US blows up boat said to be carrying drugs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s hilarious how Trump has forced liberals into a position where they HAVE to side with and defend/advocate for drug smugglers, simply because they must oppose Trump and literally everything he does.

It doesn’t matter how reasonable or common sense something he does might be - liberals MUST oppose it. So they get forced into taking up these ridiculous oppositional arguments, get boxed in, and look really stupid.


It’s genius.

WTF are you talking about? Nobody is defending drug smugglers. The PROBLEM is that Trump keeps blowing these boats up providing ZERO evidence that they are in fact drug smugglers. Not to mention, despite likely spending billions of dollars for all of the military assets deployed there, it's been like amateur hour.

If - and that's still a big if - they WERE drug smugglers, you'd want to capture the mules alive and get intel out of them about who is running the organization, where they are based out of, what assets they have and so on rather than just blowing them up. But NOPE... Trump is exhibiting the strategic thinking of a 5 year old.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s hilarious how Trump has forced liberals into a position where they HAVE to side with and defend/advocate for drug smugglers, simply because they must oppose Trump and literally everything he does.

It doesn’t matter how reasonable or common sense something he does might be - liberals MUST oppose it. So they get forced into taking up these ridiculous oppositional arguments, get boxed in, and look really stupid.


It’s genius.

+1000

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't look much like a submarine to me. Nor does it look like it has the range to make it to the US.

MAGA please explain your imminent threat and submarine excuses. Though it could be fake news, give that it is from that well-known fabricator of everything.

Poor fisherman don’t have the $$$ to put 3 or 4 powerful outboards on a boat, and they do not race at extremely high speed in the middle of the night in the direction of the U.S. or a Caribbean island used for transfer.

That is a drug boat.

Does that boat have the fuel capacity to get to the US?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn’t matter how reasonable or common sense something he does might be - liberals MUST oppose it. So they get forced into taking up these ridiculous oppositional arguments, get boxed in, and look really stupid.


It’s genius.

It’s even more hilarious that Trump has forced conservatives to defend literal murders.

Trump personally orders the killing of dozens of people? Well, it must be okay because daddy Trump asked for it, right? Sure, he refuses to offer any evidence to justify the act, but that only means it must be super secret classified info, right?

Do you know how you look to the rest of the world? It’s not even that you’re defending Trump. It’s that your defense is “haha, he’s trolling the libs by killing people. Har har har!” WTF is wrong with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't look much like a submarine to me. Nor does it look like it has the range to make it to the US.

MAGA please explain your imminent threat and submarine excuses. Though it could be fake news, give that it is from that well-known fabricator of everything.

Poor fisherman don’t have the $$$ to put 3 or 4 powerful outboards on a boat, and they do not race at extremely high speed in the middle of the night in the direction of the U.S. or a Caribbean island used for transfer.

That is a drug boat.

Does that boat have the fuel capacity to get to the US?

At best these are just one early step in the logistics of drug smuggling to the US. They could be drugs headed elsewhere or not even drugs at all.

What they actually are is an attempt to provoke a shooting war. We’ve gotten successively worse at making these provocations credible over time though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn’t matter how reasonable or common sense something he does might be - liberals MUST oppose it. So they get forced into taking up these ridiculous oppositional arguments, get boxed in, and look really stupid.


It’s genius.

It’s even more hilarious that Trump has forced conservatives to defend literal murders.

Trump personally orders the killing of dozens of people? Well, it must be okay because daddy Trump asked for it, right? Sure, he refuses to offer any evidence to justify the act, but that only means it must be super secret classified info, right?

Do you know how you look to the rest of the world? It’s not even that you’re defending Trump. It’s that your defense is “haha, he’s trolling the libs by killing people. Har har har!” WTF is wrong with you?

To their credit, some Republicans aren't taking the bait. Rand Paul has called them extrajudicial killings, Lankford has also spoken out which was linked further up the thread, Murkowski voted for the War Powers resolution.

