While democrats cant arrest a common criminal Trump arrests Maduro

[Nostra]

Obama used EXISTING use of Authorizations of Military Force, Obama didn't NEED congresses approval.
Venezuela had no such previous authorization.

Link us up to these "authorizations" for each of the 7 countries Barry Hussein bombed Nuthin' Fancy

Betcha can't, cuz you are a liar.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Nostra]

Obama used EXISTING use of Authorizations of Military Force, Obama didn't NEED congresses approval.
Venezuela had no such previous authorization.

Lies.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Link us up to these "authorizations" for each of the 7 countries Barry Hussein bombed Nuthin' Fancy

Betcha can't, cuz you are a liar.

Prove me wrong.

Of course Q-NUT.

• Libya Intervention (2011): Obama authorized airstrikes as part of a NATO-led intervention to enforce a UN Security Council resolution and protect civilians. The administration argued this was "kinetic military action" that did not require specific congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution's 60-day limit, a point that drew significant criticism from members of Congress from both parties.
• Airstrikes Against ISIS (from 2014): Airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria began in August 2014 without new congressional authorization, with the administration initially citing the 2001 AUMF and the President's Article II constitutional authority.
• Request for New AUMF (2015): In February 2015, Obama formally asked Congress for a specific AUMF to fight ISIS, but disagreements among lawmakers about the scope and limitations (e.g., a ban on "enduring offensive ground combat operations" and a three-year expiration date) led the measure to stall and ultimately not be passed.
• 
  
• The Obama administration's reliance on existing authorities and its interpretation of presidential war powers furthered the expansion of executive authority in military matters, a trend often referred to as the "imperial presidency".

 

[theHawk]

Obama used EXISTING use of Authorizations of Military Force, Obama didn't NEED congresses approval.
Venezuela had no such previous authorization.

Just like President Trump did.

Why did Obama ask for Congressional approval if he didn’t need it?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Just like President Trump did.

No he didn't and STILL hasn't.

Why did Obama ask for Congressional approval if he didn’t need it?

Because, he is a decent man, asking for approval, not like your **** face, treasonous dear leader.
Even G.W. Bush notified congress and asked for approval, as did every other US president in history.

 

[Luckyone]

Russia and China who were already there have just been kicked out of Venezuela as well as Iran and Cuba.
We didnt invade them we arrested the unelected tyrant and freed the Venezuelan people from oppression.
Those who were happy under communism are free to move to NY.

Biden fails and de crats make excuses
Trump succeeds and democrats complain. This is a special kind of stupid

You truly are a biased person who is blind-by-choice and cherry-picks to support your views.

When you say that Trump succeeded is like saying you are in support of a con artist succeeding in taking advantage of the dupes in front of him

His attack and taking of Maduro was a success, as far as being able to take him away from Venezuela but a major failure and a con when thinking about the harm he is causing

First of all, 32 people died in the raid, with the only thing they were guilty of is being hired/forced to defend Maduro

AI Overview

According to the Cuban government, 32 Cuban military and intelligence officers were killed during the recent U.S. operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, with Havana stating they died defending their posts against attackers. These Cuban personnel formed part of Maduro's security apparatus, with some serving as high-level guards and intelligence operatives.

Second of all, he opened the door for other leaders doing the same (such as Xi with Taiwan and Putin with Poland). Not to say that Trump himself opened the door for other countries to come to the U,S, to take Trump away to put him on trial (in their nations) for his perceived-by-others-correctly sins.

In addition, he is now taking advantage of a country he has no right to take advantage of, as well as giving him added motives and permission to do the same with countries (like Greenland and Panama) that he considers he should take over, but are not guilty of anything for which he has a reason to take over.

Yes, Maduro is a proven bad man that should be on trial for his sins but one HUGE problem that Trump also created is that he did this without running it by Congress (to get the approval of the entire nation for his action) and that also opened the door for him to become a Dictator, meaning that he can (with the agreement-of-his-action by people like you) now ignore our Constitution to do what HE PERSONALLY wants.

