And the media is already reporting that 'somehow' all of his inner circle seem to have survived.
Not every country is Iraq or Afghanistan. At least here it's fairly clear that removing Maduro reflects the popular will of Venezuelans.
Historically in the American Republic, this has been true more often than not. There's a reason something taking "an act of Congress" is not a new expression for difficulty.
I seem to remember the 116th and 118th Congresses pushing back against executive power, which were the last times the US had divided government. https://history.house.gov/Institution/Presidents-Coinciding/...
And I wouldn't exactly say that Congress is wholly supporting unrestricted presidential power currently either. E.g. Senator Thune continually shooting down Trump's more oddball pleas.
There are very vocal supporters of the president in both the House and Senate GOP caucuses, but they're not the majority.
I think the strongest version of your argument would be something like 'In recent US Congressional history, both parties when in power have used congressional power to tactically check opposition party presidents, but neither have sought to permanently expand and defend the bounds of congressional power.'
Just re-read the USA constitution. Despite much effort, I did not find any "power rankings" of the three branches. Please point me in the right direction.
Now the president can do police actions and stuff but it seems like the intention was congress being the branch that had independent autonomy to just do things and get the ball rolling.
At that point, combined with the recent Supreme Court decisions holding 'official acts' as non-prosecutable, has swung the power meter severely to the executive.
Hint: Look at who has which powers. Congress has the power to check every other branch. Neither the President nor the courts have symmetrical power over Congress. This asymmetry reflects its position.
I must admit I am a bit flabbergasted. How can you not understand what you read? And if a portion of Hacker News users, who are likely to have above average cognitive ability, don’t understand this, how poorly does the rest of the population understand the core ideas of how their political system works?
Congress was not set up to be more powerful than the other branches. The president can veto laws that Congress tries to pass and the Supreme Court can also completely undo laws that Congress has passed.
I have been looking at productivity numbers for congress over the past decades. And I don’t get why people aren’t furious over the current congress not doing their job.
Can’t help but think it’s orchestrated by Russian bots.
You do realize the current government won the elections and the president won the popular vote right
Besides, elections isn’t what defines a functioning democracy.
Why do so many people fail to pay attention in history and civics class? And why do people get so upset when their ignorance is pointed out to them.
«He was elected» is not a justification. If it were then the rest of the world would take a dim view of Americans. Be glad that hasn’t become worse.
I have news for you...
The people who can not present a problem. Regardless of what pairing of nationalities.
By lying
Ps. Firehose of falsehoods is a Russian propaganda technique. Whataboutism too
1 lie doesn't compare to the plethora of Trumps lies
Alternatively the UK violating the millennia old Magna Carta by halting jury trials for criminal offenses with less than 2 years of jail time.
Whoosh.
As for your assertion that anyone who opposes unlimited unrestricted immigration is somehow far right: you are simply wrong.
If you want to find out how wrong you are I would encourage you to try moving to Norway. Then tell me if the process feels "unrestricted".
I would suggest knowing things before you express strong opinions.
Harris received 97% of Trump's vote count.
There is not that strong a popular mandate for Trump, which shows in his approval ratings.
The Democratic Party is at odds with Democrats, in my opinion. They just don't want to let anyone but the party itself pick the candidate, then are surprised when their own voters don't feel the candidate is theirs.
Obama was nominated in spite of the party, and people showed up for him.
Trump is awful, but losing to him twice is unfathomably stupid.
There, I said it.
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5447450/trump-2024-elec...
https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%2...
2024 eligible voters: 244,666,890
2024 ballots cast: 156,766,239. 64% of eligible voters cast a vote
Trump votes: 77,284,118. 49.2% of votes cast, 31.6% of eligible voters
Harris votes: 74,999,166. 47.8% of votes cast, 30.6% of eligible voters
Trump got 1% more of the eligible voting population to go through the effort of casting a vote. That's not nothing, and it put him in office, but it's not a landslide that grants him an unquestionable public mandate.
Making assumptions that non-voters would or would not support particular policies is erroneous. Harvard-Harris did a poll question on this last month, and found that 76% of Americans supported the U.S. arresting Maduro and bringing him to stand trial in the U.S.: https://harvardharrispoll.com/press-release-december-2025. That means most Americans are further to the right on this issue than a bunch of isolationist conservatives who voted for Trump.
The thing is, from the perspective of a foreigner, there are kinda two options:
1. Trump won fair and square, because Americans like him. They support his policies - like "threaten your close allies", "foreigners aren't welcome in America" and "foreign trade isn't welcome in America" - because the average American doesn't much like foreigners (like you).
2. That isn't the case.
From the perspective of such foreigners, 2 is actually seen as assuming more good faith, on the part of Americans, than 1.
Option 3 is consistent with national polls. This fact is not flattering to the American public, but it's also not damning. Unfortunately, our electoral system has a slow cycle rate so we're stuck with the consequences for a while.
Assuming you are European, I can only offer these small words of consolation: I feel confident that a significant factor Trump's plummeting approval ratings is his anti-Europe and pro-Russian rhetoric. Everyone was pretty aghast when Trump declared the new public enemies (Canada and Greenland) on his first day in office.
Americans generally have very positive feelings towards Europe. We all just need to make it through the next three years.
