tyrants under the skin who loath democracy, so why should I be surprised at this outcome?"while the similarity between Venezuela and Ukraine is hard to deny"
No it's not. I have no problem denying it. There is NO similarity.
Ukraine was invaded by the fourth most powerful military in the world determined to make it a russian territory. Ukraine fights daily for its freedom and sovereignty. russia has lost over 1.5 people. Ukraine has lost hundreds of thousands of people. It is an all out war being fought on land, sea and in the air on a daily basis as it has for the past four years.
The United States is using its influence to deter enemies of the United States from establishing a strong base of operations in the western hemisphere. Venezuela's country is mainly still in tact.
There is no war, no military dead, a corrupt leader was removed.
If you think there is any similarity between Venezuela and Ukraine...that is just plain sad.No similarity, really? Venezuela was attacked by the most powerful military in the world determined to turn it into nothing more than an American protectorate, a vassal state, with the controversy over drugs and dictatorship being nothing more than a ruse. Just like Putin wanted to protect his control in areas of his dominant influence, so we do with Venezuela. And what if Venezuela gives Trump and his demands that Venezuela submit to American multinationals allowing their resources (petroleum reserves) to be controlled by the United States the figurative “finger” what then? He promises more invasions and incursions to prevent the Venezuelan government sovereign control of its own country. That is no better than Putin, regardless of how you try to spin it. Putin does not want the West to establish any base of operations in the Ukraine and he is willing to war to prevent that.
So, the dictator has been removed, let the people there get their affairs in order without the US making extortionist demands upon the Venezuelan people and their economy.
“The United States is using its influence to deter enemies of the United States from establishing a strong base of operations in the western hemisphere. Venezuela's country is mainly still in tact.”
Which gives him an excuse to strong arm and intimidate every nation in this hemisphere. I don’t want a part of it. It was interesting to note that a representative of the Danish government warned Trump against further designs that he might have to annex Greenland against the will of its residents. It would constitute a violation of the NATO pact to which Denmark belongs and that would extend to its protectorate, Greenland. Do you understand the implications of that? The tyrant that you support is breaking free of his leash.If you were to see the effects of the war has taken on Ukraine and the Ukrainian people...you would see a big difference.
Ukraine should be as in tact as Venezuela.But the principle remains the same “the end does not justify the means”.
As I said if Venezuela decides to put it own economy ahead of American strategic interests, what will Trump bomb next?Their economy has long since collapsed. Roughly 80 % of Venezuelans live in poverty, with about 50 % in extreme poverty, and most households struggle to afford basic necessities like food, electricity, medicine, and housing. The fall of Maduro presents a critical opportunity. U.S. support in helping build an economy that benefits both nations could win widespread backing from the Venezuelan people. This is a chance for their country to recover, prosper, and move away from socialism toward a more thriving, sustainable future.
But, being under American tutelage has its price, are they willing to accept American domination? I wouldnt.
That’s an excellent question. First, we simply don’t know what the U.S. might offer in terms of governance. Second, it’s unclear what the people actually want. What we do know is that they currently have a president in office, and she is responsible for governing.
I do know in Iran, this AM they named a street after Trump... LOL It just will most likely be left in the hands of the people in the end. What they want, they will naturally hold elections, as they have in the past. But this time their votes may count.I have an aversion to dominating people through threats and intimidation because in the long run, none of it is sustainable.
We will let the people decide and that means that Trump and American foreign policy needs to get out of the way.A more basic question: what right does America have to dictate how a sovereign nation runs its affairs? That’s a short walk back to imperialism. I thought MAGA hated that—apparently not. The new rule seems to be might makes right whenever it flatters Trump-world.
And let’s stop misdirecting the outrage.
The real villain here is America’s demand for drugs—full stop. Without that demand, cartels collapse, chemical exporters have no market, and strongmen have one less revenue stream. Yet the hawks pounding the table for a show of force keep pretending the problem is “over there,” as if a saber-rattle fixes what we refuse to face at home.
So why the fixation on Venezuela? If this were truly about drugs, we’d be talking about demand reduction, treatment, and interdiction across every source—not a single convenient target that plays well on cable.
Maduro's removal could reverse decades of economic struggles for Venezuelans
Average Venezuelan wages sit at less than $1 monthly as 70% live in poverty under socialist policies, expert says
The audacious U.S. special forces raid to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and bring him to the U.S. to face charges related to drugs and weapons trafficking could potentially lead to economic relief for average Venezuelans struggling under the regime's socialist economic policies.
Venezuela's economy is heavily reliant on oil exports and experienced a sharp downturn in the last decade as mismanagement of the state-owned oil company caused production to fall and the rest of the Venezuelan economy struggled under sanctions and socialist policies.
The Venezuelan economy contracted in terms of real gross domestic product (GDP) on an annual basis each year from 2014 through 2020 – including declines of more than 15% in 2016, 2017 and 2018; as well as declines of 27% or more in both 2019 and 2020, according to data from the International Monetary Fund.
