yet again, Trump finds himself acting within a supermajority of public opinion, enacting policies rooted in common sense while his critics marginalize themselves by arguing nonsense.

Poll: 71% of Americans support Trump's strikes on boats smuggling drugs https://t.co/UDOT20FyCM

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) October 10, 2025

whiterock said:

---

yet again, Trump finds himself acting within a supermajority of public opinion, enacting policies rooted in common sense while his critics marginalize themselves by arguing nonsense.

Poll: 71% of Americans support Trump's strikes on boats smuggling drugs https://t.co/UDOT20FyCM

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) October 10, 2025

---

That poll may be correct; however, YouGov found that 42% disapprove & only 27% approved, with 31% not sure.

BUDOS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

yet again, Trump finds himself acting within a supermajority of public opinion, enacting policies rooted in common sense while his critics marginalize themselves by arguing nonsense.

Poll: 71% of Americans support Trump's strikes on boats smuggling drugs https://t.co/UDOT20FyCM

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) October 10, 2025

---

That poll may be correct; however, YouGov found that 42% disapprove & only 27% approved, with 31% not sure.

---

A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released Tuesday showed that 89% of Republicans, 67% of Independents, and 56% of Democrats are supportive of the U.S. military strikes

BUDOS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

yet again, Trump finds himself acting within a supermajority of public opinion, enacting policies rooted in common sense while his critics marginalize themselves by arguing nonsense.

Poll: 71% of Americans support Trump's strikes on boats smuggling drugs https://t.co/UDOT20FyCM

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) October 10, 2025

---

That poll may be correct; however, YouGov found that 42% disapprove & only 27% approved, with 31% not sure.

---

Check the demographics for YouGov sometime

BUDOS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

yet again, Trump finds himself acting within a supermajority of public opinion, enacting policies rooted in common sense while his critics marginalize themselves by arguing nonsense.

Poll: 71% of Americans support Trump's strikes on boats smuggling drugs https://t.co/UDOT20FyCM

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) October 10, 2025

---

That poll may be correct; however, YouGov found that 42% disapprove & only 27% approved, with 31% not sure.

---

Very hard to set up Harvard-Harris poll on the right. It is affiliated with Harvard University, with the editor in chief of The Hill (Bob Cusak, a centrist type), and with pollster is Mark Penn; Penn is a Democrat who served as one of Bill Clinton's pollsters.

YouGov has a worse record of accuracy, but the larger question is the 44-point gap . That is a pretty clear indicator that the two polling units are not polling the same questions or the same universe.

BUDOS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

yet again, Trump finds himself acting within a supermajority of public opinion, enacting policies rooted in common sense while his critics marginalize themselves by arguing nonsense.

Poll: 71% of Americans support Trump's strikes on boats smuggling drugs https://t.co/UDOT20FyCM

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) October 10, 2025

---

That poll may be correct; however, YouGov found that 42% disapprove & only 27% approved, with 31% not sure.

---

Polls 40 to 50% different. Something isn't quite right.

ScottS said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

yet again, Trump finds himself acting within a supermajority of public opinion, enacting policies rooted in common sense while his critics marginalize themselves by arguing nonsense.

Poll: 71% of Americans support Trump's strikes on boats smuggling drugs https://t.co/UDOT20FyCM

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) October 10, 2025

---

That poll may be correct; however, YouGov found that 42% disapprove & only 27% approved, with 31% not sure.

---

Polls 40 to 50% different. Something isn't quite right.

---

You know the Harvard is right leaning.... huge Trump supporters.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

yet again, Trump finds himself acting within a supermajority of public opinion, enacting policies rooted in common sense while his critics marginalize themselves by arguing nonsense.

Poll: 71% of Americans support Trump's strikes on boats smuggling drugs https://t.co/UDOT20FyCM

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) October 10, 2025

---

That poll may be correct; however, YouGov found that 42% disapprove & only 27% approved, with 31% not sure.

---

Check the demographics for YouGov sometime

---

Yeah, it has to be that...

our noble sky warriors have been vigilant this weekend.

God Speed.

- uncle fred

D!

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating donut }

Go Bears!!

Viva il Donaldo!!!