I don't partake in that subreddit so I have no clue as to the content or if this claim is true or false but it doesn't seem like a crazy idea for Russia to do. Sure there's plenty of content Trump gives Russia to potentially amplify, but there could still be bots amplifying things and making some opinions or takes on a story be more popular than reality.
Technically he won a plurality of the popular vote, but he didn't win the popular vote. This is typically not a distinction that matters, but in this case it's what happened. The majority of people voted for someone else, but he got votes from more people than any other candidate did.
Of course, what really matters is the electoral college, but the popular vote is often seen as lending even more legitimacy to a victory.
For instance, I wrote an invalid write-in candidate since both major parties ran clowns in 2024, but Harris carried my state by a mile.
Regardless, I think it's important to be precise about claims like this, since there is actually a difference between winning the popular vote and winning a plurality of it. Imagine making the claim if 10% of the popular vote went to third-party candidates, or even 20%!
That makes you part of the problem. And no, only one party ran a clown, and that party won because of people like you.
1: https://www.amazon.com/Woke-Racism-Religion-Betrayed-America...
The US right, however, went all in on woke .. they literally couldn't shut up about "the left", "woke" and immigrants eating pets.
Outside of that Fox / Carson / Turner Network et al altered reality bubble it was hard to see evidence of significant increases in Drag Conversion therapy in school libraries and litter boxes in school classrooms.
Good effort though, it was years of sustained make believe and dead cat after dead cat thrown on the table of public discourse.
Kamala declined to walk back her support for, among other things, taxpayer funding of transgender surgeries for inmates. This was an extreme position that most Americans do not support. It is also at odds with the global trend, including in progressive European countries, with regard to the risks/benefits of transgender surgeries.
The Left loves to play the "Republicans pounce" game, and say that the Right is politicizing things. But this is a situation where the Right was reacting to a move the Left had made. This situation helped the Right win in the 2024 election cycle because they had the 80 percent side of multiple 80/20 issues (especially border security and transgender issues).
You can dislike the outcome (I sure do!), but this was a case of the pendulum swinging back, not the Right getting out over its skis.
ADDITION: It also didn't help that the prior administration had lied its face off about Biden being competent, which undermined trust in Dems in general and Kamala in particular. But when Republicans called this out, they were not exaggerating, they were just 6 months ahead of CNN/MSNBC finally admitting it after the debate.
That's the problem, though. It shows how gullible and easy manipulated the US population was. Trans people are already such a tiny part of society, and an even tinier part of the prison population.
Offering healthcare for prisoners is something a developed, first world country should do, and trans healthcare is considered by experts to be necessary most of the time.
To throw away a vote on this single issue can only be due to ignorance, hate or both.
But Kamala's position was not that it wouldn't cost very much. She backed the ideology, and the vast majority of Americans disagree with that ideology.
> To throw away a vote on this single issue can only be due to ignorance, hate or both.
Many Americans saw this issue as yet another one (like the Biden competence one) where Dems were telling them to ignore what appear to be plainly obvious facts, like "men cannot become women". Some voters decided that they could not support a candidate who appeared to live in a different reality, on the thinking that "if she's willing to lie to me about such basic facts, what won't she lie to me about?"
I don't think that's really accurate. Most Americans are deeply misinformed on the issue, and a fair percentage of them think it's something like men making excuses to go in women's prisons.
A lot of those voters got their info specifically from misinformation sources like Fox News or those ads.
> Many Americans saw this issue as yet another one (like the Biden competence one) where Dems were telling them to ignore what appear to be plainly obvious facts, like "men cannot become women". Some voters decided that they could not support a candidate who appeared to live in a different reality, on the thinking that "if she's willing to lie to me about such basic facts, what won't she lie to me about?"
This is why I've said elsewhere democracy doesn't work when you have such an uneducated population. Those voters are not informed on issues of transgender health of gender dysphoria, and so were taken advantage of and misled by a party that created/stoked fears and spread misinformation to win an election.
You're literally the person who downthread advocates for redefining "majority" to be a synonym with "plurality" because people who don't know the actual definition of "majority" use it that way.
> Those voters are not informed on issues of transgender health of gender dysphoria, and so were taken advantage of and misled by a party that created/stoked fears and spread misinformation to win an election.
This appears to be largely autobiographical.
No. Far from it. This seems to be a case of wilful ignorance, as I said in a previous reply reputable dictionaries[0] define majority to mean 'most', i.e. a definition exists for the word majority which exactly matches the way people use it.
It would seem it is you who is unaware of at least one of the definitions of the word majority.
> This appears to be largely autobiographical.
It's as objective as can be.
Out of the two of us, I'm not the one in a bubble.
You seem to think it's more likely that 80% of the country has been misled by propaganda related to basic human biology than that the other 20% is wrong. There have been plenty of times when 80% of people were wrong about something, but when the topic is one that all humans have firsthand experience with, it's somewhat less likely that they've been magically misled.
You're off-base comparing this to migrants eating cats and dogs. That was never an 80/20 issue.
I assume people genuinely not in a bubble also say it though. Gee whiz, what a conundrum!
> You seem to think it's more likely that 80% of the country has been misled by propaganda
I never gave or implied a percentage anywhere close to that.
> related to basic human biology than that the other 20% is wrong.
Yes, I trust medical experts and scientific and medical consensus over people that have no clue or expertise but let themselves be riled up.
