I didn't say anything about Jews.
I'm talking about Israel.

Israel won't benefit without Iran being hostile to them. It is a bad look for IDF to conquer the rest of Eretz Yisrael without having Iran as a scapegoat.

"It's (D)ifferent when we do it."

It's different when you build a coalition and work through the UN vs when you don't even work through Congress.

Yes, it is different.

Why would a different standard apply?

"Unilaterally attacking a sovereign nation is an act of war and a violation of federal and international law."
--Zohran Mamdani

It's cute how JeffJ says he doesn't support the attack, but he can't say it's because unilaterally attacking a sovereign nation is an act of war and a violation of federal and international law, like Zohran Mamdani can.

"I wonder how many buildings will be torched."

Is that bad, because we just torched plenty of buildings in Venezuela, unrelated to the task of abducting their President.

"Actually, the last that I knew, unless it's changed, they changed our routing to an out of state sorting center."

So.
Was voting by mail secure before that change?

"We deposed him and let his own family people kill him in gruesome fashion."

Did we then announce to the world that we were going to be running his country afterwards?

"If you're trying to play some moral highground card you are failing miserably."

Why? Because we didn't "help" Libya by taking over their country after deposing their leader?

Under United States law, as determined by the Supreme Court, a President cannot be held accountable for official acts as President.

So where's the legal basis to charge Maduro with anything?

In spite of that he won handily. Tells you all you need to know Harris.
#324 | Posted by BellRinger

It says more about men like you than it does about Harris.
You can't even say what Harris policies you disagreed with.

All you can say is dumb stuff like she slept her way to the top.
Like you have moral objection to the existence of heterosexual women in politics.

" Clinton on Qaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died""
www.cbsnews.com
Nobody on the left claimed that was illegal. It was terrible foreign policy but not illegal.
#329 | Posted by BellRinger

Is this supposed to be relevant to Maduro?
Because it's not.
We didn't kidnap Qadaffi.

This country has been doing regime change for over a century. The precedent had been set long ago.
#301 | Posted by BellRinger

How long ago?

When in the last century did we kidnap a head of state?

Clearly legitimate. Otherwise you clowns wouldn't respond to my posts.
#312 | Posted by BellRinger

That's not why.

It's important we don't let lies and propaganda go unchecked in this day and age.

That's why.

It's risk management.
#104 | Posted by BillJohnson

If you believed in democracy, you would understand it's a risk to democracy when we make it harder uo people you vote.
Instead, you want disenfranchisement of people you deem "too lazy to vote."
Because you don't believe in democracy.

"Where I live, a letter sent to someone in my city, is routed out of state and then comes back, possibly by air."

You're just making stuff up now.

"In the event a truck crashed with a load of ballots and caught fire, there would be no practical way to determine which ballots were lost or whose votes disappeared close to election day."

If it's a mail truck, they know what route that truck is assigned to, and therefore know all the pickup locations along that route.

Also, why would there be a mail truck with "a load of ballots."
Mail trucks carry all the mail, not just ballots.
And if it's not a mail truck, then it's not a concern relevant to voting by mail.

Notice the scope creep.
First, it was the ballots can't be sent by plane.
Now, the ballots can't be sent by a truck either

"Many will vote last minute. There would be no time for remediation.

And if you vote last minute and you get hit my a mail truck full of ballots on the way to the pilling place, and end up in the hospital, there would be no time for remediation.

But it would be true that you were only going to the polling place because Republicans want to make it harder to vote from the safety and security of your own home.

Looks like I picked the wrong day to hold my breath until JeffJ says why he doesn't support Trump and the Republicans on this.

It was nice knowing y'all.

Am I right?
#286 | Posted by jpw

You are 100% right.

He hasn't said anything bad about it.
Or anything good about it.
Or anything about it at all.

I've been very clear that I don't support this.
#287 | Posted by BellRinger

Why not, though?
What made you fall in love with Maduro?

The entire history of the United States is Regime Change. Starting in the Thirteen Colonies, extending Westward to the Pacific. We even had to Regime Change the South once upon a time!

Now this clown wants to tell me mostly it hasn't worked out well?

I don't understand the raw historical illiteracy.

I don't understand how that person could they have an informed understanding of politics or history.

"US oil companies would be going into Venezuela"

I am 100% sure Trumpers have no idea what they're doing here, like, there isn't a plan that the rest of the world is "in" on to make this succeed, because that would mean having to share.

So what I'm thinking is,
What if you're say Royal Dutch Shell, and this ---- happens?
Or OPEC, of which Venezuela is a charter member.

I can't imagine how the rest of the world would want to change, or could survive the change, to accommodate this. And they've already got a good thing going where one hand washes the other.

Seems like this just turns the United States into more of a pariah nation.

The goal is: Become Ungovernable.

"The US has a long sordid history of regime change"

How would you know? You can't even acknowledge that Jan 6 was an attempted regime change.

When morons like Sycophant and Alexandrite see: posted by Bellringer, reading comprehension goes out the window.

The problem is the writing comprehension goes out the window.

It's like BillJohnson talking about how mail in ballots aren't safe because what if a plane full of them crashes. That kind of thing. You say nonsense, and tell outright lies, which you are never brought to account for.

You use a style of persuasive argument which relies on lies of omission. I'm assuming you learned this from the people who drew you to their side with it.

If you think those two concerns would have made me vote for Kamala Harris, you need to think again.
#48 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Okay, but I'm wondering what outweighs the concerns of "the debt actually becoming a problem."
Or the concern of "How the the two other major actors on the world stage might use this kind of rash action against our interests."

And I don't see how "getting rid of Mexicans" outweighs that, but maybe that's just me. But I don't think it's that.

I think your comment means there is no possible scenario in which you could have possibly voted for Kamala Harris, for any reason. Trump could have raped all those kids, you'd still vote for him.

You're coming to terms with that rape stuff being true anyway, and actually it's not even a thing that concerns you any more, because it never really did. Which is what I already think about you.

You'll let me know if I need to think again about that.

For anyone questioning the legality of
attacking Venezuela and abducting
their leader:

Remember we're talking about a highly
corrupt leader, a known criminal who used
his high office to make billions
for himself, and has manipulated
elections to stay in power, has used
his military against his own citizens,
has protected his corrupt friends and
punished his political enemies.

And the President of Venezuela did some bad things too.
--Jeffrey Mandel

"successful regime change list and leave out Germany"

The rest of the world wouldn't have worked together
to bring about Regime Change in Germany in 1945
If Germany hasn't regime changed themselves in 1933.