Assassin said:

---

ScottS said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

yet again, Trump finds himself acting within a supermajority of public opinion, enacting policies rooted in common sense while his critics marginalize themselves by arguing nonsense.

Poll: 71% of Americans support Trump's strikes on boats smuggling drugs https://t.co/UDOT20FyCM

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) October 10, 2025

---

That poll may be correct; however, YouGov found that 42% disapprove & only 27% approved, with 31% not sure.

---

Polls 40 to 50% different. Something isn't quite right.

---

You know the Harvard is right leaning.... huge Trump supporters.

---

not terribly. It's run by a Swamp creature and a Democrat, sponsored by Harvard.

BUDOS said:

---

That statement covers a lot of territory and situations. I can agree about the boat bombings on due process grounds, although I currently am not losing any sleep if all of them were drug runners. Perhaps we will never know.

---

If they were not drug runners, I'm pretty confident you'd know. If one was even just a part-time drug runner who once attended his son's soccer game, I'm pretty confident you'd know.

Robert Wilson said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

That statement covers a lot of territory and situations. I can agree about the boat bombings on due process grounds, although I currently am not losing any sleep if all of them were drug runners. Perhaps we will never know.

---

If they were not drug runners, I'm pretty confident you'd know. If one was even just a part-time drug runner who once attended his son's soccer game, I'm pretty confident you'd know.

---

Well said

And don't you know it.

Leftists would be screaming from the mountain tops

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

ScottS said:

---

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

---

Yep

Quote:

---

Nevertheless, the Dominican Republic's National Directorate for Drug Control, which cooperated with a U.S. strike on Sept. 19, has revealed that it salvaged over 1,000 kilograms of cocaine from the boat destroyed that day, with even more presumably lost at sea.

---

ScottS said:

---

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

---

The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.


No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.

The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.

On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.

Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.

FLBear5630 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

---

The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.


No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.

The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.

On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.

Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.

---

Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.

Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.

Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.

If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.

An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.

Results would be immediate

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

---

The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.


No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.

The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.

On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.

Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.

---

Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.

Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.

Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.

If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.

An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.

Results would be immediate

---

And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.

How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.

Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

---

The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.


No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.

The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.

On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.

Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.

---

Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.

Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.

Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.

If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.

An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.

Results would be immediate

---

And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.

How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.

Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.

---

Playing 'what if ' is not going to stop the current nightmare.

What we do know is thousands of Americans are dying of drug overdoses every month.

Past methods didn't work.

Got to use the Singapore approach. Despite all the initial screaming about their executions of drug smugglers.........it worked.

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

---

The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.


No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.

The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.

On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.

Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.

---

Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.

Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.

Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.

If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.

An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.

Results would be immediate

---

And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.

How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.

Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.

---

Playing 'what if ' is not going to stop the current nightmare.

What we do know is thousands of Americans are dying of drug overdoses every month.

Past methods didn't work.

Got to use the Singapore approach. Despite all the initial screaming about their executions of drug smugglers.........it worked.

---

In my opinion, the issue is Congress. We need laws like Singapore has for drugs. We need laws for immigration that make sense and are enforced. Congress has punted their duty and are only worried about Wall St and their stocks.

FLBear5630 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

---

The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.


No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.

The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.

On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.

Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.

---

Your defense of the constitution vs the number of drug deaths in America is interesting to say the least. You vote for more drugs in USA, I vote we save the Americans.

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

---

The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.


No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.

The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.

On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.

Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.

---

Your defense of the constitution vs the number of drug deaths in America is interesting to say the least. You vote for more drugs in USA, I vote we save the Americans.

---

That is a short sighted and very antagonistic political statement. Ok, "Mr. we need to save lives", you believe that addicted people will just not switch to something else to meet their addiction or that the Cartels won't substitute some other additive without medical help.

Are you willing to support the Government sponsored addiction care and medical treatment to go with ending the access of the drugs. Afterall, you are voting for people, the cost shouldn't matter.

We are pushing the limits of the Executive Office, that deserves discussion, it is not an isolated action. If it is, then Congress needs to act on it.

Your paranoia is getting to the point of absurd oblivion, FLBear.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

---

The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.


No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.

The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.

On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.

Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.

---

Your defense of the constitution vs the number of drug deaths in America is interesting to say the least. You vote for more drugs in USA, I vote we save the Americans.