Jorge Jraissati, president of the Economic Inclusion Group, told FOX Business that those dynamics have created very difficult economic circumstances for average Venezuelans, and that, "Average wages in Venezuela are extremely low in real terms. The official minimum wage remains frozen at 130 bolivars per month, equivalent to less than $1 per month at common exchange rates."
"Even when combined with government bonuses such as food or hardship stipends, many public sector workers only reach roughly $160 per month, while private sector employees often earn around $230-$240 per month on average," Jraissati said.
"Household surveys also show average family income clustered in the low $200s per month in many regions," he added. "These levels sit well below the cost of a basic food basket and essential goods. This is why 70% of people are in poverty."
noted that Venezuela's economic struggles in recent decades are a stark contrast to the economic dynamism the country experienced for much of the last century before Hugo Chávez's regime rose to power in 1998 and installed socialist economic policies over the ensuing decade.
"For much of the 20th century, Venezuela was not a poor country," he said. "Between 1920 and 1980 it was the fastest growing economy in the world, with GDP per capita expanding at an average of 6.4% per year, placing it among the 20 richest nations globally."
"Living standards reflected this reality. Broad access to consumer goods, rising wages and sustained middle class expansion were the norm. That trajectory was reversed by socialist economic policies," Jraissti said.
Chávez died in 2013 and was succeeded by Maduro, who consolidated power to establish a dictatorship through fraudulent and undemocratic elections.
The dire economic conditions fueled an exodus of Venezuelans over the last decade, as rampant hyperinflation led to shortages of necessities like food and medicine. Inflation peaked at more than 130,000% in 2018, though it slowed to 190% as of 2023, according to the central bank.
"Since 2013, Venezuela has lost roughly 70% of its GDP, the largest peacetime economic collapse in the modern history of the western hemisphere," Jraissati said. "Hyperinflation, expropriations, price controls and currency controls destroyed productive capacity and household purchasing power."
Venezuela's oil industry has experienced a significant decline over the past 20 years, and Jraissati added that broader economic collapse "occurred despite an extraordinary windfall" from oil exports.
"Between 2003 and 2013, the country received close to $1 trillion in oil revenues," he said. "Today, more than 80% of Venezuelans live in poverty, and extreme poverty affects roughly half the population. This does not even count the 8 million people who left."
Data from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) shows that Venezuelan production of crude oil was consistently above 2 million barrels per day from 2005 through 2016, when it began a marked decline – dipping below the 1.5 million barrel threshold in 2018 and falling under 1 million barrels in 2019.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/mad … enezuelansKen and Sharlee's feared WW III just got much closer.
The WAR president Trump pulled another AUTHORITARIAN stunt when he seized a Russian-flagged tanker near Europe.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/07/politics … us-seizureWhat could be more foolish than poking the Russian bear?
Thinking Trump has America's interests in mind.
Putting an avowed socialist in charge of our largest city.
Putting an mentally failing idiot in charge of the country.
Choosing a Democrat presidential candidate without a vote taking place.
Turning Americans from responsibility to entitlement.
Inviting in millions of illegal aliens that hate America.
Putting a man that hated America into the office of President.
Liberals are providing the "death of a thousand cuts" to the greatest country on earth, and that's far more dangerous than poking the bear.
Don't know yet, but Putin is as insane as Trump is, so who knows.
I get your point, but I don't think either is insane. I also think the president is prepared for Russian pushback. One Senator coming out of this morning's brief hinted at such.
I believe Putin will accept our new vision for the Western Hemisphere because he won't have a choice. He's lost his most powerful proxies.
His response to these current ship incidents might give us a clue. I bet it will be a bark without any bite.
[EDIT] Had an 'I'm smart too!' moment, so I had to come back and sagely note that what we have here is one of Mr. Overton's windows.
GAThey have no real bite, other than the threat or use of nuclear weapons. But the moment they chose to use a nuke, they would be signing their own death warrant.
What Russia cannot realistically do is force the U.S. to return the ships, impose direct economic punishment comparable to U.S. sanctions, or escalate militarily without severe consequences. Any major retaliation would only further isolate Russia and invite stronger countermeasures. The few actions available to them, diplomatic protests, legal complaints, information campaigns, or limited harassment, are largely nothing burgers: noisy, symbolic, and meant more for domestic or propaganda purposes than for causing real harm. In short, Russia can complain, posture, and annoy, but its options for meaningful retaliation that would truly hurt the U.S. are narrow, weak, and risky.
So, it seems you believe Trump is following laws you consider insane. I see it very differently. I’ve always felt that presidents who chose not to enforce the laws on the books weren’t acting out of sanity or restraint; they were simply inept.
Trump is very serious about enforcing our laws, and the seizure of these ships sent a clear and unmistakable message in simple terms: the buck stops here.
Trump’s seizure of the ships was legal under U.S. law. The vessels were allegedly carrying oil in violation of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela, Iran, and groups like the IRGC. Federal courts issued forfeiture complaints and seizure warrants, giving authorities the legal right to take control. While international law normally limits boarding foreign-flagged ships on the high seas, the U.S. argued these vessels were effectively stateless due to false documentation, making the seizures defensible. The actions clearly show that U.S. laws are being enforced.
