47

Beerman said:

I agree with all that.

And, as such am a bit surprised that in another post you seem to be allowing for the possibility that Trump is being paid off by the oil companies.  Especially since you recognize that it'll be costly for them and years if not decades before they'll see any profit.

Fair enough my gut reaction was to neither agree or disagree with the idea he is being paid off.   I'll probably stand by that but my gut also tells me that he isn't taking bribes outright.

Presidents have long been in the pockets of big oil for as long as I've been alive.  Trump in particular has shown many policies that favor oil over clean energy (except for his bizarre about face on electric vehicles when he did his commercial for Tesla at the White House).  Trump isn't stupid and has no need with all his power and influence to take bribes.

That being said, since he pardoned a known convicted narco President, I know this isn't about another narco President only.  It's about them sitting on the largest supply of oil in the world.  Change my mind.

If successful in the long run Venezuela can make a come back to benefit its people, benefit American big oil, and perhaps benefit us with a steadier supply of energy close by.  

GrumpyRN said:

Trump specifically mentioned Venezuelan oil.

"Trump Long Wanted to 'Take the Oil.’ He Says He'll Do It in Venezuela."

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/03/us/politics/trump-venezuela-oil.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crkr4y717k7o

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy95pr790pro

GrumpyRN said:

What evidence? I see smoking boats after they have been hit by American missiles and hearing about a "second strike" or "double tap".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3v15zkxpe0o

 

You wanted proof that they were drug smugglers.  I guess you've come around on that now and believe it is likely they were.

GrumpyRN said:

Trump specifically mentioned Venezuelan oil.

"Trump Long Wanted to 'Take the Oil.’ He Says He'll Do It in Venezuela."

That's not the far-fetched part.

You said Trump was paid off to go get it the oil. Where's the evidence?

Or, is this just another instance of liberals saying something whacky and then having to back down when called on it?

This is probably another instance of the Trump administration taking action with zero actual transparency while actively lying about what the true motivations were or what their intentions are.  That means that the Trump base of support believes whatever they are told by their media while ignoring or diminishing anything that doesn't fit their narrative.  Mr Turley can sufficiently answer any and all legal questions to their satisfaction.  

The rest of the world, including many Americans who are not swept up in that frenzy of fealty to the man are a bit more clear eyed about Trump's famous transactional style.  We heard some of that clear eyed concern from the UN security counsel yesterday.  

It will be interesting to watch the evolution of this really bad idea.  In Trump's first telling of the nation building story, this attack was all about removing a bad guy and Venezuelan oil.  He mentioned oil many times in the story telling about the wealth to be released for the Venezuelan people when the US oil companies make big investment.  The next day Trump was suggesting that maybe US tax payers will reimburse oil companies for their investment.  

That means that the American tax payers can't afford to fund cancer research (because that's waste) and we can't afford school lunch programs for children or health care for poor Americans on Medicaid or health insurance subsidies for working Americans in the marketplace, but we can afford war in Venezuela and to refund the investment risk of oil companies in Venezuela.  The priorities of this administration seem to be little focused upon making America great.  

Liberals say wacky things all of the time.  Things like, it's not wise to trust people with a personal and public history of lying about almost all aspects of their lives.  Wacky things like, it's ill advised to trust someone found guilty of fraud. Wacky things like you shouldn't elevate people who muses about suspending laws and constitutional limits on their behavior.  

On the other hand, this "conservative" president and his VP both said that immigrants were eating cats and dogs before our friends and neighbors put them in charge.  That's definitely wacky. Did it get walked back or did the VP indicate that he uses lies like that to get attention and the POTUS seemed to simply believe it? 

Mean Gramma said:

Is that sarcasm? 

No.  Is there something you have a question about what I said or that needs clarification?

The only time I used sarcasm the past few posts was when I said it would be cool to have Trump on a $1 coin.  Didn't mean that seriously.

GrumpyRN said:

What I wrote was;-

"Do you really think that Trump just did that out of altruism? Somewhere there is a price being paid to Trump and you can bet it will not be on the books."

If there was actual evidence that he took money then I would expect legal ramifications, although the way your justice system kowtows to him I'm not so sure. There are other things than money.

I am not going to get into this with you. As far as I am concerned you are unwilling to look critically at Trump and his cabinet and expect everyone to just say how great he is. Just out of curiosity, why is he taking so many cognitive tests and why does he think they are an exam that only he can pass. 

You don't have evidence.   That's fine as you can have an opinion.  My point is that you and others want smoking gun proof of liberal wrongdoing before you'll give it any consideration, but that standard doesn't go both ways.  If you speculate that Trump took a bribe to capture Maduro, it's reasonable to expect that others might ask you to backup that speculation with something.

I don't criticize or disagree with Trump often here.  But I do at times.  And far more often than you have ever given him accolades or have criticized any Democrat.

Tweety said:

No.  Is there something you have a question about what I said or that needs clarification?

The only time I used sarcasm the past few posts was when I said it would be cool to have Trump on a $1 coin.  Didn't mean that seriously.

Yes. This bit confused me;

Quote

it's not rocket science that the world's largest reserve of oil isn't playing a part in this decision and that big oil isn't in on the planning. 

Does this comment contend that it's clear that Venezuelan oil didn't playing a part in Trump's decision making and that the big oil companies weren't informed before Congress or We the People? Can you clarify? I thought it was sarcasm.  

Mean Gramma said:

Yes. This bit confused me;

Does this comment contend that it's clear that Venezuelan oil didn't playing a part in Trump's decision making and that the big oil companies weren't informed before Congress or We the People? Can you clarify? I thought it was sarcasm.  

Oh crap.  So sorry.  I mean "is" not "isn't".    Thanks for pointing that out.

Certainly big oil is part of the equation here.  

Today the white house published this propaganda.  

https://www.whitehouse.gov/j6/

Quote

The Democrats masterfully reversed reality after January 6, branding peaceful patriotic protesters as "insurrectionists" and framing the event as a violent coup attempt orchestrated by Trump—despite no evidence of armed rebellion or intent to overthrow the government. In truth, it was the Democrats who staged the real insurrection by certifying a fraud-ridden election, ignoring widespread irregularities, and weaponizing federal agencies to hunt down dissenters, all while Pelosi's own security lapses invited the chaos they later exploited to seize and consolidate power. This gaslighting narrative allowed them to persecute innocent Americans, silence opposition, and distract from their own role in undermining democracy.

What a bunch of embarrassing crap.