No
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2026
220 points (96.6% liked)
politics
27122 readers
3414 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The more we talk about that, the less we talk about how the President is a pedophile rapist, human trafficker, and murderer.
There are things more important sometimes.
But yes, the child trafficking US president deserves to be thrown in jail for life.
more important
Idk if the Epstein files are more important than the Venezuela invasion, literally. But I think it's more foundationally important.
What I mean by this is that the Epstein files show definitively that trump is a criminal with evidence of child rape and whatever other financial crimes. This means he is an illegitimately elected president, should never have been allowed to assume office legally and should be in prison. The evidence is in the Epstein files.
If this is true, which it is, the decisions he's been making, including Venezuela should never have happened.
By law the Epstein files were supposed to be released, and they haven't been. The DOJ and trump are hiding the evidence. Rule of law and our DOJ aren't working as designed.
Personally I think the Epstein fiasco is still the most important as it means trump shouldn't even be here doing all this stuff right now.
He is here though and we all knew before that he's a criminal. The Epstein files won't bring him to justice. So they don't really matter, do they?
load more comments
(3 replies)
The Pam Bondi bribery scandal should have been enough to make both ineligible for office even before his first term.
However, it seems the lesson US society collectively learned from Watergate is that the executive should be immune from prosecution.
load more comments
(1 replies)
We’re not supposed to talk about the US kidnapping a leader of a sovereign nation?
I think we can walk and chew gum.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Redirecting every criticism to some other thing is exactly how flooding the zone is supposed to work.
Well done.
...con man, misogynist, fat piece of shit, failed businessman, racist, deathly sick, fraudster, incontinent, criminal... yes, each time he adds a new adjective describing his actions or how disgusting of a person he is we talk less about the previous.
Maybe we just start requiring "etc." on any list.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
"No"
If the US faces no consequences for the invasion of Venezuela, experts believe it could embolden other countries to carry out operations which may contravene international law.
“The most obvious consequence is that China will take the opportunity to invade Taiwan,” Robertson said. “This is the most appropriate time for it to do so, bolstered by the precedent of Trump’s invasion of Venezuela and of course his appeasement of Russia in its invasion of Ukraine. In fact, I would say that Trump’s invasion of Venezuela is the crime of aggression, the same crime Putin has committed by invading Ukraine.”
funny how this works - the media has an opportunity to call out the US for being a piece of shit and yet they pivot to “yeah but what if (insert communist nation here)”
capitalism will do anything to keep it from criticizing itself.
If only you read as far as the 4th paragraph of the article...
The experts the Guardian spoke to agreed that the US is likely to have violated the terms of the UN charter, which was signed in October 1945 and designed to prevent another conflict on the scale of the second world war. A central provision of this agreement – known as article 2(4) – rules that states must refrain from using military force against other countries and must respect their sovereignty.
Geoffrey Robertson KC, a founding head of Doughty Street Chambers and a former president of the UN war crimes court in Sierra Leone, said the attack on Venezuela was contrary to article 2(4) of the charter. “The reality is that America is in breach of the United Nations charter,” he added. “It has committed the crime of aggression, which the court at Nuremberg described as the supreme crime, it’s the worst crime of all.”
Elvira Domínguez-Redondo, a professor of international law at Kingston University, described the operation as a “crime of aggression and unlawful use of force against another country”. Susan Breau, a professor of international law and a senior associate research fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, agreed that the attack could have only been considered lawful if the US had a resolution from the UN security council or was acting in self-defence. “There is just no evidence whatsoever on either of those fronts,” Breau said.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Seriously. “The US doing this horrific evil thing might allow China to do a bad thing in the future!”
How about “the US is a horrible evil country that has done this horrible evil thing.”
The same person quoted also said that, in this article.
