this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2026
914 points (98.9% liked)

World News

51798 readers
3102 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Trump said that Venezuela’s new leader, Delcy Rodríguez, would help the United States run Venezuela. She quickly said the opposite.

Trump said Delcy Rodríguez was sworn in as Venezuela’s interim president and would act as a partner in letting the United States run the country.

“She’s essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again,” he said.

Less than two hours later, Ms. Rodríguez — who was Nicolás Maduro’s vice president — delivered a televised address to Venezuela that made clear she viewed the United States as an illegal invader that must be rejected.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 89 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Nah. Just a targeted police action to arrest the rogue elements who purport to be the lawfully elected government.

They'd be justified in sanctions, but I don't think that it would actually accomplish anything. The people doing this shit don't give a flying fuck about them because it would hurt you and me, not them.

[–] drzoidberg@lemmy.world 64 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I support bombing both DC and Mar a Lago. Or, just bomb one of the golf courses he's at. He's such an easy target for anyone that wants to kill him.

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 5 days ago (1 children)

If only he took less stimulants so that he stood still enough for that nice young man from Pennsylvania

[–] H3mp79@lemmy.today 18 points 5 days ago

Such a nice young man. A little more training was all he needed.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I’m not a fan of anyone killing him but what if a country captures him and puts him on trial?

He’s already proven he’s okay with that.

[–] Coleslaw4145@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

They already have that covered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act

This authorization led to the act being nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", since the act would allow the president to order military action in The Hague, the seat of the ICC, to prevent American or allied officials and military personnel from being prosecuted or detained by the ICC.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

As far as I know the US is charging Maduro domestically so what’s stopping another country from doing the same with Trump?

[–] Coleslaw4145@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago

The US military.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

That's 50% of the electorate.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 10 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Not really, although they want you to believe that. In reality, over a third of registered voters abstained from voting in 2024.

More people didn't vote than voted for either candidate.

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago

That was a vote for Trump.

[–] architect@thelemmy.club 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I got bad news for you about that dumb ass third that wouldn’t turn out for democrats anymore than republicans. You’d likely get the same numbers. They didn’t vote for a reason. They either didn’t like either that much or they ate dumb as shit on a brick. The former may vote dem slightly more but the latter would be influenced in the election line by the dumb shits passing out flyers, and they are more often republicans from what I’ve seen.

People that checked out will not vote the way you fucking think.

The only way to get to them is to make them fucking uncomfortable. That’s it.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 5 days ago

A lot of them are self-proclaimed leftists who have no practical sense of realpolitik, and are so focused on their purity tests that they'll never put forward a viable candidate.

A lot of them bought into the tiktok propaganda that Biden and Harris were responsible for Gaza, while ignoring how much worse it would get under trump. They simply (and rabidly) accused anyone who supported the Democrats of being complicit in genocide.

This time there's not an incumbent democrat, so hopefully the same people will blame the current administration and vote accordingly. That is, if the entire hype wasn't socially engineered by the US's adversaries to get trump elected so he could weaken the country...

A robust Democratic primary will also help reduce boycott voters, although some will likely always complain that the nominee isn't perfect enough for their liking. That can't be helped.

But at least some of the fence-sitting centrists will come out in force against trump, since it's so obvious how shitty everything is.

So I think there's still hope. As long as states maintain control of their own elections and keep them free and fair...

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 4 points 5 days ago

They voted for "whoever the other guys want."

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago

50% of the electorate wouldn't be hurt by sanctions, or 50% of the electorate would be arrested?

In either case, I'm referring to the president, his staff and cabinet. People actually directly making decisions who won't see any consequences from sanctions.