This is a clear example of global operators running up against the natural friction of conflicting national customs and laws.
It's a particularly knotty issue in the intuitively borderless and passionate medium of internet speech and won't be helped by regulators or commenters here ignoring that.
[0] anyone that's cared for old people sees the two very different archetypes in "sleepy joe" vs "destructive don"
I think Venezuela is mostly a Rubio project eg. https://prospect.org/2025/12/01/marco-rubios-sales-pitch-war...
As an aside I think if you were to make a proper world police it would support democracy against autocrats who won't leave and and that kind of situation seems to be the case in Venezuala - https://lagranaldea.com/2025/11/28/most-venezuelans-consider...
Looking forward to the commenters arguing that this regime aren't the baddies...
Alternatively they can explain how their agenda differs from fascism, rather than most arguments being of the form that <fascist dynamic> is required due to <some perceived emergency>.
And whenever that's true, the comments get politically heated without any substantive debate between the sides.
I love to debate with friends on the opposite side than me, but strictly offline where I can learn much more from them.
Frankly, legislation like this makes me dream about a reality in which there is a real independent federal court going through all passed legislation to verify wherever it's in line with the fundamental rights of the country - and if a legislation fails the check, all who voted yes would then be marked, with repeated offenders being investigated and potentially charged with attempted treason.
Not possible by design in any country. Democratic countries would invoke separation of power, authoritarian countries wouldn't have independent justice in the first place.
* apply the law to cases (judges)
* execute these decisions (police)
* decide what the law is (politicians)
My daydream you've cited there would not be in violation of this, and I struggle to see how you would think it is.
You're surely aware that such a court already exists in all democratic nations I'm aware of and can slash down these passed laws already/force amendments to be made for it to take effect, yes?
Or did you take offense how I didn't write a 10 page document outlining how this could be legally implemented in a specific country?
This should be obvious to anyone, otherwise actual corruption would be legal - not just the similie of lobbying which does effectively the same, but skirts the actual legality by not promising anything for the money received
What I obviously said was make voting for anything clearly incompatible with the foundational laws to be illegal, just like actual corruption already is. Hence no, it would not be in violation and I continue to be surprised you're unironically of this opinion
"Changing or repealing the law is against the law by definition"
What do you think an "amendment" is?
literally, the definition.
I don't think I've ever interacted with someone that had a more severe case of the dunning Kruger syndrome then you.
amarcheschi•1mo ago