Yesterday the Senate voted down a war resolution, led by Dem Sen. Tim Kaine, intended “to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities within or against Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force.” The only Republicans who voted with the Dems were Rand Paul (a co-sponsor) and Lisa Murkowski.
Today, thanks to reporting by the Associated Press, we know more about the men who have been killed at great expense by the awesome might of the U.S. military.
One was a fisherman struggling to eke out a living on $100 a month. Another was a career criminal. A third was a former military cadet. And a fourth was a down-on-his-luck bus driver.
The men had little in common beyond their Venezuelan seaside hometowns and the fact all four were among the more than 60 people killed since early September when the U.S. military began attacking boats that the Trump administration alleges were smuggling drugs. President Donald Trump and top U.S. officials have alleged the craft were being operated by narco-terrorists and cartel members bound with deadly drugs for American communities. …
… In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela’s breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives said the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists or leaders of a cartel or gang.
Most of the nine men were crewing such craft for the first or second time, making at least $500 per trip, residents and relatives said. They were laborers, a fisherman, a motorcycle taxi driver. Two were low-level career criminals. One was a well-known local crime boss who contracted out his smuggling services to traffickers.
Further, the “open-hulled fishing skiffs” were bound for “nearby Trinidad and other islands,” not the United States.
Yes, these are the dangerous “narco-terrorists.” If any of these boats had been bound for the U.S., I’m sure the Coast Guard could have taken care of the problem in conventional ways. Instead, the Trump Administration has chosen the path of “extra-judicial executions” that violates international law and wastes taxpayer dollars dropping bombs. Not to mention deploying an aircraft carrier, multiple destroyers, and an amphibious ready group with over 4,500 personnel, plus a special operations vessel, a nuclear-powered attack submarine, Marine helicopters, Ospreys, and fighter jets in the Caribbean to menace Venezuela. I can’t even begin to guess how much all this is costing taxpayers.
I’m sure it will amuse you to learn that this morning the Trump Administration asked a court to block another judge’s order to distribute the full November SNAP benefits. So Trump didn’t get the message the voters sent this week.
Update: Today the appeals court refused to block the other judge’s order. The Regime has appealed to the Supreme Court, asking SCOTUS to block the order by 9 p.m. tonight.
This is by Susan Glasser at The New Yorker:
Was this the week that America finally started clapping back at Donald Trump? Actions trigger reactions; we all know that. Yet, remarkably, Trump has spent the first nine months back in the White House plowing forward as if, channelling Lenin, there was all mush and no steel to meet his advance. Only a man who truly feared no political consequences could have chosen to hold a Great Gatsby-themed Halloween party at his Mar-a-Lago estate on the weekend before important off-year elections and amid a federal-government shutdown that is causing millions of poor Americans to wait indefinitely for monthly food assistance. In the face of such evident political malpractice, many wondered whether a video of the event, which showed a scantily clad woman gyrating in an oversized Martini glass, was an A.I.-generated stunt to make Trump look bad. But, no, it was real. He is actually that brazen.
This is as much as I could read before I hit the paywall. But does Trump really fear no political consequences? I can’t say that he really didn’t care about the results of Tuesday’s election. He’s been trying to influence the New York City mayoral race in various ways, from endorsing Andrew Cuomo to threatening to withhold federal funds from the city if Zohran Mamdani. Knowing New Yorkers, this probably helped Zohran Mamdani. Trump spoke up about several of the other races also. Plus if he didn’t care about next year’s midterms, he wouldn’t be pushing so hard for Republican state redistricting.
He did learn a new magic word — affordability — on Tuesday night.
So if he just uses his magic word enough, voters will still love him. Got it. But he’s not going to do anything differently.
And it may be that he genuinely doesn’t understand that the economy isn’t better than it was last year. He’s got plenty of money. The stock market has been doing great, right? What else is there to know? (But this week the stock market has been wobbly. It may be the AI bubble is deflating. Stay tuned.)
Trump’s political success mostly comes from his mob-boss aggression combined with a grifter’s instinct for saying what his marks want to hear. He’s still got the first attribute, but I believe the second one is failing him. And even if he could use the right words, his declaration that the prices of groceries are way down isn’t going to override people’s experience buying groceries. Which tells us prices aren’t down. But I don’t think he grasps that. Reality is supposed to be whatever he says it is.
So he’s not going to stop being the Great Gatsby/Marie Antoinette president even as the job market dries up and prices continue to inflate. And I’m sure all the flight cancellations before the holiday season aren’t helping him, either.
It’s possible that if Trump could pivot to paying attention to his actual job, bring down the cost of living, and stop being such a princess, his approval ratings would go back up. But I don’t think he’s capable of doing that. And I don’t think he appreciates how the public perceives his personal extravagances when everyone else is in belt-tightening mode.