Russia has no power to poke back at the US, other than nuclear. Could you tell me how you feel Russia could poke back?
The United States seized the two tankers: a Russian-flagged ship formerly known as Bella-1 (renamed Marinera) and a second vessel called Sophia. U.S. military and Coast Guard intercepted these ships after prolonged pursuit, alleging they were transporting Venezuelan oil in violation of U.S. sanctions and engaging in deceptive practices like changing flags and identities to evade enforcement. The U.S. justified these seizures by saying the vessels were linked to sanctioned oil flows that fund hostile activities, and that they had obtained U.S. judicial warrants for forfeiture and seizure under U.S. law.
On the legal side, the U.S. relies on its own domestic statutes, particularly laws that make it illegal to transport, sell, or benefit from oil linked to sanctioned regimes or entities designated as terrorist organizations. In past cases, U.S. prosecutors have filed civil forfeiture complaints in U.S. federal courts, seeking to forfeit oil cargo and vessels connected to such schemes on the basis that they are “forfeitable property” under terrorism-financing and sanctions laws. The U.S. Department of Justice unsealed such a complaint in 2024, alleging more than 500,000 barrels of Iranian fuel on one tanker were linked to Iran’s IRGC, a Foreign Terrorist Organization, and therefore subject to seizure.
If anything, Russia has been put on notice that it will no longer be allowed to violate U.S. law. We now have a president who enforces the laws we pass, rather than turning a blind eye as other presidents did by failing to uphold or enforce them.How does Russia poke back? The uncertainty of this can never be ignored, since Russia is a nuclear power. we all should step lightly.
Why does Russia have to give any regard to US sanctions imposed on Venezuela? the Trump administrations explanation for seizures of the vessels are specious at best, as are his explanations for everything else.
US law applies to the US, as a Russian what does that have to do with them? I always question who is being sanctioned and why in this Trump Mileau. This interpretation of the law is just an advantage America gives to itself on the international stage.Russia has been poking back, it’s just not in the way you’re imagining. People talk about nuclear war like that’s the only form of pushback, it isn’t. When the U.S. chased and seized a Russian-flagged oil tanker in the North Atlantic after a prolonged pursuit, Moscow publicly condemned the act as a violation of international maritime law and warned it could escalate tensions at sea. They also demanded humane treatment of their crew and blasted the action at the United Nations Security Council as illegal cowboy behavior. That’s already a form of pushback, legal, diplomatic, and strategic pressure on Washington’s narrative.
Saying “U.S. law only applies to the U.S., so Russia shouldn’t care” ignores how sanctions actually work. Sanctions aren’t just laws on paper — they’re enforced through global financial and trade systems, the U.S. still dominates. If a tanker is flagged Russian, sailing internationally, and operating in markets tied to Western finance, the U.S. can and does enforce those sanctions on the high seas because other countries’ banks, insurers, and ports often cooperate or are within reach of U.S. jurisdiction. That’s why these seizures happen in international waters and why global oil markets react.
Russia does care because these actions aren’t harmless. The seizure of a vessel linked to Russia, especially one reflagged to evade detection, was significant enough that Moscow criticized it as piracy and raised alarms about international law and sovereignty. They aren’t ignoring it; they’re pushing back diplomatically and through global institutions.
Your assumption that Russia’s only way to retaliate is nuclear or that sanctions have zero effect because “it’s just U.S. law” doesn’t match reality. Massive powers don’t always escalate directly; they signal, they condemn, they mobilize allies like China in international fora, and they adjust their own trade strategies and alliances. That’s how geopolitics works when both sides have nukes and real economic stakes.
In short, Russia is poking back, just in ways that don’t touch off a nuclear confrontation, because sanctions enforcement on tankers and energy flows actually impacts Russian commercial interests and global standing, not just some abstract legal jurisdiction.Poking back could mean that Russia will be just that more obstinate about working with the US to get a settlement in the Ukraine crisis. The problem with rightwingers, Sharlee, is they fail to remember that reprisals could be large or small or at a critical juncture. The attitude of America hegemony around the world is a fantasy. Both Russia and China could adjust their trading strategies to our disadvantage even more so with enough provocation, are we invincible in the face of that possibility?
In my view, the war is not for the U.S. to settle; it is primarily a matter for the nations on that continent. I certainly want to see peace and hope that the people of Ukraine prevail. I would also be glad to see the U.S. help in rebuilding the country once the conflict ends. My earlier comments, I believe, fully reflect my views on Russia and the potential consequences of any reprisals.
I disagree, however, with the idea that China could seriously harm the U.S. through trade. We are China’s largest customer—if they cut us off, they cut their own revenue to a trickle. As for Russia, we need very little from them; U.S. imports are already extremely limited due to sanctions and export restrictions.
