Is there anyone tracking global excess deaths due to this administration's policies? From Texas to Africa, measles, starvation, AIDS, and so on. Plus extra-judicial killings. It would be good to have a running count.
I'd like to see poll that also asks the question, "should the U.S. run Venezuela?" Asking what the p.o.s. POTUS said the U.S. would be doing in the months (years?) ahead.
"If the occupation drags on, those newly-supportive Republicans may start to waver." You heard it here first - they will not waver. The White House is a marketing machine and Venezuela is a soft target.
Brent Jacobson, in his comments below, alluded to the financial cost and wondered if people are numb to it. That is a point I would like to see explored.
No one has yet published the financial information about what it has cost us to have a major naval operation off the coast of Venezuela, use costly weaponry to destroy little boats, and use major military assets to invade a country, snatch its leader, and leave (at least for the moment). And the U.S. armada is still off the coast of Venezuela. That has got to be an expensive operation that is adding to the national debt that has soared under Trump. Most polling is about legality, morality, or ethics, which are important. However, I'd like to see this financial aspect addressed.
You reminded me that no one has also explored the financial cost a secret police and racist immigration policy is, and its also filled with fraud and cronyism. Real "fiscal conservatives" would be livid how expensive and how much debt white nationalism is costing America.
And the social programs they destroyed--health care subsidies, feeding hungry children, etc.--are a drop in the bucket in terms of cost and return the investment with lower costs later on.
How much of the republican Venezuela uptick is because the raid was successful in that it captured Maduro? What would have happened if the raid failed and/or soldiers were killed?
I remember Carter’s choppers crashing in the desert in a failed attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages. There were other factors like inflation and resentment about the Panama Canal, but Americans really hate to look weak. It tanked any chance of his reelection regardless of people’s concern about Reagan’s war talk.
The YouGov poll shows a plurality of Americans thought it was successful. And it was! That has definitely helped. I think if America lost service members, then we’re in a fundamentally different situation, given a plurality says the strike as illegal and needed congressional authorization
"Last Sunday, I wrote that Americans broadly opposed the invasion of Venezuela, but predicted that Republican voters would likely “fall in line now that the operation” now that Trump had taken an action. That’s exactly what’s happened.": need's editing before I can share, please
I think Venezuela will cost Dems the midterms, unless things go terribly there. Dems continue to look like do-nothings and have no national mouthpiece to respond to events.
The U.S. has already violated the U.N. Charter by taking hostile,armed measures against a sovereign nation. We are at war with Venezuela, whether P. Bondi or little Marco admit it or not. Things have gone"terribly " there since we murdered the first boatload of un-indicted mariners.
You note “if the occupation drags on”, but of course there isn’t an occupation at the moment, at least not overt boots on the ground. I don’t think people are as agitated about wasting m/billions of dollars on naval operations, even if they should be. Trump, as always, is spewing a lot of disturbing words, but even his biggest supporters know that nearly all of what he says is nonsense.
I’m curious if there’s been polling about what really gets people to turn on an operation. Lives, cost, lack of progress, lack of exciting TV footage? I think they’re mostly numb to the cost. It’s interesting what you said about starting at the ceiling. In this case, there may be very little difference between that and the floor, considering his extremely loyal base, regardless of what he does from here.
The blockade and admitted C.I.A. boots on the ground are acts of war by themselves. Read today's headline from The Guardian, U.S. Urges Its Citizens To Flee Venezuela. I welcome Jared Kushner or Little marco to walz on down there and fix things up, WILL BE WILD!
Good questions. Haven’t seen any polling data on the why question, though I think the history of long quagmires in the Middle East is the biggest reason.
Is there anyone tracking global excess deaths due to this administration's policies? From Texas to Africa, measles, starvation, AIDS, and so on. Plus extra-judicial killings. It would be good to have a running count.
I'd like to see poll that also asks the question, "should the U.S. run Venezuela?" Asking what the p.o.s. POTUS said the U.S. would be doing in the months (years?) ahead.
