Anonymous #4 5w

Yeah but Biden didn’t break US and international law to kidnap the dude. The US government seems to be happy to shove blatant lawlessness under the rug, so it’s up to the people to hold them accountable. Idc who the politician is, if they’ve broken the law they need to answer for it

13

Anonymous #6 5w

They still had indictments out for him. They were offering $50M to lead to his arrest lol. They 100% were on board with this until it was Trump because it’s more important to hate Trump than do things.

-4

Anonymous #4 5w

The democrats are absolutely not saints here either but ffs the administration blatantly spat on the authority of congress and carried out land bombings when they KNEW congress had said they needed prior approval. The previous admin didn’t do something so brazen because its literally illegal

12

Anonymous #4 5w

The problem is the execution. We have processes in place to keep the branches of government in a system of checks and balances and to one of those is requiring congressional approval for an act of war. Article 1 Section 8. The president cannot just use the military at his own whim.

13

Anonymous #6 5w

It’s all a game of legal terms, loopholes, and technicalities. What occurred did not need congressional approval because of the technicalities of the law which they used. There will be no legal backlash because they technically did not break the law. They saved the US $50M by doing something themselves they were offering to pay for someone else to do

-5

Anonymous #4 5w

What technicalities? You need to be specific. I hate to break it to you but that military operation costs alot more than 50 million.

16

Anonymous #4 5w

Except I would have shitted on Biden the same if he ever did something like this. You even saying “until it was Trump that was the one to do it” shows the exact black and white thinking I even started this post with.

14

Anonymous #2 5w

I could point out the fact that he didn’t get congressional approval for this to begin with. But I’m guessing you don’t actually care about hearing anything negative about the kidnapping and that you have a closed mindset about this

10

Anonymous OP 5w

No, I’m saying a large portion of sitting US members of the house and senate that had explicitly supported the forced removal and arrest of Maduro within the past 7 years are now in vocal opposition because the official platform of the democrat party is to oppose Trump no matter what. My only point was this was a bipartisan positive idea until it was Trump. Whether you fall on that bipartisan spectrum is besides the point

-1

Anonymous #4 5w

That’s just narcissistic. It’s not about Trump. It’s about him committing an act of war without congressional approval. You are twisting the narrative in order to be right and giving no care to the reality of the situation. Set aside your pride for half a second and use your brain.

9

Anonymous #3 5w

It’s not narcissistic or “twisting the narrative” to make a simple observation. There are many such instances of democratic politicians on the record then supporting and now opposing. This situation has zero effect on my pride or emotions, I genuinely couldn’t give less shits about a criminal dictator being arrested; that’s what’s supposed to happen

-2

Anonymous #4 5w

It is in this case. We are not talking about other instances so stay on topic. I have explained where Trump bypassed congress to you so not it’s not a simple observation because I explained the constitutional issue to you. This has nothing to do with trump as a person yet you insist on making it about that. That is narcissistic, that is twisting the narrative.

7

Anonymous #4 5w

You also have failed to explain what technicalities allowed for trump to bypass congress. So start there.

10

Anonymous #3 5w

He did not “bypass” Congress if the actions he took did not need congressional approval. His claim is that he did not need it and they will use the law to back it up. I don’t need to explain anything when Marco Rubio explained it himself. Obama did it with Libya, Trump with Venezuela. “This was a limited military action within the President’s Article II authority, so congressional approval wasn’t required.”

0

Anonymous #3 5w

The point remains: when politicians vocally support something, then said thing happens, and then they change their mind, it doesn’t take a genius to know it’s political

0

Anonymous #4 5w

They did need congressional approval. Still waiting on why he didn’t. Obama did the same thing and there was outrage about it then. I believe Rubio was referring to Article.S2.C1.1.10 or Article.S2.C1.1.17. Neither of which apply here, but feel free to point out if I missed something. While we’re at it he also violated the War Powers resolution.

4

Anonymous #4 5w

They didn’t change their mind. They opposed the means by which he did it, but hey if you want to argue that I’ll introduce the claims by the democratic party that they were lied to and misled about Venezuela stating they had been told their were no plans for military action or regime changes.

3

Anonymous #3 5w

You’re completely ignoring reality. They claim to have constitutional authority through Article II allowing for a the president to conduct a military offensive as commander in chief. Clinton did it in Kosovo, Obama in Libya, and even Trump again in Syria during his first term. Article I is not being invoked. There is no war. There is no way other than force to arrest the dictator of a country. Anyone who called for that called for exactly what occurred. And with ZERO military casualties

0

Anonymous #4 5w

civilians died

1

Anonymous #4 5w

Article 2 isn’t that simple. It requires justification. Harboring/funding terrorists, Obama admitted it was a mistake to do what he did in Libya and he was heavily criticized for it(intervention was also requested by the international community), Clinton did was he did to protect an ethnic group that was under attack. If you don’t understand how article 2 works you have no place commenting on it.

3

Anonymous #4 5w

Why are we arresting the leader of a foreign country outside of our jurisdiction. Also he’s not a dictator. He’s the president.

4

Anonymous #3 5w

He was not democratically elected, he lost the election and forced the opposition into exile. That’s a dictator. He’s a cartel leader and had indictments from the US for drug trafficking/narcotics-terrorism and corruption charges as well as others. That is the justification claimed for Article II whether you, just a random dude online, accepts it as legitimate or not. That’s the government’s position and will probably not go far in being challenged legally.

