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.

---

Picking up a dollar bill with fentanyl on it won't do anything to you. That is just stupid. I agree that drugs are a problem, but a lot of the problem is that we have a lot of people that use them.

I cited the statutory references to support the argument for legality. You responded by telling me to prove it. The courts are the only place where legal theories are proved. Place your bets on where the Suprene Court lands on this question. F16 isn't a court so we all just post opinions and occasionally someone will actually cite the language of a law to back up an opinion.

Do you really look at Congress' inefficiency over the past however long and say that their "lack of action" is intentional? They can't even fund the government. Give me a break.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

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.

---

This is true and hu7man nature would tell us that there really isn't much objection to these actions, even from Rand Paul. At least he frames his argument as a constitutional one which is fine, but he isn't losing sleep over sunk boats.

Issues like this are great for political grandstanding and staking out positions for elections, but secretly none of these people give a **** about the dead boaters whether they are drug dealers or not. They might care a lot about the political benefit/harm inside our borders.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973

What I'm saying is that the trend of each administration taking a little more authority here is troubling. Our nation wasn't built for one man to have control over when and where we put our military to work. Once we agree to put them to work, he has full control. My argument is that Trump should get Congress to pass an AUMF within 60 days of deploying troops to the region so that he is taking the high road where his predecessors have not. We have a majority in Congress, just pass it and move on.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

Do you really look at Congress' inefficiency over the past however long and say that their "lack of action" is intentional? They can't even fund the government. Give me a break.

---

Their lack of action is due to a closely divided government with neither party having a super majority. Elections are generally close in this country. That results in limited legislation that both parties can agree on.

That's not necessarily a bad thing.

For funding the government, the record is clear that the R's have voted 12 times for a temporary clean funding resolution to allow time to negotiate on a longer term agreement, but the Dems have rejected it 12 times in a row. Fact.

Party allegiance, and the institutional demand for it, over all else is the core issue. That's my point.

You say campaign finance is a tertiary issue, but that is what enables this enforcement of party allegiance as its' core. It's on both sides.

You say social media and the gradual super-polarization of our population is not important, but it fuels and empowers fringe actors to press these boundaries.



It's like moving a lamp an inch across a room every day. One day, it's in a completely different place that it shouldn't be and everyone is scratching their head wondering how the heck we got to where we are.

Try extending " the rule of law" far beyond our borders to say North Korea. See have far that gets you.

If you think this is about drugs, you've got another thing coming.

It is, always has been, and always will be about oil and solidifying our interests in the western hemisphere. I hate to tell you this, but those in power do not care about poor people dying of drug overdoses. If they did, they'd do a better job funding a domestic solution in concert with these strikes.

Don't you find it odd that there's not a huge investment in limiting demand for these drugs to go along with what we're doing militarily?

Again, I'm okay with it and think it's a prudent geopolitical move. Just don't delude yourself into thinking it's some sort of noble crusade for the benefit of the American drug addict.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

Party allegiance, and the institutional demand for it, over all else is the core issue. That's my point.

You say campaign finance is a tertiary issue, but that is what enables this enforcement of party allegiance as its' core. It's on both sides.

You say social media and the gradual super-polarization of our population is not important, but it fuels and empowers fringe actors to press these boundaries.



It's like moving a lamp an inch across a room every day. One day, it's in a completely different place that it shouldn't be and everyone is scratching their head wondering how the heck we got to where we are.

---

I didn't say any of those things. They are a derail to the central conversation in this thread about the president's authority to use military force on terrorists/cartels/etc. and how that squares with Congress' authority to declare and fund wars. I made the point that Congress has the power to rein in the president if they wish, and by not exercising that power, they are implicitly accepting his use of military power.

You keep trying to move the goalposts by shifting the conversation to other things. I don't want any part of that in this thread. Happy to have that debate on another thread where it's the point of discussion. You might be surprised to learn that I agree with more than you think.

docb said:

---

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.

---

Picking up a dollar bill with fentanyl on it won't do anything to you. That is just stupid. I agree that drugs are a problem, but a lot of the problem is that we have a lot of people that use them.

---

Accidental exposures are happening and they are scary. I am aware of the pushback on the dollar bill stories. The exposure liklihood is not zero even in that scenario. Perhaps I should have used another example, there are plenty. Ignoring that is... stupid.

Fentanyl is klilling people and we should attack it full force. This thread is a bunch of people talking about the right and wrong way to do that. Your position is we should do nothing because humans make bad choices?

