Trump ordered a second strike of Venezuelan boat
- Thread starter Arithmetic
- Start date
Toe Jay Simpson
Searchin’
They were headed to India with soap
Second Chance Lance
All Star
Which made it more suspiciousThey were headed to India with soap
No due process or confirmation of activity. America really going for the we the bad guys image
At some point this becomes terrorism. There is no tangible benefit to America here.
Most drugs are trafficed on regular roads.
And as a taxpayer, the most annoying thing about this is that they wasted a $100,000 bomb and wasted thousands of dollars on jet fuel for a single boat.
Last edited:
literal extrajudicial killing
and no one is calling him out on this.
and no one is calling him out on this.
This is all bullshyt they are trying to justify the bullshyt so they can attack Veneuzula. Almost all the drugs doesnt come from Venezuala directly to america.
China has been setting up shop down there with Oil rigs and Russia is there as well. China has been cricling central America and South America for years now.
China has been setting up shop down there with Oil rigs and Russia is there as well. China has been cricling central America and South America for years now.
The time to call him out was Nov 4th. Everyone who said shyt would be downhill was right.
Now the only hope is military members rebelling but he fired most of the command structure and the JAGs. Elections have consequences.
This is exactly why he's getting away with what he's doing. Because no one holds the so-called opposition party accountable.
No country has ever voted its way out of fascism and dictatorships. Between April and November of next year, there's a referendum on what has been done to slow or obstruct Trump; if the answer is "nothing". Then he will continue on this path until 2028 and there just may not be a country not long after.
Bruh, there is no opposition when they are in the minority. You do realize Congress, comprised mostly of the friendly party, can take him to task, right?
Also, “nothing” is factually incorrect. Between lawsuits, slow-rolling certain efforts, etc, legal means have been used. The problem is he is using illegal powers that are being given credence by the supreme court (biggest example is ruling on procedural issues and tossing clearly illegal orders back to the circuit judges) being picky and letting his policies live. He is using fake executive powers, NOT legislation, to do most of his bidding while lording over a party that has accepted unitarian executive theory. You cant give a guy the Presidency, both chambers of congress, and a 6-3 majority on the supreme fukking court and talk about an opposition party.
Who knows if they are drug dealers. Remember the only people who is telling us they are drug dealers is Trump.
yep everyone knows most of the dope goes in on regular shipping boats and on narco subs In the Pacific
The argument that Democrats cannot function as an effective opposition party simply because they hold a minority status in Congress is not only empirically false but dangerously defeatist. It ignores historical precedents, constitutional tools, and the moral imperative to resist authoritarianism. This perspective overlooks three critical realities:
1. Minority parties have successfully thwarted extremist agendas in the past using procedural tools and strategic unity .
2. The Supreme Court’s radical rulings are not monolithic and still leave avenues for challenge, albeit narrowed .
3. Democrats’ current disarray is a choice, not an inevitability, reflecting a failure of leadership and tactical creativity .
The notion that minorities are powerless is contradicted by recent history. During George W. Bush’s presidency, Democrats united unanimously to block the privatization of Social Security; a flagship GOP initiative. Similarly, in 2017, Democrats leveraged procedural tools and Republican infighting to defeat ACA repeal, despite Trump’s control of Congress . These successes relied on:
· Party discipline: Leaders like Pelosi and Reid enforced strict unity, preventing defections to bipartisan compromises that would undermine resistance.
· Public messaging: Democrats highlighted the tangible harms of GOP policies (e.g., loss of Social Security benefits, healthcare coverage), turning public opinion against them.
· Procedural weapons: Filibusters, holds, and motions to adjourn were deployed strategically to stall or block legislation .
Today, Democrats hold 45 Senate seats and 215 House seats—narrower margins than in 2017 but still sufficient to exploit GOP fractures. Yet, instead of emulating Pelosi’s playbook, current leaders like Schumer and Jeffries have been irresolute and fragmented, even siding with Republicans on critical votes like government funding bills .
Yes there is a Court deference to Trump’s agenda, particularly through rulings that limit nationwide injunctions and expand presidential immunity . However, this does not render opposition futile:
· Nationwide injunctions are not entirely dead: The Court’s 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA barred universal injunctions but preserved class-action lawsuits as a pathway to block policies broadly .
· Emergency dockets remain contested: While the Court granted Trump emergency relief in cases involving immigration and workforce dismissals, it occasionally ruled against him (e.g., requiring the return of erroneously deported individuals) .
· The judiciary is not monolithic: Lower courts continue to rule against Trump’s policies, as seen in orders condemning his birthright citizenship order as "blatantly unconstitutional" .
The problem is not solely the Court’s conservatism but Democratic timidity in testing legal boundaries. For example, lawsuits challenging Trump’s use of unitary executive theory to fire officials or impound funds have been hesitant and reactive .
The unitary executive theory (UET): the idea that the president has absolute control over the executive branch, is a radical and historically dubious doctrine pioneered by Reagan-era conservatives and now embraced by Trump . While the Supreme Court has reinforced UET in cases like Collins v. Yellen (2021), which affirmed the president’s power to remove executive officials at will, this theory thrives only because of institutional capitulation .
Democrats have failed to:
· Expose UET’s constitutional flaws: The Take Care Clause requires the president to "faithfully execute" laws, not unilaterally rewrite them . The Opinion Clause also implies a collaborative executive branch, not a dictatorial one .
· Use Congress’s oversight powers: As the minority, Democrats can still subpoena witnesses, demand documents, and invoke the "seven-member rule" to compel agency transparency . Yet, they underutilize these tools, as seen in the failed attempt to subpoena Elon Musk .
· Mobilize public outrage: Trump’s autopen abuse (e.g., signing pardons without review) and attempts to dissolve agencies like the Federal Election Commission are blatant power grabs . Democrats have largely treated these as legalistic quirks rather than existential threats.
Consider the toolbox available to minorities:
· Filibusters and holds: These can halt nominations and legislation indefinitely .
· Motions to adjourn: These can disrupt committee hearings and force public scrutiny .
· Minority witness days: House rules allow minorities to call their own witnesses for hearings, yet Democrats rarely invoke this .
· Cross-branch coordination: Democrats could align lawsuits, congressional investigations, and state-level actions to create synergistic resistance.
Instead, Democrats are divided and demoralized, with leaders like Schumer siding with Republicans on funding bills while progressives like AOC push for harder opposition . The party lacks a unified strategy, echoing the Tea Party’s rise but without its tactical ruthlessness .
The argument that "there is no opposition" confuses structural constraints with moral and strategic failure. Democrats could be using every procedural tool, legal challenge, and public messaging campaign to resist Trump’s authoritarianism. Instead, they are fragmented, hesitant, and overly reliant on courts that have proven hostile. The unitary executive theory gains power not because it is legally sound but because Democrats have allowed it to be normalized.
As history shows, minorities can win...but only if they fight with unity and creativity. The real problem isn’t the lack of tools; it’s the lack of will to use them.
Similar threads
