this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2026
1195 points (98.8% liked)

Actually Infuriating

832 readers
85 users here now

Community Rules:

Be CivilPlease treat others with decency. No bigotry (disparaging comments about any race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, nationality, ability, age, etc). Personal attacks and bad-faith argumentation are not allowed.

Content should be actually infuriatingPolitics and news are allowed, as well as everyday life. However, please consider posting in partner communities below if it is a better fit.

Mark NSFW/NSFL postsPlease mark anything distressing (death, gore, etc.) as NSFW and clearly label it in the title.

Keep it Legal and MoralNo promoting violence, DOXXing, brigading, harassment, misinformation, spam, etc.

Partner Communities

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 

I don't care about Maduro, as far as I'm concerned, they can shoot him if they want. What matters to me is walking through the streets of my city and seeing the faces of fear on my neighbors. The military patrolling to prevent looting due to panic. It's a collective hangover, a horrible one.

It's 2016 all over again. It's seeing despair entering the circulatory system of all Venezuelans, only now it's more sudden, and we are painfully aware of it.

This is far from improving, and we know it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] infinitevalence@discuss.online 321 points 6 days ago (16 children)

It's bullshit and I don't understand why our Congress is letting him do this. It's unjustified and illegal.

[–] AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@sh.itjust.works 263 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Because your congress is deepthroating that fucking child rapist. That's why.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 48 points 6 days ago

Not just him, every billionaire gets their turn.

[–] smeenz@lemmy.nz 7 points 5 days ago

They're all way too old for him

[–] redlemace@lemmy.world 128 points 6 days ago (7 children)

What about your military staff (Generals and the likes) Aren't they supposed to refuse illegal orders even from potus?

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 135 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Aren't they supposed to refuse illegal orders even from potus?

Yes. Yes they are supposed to.

[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca 81 points 6 days ago (1 children)

All the ones that would, have been replaced.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 62 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

That's why I get pissed about stories of the variety "X resigns rather than follow administrations orders". People seem to cheer when that happens because they see it as people pushing back on illegal orders, but they're not. They're just bailing from responsibility when they were one of the few people in the position to legitimately be a stopgap on this runaway power abuse. In resigning, they've just made it easier for a loyalist or morally corrupt replacement to come in and roll out the red carpet to the autocracy. Stay right where the fuck you're at, plant your feet, and tell them that you're absolutely not following illegal orders from anyone. That is worth cheering.

[–] cheesybuddha@lemmy.world 21 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Resigning instead of refusing an illegal order is a betrayal of their oath to the constitution, and a betrayal of the American people

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

This. It’s not upholding the constitution, it’s standing back and watching it get fucked, while selling books or speaking engagements.

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I don't disagree, but then they get dishonorably discharged, lose their pension and benefits, a loyalist is put in their place and the end result is the same except that they're worse off personally. I can absolutely see that the better option for them is to resign and make a statement rather than going hard-core and fight it. Unless they plan on a full-on military coup.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Apparently their main guiding moral is greed then.

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Bit harsh IMHO.

It's being human. Not everyone is prepared to throw away the future they planned for and have been working towards their whole life on principle, especially if the end result of that action is bugger all.

I might not agree, but I get it.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Well there's plenty of us who never got a single second of the "future we planned for". Sure its a bummer to have something you thought was nice and have it turn into something awful, but that doesn't mean you should turn a blind eye towards your morals. Doubly so if you happen to be in the military.

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So then you might understand that if you're in the lucky group who is on track to get it, it might be hard to give up?

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

No I'm saying that is a selfish and greedy viewpoint. It only holds up if you only think about yourself and your own family. If you are in the military, you should be concerned about more than those in your immediate circle. Joining the military for selfish reasons is absurd already.

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm sure there are as many reasons as there are people for joining the military. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I understand their rationale. If I had to choose between ideological purity and comfort for my family I'm not 100% sure what I'd choose. I'm human after all, and looking after your loved ones absolutely comes first.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I currently have limited the comfort of my family due to the inability to make a large salary without betraying my morals and values. I'm not even in the military and I can realize that its better to show my children what is right rather than make excuses so they can have the easiest life possible.

