Anonymous #1 5w

How is what he did wrong?

-7

Anonymous #2 5w

Ok so let me ask you? Are you pro gun?

-7

Anonymous OP 5w

Generally speaking, yes. And I don’t support repealing the 2nd Amendment.

37

Anonymous OP 5w

I HIGHLY doubt I’m the first person to explain to you what is wrong with what happened, so I’m just not going yo

23

Anonymous OP 5w

He also violated international law and made sure the US can never get mad at another country for trying to kidnap or kill someone on foreign soil

19

Anonymous #3 5w

He wasn't elected. I'm happy Maduro is gone, he was a horrible man, however I wish literally anywhere else did this because the US helps only itself. There is definitely a catch to all of this.

16

Anonymous #5 5w

He was elected, whether the election was fair by our standards is disputed. Barring an opponent from running is obviously okay but he was elected nonetheless.

9

Anonymous #2 5w

Oof no reply after that. You got cooked OP

23

Anonymous #2 5w

You can’t take something like that through congress. It will get leaked

-4

Anonymous #7 5w

That’s too fucking bad. Do a classified briefing. It was already leaked anyway, because NYT and WaPo apparently knew about it anyway, and someone made millions off a Polymarket bet that was submitted just a day before

13

Anonymous #7 5w

You say that as if Congress does not regularly receive classified information, which it does.

19

Anonymous #4 5w

Not millions, sorry. Was 400k, but still

0

Anonymous #6 5w

No I’m just not on yik yak. All day. I have a life

1

Anonymous #6 5w

And my other comment got taken down

1

Anonymous #2 5w

As I was saying fair. And I respect your honesty. That being said I feel like this was fine. Obama killed bin Laden with ZERO congressional approval. Legit invaded libya and assassinated Gaddafi. Trump just goes in for a few hours and brings the guy back ALIVE to which the entirety of the Venezuelan people are CHEERING and everyone has an issue with it

1

Anonymous OP 5w

The authorization for all of that came from the AUMF that allowed retaliation on anyone responsible for 9/11, and later was used to justify anything in the Middle East that was terrorism-adjacent, even 20 years afterwards. That should be repealed and people have proposed repealing it

0

Anonymous OP 5w

“Entirety” is not true. The overwhelming number of people in those videos aren’t actually in Venezuela. They’re Venezuelans living abroad. There are verified clips of Venezuelans who condemn this (obviously, some still support Maduro). People cheered when we took out Saddam Hussein too

1

Anonymous #4 5w

People should’ve cheered when we took out Saddam Hussein. People should’ve been partying. But back to AUMF, they have classified certain drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. AUMF is to protect from ALL forms of terrorism. Not just 9/11 related incidents. Therefore Trump would’ve been in his rights to do so. Just because you want it repealed doesn’t mean what he did was wrong then

1

Anonymous #8 5w

What does him cutting funding have to do with anything?

-1

Anonymous #4 5w

Also send me this link I wanna see what the full video is. It sounds a little click bait headliney. Is it people standing in solidarity or is it people just saying “Trump wants our oil”

1

Anonymous OP 5w

The AUMF was specific to people related to 9/11. The interpretation of that was stretched on purpose and should not have been

1

Anonymous #4 5w

Search “sky news Venezuela oil” and it should come up https://x.com/skynews/status/2007753621153476737

1

Anonymous #4 5w

Whether it’s interpreted differently or not is irrelevant. What matters is the AUMF is still in play. At the base it’s the president has authorization for military force against terrorism towards the US. Drug cartels are indeed terrorism towards the US. So dropping in and scooping this mother fucker is not “unconstitutional”

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Ok. You understand why people are concerned about this, though, right? Because we’re not stopping there. We already threatened to put boots on the ground, and we threatened Mexico and Colombia too. The rest of the Maduro regime is still there. It doesn’t look like Maduro’s VP will comply (unless she’s faking), and Trump’s apparently angry with the opposition leader over the Nobel prize shit, so we’re probably going to have to install our own leadership

0

Anonymous OP 5w

I hope you also understand that hijacking planes and flying them into buildings is absolutely not the same as participating in the cocaine supply chain, which people are often *willingly* taking

1

Anonymous OP 5w

With Bin Laden he had the AUMF. However, Obama invading Libya was illegal and it’s a reason why I’m not a fan of Obama among other reasons. And of course the entire Venezuelan diaspora in America is going to be cheering. We cheered when we took out Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden. Did it change a thing? No.

3

Anonymous OP 5w

False. AUMF is not a blanket authorization against all forms of terrorism.

6

Anonymous #4 5w

Yet has still killed more people with it being laced with fentanyl being smuggled into the country than 9/11 killed. Obviously two different end goals but doesn’t change the fact that it’s still bad

1

Anonymous OP 5w

There is no other interpretation. The text is as clear as it can be. I’m curious as to what part of the AUMF leaves room open to interpretation.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

If you want to play “oh the drug cartels are de facto terrorist organizations” card then let me ask you: what is a terrorist organization?

1

Anonymous #2 5w

A group that advocates violence against civilians USUALLY to push a political agenda. Which does not mean exclusively. But how Charlie Kirk of you. “What is a woman” type shit

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Nah that’s a valid question. Do you consider adding very addictive drugs like fentanyl to cocaine to be violence? If so, shouldn’t Purdue Pharma be a terrorist organization?

1

Anonymous #4 5w

Yes. Purdue pharma was domestic terrorism. I consider lacing shit with fentanyl to murder people is considered terrorism

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Ok, at least you’re consistent about that. But should we bomb them?

4

Anonymous #4 5w

If it was controlled by a countries government and they had forcible military operations against us then yes

1

Anonymous #2 5w

The supreme court has been 100% clear about this: military use and foreign relations are not constitutional issues, they are political issues. No supreme court would ever hear this case. Source: actual con law expert. Basically congress has a check on the power of the president, and it’s up to them what to do here (impeachment or other bargaining powers). They will not impeach over this.

5

Anonymous OP 5w

Wrong. It must have a political/ideological goal. Textbook definition.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

No response to my earlier comments?

1

Anonymous OP 5w

You brought up Trump and cancer?

1