Some have labeled Trump as a “puppet,” yet he has worked tirelessly to sanction Russia to death... as he reduces America’s dependence on foreign nations for critical resources. Many have overlooked this, but under his leadership, we are becoming far stronger and far less reliant on others than ever before. We remain the strongest nation in the world, and this president is actively working to ensure we stay that way.
The idea of American hegemony being a “fantasy” doesn’t reflect the reality of U.S. global influence. Look at it practically: the U.S. has the largest economy in the world, unmatched military power with bases in dozens of countries, and is the central hub of global finance and technology. Even nations that challenge us, Russia, China, Iran, take our actions seriously because they know the consequences.
Hegemony doesn’t mean uncontested dominance; it means being the primary power that shapes global rules, alliances, and economic systems. Consider NATO, the U.S. dollar’s role as the global reserve currency, and our ability to enforce sanctions that can cripple a nation’s economy; those are real levers of influence.
Even culturally and diplomatically, America sets standards: global media, education, and innovation often revolve around U.S. norms and technology. That isn’t fantasy, it’s tangible power exercised every day.Even culturally and diplomatically, America sets standards: global media, education, and innovation often revolve around U.S. norms and technology. That isn’t fantasy, it’s tangible power exercised every day.
I see that being challenged by the Chinese and technological innovations and applications from Europe making us look like dinosaurs in all the trends toward the future. It is a naive assumption to believe that anyone stays on top forever and remain invincible with no vulnerable points. That unchallenged global influence seems to be on the wane in many sectors from what I have been reading.
What if I were Canada or Brazil and refuse to comply with Trump’s economic, military or political designs on my country or on the entire Western Hemisphere based on that corollary of his?Cred, I get your point about challenges from China and Europe. I’d even agree that no global power is invincible forever. But I’d push back on the idea that U.S. influence is fading as quickly as you suggest. America still sets much of the technological, educational, and cultural agenda worldwide, and that gives the U.S. leverage that can’t be easily replicated. Innovation isn’t just about who produces a trend first; it’s about shaping the standards that others adopt.
As for your Canada or Brazil scenario, influence doesn’t equal control. Diplomacy, trade agreements, and even military alliances are tools, not mandates. A strong U.S. presence doesn’t force countries to comply blindly; it provides incentives and frameworks that often align with their own interests. The question isn’t whether other nations can resist, it’s whether America can continue to offer enough benefits that resisting becomes counterproductive.
So yes, U.S. power has vulnerabilities, but dismissing its global sway as “invincible no longer” underestimates how deeply embedded American standards are across the world.The question isn’t whether other nations can resist, it’s whether America can continue to offer enough benefits that resisting becomes counterproductive.
————
That is well said, and is the key. Are we really willing to recognize and do that avoiding bullying and coercion?Absolutely, this is the heart of the matter. The U.S. wields its influence most effectively when leadership is strong, fair, and willing to negotiate. True global sway comes not from coercion, but from offering respect, setting clear standards, and forging agreements that benefit all parties. This approach makes resistance counterproductive while preserving credibility and trust. In my view, Trump exemplifies this kind of leadership.
But, you have to admit threatening Canada with “punishing” tariffs and referring to the nation as the 51st state is not my idea of “influence”. So, what happens when incentives and frameworks do not align with American interests, such as the Canadian controversy last year?
I disagree with the idea that Trump threatening tariffs or calling Canada the “51st state” is evidence of weak influence. First, influence in international relations is rarely about politeness or rhetoric; it’s about results and leverage. Trump used America’s economic weight as a bargaining chip to push Canada and other allies to negotiate in ways that favored U.S. interests. That’s exactly how leverage works in global diplomacy: countries respond when the stakes are real.
Incentives and frameworks not aligning with U.S. interests doesn’t mean a lack of influence, it reflects the complexity of multilateral relationships. For decades, the U.S. allowed trade imbalances and policies that benefited allies more than itself. Trump simply shook up the status quo, signaling that the U.S. would no longer accept deals that disadvantage American workers or industries.
Influence isn’t always subtle. It can be blunt, and history shows that nations sometimes only respond when consequences are on the table. Calling tariffs “threats” misses the point: these were negotiation tools, not empty rhetoric. American power, when applied strategically, can create outcomes that align global incentives with U.S. interests, even when frameworks seem resistant at first.That’s the sentiment of someone preaching authoritarianism. Someone like me who actually believes in a peaceful world understands that restraint, dignity, and mutual respect are the heart of successful, lasting diplomacy.
It does seem you admire that type of diplomacy. If that is the case you must admire Putin, Erdogan, Saudi Arabia, Xi Jinping, and even Maduro since that is exactly how they conduct their diplomacy.So, you believe that insulting the sovereignty and independence of a long term reliable friend and ally like Canada by referring to it as the 51st state is a way to begin negotiations about trade imbalances or anything else? I have been through Canada many times and they are very touchy about asserting their autonomy and independence relative to the giant to their southern border.