Edit: apologies if it seems Im attacking you directly.

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Right, but you can see the difference, can't you? They quit because they couldn't continue because that would put them in the position where they had to betray their values or their future for no gain.

I wish every single serviceman would have said "No, we're not going to murder civilians", but that didn't happen either. I respect those who stepped away more.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

I'd argue the no gain part but it is true nothing is guaranteed. Its still an abandonment of duty either way in my opinion, but it is definitely worse to stay and just go along with things so there's that.

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

These high level guys have the wealth to sue for their pensions. Courts will restore them if the orders they refused were illegal.

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Courts will restore them if the orders they refused were illegal.

Will they though? Pre-Trump, probably. Today? I wouldn't bet my future and retirement on it.

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

SCOTUS, no, but I’m pretty sure this would be a civil lawsuit.

[–] Montagge@lemmy.zip 16 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Except the supreme court ruled no order from the executive branch is illegal

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 15 points 6 days ago

I know youre being funny about it, but I need to point out the officer's oath is not to the president, and the supreme court is irrelevant in this.

Specifically any orders which violate the constitution, federal law, or (specifically an "or" here, not "and") international law should be refused. Typical examples are torturing people who are detained, targeting civilians, etc.

[–] 7101334@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Not exactly. They ruled the president cannot be prosecuted for illegal acts taken in the capacity of president. So it's more "he can do illegal shit and we can't stop him" and less "anything he does it automatically legal". So refusing an illegal order would presumably still be a valid route of action.

But from what I know about the military, they can just punish you in some other capacity even if what you did is technically legal. Ie reassigning you to some shit duty or miserable location.

[–] auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 5 days ago
  • “Fascist to the core... the most dangerous person to this country.”Gen. Mark Milley, Trump’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Highest-ranking military officer). Status: Trump has suggested he should be executed for treason.
  • “He fits the general definition of fascist... he certainly prefers the dictator approach.”Gen. John Kelly, Trump’s White House Chief of Staff and retired Marine General. Status: Trump has attacked him as "dumb," "weak," and a "low life."
  • “Effort to subjugate American democracy by mob rule, was fomented by Mr. Trump.”Gen. James Mattis, Trump’s first Secretary of Defense and retired Marine General. Status: Trump labeled him the "world’s most overrated general."
  • “I do regard him as a threat to democracy... I think he’s unfit for office.”Mark Esper, Trump’s second Secretary of Defense. Status: Fired after refusing Trump's order to "just shoot" protesters in the legs.
  • “His sense of betrayal drove him to abandon his oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution,’ a president’s highest obligation.”Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump’s second National Security Adviser. Status: Publicly attacked by Trump as "naive."
  • “Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.”Mike Pence, Trump’s Vice President. Status: Trump has spent years attacking him for refusing to overturn the election.
  • “A consummate narcissist... our country can’t be a therapy session for a troubled man like this.”Bill Barr, Trump’s second Attorney General. Status: Trump has called him a "weak," "lazy," and "RINO" coward.
  • “I understand what you want to do, but you can’t do it that way. It violates the law.”Rex Tillerson, Trump’s first Secretary of State. Status: Fired; Trump called him "dumb as a rock" and "lazy."
  • “He has never cared about America... his conduct and mere existence have hastened the demise of democracy.”Ty Cobb, Trump’s White House Lawyer during the Russia investigation. Status: Dismissed by Trump as a "weak lawyer."
  • “He makes up what he wants to say... how little of American history he knows.”John Bolton, Trump’s third National Security Adviser. Status: Trump calls him a "wacko" and a "disgruntled boring fool."
  • “We don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator.”Gen. Mark Milley, during his farewell address as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 17 points 6 days ago

Sadly a good chunk of the good ones were fired, and the others are too scared about their pensions to do anything. The rest have been installed by our glorious dictator and also suck his cock on the daily.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago

He's been getting rid of those guys since day 1. Undoubtedly they came in with purge lists.

And then of course they gave this operation to a loyalist.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago

Yes, they are supposed to. They also are trained to follow orders, and much more vigorously.

