Gig em G said:

---

I don't understand how any true constitutionalist Americans would be cool with this.

---

As a true constitutionalist American, I don't believe it has anything to do with foreigners when they are not on US soil and this is especially true for narco-terrorists.

Gig em G said:

---

Definitely agree with Rand Paul on this issue.

It's a slippery slope, and blatantly using air strikes like this will lead to abuses or mission creep into domestic use. I don't understand how any true constitutionalist Americans would be cool with this.

---

Always funny when you liberals suddenly wrap yourselves in the Constitution.

Any other day the left uses it for toilet paper.

Brazil says, "Hold my beer."

A massive police raid targeting organized crime in Rio de Janeiro left at least 64 dead. https://t.co/sKbU9QKV2b

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) October 28, 2025

It's better than the alternative all that fentanyl taking the lives of young people in our inner cities.

Rapier108 said:

---

Gig em G said:

---

Definitely agree with Rand Paul on this issue.

It's a slippery slope, and blatantly using air strikes like this will lead to abuses or mission creep into domestic use. I don't understand how any true constitutionalist Americans would be cool with this.

---

Always funny when you liberals suddenly wrap yourselves in the Constitution.

Any other day the left uses it for toilet paper.

---

Agree with Rand Paul, pro individual liberty, generally non-interventionist, defender of privacy rights, free speech, gun rights, and extreme opposition to government surveillance now = liberal

Didn't realize the definition of "liberal" has radically changed so much since MAGA Republican went mainstream.

But okay....

Gig em G said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Gig em G said:

---

Definitely agree with Rand Paul on this issue.

It's a slippery slope, and blatantly using air strikes like this will lead to abuses or mission creep into domestic use. I don't understand how any true constitutionalist Americans would be cool with this.

---

Always funny when you liberals suddenly wrap yourselves in the Constitution.

Any other day the left uses it for toilet paper.

---

Agree with Rand Paul, pro individual liberty, generally non-interventionist, defender of privacy rights, free speech, gun rights, and extreme opposition to government surveillance now = liberal

Didn't realize the definition of "liberal" has radically changed so much since MAGA Republican went mainstream.

But okay....

---

Rand is generally conservative. But he and his dad willing to allow nukes for Iran and other dangerous foreign policy viewpoints is inexcusable behavior. They say they want a strong America but weaken America by playing the ostrich to dangerous actors.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

Yes, I had a huge problem with it then and I have a huge problem with it now. I'll also have a huge problem with it in the future. You should too.

I don't care what party is in power. The Constitution is the law, and no one is above it.

The bigger question is, did you have a problem with it when Obama or Biden did it? If you did and don't today, then you may want to evaluate whether your partisanship has eroded your understanding of and commitment to our United States as it was founded.

---

I have no problem killing drug dealers. Give me a break on your Constitution crap. We are at war. That is the problem with people like you. You have no idea how the world works. You probably thing a "Public Safety Support Specialist" will reduce crime as well.

shiftyandquick said:

---

LOL, you guys think this is about the drugs?

You think blowing up a few boats is going to make any difference?

You are very much optimists. Or apologists for this regime.

"This time we are going to win the war on drugs by blowing up speed boats." How do you guys stop from laughing as you say this?

---

Blowing up a few boats will make a difference. Blowing up a lot of boats will make a bigger difference. It won't stop the drug trade, but hopefully put a dent in it. If these vermin see enough of their cohorts die, maybe they choose another path other than the path that got their buddies killed,

And we should not stop there. Execute anyone coming across our border with drugs. Fast track the trial, fast track the execution, hang the body on the Mexican side of the border and let it rot down. Find the coca fields in Columbia and spray them with Agent Orange or the latest and greatest herbicide. Probably not constitutional but sometimes you just have to take action.

Rand Paul Heroically Dives In Front Of Hellfire Missile Before It Can Hit Venezuelan Drug Boat https://t.co/mcF3fyUKI9 pic.twitter.com/ImoTs1rjWy

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) October 27, 2025

The Constitution has nothing to do with Venezuelan terrorists in the ocean. And it never did.

Rockdoc said:

---

Keep blowing up those drug runners!

Another drive by from OP

---

Agree. You gotta be a special kind of naive not to know what the purpose of those boats are when seeing them. That ain't no 42' Freeman fishing out of Houma.

Every President since Reagan has done some version of this, it just wasn't as heavily publicized.

Really the only differences between Trump and say, Obama in this regard is that Trump uses it for propaganda purposes and doesn't do it as much. Obama used drones and naval vessels to take out more terrorists and drug runners than any President in history and it wasn't close.

Libs only care because it's Trump. They spin everything as him being a king, a dictator, a tyrant.

It's ridiculous. They love iron-fisted rulers.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Libs only care because it's Trump. They spin everything as him being a king, a dictator, a tyrant.

It's ridiculous. They love iron-fisted rulers.

---

And a Nazi!! lol

shiftyandquick said:

---

LOL, you guys think this is about the drugs?

You think blowing up a few boats is going to make any difference?

You are very much optimists. Or apologists for this regime.