But again, that may be Trumps style, but it is not me. And I certainly hesitate warming up to it.I don’t see it as an insult to Canada’s sovereignty so much as Trump using exaggerated, provocative language to frame leverage, something he has done consistently in business and politics. Canada’s independence is not actually in question, and no serious policy proposal has ever suggested annexation or the erosion of Canadian self-rule. Referring to Canada as the “51st state” strikes me as rhetorical pressure, not a literal or diplomatic position, and it’s aimed at domestic audiences and negotiating posture rather than Canada’s identity.
I also think it’s worth separating tone from outcome. Canada is indeed sensitive about its autonomy, but it is also a sophisticated, self-confident nation that negotiates hard when its interests are on the line. Trade negotiations like USMCA didn’t hinge on politeness alone; they hinged on leverage, economics, and mutual dependence. Trump’s style may be abrasive, but it has a track record of forcing stalled discussions into motion, even if it makes allies uncomfortable at first.
That said, I understand the hesitation. This approach isn’t everyone’s style, and it can feel counterproductive or unnecessary. But I don’t think discomfort automatically equals disrespect, nor does blunt language negate the legitimacy of the underlying issues, like trade imbalances or enforcement gaps. For me, the real question isn’t whether the language is warm, but whether it ultimately produces clearer terms and fairer outcomes, and in several cases, it did.
I see it very differently. To me, the winds have shifted. I’m sorry, but I always consider the current moment, and current realities are how I adjust my views as I see fit. I don’t ruminate on past narratives or stay stuck in old frameworks. I believe intelligence is born from learning, reflection, and being open to change.
Right now, I see a president using strength and clear strategy to prevent vulnerability, not invite it. Deterrence isn’t authoritarian; it’s how world wars are avoided. Trump understands that peace comes from being unmistakably strong, not from signaling weakness. Making it clear that America is back to putting its own security first is exactly how you keep global actors in check and prevent another world war, not cause one.
By seizing these ships and enforcing U.S. sanctions so visibly, Trump is sending a clear message: Russia cannot flout U.S. laws with impunity. The actions highlight Russia’s limited ability to retaliate effectively, exposing its weakness on the global stage. At the same time, these moves isolate Russia diplomatically, showing other nations that U.S. laws will be enforced and that backing Russia in these schemes carries risk. In effect, it’s a strategy that demonstrates strength, deters violations, and underscores that Russia is constrained by both law and international norms. A brilliant move, and I expect we’ll see even stronger actions soon, sending a clear warning to those who should have been held accountable decades ago.
Because he can, the Authoritarian Donald "the Felon" Trump freezes funding for America's children putting their well-being at stake. What an ass-hole, don't you agree? Or do you agree with starving the children?
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/06/politics … tic-statesAll the deaths under every Republican president is less than the number of babies killed by democrat supported abortion. Do you agree with murdering children?
In looking at the video, MN has a obvious case of voluntary manslaughter against the ICE agent who murdered Renee Good. The ONLY think that can justify the shooting is if this devout Christian women had a gun on her seat and was reaching for it - a lie DHS has not issued yet.
The ICE thug broke every protocol in "agent vs vehicle" events. If not for his incompetence Ms. Good would be alive today.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/minnea … g-01-08-26This is not fact, it’s speculation layered with inflammatory language. Declaring “voluntary manslaughter” and calling the agent a “murderer” is a legal assertion that has not been made by any prosecutor, court, or grand jury. You don’t get to assign criminal charges by watching a video and being angry. That’s not how law works.
The claim that the only possible justification would be a gun is flatly wrong. In U.S. law, a vehicle can constitute deadly force depending on context and perceived threat. Whether that standard was met here is precisely what investigators are examining. Asserting otherwise shows a misunderstanding of use-of-force doctrine, not moral clarity.
Saying the agent “broke every protocol” is another unsupported claim. Federal agent-vs-vehicle policies are fact-specific and cannot be assessed conclusively without full access to body cam footage, positioning, timing, and agency guidelines, none of which I assume you possess. Declaring “incompetence” is rhetoric.
You can argue the shooting was unjustified. You can demand accountability. But presenting conjecture as an “obvious fact” weakens your case rather than strengthens it. If this were as legally clear as you claim, charges would already exist. They don’t, because facts, standards, and law matter more than your outrage.It is interesting to me that there is a bullet hole in the windshield, and the woman was shot in the head as a result of the bullet passing through that hole and then on to her head.
It is impossible that the shot was fired from the side of the vehicle and followed that path. It was fired from in front of the vehicle, by the man shown being threatened with death by car.
In addition, this woman had been harassing the cops all day, threatening them, obstructing them, etc. In her anger and stupidity she finally crossed the line and did something that demanded a violent response from the police there. And she died as a result - a common enough occurrence when you threaten police long enough and severely enough. Sad, but stupidity always carries a hefty price tag.
At this point, then, the facts are pretty plain - Eso's claim of murder and voluntary manslaughter carry exactly zero weight. Even Eso knows better, for it is impossible to make that determination from the video being shown - it can only come from hate and TDS. It is faintly possible that an honest, independent investigation (not from Minneapolis police or any of the so-called justice system there) will show differently. Unlikely, but possible.