0

Anonymous #4 5w

Really? Google is free. He was democratically elected and won, the issue is he had María Machado exiled. Lmfao that is not justification, but please prove me wrong. If that was the case we would have invaded Mexico and Columbia years ago. Just me, a random dude who can actually understands article II and you, the guy who eats whatever donnie defecates into his mouth. Wait so you’re telling me I should blindly trust the government as doing the right thing? Holy hell what is the Republican party

4

Anonymous #4 5w

Also it’s alleged cartel leader(Cartel of the Suns). Kinda like alleged pedophile Donald J Trump.

3

Anonymous #3 5w

I’d love to discuss with you more about this stuff but I think you have Wikipedia article to read first. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Venezuelan_presidential_election Ironic you’d try to accuse me of suggesting to believe every word the government says

0

Anonymous #4 5w

Already read it. Says right there, barred from running. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-2/ Here’s some reading for you since we’re giving out homework.

4

Anonymous #3 5w

Keep reading bud

0

Anonymous #4 5w

How’s it ironic? You can explain that to me after you can explain the justification. Until then I’ll be waiting because I’m a bit tired of the dancing around the topic.

3

Anonymous #4 5w

You’ll have to explain what exactly you’re looking for I read the whole thing an hour ago. Claims of this and that, barring overseas citizens from voting.

3

Anonymous #3 5w

Justification was already answered, you rejected. That’s on you. If it gets challenged in court and loses then we’ll talk, but I highly doubt it will. And it’s ironic because the only people that counted the votes in favor of Maduro was Maduro’s government controlled systems. No one else counted or accepted it as a win. Evidence was presented on the contrary even. It’s internationally accepted as a rigged election

0

Anonymous #4 5w

I didn’t ask for the court. I asked for you to explain the justification. Not marco rubio. I want you to explain it because I have a hunch you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Poll observers were present from the opposition party. Also the countries in closest alliance with Venezuela agreed with the results of the election. But hey if it makes you happy it’s not outlandish for a guy like Maduro to rig an election. That’s still not justification of an act of war without congress

5

Anonymous #3 5w

It’s not about being outlandish or not, it’s about the internationally accepted outcome of the election. Okay I’ll bite: The US did not recognize him as a legitimate leader, therefore he is just another criminal coordinating narco-terrorism in the US. Advance notice couldn’t be done due to moles and the nature of the timing of the operation. They argue it falls within historical precedent for force without congressional approval. From this angle, it was defensive + justified against terrorism

0

Anonymous #3 5w

You’re not a legal expert, nor am I. There’s a hypothetical of what the administration can claim as justification. Whether it holds up or not in court we’ll see, but I can promise you if the top legal experts can expose it they will. So how about you wait and see

0

Anonymous #4 5w

It’s not internationally accepted. As I pointed out, Venezuela’s closest allies accepted the results. But I’m not arguing that anymore. I’m fine with saying he cheated. If that’s the perspective then that is fair, I would bring up that if we did this because of the threat of terrorism from drug trafficking and cartels that Mexican and Columbian cartels have done significantly more damage and pose a much larger threat.

3

Anonymous #4 5w

Dip dodge and weave. You must’ve been great at dodgeball. I’m not an expert but there’s a difference between who passed US government in high school and who didn’t. We will see, fortunately it’s being tried by Hellerstein who doesn’t play political games with anyone.

6

Anonymous #3 5w

Did you just accuse me of dodging when you just got an answer for everything you asked and even acknowledged it might be considered a valid justification from that perspective? What is it you want here? You already know we don’t agree, did you just want to throw in a witty line? Wanted to flex to someone in their 20s that you passed a highschool class?

0

Anonymous #3 5w

If a justification doesn’t meet the standards of the law I’d love to see it challenged in court. But I’m not gonna pretend like a highschool class all of a sudden makes me qualified to determine that for sure. To me, it seems valid enough for me not to be too concerned. If it doesn’t for you then by all means be skeptical. But it’s not some sort of fact congressional approval was needed here, it’s disputed and the burden of proof falls on the challenger.

0

Anonymous #3 5w

And Hellerstein is overseeing Maduro’s trial, not challenging the Trump administration

0

Anonymous #4 5w

No, now I’m just wasting your time. Just like you wasted mine for the first 75% of this conversation, when all you needed to do was explain a justification. Throw in a little rage bait. Plus the high school class should have at least taught you how to read the constitution, which I will say I’m impressed, once we finally got there you were able to come up with a solid one. And yes.. I never said he was challenging the Trump admin. I just said he’s competent.

5

Anonymous #4 5w

Say uou were a criminal, would it be the same if someone offered money for someone to catch you as it is for a group of people storming into your neighborhood with weapons, bombing buildings and then dragging you and your significant other out in the middle of the night?

1

Anonymous #8 5w

Say I was a dictator that murders my own people you mean? Yeah, it’s the same if someone offers money for my head and if they take it themselves. There is no way to arrest a dictator other than force. If you have such a problem with the way it happened feel free to actually suggest how you think it should’ve gone down

0

Anonymous #7 5w

A lot of things things in the US can be tied to lack of education somewhere for sure

3