The number crunchers are still looking at voting patterns from Tuesday night. And they’re telling us that the demographic groups that flipped to Trump in 2024 all flipped the other way this week. See The 2024 Trump “realignment” is already over for a good overview.
Also, too: See DOJ Admits to Republicans That Epstein Files Are Even Worse for Trump by Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling at The New Republic. One suspects that whatever is being held back could absolutely destroy Trump politically. And it will come out eventually. Maybe not before the Trump Era has ended, but it will come out. There will be no rehabilitation for him.
Justice JACKSON put a temporary hold on the order to provide full SNAP benefits immediately. Jackson is the black woman nominated by Biden. So it gave me a WTF moment, but there is a Constitutional question regarding (in theory) the court ordering the administration to move funds appropriated by Congress for a different purpose. In this case, the WH says USDA would have to take funds from the Children's Nutrition Program. (I'm specuating about the Constitutional issue – Jackson did not specify in her order but she DID promise the USSC would move quickly.)
In a normal universe, the resolution, even in a shutdown woule be for the House to pass a simple appropriation of emergency funds only for SNAP, only for the duration of the shutdown. It wuld be passed by the Senate unanimiously and signed by the President. Starving people in the US is NOT equivalent to reduced flights and the inconvenience of travel delays.
Speaker Johnson has shut down the House to protect President Pedophile. Solving this in a civil manner is NOT an option. (If anyone wants to bet me that Johnson will recognize the urgency and rise to the occasion, calling the House back, I will meet that bet. Maha can hold the money.)
Trump is incrementally shutting down air travel to create political pressure on the Democrats. (IMO, it's also creating pressure on Republicans, but we'll see.) Trump wants the USSC to turn up the pressure on Democrats to end the shutdown WITHOUT the Republicans having to acknowledge what the effects of stripping out Obamacare subsidies will be. Democrats today offered to reopen government with a one-year extension of ACA subsidies, betting that the Democrats will take the House and the restoration will be permanent. Senate Republicans refused the offer.
I don't know if the USSC can, so this is a big "What if." Congress is getting paid thru the government shutdown. Johnson has sent Republican members home, which prevents bipartisan negotiations that through a discharge petition could bring a compromise to the floor and end the shutdown. (This kind of horse-trading to get around the centralization of power in the Speaker is (I think) what the framers had in mind.) But I promised a "What if."
What if the USSC declined to exceed its power by demanding the Executive Branch exercise power granted to the Legislative Branch, BUT the USSC determined that Congress MUST be in session until the crisis is resolved, which neither the Court nor the President can require? This would resonate with voters, I think. Most people are unaware that the House had been AWOL since September 19. Don't EVEN tell me this is the Democrats' fault!
Here's (potentially) an unintended consequence scenario of EPIC proportions. If Johnson calls back the House, then the Democrat who has been waiting to be sworn in, MUST be sworn in. The necessary last signature means the House Oversight Committee can demand the full Epstein Files from DOJ. (And they won't comply but we have to save that for now.) Republicans in the House will be under direction of the USSC to seek a way to reopen government, talking across the aisle. A bunch of Republicans worried about losing their jobs in the next election have incentive to be on the 'team' that reopened government. Screw Johnson, Screw the Epstein Files. And Screw Trump. The handwriting from Tuesday's election is on the wall.
"Republicans in the House will be under direction of the USSC to seek a way to reopen government, talking across the aisle."
Huh?
I'll focus solely on the military buildup in the Caribbean. I'm not a military expert, nor a diplomacy expert, nor a constitutional expert. So I'm reading a few tea leaves here, but I'll admit that I have a pretty good idea of how things work in this modern word we live in as a result of watching things happen for many decades.
I don't believe the US military buildup in the Caribbean would be happening if there isn't an intention to use that military force in the region. A) It costs a huge amount of money to make moves that big; B) There is no partner in the region with a naval/air force potent enough to have "joint exercises" with us.; C) Before Russia invaded Ukraine from Belarus (and other places) there was a huge buildup noted (noted because you can't hide those things); D) Before Israel invaded Gaza there was a lengthy buildup of ground forces along the border (while the bombing campaign was already in fifth gear); E) In order to effect this Caribbean buildup, forces had to be removed from the eastern Mediterranean, a region with a lot more capacity and will to threaten US military forces than the northern South America region. This is a cost to the US of security capability in an unstable region.
All of that leads me to my suspicion: this administration intends to do some "big boy" stuff using our "glorious warriors". After all, NASCAR is very popular, and the big races always have those fighter jet flyovers to kick off the race. The administration must believe that actual military action will give Americans a lot to cheer about over their barbecues.