But to take the word of idiots violently opposed to any law enforcement not of their own making is foolish beyond compare, for those people are not interested in truth or honesty. Only in stopping Donald Trump from running the country according to the laws we have passed and that apply to people in Minnesota.Yeah, I totally agree with what you’re saying. The bullet hole clearly shows the shot came from the front of the vehicle, there’s just no way it could have happened from the side like some people are claiming. When someone is threatening an officer with a car, the response has to be fast and serious.
Honestly, her actions leading up to that moment,blocking traffic, refusing to comply, and causing chaos, set the stage for what happened. It’s tragic she died, but when you put officers in that kind of danger, you take that risk yourself.
It’s also frustrating to see people twist this situation for political points instead of just looking at what actually happened. Independent investigations will matter, sure, but the facts are clear: officers were being threatened, and they acted to protect themselves. Anyone ignoring that is not looking for the truth; they’re just pushing an agenda.
I’m all for enforcing our laws. I mean, how ridiculous is it to pass laws that people can just pick and choose whether to follow? What does that even say about our society?Thank you IB. It's interesting how others on this forum can criticize the truth and the facts like they are authorities about what happened, but videos don't lie. Kristi Noem and her Gestapo Agents are clearly covering it up. Trump even has the gall to blame the radical left for the whole event...
Welcome to Trumplandia. Trump doesn't even have the smarts to pull off all the BS that is going on, but Stephen Miller is the puppeteer behind this whole mess including Venezuela and the whole Western Hemisphere BS.Thanks for the video, it is obvious that the driver had no intention of striking the officer with her vehicle as she was more intent in getting away. The failure of the officers to allow others to assist once the woman was down is unconscionable.
Trumps thugs seem to be able to operate freely from off their leash and with impunity.
But the typical meatheads of the right will promote their lame defense of Trumps brutes.Further, I seriously doubt she even knew the agent was violating his training my standing in front of a moving car as her attention was directed at the other officers screaming at her.
Worse, I just read that the U.S. Attorney is blocking state and local police from getting involved. Gee, I wonder why.
Ok, Colombo, I am certainly not going to take the word of Trump nor any of his goon squad. You give anyone a license to kill and they often take advantage out of unjustified rage and spite. We all will be watching carefully to be sure that “heads will roll” where appropriate.
Republican Lawmakers Urge Trump to Invoke Insurrection Act Against Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. It's time these blue state sanctuary cities understand that Federal Law precedes state law.
Republican lawmakers are calling on former President Donald Trump to take decisive action under the Insurrection Act of 1807 after Minnesota Governor Tim Walz stated that he would deploy the National Guard to resist federal immigration enforcement operations in his state. He clearly claimed that he would break Federal law.
“Invoke the Insurrection Act. Arrest Tim Walz,” Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., said Wednesday on X. Miller referenced the law that allows the president to call in military forces to suppress rebellion, enforce federal law, and detain individuals obstructing federal authority. Legal experts note that threatening to use state military forces to block federal agents could fall under these provisions.
Walz’s comments, “We have soldiers in training and prepared to be deployed if necessary. A warning order is a heads-up for folks. Minnesota will not allow our community to be used as a prop in a national political fight.”
While Minnesota law allows the governor to deploy the National Guard for state emergencies, federal law takes precedence when enforcing U.S. statutes, including immigration law. By threatening to mobilize the Guard against federal ICE officers, Walz’s actions may constitute insurrection under federal law.
Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 2383 criminalizes anyone who “incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States,” punishable by fines and imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 2384 further makes it illegal to conspire to oppose federal authority by force. By openly threatening military action against federal enforcement, Walz could be seen as meeting both definitions.
Other Republicans echoed these concerns.
“Donald Trump is the Commander in Chief. Federal authority supersedes state authority. That’s not an opinion—it’s the Constitution,” Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., said. She added, “What Walz is threatening has a name: insurrection. Mr. President, the law is on your side. Use it.”
The Insurrection Act gives the president authority to deploy U.S. military forces within a state to suppress rebellion or obstruction of federal law. By threatening to use Minnesota’s National Guard to block ICE, Walz arguably triggers the exact scenario the law was designed to prevent.
We need to follow our laws, and Waltz is not above the law.Sure, Miller and his staff dug that up out of the archives and is using the insurrection act of 1807 to its fullest extent. None of that has anything to do with this woman being shot at and killed through her windshield.
I watched JD Vance on CNN this morning. He insisted that this woman tried to attack the agent by ramming him with her car
He also insisted that the radical left is behind all the attacks against the agents. In my view in LA, many of the attacks were protesters, not the radical left.
My son has friends who are from Jalisco Mexico who have lived here for 17 years. His parents don't speak a word of English, but they are frightened to death to leave their house. They are no more radical left than Trump is. This is typical of the East LA area. It is loaded with non-English speaking Mexicans. But I’m sure if they were to encounter ICE, they would be deported immediately.The idea that the Insurrection Act or laws like 18 U.S.C. §§ 2383 and 2384 are “just archives” is not accurate; these are active federal statutes, still on the books, and they can be applied today. They don’t need to be dusted off like a history book; they were designed to deal with rebellion or conspiracies to use force against the government, and that’s exactly the kind of behavior these laws target, not minor infractions or protests.