> but when the topic is one that all humans have firsthand experience with, it's somewhat less likely that they've been magically misled.
Same reasoning people like you used to use that homosexuality "isn't natural".
> You're off-base comparing this to migrants eating cats and dogs. That was never an 80/20 issue.
Nor is trans health issues. If you really believe so, please provide some sources.
Obama carried out mass deportations, claimed that undocumented migrants broke laws and must be held accountable, ordered extrajudicial execution of US citizen and was protected by executive privilege, invaded Pakistan to kidnap and execute Osama bin Laden, deposed Gaddafi and destroyed Libya, campaigned on a platform opposing gay marriage, wanted better relations with Russia and was secretly transmitting promises to Putin, vastly expanded the state surveillance apparatus, had citigroup appoint his cabinet, gave bankers bankers / wall st a pass for their role in the mortgage crisis. And he was (and very much still is), he was a darling of the left.
When pressed, many will try to claim they never really liked him, disavowed those particular things about him, that he was actually a right-wing president, etc., which in a weasely way might be technically true, but the difference in decibels surrounding very similar actions betrays reality.
The American mainstream left has changed quite a bit in the last decade. Not sure why I see so many denying this. Unless you're trying to say they never cared about any of that and still don't they're simply cheerleading for their team, which is more cynical but more understandable I guess.
The only thing the American "mainstream left" did in the last decade is grow from a completely insignificant size, on a national scale, to a slightly less insignificant size, through a subset of the political disaffected becoming engaged (a big catalyst for that being Bernie Sanders 2016 primary campaign; DSA membership shot up, IIRC, more than 10-fold directly after that.)
The set of viewpoints in that group didn't really change all that much, nor did the set of viewpoints in the actually mainstream groups left of the GOP (which themselves are not actually left, but center-right pro-capitalist.)
And its also the source of the change in the overall Democratic coalition; the Democratic center-right that has been (and remains) the dominant faction of the party hasn't moved an inch, but the party as a whole has moved because the segment further left has grown substantially, mainly by mobilizing the previously disaffected.
The democrat party essentially is the mainstream American left, that's what people call the left, and that was the topic of this thread ("why didn't the Democrats beat Trump?"). You may not like it or you may have your own definitions of what left and right are, but in this context it is what it is.
No, it is the fucking left.
> The democrat party essentially is the mainstream American left
The US has no political party named “the democrat party”, and the Democratic Party is (as historically each of the two major US parties has normally been) a broad coalition party, the dominant faction of which currently is center-right neoliberal capitalist, not anything even approximating left. The center-left to left component of the party is substantially weaker (though it has grown stronger since 2016, with an influx of the previously disaffected, as I described.)
On a very zoomed out aggregate level, sure, the Democratic Party has changed—and if that’s what you want to talk about, just say that—but the source of that change is the part that isn’t center-right neoliberal capitalist drawing in new blood from outside the party, not a change in the positions of the left (or, for that matter, a change in the position of the dominant faction of the part,y, either.)
If you use “left” to refer to a faction that (1) is largely seen as an opposing force by those who identify as “left”, and (2) largely sees the “left” as the label of an opposing force, and (3) where even you admit there is a much clearer term for what you are actually referring to... Well, maybe you should reconsider your terminology.
Secondly, tribal behavior is strengthened through sports teams, college allegiances, rep vs dem party lines and many other things, with the latter of those being the main reason.
Thirdly, the dems were very pro zionist while Trump was able to maintain deniability. This swung a lot of dem voters.
Lastly, Kamala got something like 0 votes in the primary. Wishing she would win the general election was delusional. Dems should themselves in the foot twice vs Trump with Kamala and when they betrayed Bernie to help Hillary.
You should engage in some critical thinking yourself instead of blasting your insecurities over the internet. Your media diet (bet $1000 that reddit is a big part) needs a do-over.
Critical thinking is a base human ability, which religion can indeed erode before it has a chance to grow.
> Secondly, tribal behavior is strengthened through sports teams, college allegiances, rep vs dem party lines and many other things, with the latter of those being the main reason.
This doesn't negate anything I've said, it adds to it. It is notable that the more religious parts of the US act more religious about their political party, however - something not seen in most western countries.
> Thirdly, the dems were very pro zionist while Trump was able to maintain deniability. This swung a lot of dem voters.
They were not as pro zionist as the "Lets demolish Gaza and build new resorts" GOP.
> Wishing she would win the general election was delusional.
Only because the US population is what it is, which is why wishing the only rational choice got elected is too much to hope for.
> blasting your insecurities over the internet.
I'm doing no such thing, however the way you make assumptions so haphazardly shows you yourself could benefit from some critical thinking instruction.
Colloquially majority means 'greatest share', and he certainly had the greatest share of votes out of all candidates. I don't like it, but it's correct to say he won the popular vote.
This is like asking someone to distinguish between a hypothesis of who killed JFK when they say they have a theory of who did. You're mixing the colloquial usage for no reason.
Majority doesn't mean more than 50% of the vote in everyday language, it means 'the most'. Trump got the most votes of any one candidate.
I guess it depends on whom you hang out with and talk to. I completely agree that some people can't understand the difference and speak accordingly. But I don't think we should redefine words based on the lowest common denominator of understanding/usage.
And in this case, it's especially important not to redefine "majority" because if we do then there's no word left to refer to an actual majority. That's not the same thing as JFK conspiracy theories.