Early in this administration, US Navy aircraft carrier pilots performed air missions against the Houthis in Yemen. The justification of this use of military force was the AUMF passed post 9-11. (There is AlQaeda in Yemen).
I find it curious that Republican Senators voted down a bi-partisan resolution to restrict the administration's ability to conduct war activities in Venezuela without a Congressional declaration of war. The excuses were as varied as the many types of candy that we all handed out to trick-or-treaters on Halloween.
I won't be surprised by what unfolds, and whatever they do, I doubt that it will have any dampening effect on the fentanyl crisis in the US.
I was against the Viet Nam War in the late '60s until it ended in debacle. I am totally against my country producing a WWE smackdown version of that global arrogance in the 2020's and in our own damn neighborhood.
I suspect that the deciding factor on whether the Mango Mussolini will press the Caribbean campaign is that if it continues to entertain him or lose interest in it when he sees the ratings for the "Who Wants to Murder a Fisherman" game show go down.
However, I guess, if he can have a new real estate asset in Venezuelan oil fields is going to be the deciding factor. Remember, follow the money.
Point well taken… for sure he's keeping the maggots in his camp. But my point is that he doesn't need a whole freakin' carrier group to murder fishermen in the Caribbean.
My take is that he's motivated by more than just money (and for sure he's motivated by money): I suspect he's also deathly afraid of prison.
We have a third for the never list. You can never be:
too thin
too rich
too crazy
…in this country. Otherwise, the 25th amendment would have kicked in ages ago, and Tesla shareholders would not have approved Musk's new pay package. Oh yes, and how about we would make sure we get everyone fed.
This is all just too sick. The country is a headcase.
As always, I am the buzz kill. The wingers LOVE the concept of vaporizing drug boats. The GOP knows how to throw red met to the maroons … and the news that yes, these were low level mules, just makes my winger friends smugly say "SEE… they were criminals that needed to be vaporized!!!! In your FACE". Noting that your principles are for due process and the rule of law is non-starter because they say non-American citizens deserve no constitutional protections, no matter where they are. The > 1/3 of our country that is deep cult Maga believe this way and have billionaire adherents who have a single culture jamming news source that all of them get their marching orders from.
There was an election Tuesday and I saw the dancing banana. I think that was a very good but the over arching issue is how is detente going to be achieved with a cult who still has enormous cultural and political power. The dancing banana was bittersweet because, in my view, the things that block the path to detente are overwhelming and ignored by the "opposition"… ie I (we) still have to live next door to Nazi adjacent people and how do we get them to stop worshiping cruelty?
And now need to pigeonhole them as either full-Nazi or of the cafeteria Nazi persuasion which some think is more acceptable. (I guess Tucker Carlson is considered a cafeteria Nazi and that Fuentes character a full one.)
Sorry for my redundancy appearing below. I messed up.
Sadly, I agree with borderdenizen, that the 'extra-judicial executions' (murders? war crimes? both!) are designed to entertain Trump's Mob.
As Lindsey Graham told the Republican Jewish Coalition recently,
"I feel good about the Republican Party. I feel good about where we're going as a nation. We're killing all the right people and we're cutting your taxes." (link below, at 7:42)
Senator Lindsey Graham’s remarks to the RJC Annual Leadership Summit, October 31st, 2025
(Bizarrely, when I googled "killing all the right people" to find a link to Graham's quote, I learned that this was the name of an episode of 'Designing Women'…)
Yes, thanks for getting it, I had a typo there red meat, not red met.
We have a third for the never list. You can never be:
too thin
too rich
too crazy
…in this country. Otherwise, the 25th amendment would have kicked in ages ago, and Tesla shareholders would not have approved Musk's new pay package. Oh yes, and how about we would make sure we get everyone fed.
This is all just too sick. The country is a headcase.
Saw this over at another lefty blog!
Fearless leader is definitely slipping as evidenced by his Great Gatsby party. The more able former fearless leader would have called it the Greatest Gatsby Party at least. Wealth disparity is becoming quite the issue, as is the inequality disparity and all that implies.
The label of princess along with the association with Marie Antionette is quite a good usage to communicate how the fearless one presents himself as a leader to rank and file citizens. No leader can honestly consume all the misery and suffering of all citizens, yet a leader that fails to show honest and effective action to alleviate at least some of the excessive suffering of their citizens merits the consequences of those actions or inactions. Marie Antionette's consequences were extreme by any standard, but when the status quo is disrupted no one gets to expect much adherence to any standard except his trendy sub-standard.