I think Paul sees the issue most clearly. He said "The American people do not want to be dragged into endless war with Venezuela without public debate or a vote. We ought to defend what the Constitution demands: deliberation before war." That's ultimately what the stakes are here. Drugs are a red herring. Trump wants to provoke a war with Venezuela. You don't need to be a liberal or care about drug dealers to question that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn’t matter how reasonable or common sense something he does might be - liberals MUST oppose it. So they get forced into taking up these ridiculous oppositional arguments, get boxed in, and look really stupid.


It’s genius.

It’s even more hilarious that Trump has forced conservatives to defend literal murders.

Trump personally orders the killing of dozens of people? Well, it must be okay because daddy Trump asked for it, right? Sure, he refuses to offer any evidence to justify the act, but that only means it must be super secret classified info, right?

Do you know how you look to the rest of the world? It’s not even that you’re defending Trump. It’s that your defense is “haha, he’s trolling the libs by killing people. Har har har!” WTF is wrong with you?

To their credit, some Republicans aren't taking the bait. Rand Paul has called them extrajudicial killings, Lankford has also spoken out which was linked further up the thread, Murkowski voted for the War Powers resolution.

I think Paul sees the issue most clearly. He said "The American people do not want to be dragged into endless war with Venezuela without public debate or a vote. We ought to defend what the Constitution demands: deliberation before war." That's ultimately what the stakes are here. Drugs are a red herring. Trump wants to provoke a war with Venezuela. You don't need to be a liberal or care about drug dealers to question that.

Rand Paul is literally named after Ayn Rand. He is dynastically a libertarian, like his father. You will find a reference to the Constitution in nearly every statement he makes.

He will also oppose any overseas military intervention, no matter which party initiates it, because he believes U.S. military power may only be used for the direct defense of U.S. soil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn’t matter how reasonable or common sense something he does might be - liberals MUST oppose it. So they get forced into taking up these ridiculous oppositional arguments, get boxed in, and look really stupid.


It’s genius.

It’s even more hilarious that Trump has forced conservatives to defend literal murders.

Trump personally orders the killing of dozens of people? Well, it must be okay because daddy Trump asked for it, right? Sure, he refuses to offer any evidence to justify the act, but that only means it must be super secret classified info, right?

Do you know how you look to the rest of the world? It’s not even that you’re defending Trump. It’s that your defense is “haha, he’s trolling the libs by killing people. Har har har!” WTF is wrong with you?

To their credit, some Republicans aren't taking the bait. Rand Paul has called them extrajudicial killings, Lankford has also spoken out which was linked further up the thread, Murkowski voted for the War Powers resolution.

I think Paul sees the issue most clearly. He said "The American people do not want to be dragged into endless war with Venezuela without public debate or a vote. We ought to defend what the Constitution demands: deliberation before war." That's ultimately what the stakes are here. Drugs are a red herring. Trump wants to provoke a war with Venezuela. You don't need to be a liberal or care about drug dealers to question that.

Rand Paul is literally named after Ayn Rand. He is dynastically a libertarian, like his father. You will find a reference to the Constitution in nearly every statement he makes.

He will also oppose any overseas military intervention, no matter which party initiates it, because he believes U.S. military power may only be used for the direct defense of U.S. soil.

+1.

The Paul family would have voted to keep the United States out of WW I and WW II, and would have characterized the Holocaust as “not our problem.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn’t matter how reasonable or common sense something he does might be - liberals MUST oppose it. So they get forced into taking up these ridiculous oppositional arguments, get boxed in, and look really stupid.


It’s genius.

It’s even more hilarious that Trump has forced conservatives to defend literal murders.

Trump personally orders the killing of dozens of people? Well, it must be okay because daddy Trump asked for it, right? Sure, he refuses to offer any evidence to justify the act, but that only means it must be super secret classified info, right?

Do you know how you look to the rest of the world? It’s not even that you’re defending Trump. It’s that your defense is “haha, he’s trolling the libs by killing people. Har har har!” WTF is wrong with you?