No one is redefining anything. Merriam-Webster and Oxford both have a definition for majority meaning most, and that's the more common definition that is used in everyday speech.
Context matters.
> And in this case, it's especially important not to redefine "majority" because if we do then there's no word left to refer to an actual majority.
In this context, talking about the popular vote, no information is lost, nothing is miscommunicated by using the word majority and understanding how people are using it. Which, by the way, they are using correctly as per dictionary definitions.
> That's not the same thing as JFK conspiracy theories.
No, but it's the same as per my example in that you are being pedantic about a word in a way that serves no purpose, except maybe to try and make people feel stupid.
I don't have a subscription to Oxford's dictionary, but MW's lead definition mentions being more than half [1]. The fact that there is some other definition that doesn't specifically mention this is not probative of your claim that this is the more important definition. And your unsubstantiated claim that this is the more common usage is belied by the fact that your preferred definition is not the lead definition.
lol, why are you acting like you can't find it?
The definition you're attached to/fixating on, is marked as definition 'a'. Definition 'c' is defined as: the greater quantity or share - it's two lines below, you must have seen it.
That's the definition most people are using, and they are using it correctly. It's some shameful attempt at elitism to insist on correcting people, especially when they are not wrong - really it's just a completely inability to understand that different contexts use different definitions.
> And your unsubstantiated claim that this is the more common usage is belied by the fact that your preferred definition is not the lead definition.
I'm not sure the ordering of definitions indicates what you think it does, in any case it's trivial to find examples of the word majority being used to mean definition c. Ask your favorite AI, I bet they'll tell you you're wrong - and you know what? There's nothing wrong with that.
> a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total a majority of voters a two-thirds majority
I never said I couldn't find it, and I linked to it above. It's not a "shameful attempt at elitism" to point out that the first-listed definition is what I said. Your rejoinder that there exists some definition that could encompass your preferred usage does not refute what I said. Since you seem to be impervious to such logic, I'll leave it here. Have a good one!
That wasn't the behavior backing the claim, and you know it. The behaviour backing the claim was ignoring the definition being used as an excuse to try and correct people when you know well what they were saying. It's a sign of insecurity, generally.
> Your rejoinder that there exists some definition that could encompass your preferred usage does not refute what I said.
The fact that the word as a definition that shows that people were using it correctly is what refutes your claim.
> Since you seem to be impervious to such logic
I have no problem with logic, but I am critical of various peoples "logic".
> I'll leave it here.
I'm skeptical, but if you follow through I'll be appreciative.
Nonsense.
> Can’t help but think it’s orchestrated by Russian bots.
Rational people can.
> the president won the popular vote
False.
Trump won the popular vote in 2024. He lost it in 2016
Maybe I should make a website where example.com/e/Europe shows whatever I want people to think Europe thinks, and people will treat it as an authority for some reason? That's basically what you're doing with Reddit.
You just have to look at the protests in NYC over Venezuela to see it... they aren't actually for what the people of Venezuela seem to want (they're celebrating), the protestors are clearly pushing for and protecting at what represents communist values, even if Maduro isn't really much of a Communist.
Well, propaganda works.
Sure is a bold statement considering Spain was a dictatorship as recently as 1975.
America is very clearly a legitimate democracy, even if who was voted in office and the actions of that democratically elected government don’t align with your expectations or world view.
I didn’t vote for the guy. But I did vote. And as a poll worker I can tell you first hand that we ran a free and fair election as we have for any year I can think of. Legitimate Democracy. Period.
This should be doubly apparent in this thread, where this specific invasion would likely still be happening even if the fascists had lost in 2024. Admit it, this has military industrial complex's manufacturing consent and nation building all over it, regardless of it benefiting Trump to distract from the childrape files and whatever other corruption/stealing he can wedge in.
We have a legitimate democracy in terms of vote-counting, and you personally contribute to that.
It looks a lot less legitimate to me when I think about factors like votes having vastly varying weights because of gerrymandering and the Electoral College.
It gets even less legitimate when I think about how severely restricted our choice of candidates are, and how they are more or less chosen by party leaders and the oligarchy via billions of dollars of lobbying etc.
I'd also like to see a better runoff system than what we have in place, which could give a chance to more parties coming out. Right now, there are alignments into the two major parties and a lot of infighting because they are at least closer to what each group wants, but not really aligned and these create hard splits where there shouldn't be on a lot of issues.
The mechanism by which we choose leaders isn’t even in the top three most important prerequisites for a functioning democracy. If you didn’t pay attention in history and civics classes this may come as a surprise.
Accepted by the European Parliament = single chamber congress.
What part of this process is not democratic?
You know, like how all parliamentary systems works? No parliamentary system directly has the populace vote for their prime minister.
After the election someone has the task of proposing an executive government to the parliament. In many countries that is the speaker of the house. In the EU it is the heads of states.
The European Parliament has also rejected commissioners from being appointed. How is that literally being a rubber stamp?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/26/meps-reject-tw...
Yes, the EU is a bit more complex. What most people miss is that the EU functionally has both an upper and lower house, with the upper house being selected from the national elections and lower house from EU wide elections.
"Because the party groups negotiated with the heads of states comprising the European Council to find a suitable candidate?"
What negotiations? We have no proof any negotiations took place. We don't even know if there was a vote, or if there were discussions, what was discussed, or who the candidates were. The entire process is secret. Think about how mad that is.