"If the occupation drags on, those newly-supportive Republicans may start to waver." You heard it here first - they will not waver. The White House is a marketing machine and Venezuela is a soft target.
Brent Jacobson, in his comments below, alluded to the financial cost and wondered if people are numb to it. That is a point I would like to see explored.
No one has yet published the financial information about what it has cost us to have a major naval operation off the coast of Venezuela, use costly weaponry to destroy little boats, and use major military assets to invade a country, snatch its leader, and leave (at least for the moment). And the U.S. armada is still off the coast of Venezuela. That has got to be an expensive operation that is adding to the national debt that has soared under Trump. Most polling is about legality, morality, or ethics, which are important. However, I'd like to see this financial aspect addressed.
You reminded me that no one has also explored the financial cost a secret police and racist immigration policy is, and its also filled with fraud and cronyism. Real "fiscal conservatives" would be livid how expensive and how much debt white nationalism is costing America.
And the social programs they destroyed--health care subsidies, feeding hungry children, etc.--are a drop in the bucket in terms of cost and return the investment with lower costs later on.
How much of the republican Venezuela uptick is because the raid was successful in that it captured Maduro? What would have happened if the raid failed and/or soldiers were killed?
It was a "successful" violation of International law, and the murders of "suspected" drug traffickers is also a violation of established maritime law.
I remember Carter’s choppers crashing in the desert in a failed attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages. There were other factors like inflation and resentment about the Panama Canal, but Americans really hate to look weak. It tanked any chance of his reelection regardless of people’s concern about Reagan’s war talk.
The YouGov poll shows a plurality of Americans thought it was successful. And it was! That has definitely helped. I think if America lost service members, then we’re in a fundamentally different situation, given a plurality says the strike as illegal and needed congressional authorization
A successful kidnapping, and killing of Venezuelan and Cuban soldiers, who were the only ones acting in self defense!
"Last Sunday, I wrote that Americans broadly opposed the invasion of Venezuela, but predicted that Republican voters would likely “fall in line now that the operation” now that Trump had taken an action. That’s exactly what’s happened.": need's editing before I can share, please
👍
I think Venezuela will cost Dems the midterms, unless things go terribly there. Dems continue to look like do-nothings and have no national mouthpiece to respond to events.
The U.S. has already violated the U.N. Charter by taking hostile,armed measures against a sovereign nation. We are at war with Venezuela, whether P. Bondi or little Marco admit it or not. Things have gone"terribly " there since we murdered the first boatload of un-indicted mariners.
Yes, the lack of a popular single national party leader has a lot of knock-on effects
You note “if the occupation drags on”, but of course there isn’t an occupation at the moment, at least not overt boots on the ground. I don’t think people are as agitated about wasting m/billions of dollars on naval operations, even if they should be. Trump, as always, is spewing a lot of disturbing words, but even his biggest supporters know that nearly all of what he says is nonsense.
I’m curious if there’s been polling about what really gets people to turn on an operation. Lives, cost, lack of progress, lack of exciting TV footage? I think they’re mostly numb to the cost. It’s interesting what you said about starting at the ceiling. In this case, there may be very little difference between that and the floor, considering his extremely loyal base, regardless of what he does from here.
The blockade and admitted C.I.A. boots on the ground are acts of war by themselves. Read today's headline from The Guardian, U.S. Urges Its Citizens To Flee Venezuela. I welcome Jared Kushner or Little marco to walz on down there and fix things up, WILL BE WILD!
Hmmm. Seems to send mixed messages to the oil CEOs!
No shit! Where is Rex Tillerson when you need him! Didn't he call trump a f..king moron?
You are of course right there is no occupation now. This line was supposed to read more hypothetical. I have clarified the text. Thanks!
I got what you were driving at, but it got me thinking about what would be a tipping point for people’s opinions. Still, thanks for the clarification.
Good questions. Haven’t seen any polling data on the why question, though I think the history of long quagmires in the Middle East is the biggest reason.