Not a derail whatsoever. They are reasons why taking a stand on the issue is important. There are a lot of forces pushing this the opposite direction, and over the long term it is dangerous.

Quote:

---

Congress declared a war on terror.

---

Rand, love you man, but this is the answer.

Rules change on terrorism. This is why it is hard for me to accept the action when a POTUS can just make claim that a group is on that list. I will wager a left nut that the next enemy POTUS will put an internal good guy group on that list.

Don't get me wrong, i believe Cartels are very bad and need to be a targeted enemy for the sake of our nation's well being, but why the list? If it is to circumvent all the rules of engagement then wait for the other shoe to drop and is that worth it?

If DJT asked Congress to Declare War on Cartels and they voted to then complete different story. However, just to spite DJT democrats would note NO.

AgFan1974 said:

---

docb said:

---

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.

---

Picking up a dollar bill with fentanyl on it won't do anything to you. That is just stupid. I agree that drugs are a problem, but a lot of the problem is that we have a lot of people that use them.

---

Accidental exposures are happening and they are scary. I am aware of the pushback on the dollar bill stories. The exposure liklihood is not zero even in that scenario. Perhaps I should have used another example, there are plenty. Ignoring that is... stupid.

Fentanyl is klilling people and we should attack it full force. This thread is a bunch of people talking about the right and wrong way to do that. Your position is we should do nothing because humans make bad choices?

---

Bad choices usually equal bad outcomes.

txwxman said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

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

---

Fentanyl typically comes from Mexico. South America is all about the cocaine.

---

Latest strike was in the Pacific off the coast of Mexico.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/us-boat-strikes-pacific-ocean-hegseth/

There have been over 800k drug poisoning deaths in the last 10 years.

I cannot fathom killing those importing mass death causing anyone a moments consternation.

Rand Paul is as useless as Mayor Pete's man tits

japantiger said:

---

There have been over 800k drug poisoning deaths in the last 10 years.

I cannot fathom killing those importing mass death causing anyone a moments consternation.

Rand Paul is as useless as Mayor Pete's man tits

---

Are these 800k from legal drugs? Or drugs bought from some shady character?

People are dying. They're being killed by illegally imported drugs. Kill the suppliers.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

People are dying. They're being killed by illegally imported drugs. Kill the suppliers.

---

Uh how about don't take them. There is a reason they are illegal.

docb said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

People are dying. They're being killed by illegally imported drugs. Kill the suppliers.

---

Uh how about don't take them. There is a reason they are illegal.

---

Yeah how's that working out?

Illegal substances such as fentanyl, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine....

Rockdoc said:

---

docb said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

People are dying. They're being killed by illegally imported drugs. Kill the suppliers.

---

Uh how about don't take them. There is a reason they are illegal.

---

Yeah how's that working out?

---

Works out just fine for people that don't use illegal drugs. Problem solved IMO.

I've never taken an illegal drug. They're still killing people.

hth

docb said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

docb said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

People are dying. They're being killed by illegally imported drugs. Kill the suppliers.

---

Uh how about don't take them. There is a reason they are illegal.

---

Yeah how's that working out?

---

Works out just fine for people that don't use illegal drugs. Problem solved IMO.

---

It takes a multi pronged approach. Agreed "Just say no" is important. But by itself without the fangs of enforcement actions like these, it's next to useless.

IndividualFreedom said:

---

Quote:

---

Congress declared a war on terror.

---

Rand, love you man, but this is the answer.

Rules change on terrorism. This is why it is hard for me to accept the action when a POTUS can just make claim that a group is on that list. I will wager a left nut that the next enemy POTUS will put an internal good guy group on that list.

Don't get me wrong, i believe Cartels are very bad and need to be a targeted enemy for the sake of our nation's well being, but why the list? If it is to circumvent all the rules of engagement then wait for the other shoe to drop and is that worth it?

If DJT asked Congress to Declare War on Cartels and they voted to then complete different story. However, just to spite DJT democrats would note NO.

---

The democrats are busy fighting to prevent deporting convicted cartel criminals and trying to ensure that they get their medical care paid for by the American taxpayers. They wouldn't say no to spite Trump, they would say no to preserve one of their core constituencies. The dems are pro-cartel based on their current actions.

techno-ag said:

---

docb said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

docb said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

People are dying. They're being killed by illegally imported drugs. Kill the suppliers.

---

Uh how about don't take them. There is a reason they are illegal.

