this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2025
57 points (98.3% liked)

Politics

10910 readers
122 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I didn't click but I just read an NYT article that essentially states the same:

Mr. Trump’s move to formally deem his campaign against drug cartels as an active armed conflict means he is cementing his claim to extraordinary wartime powers, legal specialists said.

And forgive my lack of humility; I've already been saying this for - well years really. Not to mention two people very close to Trump who said this in 2017: "He will not go willingly". He proved them right once already, don't wait for the second time when he's better prepared.

[–] spit_evil_olive_tips@beehaw.org 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

an NYT article that essentially states the same

that NYT article is about Trump ordering the military to murder people on boats in the Caribbean.

this article, on the other hand, is summarizing a YouTube video that was responding to what Trump said in his speech to a bunch of generals at Quantico.

so other than Trump doing authoritarian shit, there isn't really any connection.

they're both examples of bad journalism, just in different ways. the NYT article does some classic both-sides shit that boils down to "legal experts say it's illegal to murder people, but a White House spokesperson disagreed". and this article is just AI-written slop with a clickbait headline.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago

Sure but they do both point at the same thing essentially. I get it, you want to talk about bad journalism instead, but the larger issue is still valid.