"You know, like how all parliamentary systems works?"
No parliamentary system works this way.
"After the election someone has the task of proposing an executive government to the parliament."
There was no election.
"The European Parliament has also rejected commissioners from being appointed. How is that literally being a rubber stamp?"
The head of the Commission before vdL said that both national and Europarl vetos on commissioners are meaningless. They just suggest a replacement who is ideologically identical.
"What most people miss is that the EU functionally has both an upper and lower house, with the upper house being selected from the national elections and lower house from EU wide elections."
You just said it has a single chamber! It really has none because the Europarl can't pass its own laws so it's not a house of representatives, just a room full of theatre kids playacting democracy. The EU doesn't have an upper and lower house by any definition used anywhere in the world. Stop pretending to not understand things.
> There was no election.
Just stop with the misinformation.
The current Commission is the von der Leyen Commission II, which took office in December 2024, following the European Parliament elections in June of the same year.
Yes, every country is unique. And the EU moreso due to its history.
> It really has none because the Europarl can't pass its own laws so it's not a house of representatives, just a room full of theatre kids playacting democracy.
It is just the chamber that accepts the proposed commmission, and has the decision to unilaterally force a no-confidence vote if the commission does not propose the laws the chamber wants.
>The current Commission is the von der Leyen Commission II, which took office in December 2024, following the European Parliament elections in June of the same year.
And those Europarl elections had no influence on who became leader of the Commission, did they, so why are you bringing them up - this seems like the kind of obfuscation the EU regularly relies on. Make noises that sound like what happens in real democracies and hope nobody notices that key links in the chain have been severed.
> Yes, every country is unique. And the EU moreso due to its history.
The EU is not a country. Its "history" is short and artificial. It could work however the people who constructed it wanted it to work, and they chose a dictatorship. What does that tell you about their intentions?
> It is just the chamber that accepts the proposed commmission, and has the decision to unilaterally force a no-confidence vote if the commission does not propose the laws the chamber wants.
No democracy has a chamber that works like this because that is useless and undemocratic. The Europarl's power to fire the Commission is theoretical. It requires a 2/3rds majority so it was never successfully used in its entire history - the Santer Commission resigned, it wasn't fired. No MEPs have ever suggested firing a Commission in order to get specific policies passed, so MEPs have no influence over policy at all. They can theoretically veto things and then watch the Commission reintroduce it again in a different form, so nobody who cares about policy ever goes into EU-level politics.
Take Sweden, the only requirement for the prime minister is to be a Swedish citizen without holding any position that would lead to a conflict of interest, followed by the parliament accepting the nomination.
It is only by convention and incentives that one of the party leaders of the government coalition becomes prime minister. Sweden has the past 3 years had the third largest party's leader as the prime minister since that was the one the government coalition found palatable.
> And those Europarl elections had no influence on who became leader of the Commission
Please. Just stop. How can they have no influence on who became the leader of the Commission if they are the one to accept the nomination?
Vote no and it is back to the drawing board for the European Council. Which it was close this time as only 51% of the MEPs voted to accept the proposed commission.
This is just getting ridiculous.
> The EU is not a country. Its "history" is short and artificial. It could work however the people who constructed it wanted it to work, and they chose a dictatorship. What does that tell you about their intentions?
True. It is a tightly integrated union which still haven't merged completely. Somewhere in the grey area.
How can they choose dictatorship if everything is democratic stemming from national and EU wide elections?
> No democracy has a chamber that works like this because that is useless and undemocratic. The Europarl's power to fire the Commission is theoretical. It requires a 2/3rds majority so it was never successfully used in its entire history - the Santer Commission resigned, it wasn't fired. No MEPs have ever suggested firing a Commission in order to get specific policies passed, so MEPs have no influence over policy at all.
This is just getting stupid. Please. The power was not exercised but a commission was forced to resign after become ineffective due to not being aligned with the european parliament.
The money quote from wiki:
> The crisis had compounded the already reduced powers of the Commission in favour of the Parliament's legislative power, the council's foreign policy role and the ECB's financial role. However the change with Parliament was the most profound, the previous permanent cooperation between the two bodies came to an end with the shift in power
I truly want to understand why you hate the EU so much? It seems like you are cherrypicking facts to embellish your view rather than seeing things for what they are.
An evolving democratic system with competing national and union interests.
So what are the parties in the europarl then? They're not EU wide parties but also not national parties. Waving national flags in the EU Parliament is against the rules, lol.
They're not genuine political parties at all, because you can't build such things in the EU. Parties with no ability to take power aren't parties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIRM1qOZQPQ
> How can they have no influence on who became the leader of the Commission if they are the one to accept the nomination?
Because it's a pointless power as adequately explained already by Juncker, that's why the EU is designed that way. Europarl is given exactly one candidate and zero input on who it is. What happens if they reject? Assuming procedure is even followed (not certain in the EU institutions), they'll be given another candidate who is a carbon copy of the first. Same views, same background, same ideology.