To their credit, some Republicans aren't taking the bait. Rand Paul has called them extrajudicial killings, Lankford has also spoken out which was linked further up the thread, Murkowski voted for the War Powers resolution.

I think Paul sees the issue most clearly. He said "The American people do not want to be dragged into endless war with Venezuela without public debate or a vote. We ought to defend what the Constitution demands: deliberation before war." That's ultimately what the stakes are here. Drugs are a red herring. Trump wants to provoke a war with Venezuela. You don't need to be a liberal or care about drug dealers to question that.

Rand Paul is literally named after Ayn Rand. He is dynastically a libertarian, like his father. You will find a reference to the Constitution in nearly every statement he makes.

He will also oppose any overseas military intervention, no matter which party initiates it, because he believes U.S. military power may only be used for the direct defense of U.S. soil.

+1.

The Paul family would have voted to keep the United States out of WW I and WW II, and would have characterized the Holocaust as “not our problem.”

We're already at the "this is like World War II" stage of consent manufacturing? You're going to get so many American kids killed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s hilarious how Trump has forced liberals into a position where they HAVE to side with and defend/advocate for drug smugglers, simply because they must oppose Trump and literally everything he does.

It doesn’t matter how reasonable or common sense something he does might be - liberals MUST oppose it. So they get forced into taking up these ridiculous oppositional arguments, get boxed in, and look really stupid.


It’s genius.

Well clearly you are not a genius.....you sound really ignorant but MAGA will MAGA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn’t matter how reasonable or common sense something he does might be - liberals MUST oppose it. So they get forced into taking up these ridiculous oppositional arguments, get boxed in, and look really stupid.


It’s genius.

It’s even more hilarious that Trump has forced conservatives to defend literal murders.

Trump personally orders the killing of dozens of people? Well, it must be okay because daddy Trump asked for it, right? Sure, he refuses to offer any evidence to justify the act, but that only means it must be super secret classified info, right?

Do you know how you look to the rest of the world? It’s not even that you’re defending Trump. It’s that your defense is “haha, he’s trolling the libs by killing people. Har har har!” WTF is wrong with you?

To their credit, some Republicans aren't taking the bait. Rand Paul has called them extrajudicial killings, Lankford has also spoken out which was linked further up the thread, Murkowski voted for the War Powers resolution.

I think Paul sees the issue most clearly. He said "The American people do not want to be dragged into endless war with Venezuela without public debate or a vote. We ought to defend what the Constitution demands: deliberation before war." That's ultimately what the stakes are here. Drugs are a red herring. Trump wants to provoke a war with Venezuela. You don't need to be a liberal or care about drug dealers to question that.

Rand Paul is literally named after Ayn Rand. He is dynastically a libertarian, like his father. You will find a reference to the Constitution in nearly every statement he makes.

He will also oppose any overseas military intervention, no matter which party initiates it, because he believes U.S. military power may only be used for the direct defense of U.S. soil.

+1.

The Paul family would have voted to keep the United States out of WW I and WW II, and would have characterized the Holocaust as “not our problem.”

And that’s why we love him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:9 people were shot last night in DC in drug related incidents and this forum screams about due process for those bringing this poison. 25-50 people died in american cities last night in drug related incidents.

And lots of people in rural areas dies of fentanyl overdoses. Why wasn’t everyone in the house arrested because they were there with illegal substances.

[Anonymous]

Yesterday, the Trump administration bombed 4 more boats, killing 14 people, and bringing the overall death toll to 57. To date, no proof has been offered regarding the culpability of the people killed.

Military Destroys Four More Boats

“The Trump administration launched another round of deadly strikes on vessel it accused of smuggling drugs, killing 14 people in four boats on Monday in its growing military campaign off the Central and South American coasts,” the New York Times reports.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “said that the strikes — three of them — took place in international waters and that there had been one survivor. They bring the overall death toll to 57 in the campaign, which began in September.”