Linking this situation only to a tragic death misses the bigger picture. Whether or not someone was shot in a windshield is horrible and tragic, but the question of insurrection is about organized action to oppose or hinder the government by force, not isolated accidents. If there’s coordination, orders, or sustained efforts to block enforcement, that’s where these laws become relevant. Saying “it has nothing to do with that” confuses a single event with the broader conduct that the law addresses.
The fear that law-abiding residents, or people who don’t speak English, are being targeted highlights why the law matters: protecting federal operations isn’t about politics; it’s about upholding legal authority so communities can be safe. If groups actively conspire or interfere with enforcement in ways that meet the definitions in §§2383 or 2384, those laws can and should be used; it’s not an archival relic, it’s a legal tool. If your son's friends are citizens, they are not in the country illegally and would not be deported. It wou;d seem you may be sharing they are legal, but due to being Mexican, are fearful of being picked up anyway. This is very unfortunate and unfair.
It will be interesting to see if Trump follows through and charges Waltz with insurrection.Don't you find this hilariously ironic and unbearably hypocritical - "Republican Lawmakers Urge Trump to Invoke Insurrection Act Against Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. It's time these blue state sanctuary cities understand that Federal Law precedes state law."
They should totally ashamed of themselves admitting that their 250 years of state's rights rhetoric was all a lie. They have no principles.AI
Why state law enforcement cannot interfere with federal law enforcement
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution
Article VI of the Constitution says that federal law is the “supreme Law of the Land.”
This means that if a federal law and a state law conflict, federal law overrides state law.
State officers cannot legally stop or obstruct federal agents from enforcing federal laws.
Federal authority to enforce its laws
Federal agencies like the FBI, DEA, ATF, or ICE have the legal power to enforce federal laws anywhere in the U.S.
States do not have the authority to block federal agents from doing their jobs. Trying to do so could be considered obstruction of justice.
Separation of powers and roles
The U.S. system divides law enforcement responsibilities.
Federal government: Enforces federal laws.
State/local government: Enforces state laws.
Because of this division, states cannot interfere with federal enforcement, even if they disagree with the law.
Exceptions: States don’t have to assist
Under the anti-commandeering principle (Printz v. United States, 1997), the federal government cannot force states to use their resources to enforce federal laws.
Example: If the federal government passes a law against marijuana, a state can choose not to use its police to enforce it, but it cannot stop federal agents from enforcing it themselves.
✅ Bottom line:
States cannot block or interfere with federal law enforcement because federal law is supreme.
States can choose whether or not to help, but federal agents always have the authority to enforce federal laws on their own.
Shar,
There is a big reason why the left is trying to make this a big thing.
The democrat leadership will do anything to take the focus off their billions of dollars worth of fraud. There will be democrats who go down because of this.
Their actions about this legitimate shooting is simply more evidence of their guilt in the billion dollar fraud scheme in minnesota and other democrat run states.
This is called distraction.Watch this Senate hearing. The number of somali people on welfare after having been here for ten years is unbelievable. When my relative came here we had to post a bond and sign an agreement that they would not take any social welfare from the government until they had a green card or were a citizen. My how things have changed.
'Does Large-Scale Somali Immigration Make Minnesota Stronger Or Weaker?': Gill Grills Dems' Witness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmWsC-siGvoI watched the hearing on C-SPAN, and it was a national embarrassment. The witnesses laid out the facts clearly, showing that Waltz knew about the corruption and chose to ignore it. Frankly, I think every American should be required to watch it. The Democrats completely failed to stay on topic and instead spent the time reciting their usual list of grievances against Trump.
I agree, it’s hard to ignore the timing of all the strong Democrats' concerns on this current issue with ICE. They were quick to shift to this high-profile event. The focus quickly shifts to sensationalized narratives, often distracting from other issues. The billion-dollar fraud investigations in Minnesota and other Democrat-led states deserve attention, and it’s clear that some are using incidents like this to divert public scrutiny. Calling it a distraction is exactly right.
THE LIE "Republican lawmakers are calling on former President Donald Trump to take decisive action under the Insurrection Act of 1807 after Minnesota Governor Tim Walz stated that he would deploy the National Guard to resist federal immigration enforcement operations in his state. He clearly claimed that he would break Federal law."
That, of course, is TOTAL FABRICATION and some here have the malintent to pass such a lie along to incite needless fear and anxiety. They should be very ashamed of themselves for such behavior.
TRUTH - Gov. Waltz issued a warning order that means giving notice to be ready for those not familiar, for the National Guard - who are under his control - to be ready get between the ones doing the terrorizing - the federal agents - and the protesters who have every right to be angry after one of their own was murdered. Effectively, he is trying to deescalate the situation while protecting his constituents from an out of control federal law enforcement.