---

That is a short sighted and very antagonistic political statement. Ok, "Mr. we need to save lives", you believe that addicted people will just not switch to something else to meet their addiction or that the Cartels won't substitute some other additive without medical help.

Are you willing to support the Government sponsored addiction care and medical treatment to go with ending the access of the drugs. Afterall, you are voting for people, the cost shouldn't matter.

We are pushing the limits of the Executive Office, that deserves discussion, it is not an isolated action. If it is, then Congress needs to act on it.

---

I've been supporting any and all addiction programs for many years, my 35 year chip, last year:

D*A members here??

PA.

- UL

... and, as always, TIA.

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating d*onut }

D!

Go Bears!!

Prep for The Utes!!!

william said:

---

D*A members here??

---

That too, although it's NA.

Assassin said:

---

william said:

---

D*A members here??

---

That too, although it's NA.

---

donuts??

a fellow fat man???

PA.

- UL

D!

Go Bears!!

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

---

The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.


No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.

The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.

On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.

Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.

---

Your defense of the constitution vs the number of drug deaths in America is interesting to say the least. You vote for more drugs in USA, I vote we save the Americans.

---

That is a short sighted and very antagonistic political statement. Ok, "Mr. we need to save lives", you believe that addicted people will just not switch to something else to meet their addiction or that the Cartels won't substitute some other additive without medical help.

Are you willing to support the Government sponsored addiction care and medical treatment to go with ending the access of the drugs. Afterall, you are voting for people, the cost shouldn't matter.

We are pushing the limits of the Executive Office, that deserves discussion, it is not an isolated action. If it is, then Congress needs to act on it.

---

I've been supporting any and all addiction programs for many years, my 35 year chip, last year:

---

I said congrats last time you showed it. It is commendable and I really am glad you found a place you are good, you are one of my favorite posters.

However, because you were able to beat your demons doesn't mean others can or that it impacts policy. Aside from the Executive Branch using National Emergencies and determining terror groups. If we are willing to go to this extreme shouldn't we also do the other side of the coin? If we are going to go hardcore on the enforcement side, how about hardcore on the medical services side? It is a total package. But, that is close to Socialism, so we will stick to blowing up a boat or two.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

---

The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.


No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.

The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.

On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.

Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.

---

Your defense of the constitution vs the number of drug deaths in America is interesting to say the least. You vote for more drugs in USA, I vote we save the Americans.

---

That is a short sighted and very antagonistic political statement. Ok, "Mr. we need to save lives", you believe that addicted people will just not switch to something else to meet their addiction or that the Cartels won't substitute some other additive without medical help.

Are you willing to support the Government sponsored addiction care and medical treatment to go with ending the access of the drugs. Afterall, you are voting for people, the cost shouldn't matter.

We are pushing the limits of the Executive Office, that deserves discussion, it is not an isolated action. If it is, then Congress needs to act on it.

---

I've been supporting any and all addiction programs for many years, my 35 year chip, last year:

---

I said congrats last time you showed it. It is commendable and I really am glad you found a place you are good, you are one of my favorite posters.

However, because you were able to beat your demons doesn't mean others can or that it impacts policy. Aside from the Executive Branch using National Emergencies and determining terror groups. If we are willing to go to this extreme shouldn't we also do the other side of the coin? If we are going to go hardcore on the enforcement side, how about hardcore on the medical services side? It is a total package. But, that is close to Socialism, so we will stick to blowing up a boat or two.

---

I have said multiple times that I support addiction centers, both AA and NA.

I have ZERO problems with drug boats being obliterated. Not sure why you support tens of thousands of Americans dying. It's bizarre

Russia is already supplying weapons to Venezuela and “sees no obstacles” to transferring the new Oreshnik ICBM

“Russia is actually one of Venezuela’s key military-technical partners. We supply the country with nearly the entire range of weapons, from small arms to aviation. The… https://t.co/qdSC39WSjj pic.twitter.com/6e9pYEZTGr

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) November 4, 2025

boognish_bear said:

---

Russia is already supplying weapons to Venezuela and “sees no obstacles” to transferring the new Oreshnik ICBM

“Russia is actually one of Venezuela’s key military-technical partners. We supply the country with nearly the entire range of weapons, from small arms to aviation. The… https://t.co/qdSC39WSjj pic.twitter.com/6e9pYEZTGr

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) November 4, 2025

---

We should reply with Tomahawks to Ukraine.