"This time we are going to win the war on drugs by blowing up speed boats." How do you guys stop from laughing as you say this?

---

Can't you all think of a different argument?

This is the same thing you all said about the wall.

That could not be further from the truth. If you look at my posting history you'll notice the opposite. The world is headed towards large scale conflict and we aren't prepared socially or from a manufacturing capacity to adequately fight it. We've got to secure our hemisphere, I agree with the concept of regime change in Venezuela. I'm glad we're getting close to Argentina. I think Brazil, Cuba, and Mexico should be priorities as well. I also believe we should do it without pressing constitutional authority and opening the door to future issues. I dont have some sort of bleeding heart for the drug dealers. Not by a long shot. With Congressional approval and oversight, sink them all.


With the introduction of drones and the number of illegal aliens in the country, an insurgency in our backyard would be problematic. I hope he's done an adequate job of clearing all the TDA and cartel out prior to starting this operation.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

Prove it.

---

Not my job. I made an assertion based on a layman's reading of the law. You are welcome to disagree but you haven't provided any proof to the contrary that the President's actions are illegal.

A majority of SCOTUS is the only audience that matters when it comes to arguing this case.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

That could not be further from the truth. If you look at my posting history you'll notice the opposite. The world is headed towards large scale conflict and we aren't prepared socially or from a manufacturing capacity to adequately fight it. We've got to secure our hemisphere, I agree with the concept of regime change in Venezuela. I'm glad we're getting close to Argentina. I think Brazil, Cuba, and Mexico should be priorities as well. I also believe we should do it without pressing constitutional authority and opening the door to future issues. I dont have some sort of bleeding heart for the drug dealers. Not by a long shot. With Congressional approval and oversight, sink them all.

---

We are where we are with selective use of military force by the president to target terrorist, cartels, or anyone else deemed a bad actor and threat to the US, as determined by the president in his or her sole discretion. Whether you agree with that standard or not, that's how it's been working for decades across both political parties.

If Congress believes the president has abused his constitutional powers, they can remove him through impeachment and conviction. They could literally do it within 24 hours if it was compelling and urgent enough.

The fact that they haven't -- again, across many presidents of both parties -- signals that they implicitly accept, or at least tolerate, the presidents' actions in these many case studies.

The ball is in Congress' court if they want to exert their constitutional power.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Pizza said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

You think blowing up a few boats is going to make any difference?

---

I agree, we need to blow up more of those boats.

---

Is it cost effective? Maybe, maybe not.

Does it make for great TV and click bait. Hell yes.

---

I'm all for more cost effective solutions. Bonus points if they make red/white/blue smoke after detonation or impact.

Bring back the PT boats and sell trips.
Make a little money while having a good time.

They say that these boats are just hard working innocent fisherman.

These boats are meant for speed and the men are not "fisherman".

Enforcing the Monroe Doctrine.

Drug addicts arent gonna stop taking drugs bc dealers get killed. They will just rob more to pay higher costs.

Its a demand problem.

shiftyandquick said:

---

This kind of thing has played out over and over amongst these strongman regimes.

---

Would a Narco-Marxist nation constitute a "strongman regime" in your eyes?

Funny we get to the point when Venezuela, a nation known to support drug cartels with a human rights record so abusive one of the regime's opposition won the Nobel Peace Prize, is seen as a victim against a duly-elected "strongman" abusing rights he's been authorized to use under the Constitution.

Completely innocent, eh OP?

Quote:

---

The Maduro era has seen the Venezuelan cocaine trade atomize as criminal actors seeking access to its riches have proliferated. And the country's role in the global supply chain has expanded as Venezuela has taken its first, tentative steps towards becoming not only a transit zone but also a cocaine producer nation.

Over the same period, drug trafficking has become an important component of the strategies Maduro has used to cling onto power as his government has been rocked by constant social, political and economic crises. His objective has been not to capture the riches of the transnational cocaine trade for himself, but to control and channel their flow, using it to reward the political, military and criminal powers that Maduro needs to maintain his hold on government.

---

This has been known for years; that report is from 2022.



But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, especially when Shifty is a supporter of a Democrat Party allowing Maduro to release his thugs from prison into this nation without a challenge.

The only time this Rhino speaks up is against Trump. Time for him to go buh bye. Hope the people of Kentucky can see through him.

IDaggie06 said:

---

Liberals would prefer we kindly escort the drug boats to the US. Provide them a lengthy trial, granting them bond in the US, while they commite other crimes here, give them probation instead of convictions, along with free rent & health insurance to stay in the US as long as they want.

---

Forgot gift cards so they can eat food from their homeland. Not that swill served in their new home hotel restaurant.

lol, okay. i love how y'all scream that folks run from debating the angry mob around here and then you cross your arms like third graders when someone asks you to prove something you say is true.

the answer is that there isn't anything in the law. it's been allowed through passively enabled precedent, and that's the problem i've got with the whole situation. congress is dysfunctional and not doing their job. at some point that has serious implications to our democracy.

