- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump “we are running country until transition is complete “
Posted on 1/3/26 at 1:04 pm to lsuconnman
Posted on 1/3/26 at 1:04 pm to lsuconnman
quote:
The entire place went full circle in record time. Just last year the overwhelming sentiment went from no foreign aid for anyone and declaring we are not the world police to cheering the Monroe Doctrine and propping the Argentinian banking system
0 integrity.
Not sure how they can look themselves in the mirror.
1
Posted on 1/3/26 at 1:09 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
Trump “we are running country until transition is complete “
Furthermore, the new Venezeulen leader, El Trumpo, just announced that Venezuela is now accepting ALL illegal immigrants from the US, in a joint venture with El Salvador. Flights from the US to begin immediatey, chips and salsa will be served mid flight..
Posted on 1/3/26 at 2:32 pm to Boss13
quote:
quote:
Eh, it’s their oil by right. That’s the risk you play when building infrastructure in a foreign nation. They may decide their national interests outweigh your property rights.
- Diego Retardo
They did business based on legal contracts within their jurisdiction. The communist then decided they were going to just steal everything. By your logic, its 100% acceptable to just seize every asset and business operated by a foreign entity.
I didn't say it was ethically right. It is just a business threat any multi-national company deal with when operating outside their headquarters state. You're fooling yourself if you think the US doesn't do the same shite. Hell, we've been talking about and/or doing seizures of Chinese held property in the United States.
Right and wrong doesn't really matter. Businesses operate in realities. Exxon et al knew the risk. They can be upset and advocate for spending our money to get their property back, but I'm not getting worked up over it.
This post was edited on 1/3/26 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 1/3/26 at 2:36 pm to Deuces
quote:
Transition is a buzzword
Progressives will love this.
Posted on 1/3/26 at 2:40 pm to Robin Masters
quote:In other words, " We are taking their oil."
"We are going to run it essentially "
Posted on 1/3/26 at 2:44 pm to uziyourillusion
They will fight you on this but it's absolutely true.
Posted on 1/3/26 at 2:46 pm to Robin Masters
Those companies were not giving anything back to Venezuela when it happened they literally were stealing their resources if a private company came to the United States and started taking natural resources I guarantee you our government would take them over.
Posted on 1/3/26 at 2:48 pm to TigersSEC2010
Lol Christian. That just means they're f****** stupid. Anyone who believes in a deity should not be allowed to vote because they don't have the brain capacity to differentiate between reality and fantasy. Is Santa real too? Dumb bitch.
Posted on 1/3/26 at 2:50 pm to OU Guy
quote:
Its very important to get this right as Trump is oir last chance to fix our hemisphere. There will be more arrests. Also have to get rid if their hired gangs who protected him and that takes time.
I heard this exact same phrase, almost down to the word, from John McCain about Iraq and Afghanistan back in 2008.
Posted on 1/3/26 at 2:51 pm to Figgy
The people on this board don't care about our soldiers, they want the young men and women of this country to die on their behalf, on the behalf of the corporations, on the behalf of the military industrial complex, on the behalf of our rich corrupt politicians.
They'll gladly send your children to die, while they continue to go to church on Sunday and pray to a make-believe entity, while they bomb innocent civilians across the world and destabilize entire regions. These are the same people who would call Eisenhower a communist these days.
They'll gladly send your children to die, while they continue to go to church on Sunday and pray to a make-believe entity, while they bomb innocent civilians across the world and destabilize entire regions. These are the same people who would call Eisenhower a communist these days.
Posted on 1/3/26 at 2:52 pm to Robin Masters
quote:I’m trying to understand where you’re drawing the line here, because the principle you’re appealing to seems broader than Venezuela.
They may decide their national interests outweigh your property rights.
Sounds like something a stupid commie would say.
And I’d wager their nationals interests just changed.
If a country asserting control over land or resources inside its own borders is automatically “communism,” how does that apply to the U.S. and Chinese ownership of American real estate? Chinese investors currently own large amounts of U.S. property, including farmland and strategic locations near infrastructure.
Do you think the U.S. has the right to restrict, seize, or reclaim that property if it decides it conflicts with national interests? If yes, what makes that different in principle from Venezuela asserting control over oil infrastructure within its own borders? If no, are you saying national sovereignty stops at foreign capital ownership?
I’m not arguing for or against Venezuela here. I’m asking where the rule actually is, because “property rights are absolute even across borders” and “countries can override foreign ownership for national interest” can’t both be true at the same time.
Posted on 1/3/26 at 3:04 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Do you think the U.S. has the right to restrict, seize, or reclaim that property if it decides it conflicts with national interests? If yes, what makes that different in principle from Venezuela asserting control over oil infrastructure within its own borders? If no, are you saying national sovereignty stops at foreign capital ownership?
Nationalizing so you can use the spoils for corrupt tyrannical governance would be different than forcing a sale, reimbursing the former owner and then listing the assets for sale to private American interests.
See the difference now?
Posted on 1/3/26 at 3:24 pm to Robin Masters
If the U.S. can force a sale or seize assets because it claims national interest, the principle is sovereign authority over property within its borders. Whether the proceeds are used well or poorly doesn’t change that principle, it just changes your approval of the regime.
The difference you’re pointing to isn’t legal or structural. It’s discretionary.
The difference you’re pointing to isn’t legal or structural. It’s discretionary.
Posted on 1/3/26 at 3:30 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
the U.S. can force a sale or seize assets because it claims national interest, the principle is sovereign authority over property within its borders. Whether the proceeds are used well or poorly doesn’t change that principle, it just changes your approval of the regime. The difference you’re pointing to isn’t legal or structural. It’s discretionary.
Pretty sure you’d feel much different if the government took your property and nationalized it without compensation vs forcing a sale and giving you proceeds or buying it at fair market value.
At the end of the day, all governments rule with implied to direct force so if that is your point, ok, cool.
Posted on 1/3/26 at 3:35 pm to Robin Masters
We should send our illegals there
Posted on 1/3/26 at 3:42 pm to Robin Masters
quote:That’s basically my point.
Pretty sure you’d feel much different if the government took your property and nationalized it without compensation vs forcing a sale and giving you proceeds or buying it at fair market value.
At the end of the day, all governments rule with implied to direct force so if that is your point, ok, cool.
Once you concede that governments can override ownership claims for national interest, the argument shifts from “whether they can” to “how they do it” and “whether they compensate.” That’s a narrower, procedural dispute, not a categorical one about sovereignty or communism.
Reasonable people can argue about compensation standards, due process, or abuse of power. But at that stage you’re no longer arguing that nationalization itself is illegitimate, just that some governments exercise that power badly.
I think that’s a fair place to leave it.
Posted on 1/3/26 at 3:52 pm to tigereye58
quote:
Don’t really see this as nation building. We didn’t destroy the whole country nor did we invade with thousands of troops. I think we maintain stability while a new leader stands up their team.
There are still a lot of communists and cartel members in government there.
Posted on 1/3/26 at 4:07 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
I think that’s a fair place to leave it.
Yeah, eventually you run headlong into “might equals right”
Posted on 1/3/26 at 4:08 pm to lsuconnman
quote:
The entire place went full circle in record time. Just last year the overwhelming sentiment went from no foreign aid for anyone and declaring we are not the world police to cheering the Monroe Doctrine and propping the Argentinian banking system.
Communists are bad and have always been bad.
Posted on 1/3/26 at 4:09 pm to SaveNewOrleans
They should put a couple military bases there in close proximity to where Exxon and Chevron are about set up shop.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News