---

Yeah how's that working out?

---

Works out just fine for people that don't use illegal drugs. Problem solved IMO.

---

It takes a multi pronged approach. Agreed "Just say no" is important. But by itself without the fangs of enforcement actions like these, it's next to useless.

---

I agree and I fully support blowing the **** out of those drug runners, but I also think penalties need to be much more severe for drug dealers and users that get caught to deter this behavior in the future.

Maybe it is time for a big government funded education campaign against drugs like Reagan had going on.

[You can make your point without being disrespectful to others -- Staff]

Rockdoc said:

---

docb said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

People are dying. They're being killed by illegally imported drugs. Kill the suppliers.

---

Uh how about don't take them. There is a reason they are illegal.

---

Yeah how's that working out?

---

So we're to spend even more untold billions of dollars to be the nanny state for people who know that the drugs they're taking, or that taking any illegal drug, might kill them?

I get that drug dealers are bad, and I thoroughly enjoy what Trump is doing. Still, couldn't the money and resources be better used on non criminals?

Quote:

---

They wouldn't say no to spite Trump, they would say no to preserve one of their core constituencies. The dems are pro-cartel based on their current actions.

---

Strong point. the enemy of our nation would most definitely double down on the side of chaos.

Since there's been dozens of 'whataboutisms' thrown around here already, I'll add one of my own just cause I feel like it…

All ya'll so concerned with the certain substances coming in that your nanny federal government says is bad…when are we going to start blowing up alcohol imports? Roughly 50k Americans die directly from alcohol each year (not including contributing factors such as drunk driving.) For 2024 provisional data estimate deaths involving synthetic opioids (which include fentanyl) at about 48,422 in the U.S.

Gig em G said:

---

Since there's been dozens of 'whataboutisms' thrown around here already, I'll add one of my own just cause I feel like it…

All ya'll so concerned with the certain substances coming in that your nanny federal government says is bad…when are we going to start blowing up alcohol imports? Roughly 50k Americans die directly from alcohol each year (not including contributing factors such as drunk driving.) For 2024 provisional data estimate deaths involving synthetic opioids (which include fentanyl) at about 48,422 in the U.S.

---

When bootleggers start bringing in alcohol across the ocean in racing boats in quantities that have a street value >5x the price of a Hellfire missile. Prolly not worth it unless it's Johnny Walker Blue.

Gig em G said:

---

Since there's been dozens of 'whataboutisms' thrown around here already, I'll add one of my own just cause I feel like it…

All ya'll so concerned with the certain substances coming in that your nanny federal government says is bad…when are we going to start blowing up alcohol imports? Roughly 50k Americans die directly from alcohol each year (not including contributing factors such as drunk driving.) For 2024 provisional data estimate deaths involving synthetic opioids (which include fentanyl) at about 48,422 in the U.S.

---

Take your concerns up with the Liquor Lobby and loser Lt Gov Dan

MaxPower said:

---

Madagascar said:

---

How is the constitution not being followed? If they are not citizens, then those attacked have no rights. I could see a question of whether these attacks are an act of war or not which would need to be declared by congress. But it seems that these attacks are not trying to start a war as much as defend us against Venezuelan threats.

---

There's also a question of whether it violates international law given it occurs in international waters.

---

This international law... is it enforced by the international police with trials in the international court?

Any concept of "international law" is governed by agreements and in some cases actual treaties.

POTUS can modify and withdraw from treaties. Even if you don't think they can, they can and do.

It would be historically stupid, treasonous even, for a POTUS to allow the US to be subservient to any foreign body or law. Period.

It's about the gradual slide towards chaos. I appreciate your take and opinion considering the world is already rapidly approaching a place where international norms and law are anything but. It's tough to argue that we're already there so why even pretend. From an international standpoint, I agree with you.

Domestically, Trump should still get congressional approval within 60 days of this operation beginning, that is my opinion. I've taken some flak for that opinion, but nothing that's been said contrary to that belief has held any water whatsoever. All I've gotten is folks taking what I'm saying to an extreme like I personally want some sort of oversight, that I'm a bleeding heart liberal, or that our domestic law doesnt actually limit the president at all.

I will say this to the value of discussion. As we've debated (i use this word very loosely) this I've gone and read more about the WPA and believe Trump deserves the 60 days granted in the law to get approval or have his power limited by congressional action. If congress fails to act, that isn't the executive branch's fault as long as he goes through the process and seeks an AUMF from them.