Consider, with his office guest in peril, he remained frozen in inaction. One brief video clip says it all. To his credit he did resist any temptation to blame his guest for queering his meeting or to jump in to put him out of his apparent distress. What is amazing is that both options would also not be that far out of character for him. A new, trendy, standard of sub-standard.
It looks like the Senate is voting to end the shutdown without getting an extension of subsidies for health care. I don't think it was ever a possibility. My hat's off to Democrats for pushing it as hard as they did, the longest shutdown in US history. IMO, it was a tactical victory, an opinion which puts me in the minority.
It was bad policy to defund the Obamacare subsidies before the midterms but Trump wants to kill Obamacare so bad he can taste it. My guess is that Project 2025 planned (and still will) claim Obamacare was failing and killing the subsidies had nothing to do with the premium hike that even those who were not getting subsidies will feel.
MAGA will buy it but everyone else got fair warning what's over the next hill. Your premiums will go up early next year BECAUSE of the BB Bill gutted the funding for a popular program. Tens of millions will have to drop insurance completely, and it's statistically certain that people will die for lack of health care who would have lived.
So what changed from the shutdown? Who gets the blame next year for the medical pain. What may change is the size of the blue wave in the midterms.
If we were building a bigger blue wave, why stop? I worry about the people on SNAP. Yeah, some are the same people who will lose health care but the GOP wasn't coming to the table on health care. Hundreds of thousands of federal workers were getting clipped. We got some job and backpay security for them in the deal. Air travel can resume. I know – that was engineered by the Administration to create pressure. I don't care about airline profits but I do care about consumers and safety.
The shutdown has shifted the narrative. The GOP is claiming that nothing bad will happen because they stripped out subsidies from Obamacare. It was all waste and fraud. Democrats held their ground for longer than I thought they could. Fighting hard makes the GOP own the results next year. (If there was a strategist in the entire GOP, they would have extended the subsidies for a year to get past the midterms.)
This 'deal' has to go back to the House for a vote. Democrats will insist the new member from AZ be sworn in before the vote. That means the House Oversight Committee will demand the Epstein Files, which Johnson blocked until now. That will go to the USSC when DOJ plays games with what they release. There's the matter of testimony before Congress for Miss Maxwell. I still think she wants a pardon and that's the point where she has the most leverage.
This post from Doug makes sense to me. I'll add a couple of thoughts. Do we know yet what happened in the negotiations? Did Thune tell the Dems that there couldn't be any change to the status quo on the subsidies, no matter what? If that happened, then that goes into the political messaging in the mid-terms. Dems were willing to negotiate, but the R's wouldn't budge on ACA subsidies.
Therefore, not that much to gain from continuing to filibuster the CR. We've already made the point that we're not going to concede in advance. When we switch our focus to the mid-terms, which is where we're at now following the recent elections, we keep beating the drums that we've been beating lately… affordability, neo-gestapo formations in the streets of our cities, winning court battle after court battle below the supreme court level. And… the Epstein files.
There are two battles with health care. Two ways to lose. I've survived both by the skin of my teeth so far.
Battle one is how to stay healthy. This one is a little easier than the other one because you are in a healthy state when you are doing it or might be. A lot of healthy people did not survive the covid because their personal circle of health "professionals" failed them. Professional is in quotations because it has a number of definitions. Many profess to know and act like they know but know only misinformation that will rob your time and resources. Some are loosely attached to the health business selling diet books, diet foods, supplements and the like. Some actually have credentials and dabble in the same fringe areas of health but can also provide some restricted services which require certification and professional level training and skill or assist those who do. All who battle to stay healthy will encounter a lot of these "professionals" without knowing the ones to avoid. This is difficult and risky. Here at least you are in the better position to make sensible decisions. Be thankful you are not in a state of failing health. Making sensible decisions then gets more complicated and way riskier. If things are bad your judgement may not be there at all, and that will add to the risk.
Once upon a time, if you got into battle two, you had national politics on your side. Now you don't. We substituted national health care with the careless alternative. Best to have a dependable and capable illness care team set up for that battle. Without one you have little hope if you get in the wrong hands. The best plan for most is to win battle one and stay healthy. At some point you may get to the place I am. Too old to die young. Good Luck.
I guess we get a vote before we go into careless alternative health care sub-standard standards, for a bill with a snowballs chance in hell of survival and passage.
White males got us there, the ones with decreasing life expectancy in this country. It came with a large push for white male supremacy and a macho level death wish. Both, I contend, show failure in health battle one. These are both way of decreasing one's life expectancy and certainly the quality of life you get along the way.
Remember at all times, if common sense was real more people would have it. Doubt all "common sense" solutions. Remember also all solutions in the long term are temporary at best. This one looks really temporary.