And they know this stupid game because the EU operates this way regularly. See the number of times they lost referendums on constitutional change and then made people vote on the same thing again, or the way stuff like Chat Control never dies. That's why the only people who sign up to be MEPs are either just rubberstamp cheerleaders for the Commission who often don't bother turning up, or people who think the Europarl is fake and their countries should leave the EU entirely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtZpvmnONww
https://youtu.be/jWGfzJpkyVk?si=HRtVRdTR6yZ4NQxe&t=48
What kind of a chamber is it that can't even stop itself being spammed with the same legislation it keeps rejecting in different forms, can't repeal unpopular legislation, is full of members who openly say it's damaging/fake and gets openly disrespected on live TV by the real power center? A fake one.
> due to not being aligned with the european parliament
You mean: due to being corrupt.
> I truly want to understand why you hate the EU so much?
Why did Russians hate the USSR? There's nothing to like about it. It's an evil system designed to enforce left wing dictatorship on Europe using lies, secrecy and, when necessary, aggression. It sees any attempt to remain independent as a problem to be crushed by abusing its powers. It makes Europeans more divided and less cooperative. I've lived in two central/west European countries in my life. The EU has treated both of them like dogshit. That's enough reasons.
If you have ever been to Florida, this is completely unsurprising. I’m currently at a Disney World resort which has a 3 acre heated pool: https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/recreation/yacht-club-reso.... We probably needed to topple Venezuela just to keep it heated in January.
What do you think is not legitimately democratic about any of this?
"privileged class" immediately plays on people's emotions, along the lines of "the people have spoken", meaning if you didn't vote the same way, you're not "the people". I lived through all this in the brexit vote, and your language is all very similar sounding.
Over the years, democracies around the world have evolved these kind of checks and balances. They are part of the system, not imposed on it by some "privileged class" for their own nefarious reasons.
So serious is a matter of degree but I wouldn't be so certain it didn't happen.
It's a pity that this is perceived as such a hot-button partisan topic, because that's not my intent -- I just want to see free and fair elections.
The more distressing fact is that despite my assertion of election fuckery, there's clearly a large number of people that are willing to vote against their best interests because they are so easily swayed by anger and hate. Democracy really is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
[1] I just learned there are two exceptions, Maine and Nebraska. But they have few electors (9 total between them) so this was not significant in the 2024 election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_efforts_to_di...
The opposition refused to address internal issues with the incumbent until they were painfully evident, then switched in a much weaker candidate in the final months who had never won a primary.
Had a stronger candidate been offered from the beginning, Trump well could have lost.
Also, Trump ran on a populist message. Yet if you look at what he has done materially since he got into office, it seems his true allegiance is with the billionaire elite.
It would have been better if Maduro had respected the choice of Venezuelan voters. But that didn't happen, so here we are.
we've seen this over and over again in foreign policy of large powerful countries
lets not pretend that this is about establishing democracy; it's about access to Venezuelan oil
it's the US showing it can do whatever it wants in its "backyard", just as it always has
No wonder Trump likes Putin
They are not.
And Trump has decided the Nobel peace prize winner doesn't have enough support of the people to take over. So whatever democracy there is to be had in the future seems to be up to a foreign government.
That is at best premature. Maybe wait for the outcome?
"The opposition" is rarely a large and representative enough group to effect national power transition. (Btw, thanks for flagging that incorrectly as affect, Apple)
Especially in multi-ethnic states, most cohesive national identities are forged through extremely popular singular leaders.
Unfortunately, those are exactly the same leaders external regime-change initiators are wary of (too independent).
And before you know it you have a genocide on your hands.
Napoleon Bonaparte, Toussaint Louverture, Simon Bolivar, Giuseppe Mazzini, Otto von Bismarck, Mustafa Atatürk, Gamal Nasser
In terms of nation-building, it's not the worst plan. See Carville's "It's the economy, stupid."
Popular support of any government is mostly (a) quality of life & (b) individual freedom. Quality of life is directly correlated to the economy and public finances.
If someone can quickly boost Venezuelan oil production, and therefore state revenue, then all sorts of social funding programs become feasible.
The issue with autocracies is that they selectively enrich key supporter groups (internal police, military) at the expense of others (wider population).
If you can substantially boost public revenue, then you don't have to make a tradeoff -- everyone gets more!
And there are certainly worse beginnings for new governments.
(All of this ignoring the flagrant violation of international law, international ramifications vis-a-vis Taiwan, climate change, etc.)
He was asked “who will govern” and “when will there be elections” and “will there be boots on the ground” over and over.
His answers were “I don’t know”.
A bad look, but I seriously doubt the state department doesn't have some sort of plan for continuity of government.
Especially since, in critical difference with post-Hussein Iraq, no one in this administration seems ideologically opposed to working with the old guard, if they put on new colors.
Would be very surprised if the remaining elements of the government aren't put in temporary charge with guidelines (no killing protestors, freeing political prisoners, monitored elections on X date, etc.), then things are left business as usual.
With additional strikes if anyone tries to buck the system.
But higher placed members of corrupt regimes tend to be pretty pragmatic about their own skins when the winds shift, so I'd be surprised if anyone goes to the mat for a leader who's already been extradited.
Right now the evidence is as I’ve stated it.
'It's the only information about the plan presented in the last 15 hours' would be better.
The President of the United States has stated over and over now that there is no transition plan. There is no successor. There is no plan for elections.
This isn't "he hasn't been asked" or "he has declined to comment." He has said affirmatively there is no plan.
So either he's lying or there's no plan.
In either case, my presentation is correct, and your assumptions are completely unfounded.