Geoffrey Robertson KC, a founding head of Doughty Street Chambers and a former president of the UN war crimes court in Sierra Leone, said the attack on Venezuela was contrary to article 2(4) of the charter. “The reality is that America is in breach of the United Nations charter,” he added. “It has committed the crime of aggression, which the court at Nuremberg described as the supreme crime, it’s the worst crime of all.”
load more comments
(1 replies)
No and both Schumer and Jefferies appear to be complicit, at least via the bird site.
They're going to ask politely for a vote in Congress to give Trump permission to be fascist. And when the request for the vote is ignored, they're going to diligently line up to support the next NDAA funding measure that made this criminal act possible while shaking their heads to let you know they don't like how it is being used.
That seems to be the thrust of their criticism. No problem with the action, simply disappointed that he didn't ask for permission.
Utterly worthless, and the both of them need to be replaced, 9 months ago when they demonstrated their inability to meet the moment
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yes, they totally fucking suck. Now let's talk about the real issue, our pedo prez just invaded a country, took the preseident and his wife and are now threatening to do that to a lot of other countries for their oil money. Can we focus on that right now?
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
WHERE THE FUCK IS CONGRESS!?!
They're on extended break because they didn't want to be forced into publicly voting against extending health care credits.
load more comments
(2 replies)
No
No.
Laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation. It’s just the promise of violence that’s enacted and the police are basically an occupying army.
No. Asking the question only serves to normalize this behavior.
“You would have to prove those drug traffickers were threatening the sovereignty of the United States,” Breau added. “The United States is going to argue vigorously that drug trafficking is a scourge and it’s killing many people, and I agree. But a lot of international law experts have been looking at this and there wasn’t even clear evidence that those drug traffickers were from Venezuela, let alone that they were governed by Maduro in any sense.”
load more comments
(4 replies)
No. Now where are the Epstein files?
Found one!
spoiler
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬛⬛⬛ ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬛⬛ ⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬛⬛⬛
load more comments
(1 replies)
No. Easy question.
Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
No.
No.
if you answer to no one, i mean there is literally no one who can realistically punish you and you also have no morale, then you just do whatever you want, you don't need justification.
I'd rather he'd do it to Russia. I think both Trump and Maduro are despicable evil people, but if we're seeing deterioration of international laws already, I'd rather watch Putin being arrested and Russia to be put under western control. But of course, Trump won't bite the hand that allegedly feeds him.
Edit:typo
Why even contemplate this when he rolled out a red carpet for him only a few months ago?
load more comments
(3 replies)
Duh, Pete Hegseth is legally required to distract you from President Pedophile being named in the pedophile documents.
Who knows, who cares. It’s all staring to feel pretty hopeless
No justification to attack a sovereign nation
Maduro and Trump are friends
Maduro gets to escape his country and save face instead of being assassinated or executed.
Trump gets to manufacture a conflict so he can start martial law and become a dictator, and to distract from us learning he came inside little girls.
No.
I'm gunna be honest: I don't really give a fuck if it was legal or not; it was wrong. It's wrong to mutate the histories, identities, and fates of other nations and it always opens a portal to new monsters. Venezuala's problems are Venezuala's to solve and grow and learn from. If Canada sent JTF-2 to kidnap Trump and his inner inner circle while they're visiting Africa or some shit, pretty sure every fucking American would be upset about that, and most Canadians, though momentarily relieved, would fear the reckoning. The US's leadership is foolish to not fear the reckoning because they think they're untouchable. Foolish. At this point it would be a "who shot Mr Burns" situation.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The pretext Trump used for the war was that Venezuela is flooding the US with fentanyl.
Venezuela doesn't produce fent and it's not a significant trans-shipment source. The actual sources are US pharma companies and China.
I believe that international law frowns on starting imperialist wars of aggression on the basis of lies. And, just as the war is an attempt to deflect attention from the Trump-Epstein files, so is the war on drugs lie a deflection from the real reason for the invasion, which is to enrich US oil companies.
hint: no. no there is not.
view more: next ›