Anyone (like you) that supports what he has done (without cherry-picking but in looking at the total picture) is also a person with no love for what this country has stood for 250 years.

Trump is no better than Putin or Xi. He has proven that.

 

[schmidlap]

Presumably, MAGAtwerps did not expect global conquest for fun and profit..

Trump threatens multiple countries after Maduro’s capture:​

Warns Colombia, Cuba, Greenland, Mexico and Iran​

Trump says he tipped off oil companies on Venezuela attack

"SUDENTENLAND'S NEX!"​

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You could also say 'Had crooked leftwing hacks not run the Justice Department and the Southern District of New York, no charges would ever have been brought against Trump.'

See how that works?

Trump never was charged by SDNY. It was the state court.

 

[Luckyone]

LOL well it certainly didn’t take long for lefties to come out in force to defend the commie dictator:



TheHawk is right again….

No one on the left is defending a commie dictator. What they are doing is defending the Constitution (and the 3 branches of government to decide what the nation does), defending the rights of any nation to defend their own rights to not being invaded (Trump says he is now running Venezuela, which he has no right to do), and defending our own nation from the possible (maybe even probable) repercussions that he opened the door to.

Again, you are being a blind-by-choice biased person.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Jimmy Carter supported the ayatollah.

Not true. Carter was inept but not that stupid.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

He called the ayatollah the George Washington of Iran.

When?

 

[Hafar1014]

You truly are a biased person who is blind-by-choice and cherry-picks to support your views.

When you say that Trump succeeded is like saying you are in support of a con artist succeeding in taking advantage of the dupes in front of him

His attack and taking of Maduro was a success, as far as being able to take him away from Venezuela but a major failure and a con when thinking about the harm he is causing

First of all, 32 people died in the raid, with the only thing they were guilty of is being hired/forced to defend Maduro

AI Overview

According to the Cuban government, 32 Cuban military and intelligence officers were killed during the recent U.S. operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, with Havana stating they died defending their posts against attackers. These Cuban personnel formed part of Maduro's security apparatus, with some serving as high-level guards and intelligence operatives.

Second of all, he opened the door for other leaders doing the same (such as Xi with Taiwan and Putin with Poland). Not to say that Trump himself opened the door for other countries to come to the U,S, to take Trump away to put him on trial (in their nations) for his perceived-by-others-correctly sins.

In addition, he is now taking advantage of a country he has no right to take advantage of, as well as giving him added motives and permission to do the same with countries (like Greenland and Panama) that he considers he should take over, but are not guilty of anything for which he has a reason to take over.

Yes, Maduro is a proven bad man that should be on trial for his sins but one HUGE problem that Trump also created is that he did this without running it by Congress (to get the approval of the entire nation for his action) and that also opened the door for him to become a Dictator, meaning that he can (with the agreement-of-his-action by people like you) now ignore our Constitution to do what HE PERSONALLY wants.

Anyone (like you) that supports what he has done (without cherry-picking but in looking at the total picture) is also a person with no love for what this country has stood for 250 years.

Trump is no better than Putin or Xi. He has proven that.

Those are all good things. Theose Cubans shouldnt have fired on the Delta Force.
Putin doesnt need permission to invade a country. Ask the Ukrainians.
Trump has no legal obligation to ask congress ands if he did they would have warned Maduro.
Right? Its called the moral right to arrest a criminal communist dictator who oppressed his people.

Cuba is next as we cut off their oil supply and their economy collapses. We are just getting started.

 

[Luckyone]

Those are all good things. Theose Cubans shouldnt have fired on the Delta Force.

You mean "not do the jobs they were hired to do"? By the way, if Trump hadn't gone after Maduro in HIS nation, they would not have been killed, right?

Did Trump have the "right" to go to another nation to abduct a citizen of that nation without the permission of the nation to do so?