If I didn't know better, I think these so-called "lawmakers" are wanting to start a civil war."THE LIE "Republican lawmakers are calling on former President Donald Trump to take decisive action under the Insurrection Act of 1807 after Minnesota Governor Tim Walz stated that he would deploy the National Guard to resist federal immigration enforcement operations in his state. He clearly claimed that he would break Federal law."" ECO
This statement is factual.
"Republican lawmakers urged Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act and even arrest Gov. Walz after Walz indicated he might deploy the Minnesota National Guard in reaction to federal immigration enforcement actions. Rep. Mary Miller explicitly said “Invoke the Insurrection Act. Arrest Tim Walz” in response to Walz’s National Guard warning."
https://noticias.foxnews.com/politics/g … hatgpt.com
I prefer that my full comment be shared. I was stating facts based on what has been reported, including quotes, to provide a non-biased post with context of everything that is publicly known. I included Tim Walz’s quotes so readers could see what was actually said and come to their own conclusions. Only the last sentence reflects my personal view. I don’t appreciate being called a liar, but I do value the opportunity to push back and provide supporting posts. I think you do much of the work for me by demonstrating how you conduct yourself, not to mention your logic.
Sharlee01 wrote:
Republican Lawmakers Urge Trump to Invoke Insurrection Act Against Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. It's time these blue state sanctuary cities understand that Federal Law precedes state law.
Republican lawmakers are calling on former President Donald Trump to take decisive action under the Insurrection Act of 1807 after Minnesota Governor Tim Walz stated that he would deploy the National Guard to resist federal immigration enforcement operations in his state. He clearly claimed that he would break Federal law.
“Invoke the Insurrection Act. Arrest Tim Walz,” Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., said Wednesday on X. Miller referenced the law that allows the president to call in military forces to suppress rebellion, enforce federal law, and detain individuals obstructing federal authority. Legal experts note that threatening to use state military forces to block federal agents could fall under these provisions.
Walz’s comments, “We have soldiers in training and prepared to be deployed if necessary. A warning order is a heads-up for folks. Minnesota will not allow our community to be used as a prop in a national political fight.”
While Minnesota law allows the governor to deploy the National Guard for state emergencies, federal law takes precedence when enforcing U.S. statutes, including immigration law. By threatening to mobilize the Guard against federal ICE officers, Walz’s actions may constitute insurrection under federal law.
Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 2383 criminalizes anyone who “incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States,” punishable by fines and imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 2384 further makes it illegal to conspire to oppose federal authority by force. By openly threatening military action against federal enforcement, Walz could be seen as meeting both definitions.
Other Republicans echoed these concerns.
“Donald Trump is the Commander in Chief. Federal authority supersedes state authority. That’s not an opinion—it’s the Constitution,” Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., said. She added, “What Walz is threatening has a name: insurrection. Mr. President, the law is on your side. Use it.”
The Insurrection Act gives the president authority to deploy U.S. military forces within a state to suppress rebellion or obstruction of federal law. By threatening to use Minnesota’s National Guard to block ICE, Walz arguably triggers the exact scenario the law was designed to prevent.
We need to follow our laws, and Waltz is not above the law.
Related Discussions
- 58
What Do We Have Here? A Constitutional Crisis?
by Willowarbor 19 months ago
Vance's statement that "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power" has sparked concerns among legal experts, who suggest it could lead to a constitutional crisis or a breakdown of the American political system. This is due to the fundamental principle that...
- 49
Unelected Resistance: The Legal War Against President Trump’s Mandate
by Sharlee 13 months ago
Just a few months into President Trump’s second term, we’re witnessing an aggressive judicial campaign unlike anything in recent memory. Though elected by a majority of Americans hungry for change and committed to America First policies, President Trump’s ability to govern is being challenged not...
- 107
My Criticism of the Trump administration
by Jack Lee 8 years ago
As most of you know, I support many of Trump’s initiatives and I defend him here on hubpages when he is unfairly criticized by the media and others.You may also know I did not vote for Trump or Hillary in the 2016 election.Now, after over one year in office, and the signing of the latest Omnibus...
- 1805
Who Cares About Trump's Affair with a Porn Star?
by Allen Donald 8 years ago
Seriously, is this something anyone cares about?This was something President Trump engaged in before he was President, so it shouldn't factor into anything other than another indictment of his character.Remember, he cheated on his first wife with his second wife, so having sex with a porn star...
- 29
This is how the left sees America after the Tuesday election.
by Mike Russo 3 years ago
This is from Bill Maher's transcript and it is what I suspect will happen after the Tuesday ElectionTuesday is election day and I know I should probably tell you to vote and what honest to God is really the most important election ever. So okay yes you should vote, and it should be for the one...
- 103
Rogue Judges Contained
by Readmikenow 14 months ago
Thanks to the SCOTUS there will NO LONGER be any nationwide injunctions from rogue federal district court judges. I agree with the Supreme Court, these judges far exceeded their authority. There were also important rulings for parents and more.Nationwide injunctionsIn the most...