But generally, overthrowing governments that oppose the USA is seen as routine. We do this frequently.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

You still don't know? Republicans are all complicit in it so they refuse to use their control of Congress to do anything. Republicans don't care about the law they only care about them having power.

[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 30 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Congress has not wanted the responsibility to declare war that the Constitution gave them in Article 1 Section 8.

Ever since the civil war, Congress has handed more and more military power over to the Executive branch.

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

No country actually declares war anymore. From Wikipedia:

Declarations of war have been exceedingly rare since the end of World War II.[3][4] Scholars have debated the causes of the decline, with some arguing that states are trying to evade the restrictions of international humanitarian law (which governs conduct in war)[4] while others argue that war declarations have come to be perceived as markers of aggression and maximalist aims.

That part of the US Constitution is irrelevant nowadays and should long have been updated to require any foreign (or domestic) military operations to be first approved by Congress, not just declaring war. Doesn't make your point of Congress granting ever more rights to the President irrelevant though.

[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 days ago

Yeah, declaring war is only more than just words insofar as there are laws that require a declaration before certain activities or uses of powers.

Congress has allowed the president and executive branch agencies to strike other countries, kill non combatants and soldiers, occupy countries, kill Americans, and operate torture sites without needing a formal declaration of war. There are several relevant acts of Congress, but the clearest example is the Authorized Use of Military Force. We're still using it 25 years later and Congress keeps reauthorizing it and allowing more and more broad interpretations.

We invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, and bombed several more countries in retaliation for 9/11

[–] brachiosaurus@mander.xyz 19 points 6 days ago

It’s bullshit and I don’t understand why our Congress is letting him do this. It’s unjustified and illegal.

You still haven't understand yet that your government is rigged as fuck?

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 19 points 6 days ago

If you don't understand then you haven't been paying attention to US history.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 6 days ago

The US has done it before. More than once.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The same congress that was totally cool with the Trail of Tears? I think people forget that there were people living here already and that the US has been invading sovereign nations to enrich white people since they stopped doing it in the name of Britain a few hundred years ago.

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

No, that was a different Congress. Roughly the 17th through 26th. This one is the 119th. They’re cool with different types of awfulness.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 days ago (4 children)

Native Americans didn’t get the right to vote until 1975 and 100 years after the promise we still don’t have voting members of congress. It’s the same congress.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

This is what has been cooking since 9/11/2001.

The AUMF grants the president the ability to just do military shit if it is in defense against "terrorism".

Since its passage in 2001, U.S. presidents have interpreted their authority under the AUMF to extend beyond al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan to apply to numerous other groups as well as other geographic locales, due to the act's omission of any specific area of operations. The adoption of this law does not require the targets to be state actors, but can include non-state actors, such as individual persons. In December 2016, the Office of the President published a brief interpreting the AUMF as providing congressional authorization for the use of force against al-Qaeda and other militant groups.Today, the full list of actors the U.S. military is fighting or believes itself authorized to fight under the 2001 AUMF is classified.

It should have been updated and repealed before G. W. Bush left office but it was left on the table and every president has used it.

During his first term, the Trump administration officially accused Maduro with "Narco Terrorism". I wouldn't be surprised if this was the plan all along. It's a stretch, for sure, but all that seems to matter to the GOP is having some speck of legal cover and the corrupt SCOTUS does the rest.

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago

$960 billion US defense budget was passed by both parties. There you go and yes, it is fucked up.

[–] NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

He went around Congress. It was an illegal action. Congress may try to do something to stop him, but my odds are on the Supreme Court intervening to let Trump continue to do whatever he wants.

[–] 7101334@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

As others have mentioned, it's most likely legal under the AUMF.

Drug war is also legal. Slavery was legal. Legal doesn't mean shit. But it is, probably, legal (under US law, definitely not international law but the US doesn't give a shit about that).

[–] WhatGodIsMadeOf@feddit.org 3 points 6 days ago

I think you may have assumed America hasn't always been a Mafia and most people in the government are just as naive as most of us regular people.

[–] Stupidmanager@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Everyone needs to stop paying attention to the magic act going on center stage and go see what’s going on with the group behind the curtain.

load more comments (2 replies)