Putin doesnt need permission to invade a country. Ask the Ukrainians.
Trump has no legal obligation to ask congress ands if he did they would have warned Maduro.
Right? Its called the moral right to arrest a criminal communist dictator who oppressed his people.

Cuba is next as we cut off their oil supply and their economy collapses. We are just getting started.

You are absolutely correct in all your answers "IF AND WHEN" you are happy in having an autocracy and not a democracy (like our forefathers built).

 

[Hafar1014]

You mean "not do the jobs they were hired to do"? By the way, if Trump hadn't gone after Maduro in HIS nation, they would not have been killed, right?

Did Trump have the "right" to go to another nation to abduct a citizen of that nation without the permission of the nation to do so?


You are absolutely correct in all your answers "IF AND WHEN" you are happy in having an autocracy and not a democracy (like our forefathers built).

We arrested a criminal and tyrant protected by Cuban thugs who got what they asked for. Yes Trump does have the right to arrest a criminal anywhere in fact an obligation.
Youre problem is Trump did what Biden and democrats dont have the ball to do and now you look like useless cowards.
This is just the beginning to remove communists and America hating elements that used Venezuela to attack America.
Cuba is next

 

[Hafar1014]

You mean "not do the jobs they were hired to do"? By the way, if Trump hadn't gone after Maduro in HIS nation, they would not have been killed, right?

Did Trump have the "right" to go to another nation to abduct a citizen of that nation without the permission of the nation to do so?


You are absolutely correct in all your answers "IF AND WHEN" you are happy in having an autocracy and not a democracy (like our forefathers built).

The forefathers who defeated the British, attacked pirates on presidential order alone, defended the people of this country. Youre no patriot and have no idea what our forefathers built. America weas created ri cowards or socialists like you

Every aspect of Maduros arrest was legal proper moral and correct.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

When?

When the ayatollah seized power.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Not true. Carter was inept but not that stupid.

Perhaps he was hopeful.

 

[Luckyone]

We arrested a criminal and tyrant protected by Cuban thugs who got what they asked for. Yes Trump does have the right to arrest a criminal anywhere in fact an obligation.
Youre problem is Trump did what Biden and democrats dont have the ball to do and now you look like useless cowards.
This is just the beginning to remove communists and America hating elements that used Venezuela to attack America.
Cuba is next

No, under international law, Trump did not have the right to do so, without first getting the okay from that nation

AI Overview

Under international law, a president does not have the legal right to order the abduction of an individual from another sovereign nation without that nation's permission. Such an act is widely considered a violation of international law and the territorial integrity of the other country.

If you believe that he had the right (according to U.S. laws) then what is to prevent Xi of China of doing the same thing (Abduct Trump) according to their laws saying that Trump is a criminal?

Would you also support that?

If you do, are you ready for a 3rd world war?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

When the ayatollah seized power.

The Ayatollah never seized power. He was in exile in France I believe.

 

[Luckyone]

The forefathers who defeated the British, attacked pirates on presidential order alone, defended the people of this country. Youre no patriot and have no idea what our forefathers built. America weas created ri cowards or socialists like you

Every aspect of Maduros arrest was legal proper moral and correct.

Prove your words

By the way, attacking pirates on international waters is not breaking any laws (internation or otherwise).

Defending your country is fine if you are ready for others to do the same to you.

Oh, and I do take your accusation that I am not a patriot as a huge insult. I served my country fully and risked my life doing so. As far as you saying "what are forefathers built", you better be ready to prove that they supported this kind of action. From what I know of the Constitution this is what it says:

AI Overview

The U.S. Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid a President from abducting a foreign criminal, but such actions face huge legal, diplomatic, and constitutional hurdles, typically requiring Congressional approval (War Powers) and the host country's consent for practical reasons, though the DOJ has suggested inherent executive authority for law enforcement abroad, even overriding some international law, but the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Alvarez-Machain that abducting a suspect from another country doesn't bar prosecution in the U.S., though it creates diplomatic fallout.