I disagree with the concept it is okay that congress' inability/unwillingness to do their job due to the modern campaign finance system, blind partisanship and corruption in our government enables the dangerous precedent of executive overreach to be established over the course of multiple presidencies.

why? because it leads to this exact discussion. partisanship drives the narrative. when a democrat does it y'all scream about it and say there's corruption and so and so needs to be impeached. when a republican does it, y'all are all for it and want to give someone the nobel peace prize. i agree with the objective we're trying to accomplish. my whole point is that the method by which we get there is dangerous long term. this conversation and the gradual movement of expectations is case and point as to why.

techno-ag said:

---

It beats the alternative, all that fentanyl killing our inner city youth.

---

Well if they wouldn't take it then they wouldn't die. I'm sorry but they are just making poor choices. I have never once in my life thought I would die from some pill I bought off the street, because I would never buy a pill off the street! Dumbasses!!!

We (Nixon) declared war on drugs in 1971.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

I disagree with the concept it is okay that congress' inability/unwillingness to do their job due to the modern campaign finance system, blind partisanship and corruption in our government enables the dangerous precedent of executive overreach to be established over the course of multiple presidencies.

why? because it leads to this exact discussion. partisanship drives the narrative. when a democrat does it y'all scream about it and say there's corruption and so and so needs to be impeached. when a republican does it, y'all are all for it and want to give someone the nobel peace prize. i agree with the objective we're trying to accomplish. my whole point is that the method by which we get there is dangerous long term. this conversation and the gradual movement of expectations is case and point as to why.

---

A Jacksonian response to a nation intentionally engaged in drug trafficking endangering our citizens does not constitute "executive overreach."

This has been going on since the Barbary Pirates in Jefferson's White House years. The President, in his role as Commander in Chief, has the right to engage entities short of declaring war when those entities by their actions threaten the country.

As for "our side," I invite you to do a search for the term "neo-con" and get back to me with what you see as a "GO TEAM" reaction from those to the right of the aisle on the concept.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

I disagree with the concept it is okay that congress' inability/unwillingness to do their job due to the modern campaign finance system, blind partisanship and corruption in our government enables the dangerous precedent of executive overreach to be established over the course of multiple presidencies.

why? because it leads to this exact discussion. partisanship drives the narrative. when a democrat does it y'all scream about it and say there's corruption and so and so needs to be impeached. when a republican does it, y'all are all for it and want to give someone the nobel peace prize. i agree with the objective we're trying to accomplish. my whole point is that the method by which we get there is dangerous long term. this conversation and the gradual movement of expectations is case and point as to why.

---

Partisanship drives blind loyalty and hypocrisy. I'm not mad at Obama for being the king of drone strikes, I'm mad that people continue to pretend that he didn't do it. It needs doing. Don't get mad when the opposition party does the same thing…

Then again if Democrats didn't have hypocrisy they wouldn't have any core values.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

I disagree with the concept it is okay that congress' inability/unwillingness to do their job due to the modern campaign finance system, blind partisanship and corruption in our government enables the dangerous precedent of executive overreach to be established over the course of multiple presidencies.

why? because it leads to this exact discussion. partisanship drives the narrative. when a democrat does it y'all scream about it and say there's corruption and so and so needs to be impeached. when a republican does it, y'all are all for it and want to give someone the nobel peace prize. i agree with the objective we're trying to accomplish. my whole point is that the method by which we get there is dangerous long term. this conversation and the gradual movement of expectations is case and point as to why.

---

This discussion is about the president's use of military power to go after terrorists, cartels, etc. and how it squares up with Congress' authority to declare and fund wars. It's not about all that other baggage of campaign finance, partisanship, corruption, etc.

I support the president's use of military power to protect us from threats whether the president is D or R, or he or she. Doesn't matter. Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc.

One other thing... just because Congress doesn't do what you want them to doesn't mean they're not doing their job. Not acting is a conscious decision. So is acting. The difference is the outcome.

Congress can absolutely rein in the president's use of military force if they desire. They can remove him from office. He can't remove them. By choosing not to exercise that power, they are implicitly accepting his use of military authority, even though some of them will gripe about it in the media.

docb said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

It beats the alternative, all that fentanyl killing our inner city youth.

---

Well if they wouldn't take it then they wouldn't die. I'm sorry but they are just making poor choices. I have never once in my life thought I would die from some pill I bought off the street, because I would never buy a pill off the street! Dumbasses!!!

---

What about the dollar bill you pick up when walking out of the grocery store that is intentionally laced and kills you dead. That is a bit naive and grossly over-simplified.

We need to forcefully attack this issue. Debating how we do it is healthy.

AgFan1974 said:

---

docb said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

It beats the alternative, all that fentanyl killing our inner city youth.

---

Well if they wouldn't take it then they wouldn't die. I'm sorry but they are just making poor choices. I have never once in my life thought I would die from some pill I bought off the street, because I would never buy a pill off the street! Dumbasses!!!

---

What about the dollar bill you pick up when walking out of the grocery store that is intentionally laced and kills you dead. That is a bit naive and grossly over-simplified.

We need to forcefully attack this issue. Debating how we do it is healthy.

---

Good point.

Some of this stuff has cops hitting the emergency rooms just by contact with it.

That is beyond a simple "sucks to be you" approach to the matter.