At this point in his second administration, I'm firmly convinced that the bulk of the details aren't communicated to him and/or he forgets them.
Big decisions? Sure, he makes yes/no. But "Let me hear the plan for day x+1?" In what universe would the Trump we've seen ask that question? We're talking about the McDonald's guy.
A scarier possibility, which I think is actually far better evidenced, is that he's surrounded by people who largely believe he's competent (because it's a cult) and who are themselves not competent at all.
There are probably some true-believers among his cabinet, but most of those are evidenced by their paper-thin CVs and lack of their own power-bases (Hegseth, Bondi, Rollins, Chavez-DeRemer, Turner, McMahon, Noem, Zeldin, Loeffler).
> I'm firmly convinced that the bulk of the details aren't communicated to him and/or he forgets them.
But at the same time:
> time no one wanted to risk contradicting his fancies on recorded television.
So they're making plans, but they won't actually commit to any of the plans because in the end the plans are meaningless and Trump is going to push for whatever he wants at the moment. Doesn't that make the actual plans practically worthless?
Sometimes Trump doesn't decide to veer off-script and scupper plans. But it happens more than never!
And rarely, when he does, more informed heads are able to turn him back around. E.g. the bullshit 'Ukraine tried to assassinate Putin' scheme
Building which nation? The despotic dictatorship of USA one would have to assume you mean. The profits are no more likely to go to Venezuela's further development than they are to bring in universal health care in USA.
QoL is nothing if it is bought through the pain and suffering of others.
I don't know why you think this is a new beginning, it's just extension of USA's dictatorship to ensure even more people suffer and the USA oligarchy gets even more insanely wealthy.
Venezuela had a... let's call it "respectable" democracy since the late 50s. Chavez did it no favors but it didn't completely collapse until Maduro.
If Venezuela recovers and improves, are you willing to fundamentally change your opinion about US interventions?
There isn't just a single universally agreed upon moral framework that serves as the basis for ethics.
Depending on whether you adopt a Rawlsian, Utilitarian, Libertarian, or Communitarian moral framework, your actions would look different depending on the circumstances.
Specially, the Utilitarian moral framework optimizes for the greatest good for the greatest number. Willing to sacrifice the few of the many. It might not be your or my moral framework, but I don't know that we can rule it out as a valid way to approach ethics.
No, the proponents of the utilitarian moral framework try to justify illegal actions retrospectively if the outcome was good and refuse to take responsibility if it is bad.
Ethics should guide your decisions beforehand and require you to take responsibility for all possible outcomes.
Are you arguing that Utilitarianism isn't a way to guide decisions? And are you saying it is an invalid moral framework?
FWIW, many ethicists suggest using multiple frameworks and would argue using Utilitarianism for policy.
For example, in the EU utilitarianism is rarely used as the sole moral foundation but serves as the primary tool for practical decision-making and public policy. Most visible in how the EU balances competing interests to achieve the "greatest good".
If your hand is on the track switch, you're just as responsible for the trolley no matter which way it goes. Walking away from the switch does not absolve you.
Uhh, no?
My opinion is that US interventions are incredibly risky. There have been numerous successes. There have also been numerous failures. Both have required immense resources and focus from us.
Some interventions are worth the risk, and others are not. I have not seen any compelling rationale for the risk-reward of this particular intervention, and have very low hopes for the follow through, which makes the risk-reward calculus even worse.
Are you suggesting that cutting off oil flow to those nations will be advantageous to us? Is this like... tomorrow? During a potential armed conflict? When?
By what specific mechanism does the US assert "control" over the oil? POTUS just now said it's via a ground occupation "until transition of power." What's the transition plan?
Also probably helps to ensure the petro dollar is here to stay for longer.
Obviously this is a very shallow analysis, and there's definitely significant risks, but I do think it's obvious that it has large potential upsides.
So again: conceivably sure, but the details matter. The details we have right now do not look very promising IMO.
Edit: So, that took only 8 minutes, the other shoe just dropped, it was about the oil after all. Where do I collect my check?
We ("the opposition") can't get into the frame where we say that everything Trump does is wrong. It's not frequent, but sometimes - yes even for totally wrong reasons - he does things which are probably right. Our identity needs to be more than just "the opposite of what Trump does", otherwise the Trumpists will frame all debates around issues that make us look crazy, rather than the issues that demonstrate blatant grift and criminality.
If Maduro is gone, it's a good thing. Let's go back to talking about the clear and obviously terrible things Trump does. Don't let them change the subject.
Agree with your overall sentiment but this is just a ridiculous position to hold at this point. History is absolutely full of horrible people being toppled just for more horrible people to take their place. There is literally no evidence whatsoever of a plan for post-Maduro Venezuela. At all!
They're either acting completely clueless for the cameras for some unknown reason, or this is very likely going to go really badly.
I think the Venezuelans will work it out, despite Trump's ineptitude.
Things going badly does not mean — even at all — that things cannot go much much worse.
Libya was bad and got worse
Syria was bad and got worse
Afghanistan was bad and got worse
Sudan was bad and got worse
In fact, nearly every really bad situation was already bad, and then it got worse.
Unlike all those places you mention, Venezuela has a democratic tradition which was only recently derailed. This isn't some middle eastern theocratic monarchy. It's "get back on track" not "find new tracks where none existed before".