Things might get really interesting...

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

---

The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.


No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.

The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.

On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.

Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.

---

Your defense of the constitution vs the number of drug deaths in America is interesting to say the least. You vote for more drugs in USA, I vote we save the Americans.

---

That is a short sighted and very antagonistic political statement. Ok, "Mr. we need to save lives", you believe that addicted people will just not switch to something else to meet their addiction or that the Cartels won't substitute some other additive without medical help.

Are you willing to support the Government sponsored addiction care and medical treatment to go with ending the access of the drugs. Afterall, you are voting for people, the cost shouldn't matter.

We are pushing the limits of the Executive Office, that deserves discussion, it is not an isolated action. If it is, then Congress needs to act on it.

---

I've been supporting any and all addiction programs for many years, my 35 year chip, last year:

---

I said congrats last time you showed it. It is commendable and I really am glad you found a place you are good, you are one of my favorite posters.

However, because you were able to beat your demons doesn't mean others can or that it impacts policy. Aside from the Executive Branch using National Emergencies and determining terror groups. If we are willing to go to this extreme shouldn't we also do the other side of the coin? If we are going to go hardcore on the enforcement side, how about hardcore on the medical services side? It is a total package. But, that is close to Socialism, so we will stick to blowing up a boat or two.

---

I have said multiple times that I support addiction centers, both AA and NA.

I have ZERO problems with drug boats being obliterated. Not sure why you support tens of thousands of Americans dying. It's bizarre

---

So, if we blow up the boats we will have no fentanyl deaths and it equals the tens of thousands dying.

Read about when the Republic became the Empire. That is my concern.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

---

The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.


No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.

The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.

On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.

Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.

---

Your defense of the constitution vs the number of drug deaths in America is interesting to say the least. You vote for more drugs in USA, I vote we save the Americans.

---

That is a short sighted and very antagonistic political statement. Ok, "Mr. we need to save lives", you believe that addicted people will just not switch to something else to meet their addiction or that the Cartels won't substitute some other additive without medical help.

Are you willing to support the Government sponsored addiction care and medical treatment to go with ending the access of the drugs. Afterall, you are voting for people, the cost shouldn't matter.

We are pushing the limits of the Executive Office, that deserves discussion, it is not an isolated action. If it is, then Congress needs to act on it.

---

I've been supporting any and all addiction programs for many years, my 35 year chip, last year:

---

I said congrats last time you showed it. It is commendable and I really am glad you found a place you are good, you are one of my favorite posters.

However, because you were able to beat your demons doesn't mean others can or that it impacts policy. Aside from the Executive Branch using National Emergencies and determining terror groups. If we are willing to go to this extreme shouldn't we also do the other side of the coin? If we are going to go hardcore on the enforcement side, how about hardcore on the medical services side? It is a total package. But, that is close to Socialism, so we will stick to blowing up a boat or two.

---

I have said multiple times that I support addiction centers, both AA and NA.

I have ZERO problems with drug boats being obliterated. Not sure why you support tens of thousands of Americans dying. It's bizarre

---

So, if we blow up the boats we will have no fentanyl deaths and it equals the tens of thousands dying.

Read about when the Republic became the Empire. That is my concern.

---

If we stop drug boats from getting Fentanyl and Cocaine to the US in any manner, that is a good thing for the USA and also Venezuela. The Cartels are hemorrhaging money at that point

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

---

The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.


No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.

The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.

On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.

Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.

---

Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.

Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.

Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.

If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.

An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.

Results would be immediate

---

And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.

How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.

Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.

---

You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.

Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.

Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

---

The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.


No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.

The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.

On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.

Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.

---

Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.

Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.

Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.

If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.

An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.

Results would be immediate

---

And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.

How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.

Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.

---

You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.

---

Blatantly false.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

---

The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.


No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.

The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.

On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.

Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.

---

Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.

Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.

Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.

If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.

An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.

Results would be immediate

---

And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.

How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.

Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.

---

You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.

Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.

Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).

---

Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.