I'll give you my address and we can "work this out"
upgrade your insurance first...

Posted by shrimptacodan at 2026-01-06 07:35 PM | Reply

Internet tough guy much??

Finally your ultimate goal slips out.

Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-01-06 04:13 PM | Reply

It's always been that goal for him. I remember a couple years ago when Trump was leading in the polls BillJohnson said that voting by mail was a moot point.

Living in a state that votes mostly by mail-in/drop-box ballot, I'd make the argument that mail in voting is JUST AS secure. And certainly FAR MORE convenient. Why would you want to make it harder to cast legal ballots, except that you hope a certain contingent won't participate? I'd sure as hell rather fill out a ballot in a thoughtful manner at my kitchen table, than burn gas and wait for hours at a polling place. Until you can prove that the massive fraud you suspect is actually happening, ---- off.
www.denver7.com

Posted by Whatsleft at 2026-01-06 04:13 PM | Reply

Bears repeating

Well, a couple hundred people rioting for 3 hours Is definitely a bad thing, unless it's being done by lefties in Minneapolis, but a riot isn't a coup so your question rests upon a faulty premise.

Posted by BellRinger at 2026-01-06 03:54 PM | Reply

It absolutely was a coup attempt and an insurrection started by Trump. You really can't be intellectually honest can you Jeff??

Civil rights is nonsense to Republicans.
Gay marriage is nonsense to Republicans.

Posted by snoofy at 2026-01-06 03:36 PM | Reply

It's like he is saying that his wife is a second class citizen, That's what it screams to me.

Like it matters today considering that the guy who started it all is in the White House again.

White Republicans.

Posted by Alexandrite at 2026-01-06 10:49 AM | Reply

White MALE Republicans

FTFY

How so? It may be a recipe but I have yet to find the cake. I've looked. drudge.com

Have you? Show me your results.

Posted by et_al at 2026-01-06 04:41 AM | Reply

He doesn't have any ingredients. Not one iota.

Most of them no. Drugs aint hard to find in prison either.

Posted by Alexandrite at 2026-01-05 08:17 PM | Reply

You would be correct '

The oil companies were informed about an act of war before it happened, Congress was not," Ansari wrote Sunday in a social media post on X. "That, my friends, is what an authoritarian regime run by oligarchs looks like."

Posted by Alexandrite at 2026-01-05 05:05 PM | Reply

It's Iraq 2.0 just sayin

#169 Article 6 section 2

I'm having flashbacks from 20 years ago. Jeez

Interestingly Rubio is treating this as law enforcement action citing the SDNY indictment. Essentially Maduro was "apprehended". I think it's a weak argument. Extradition law and all of that.

Posted by BellRinger at 2026-01-05 03:53 PM | Reply

Heads of state have absolute immunity while they are in office. That goes away after they leave office. THEN he can be arrested. Just sayin

Yes , sitting heads of state, heads of government, and foreign ministers generally have absolute immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction under customary international law, protecting them from prosecution in other countries' courts for any acts (official or private) while in office, a status-based immunity ensuring their functions can be performed. This immunity is absolute but ends when they leave office, after which they generally only have conduct-based immunity for official acts.
Key Aspects of Head of State Immunity:
Source: Primarily customary international law, not usually a specific treaty.
Who Gets It: Sitting Heads of State, Heads of Government, and Foreign Ministers.
Scope (While in Office): Absolute immunity from criminal jurisdiction (and often civil) in foreign courts for all acts, official or private.
Purpose: To ensure the smooth and effective performance of their high-level state functions.
After Office: Immunity generally ends, with only "conduct-based" immunity for acts performed in their official capacity, not for private acts or international crimes.

Charter Article 2(4) is a foundational principle banning member states from the threat or use of force against another state's territorial integrity or political independence, except for self-defense or UN Security Council authorization. It serves as the cornerstone of international law, prohibiting aggression and coercion, though debates continue over what constitutes "force" (e.g., cyberattacks, economic pressure) and when exceptions apply.
Key Provisions of Article 2(4)
Prohibition: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
Core Concepts
Sovereignty: Protects the sovereign equality and borders of all states.
Prohibition of War: Outlaws aggressive war and military coercion.
Exceptions: Allows force only for individual/collective self-defense (Article 51) or when authorized by the Security Council (Chapter VII).
Interpretations & Debates
Definition of "Force": While mainly interpreted as military force, there's ongoing discussion on whether it includes cyberattacks, economic sanctions, or political coercion.
Self-Defense: Disputes exist over preemptive (anticipatory) self-defense against distant threats versus immediate, imminent attacks.
Significance
It's a fundamental rule of international law, considered a peremptory norm (jus cogens).
Violations, such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine, are often described as clear breaches of this article.

The Warrant itself was a violation.
Ever heard of a thing called Jurisdiction?
Venezuelans is Not subject to US laws, as Americans are not subject to Venezuelan law.
Especially in our respective home countries.
Mr. Maduro wasn't breaking any laws he was subject to the Jurisdiction of.
Try again Mr. OBTUSE.

Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-01-05 03:01 PM | Reply

They don't understand what they are saying. Nor do they understand the facts of the matter. Oh well.

think the Maduro kidnapping shows quite clearly that we should have zero faith that the military will resist illegal orders."
Faulty premise. This wasn't illegal.

Posted by BellRinger at 2026-01-05 02:18 PM | Reply

It absolutely is illegal. Sadly we won't be punished for it.

I realize you think that's an insult but you're really just comparing him to yourself.
A partisan hack with selective outrage.

Posted by eberly at 2026-01-05 12:38 PM | Reply

Alexandrite isn't a partisan hack dear. Nice deflection.

Trump is scum

Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2026-01-05 12:13 PM | Reply

Trump is lower than whale feces.

One would think that she was already "baptized" by now. Just sayin

Eberly doesn't say anything beyond "I don't care and no one else cares"

Posted by Alexandrite at 2026-01-04 06:28 PM | Reply

True that.

That you think automatically resets when the party in the WH changes. Morons in this country think the world cares about our partisan political bickering as they are being invaded, starving, flood, drought, disease, etc ... . But they really care about Trump screwing a porn star.

Posted by eberly at 2026-01-04 05:52 PM | Reply

You got me mixed up with a partisan hack. I am not one. Now can you come up with a cogent rebuttal to my statement. Or is that too hard for you Eberly??

One thing is certain already: we have NO moral standing to ever again criticize a foreign government.

Posted by e1g1 at 2026-01-04 05:36 PM | Reply

We lost that long ago. We are a belligerent on the world stage. Just sayin

I'm not declaring anything legal. Not defending any of this. Just rolling with it.
What can the UN do? What would he the consequences the UN can dispense to the US for this?

Posted by eberly at 2026-01-04 05:27 PM | Reply

Nothing much considering that we have veto power within the UN security council. We would never sanction ourselves. That still does not negate the illegality of said actions.