I and many others are asking for evidence of such a plan. The US administration has denied the existence of such a plan.
Maybe those factors you mention will turn out to be relevant or even determinative, and maybe not. I suspect in absence of an actual plan, the mere tradition of democracy will not suffice.
Maduro in prison is an improvement from Maduro still in power. Accept it as a tiny win and move on.
You are aware you're allowed to say, "it'll take some time for this to shake out sufficiently to understand whether it's a tiny win, a huge win, net-neutral, or regionally catastrophic," right?
I'd push the delete button for every unelected dictator on the planet if I could. Repeatedly. It's morally offensive not to.
So what you say may happen, but not if "it" (being the plan stated by the orchestrator and executor of said move) is successful.
You're making a pretty good case for high risk.
But also remember that Russia is occupied in Ukraine and couldn't even help the Assad regime which was a much closer ally, and same with Iran.
It's more like (similar to other sanctioned countries) "forcibly coerced by the USA into being a ally of Russia, Iran and China by sanctions".
If I wear a blindfold, cross a highway and am not hit by a car, am I willing to concede that crossing the highway blindfolded is safe?
Thinking about this some more: good chance this whole thing was decided in a board room a while ago.
In reference to this, have you seen the footage of Saddam Hussein taking power? It’s chilling.
It's complicated because Maduro banned her from running in the last election (and still lost anyway). In a just world maybe she deserves the position. But if we want to restore democracy in Venezuela, González would be a natural place to start (along with new elections).
I think most Venezuelans want freedom, prosperity, peace, and sovereignty.
I’m not sure in what order.
Do you have a citation for this? (Genuinely curious)
It is very credible because a few days before this happened, Israel wiped out Iran's air defense systems with f35 attacks.
Or, you know, a theocratic autocracy that realizes the perception of its military power is critical to keeping the populace in line?
And admitting to an inability to stop military action on one of their most heavily defended targets by the very enemy they've whipped their supporters into a froth over is a bad look?
I think the U.S. whipped the Iranian government's supporters into line by treacherously using peace negotiations as a pretext to target their scientists, helping Israel launch a completely unjustified sneak attack with all the Mossad rats they had hidden in the country, and facilitating the genocide in Gaza. With enemies like that the Iranian government hardly needs help.
I'm not sure how that disagrees with my point.
I mean, it's hard to tell what is really going on in Venezuela right now, but as far as I can tell the only truly fragmented or "schizo" worldview would be that the United States was able to hover a Chinook over Caracas and extract Maduro without firing a single shot, without some kind of pre-agreed deal being in place.
Example footage that seems to track with BBC confirmed Caracas strike locations: https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2007340229536239646
The US had previously positioned a lot of USAF and Army air assets in Puerto Rico and on offshore platforms: https://www.twz.com/news-features/cv-22b-osprey-mc-130j-comm...
Those appear to have been used: https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2007339573156950095
In addition, USAF/USN have been flying ELINT platforms (e.g. RC-135s) off the coast for months now.
So even without the cooperation of any of the Venezuelan military, it's possible the mission was:
1. Precision long-range strikes on air defense radars around Caracas (and possibly assets)
2. Closer SEAD with F-35s to clear a path
3. SOAR Delta Force infiltration with tactical air suppression
4. CAP from F-35s to intercept any scrambled fighters
5. Exfiltration along same route
See: Desert Storm air campaign. Having capable anti-air assets doesn't matter when your enemy has access to more timely intelligence and the means to do something with it.
Either way, although Trump might every now and then be a bit too friendly with Putin, but a) cooperation at this scale and b) the bad looks and damage to Russian investments I think makes it seem unlikely. Putin doesn't stick his neck out for others unless it serves him. I'm not that well read on the Russian involvement in the area though...
Medieval kings were considered the embodiment of the government, but that didn't make them autocratic. Indeed, they were not only bound by a thicket of obligations and customs, but authority itself is only legitimate when it is just, a view that is traditional; it is modern legal positivism that roots authority in fiat, making it inherently tyrannical.
Ultimately they were bound not by tradition, but by the reality that they may lose their heads, often at the hands of a competing relative, but also at the hands of starving subjects.
Trump is far from universally loved, but just imagine what the US would become if an outside nation swooped in and captured him. 100% of the american people would be screaming for blood.
Absolutely not. I'd be out celebrating.
So just to be clear, you think that Trump and the GOP are so bad you would welcome Xi or Putin launching an assault on US soil and depose him?
To push your point even further: do you feel so strongly that you would volunteer to help?
This already happened. Trump lead a Russia-backed coup against the United States in January, 2021 to overturn the 2020 election and illegally take the presidency. It failed, but he and every government employee who supported him after that is guilty of treason and is serving illegitimately.
Trump is president because he was elected by the American voter while the opposition was in power. I would not label that as illegitimate and I think it is dangerous to spread that narrative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...
Was he tried and convicted? If his successor and the opposition truly believed that why did they not go after him for it?
Meanwhile, the individual upthread suggesting they’d support a foreign power invading the US and capturing Trump is the ridiculous, childish, and deeply unserious brand of self-loathing that we are voraciously (and necessarily, if our country is to survive) opposed to.
https://thedreydossier.substack.com/p/trump-isnt-building-a-...
Honestly, at this point, I wouldn't be one of them.
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/venezuela-explosions-car...
https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rh1YcFoC...