[SllX]

I understand that he made that claim, but until we see something that effectively substantiates that claim, it’s just words. Right now Maduro is in custody and being tried for the charges, but the regime he built is still in place, and as far as we know, not feeling any warm feelings about cooperating with us.

Now realistically no one in that regime is any safer than Maduro was, but it’s also a possibility they resist and carry on without Maduro. It’s only been since Saturday. I’m not saying there’s no world where Trump & Rubio are correct today or when they said it over the weekend, I’m saying that there is no public information substantiating those claims. Near as I can tell, it’s a “listen to us or else” kinda deal, which could be enough, but then we would see the effects of that through cooperation with the Trump Administration.

[reshlo]

The claim doesn’t need to be substantiated, because it doesn’t matter whether they actually will control Venezuela, it only matters that it was their intent to do so, which Rubio and Trump have both admitted.

[SllX]

Like I said, I think your position is defensible but I think it falls short so I still disagree. If the people who bought into this contract can get it in front of a judge though, the judge might agree with you.

I am prepared to be wrong on this one, but I just don’t think that Trump & Rubio’s words after the fact are enough.

[imtringued]

Actually, the way the bet is worded a truthful statement on intent in 2050 could change the outcome of the bet retroactively.

[mint5]

Except neither Trump or Rubio are credible sources. Their actions and words are notoriously unreliable.

In fact, citing them as an authority leads to the transitive property applying to credibility in an argument.

All of us here know Trump is an unreliable person, why is he being cited to support definitive claims? And Yes His unreliably most certainly extends to his own aims, there is no question on that.

[Coffeewine]

If Trump and Rubio are not credible, then there is no way to determine the intent of any military action, so the bet is impossible to evaluate.

That’s pretty funny.

[f33d5173]

You can for the most part evaluate intent based on actions. There are some actions which can have multiple possible intents behind them, where things get trickier. But in most situations, there is one primary consequence of something, and the action needs to be taken with deliberation, hence you can state with high certainty what the intention was, based purely on what was done. Consversely, if a person has complete freedom to complete some action, but chooses not to, then we can say their intention wasn't to do that thing.

[enaaem]

Intend and action don’t have to align if the people with the intend don’t know what they are doing.

[mint5]

“If Trump is not credible”!!??? If??!

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, fool me 500 times, I want to be lied to”

Similarly no one believes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was to “denazi-ify” it as Putin and the kremlin claimed many times among other things.

Neither was the troop building up in 2022 near Ukraine purely for training as repeatedly claimed by the top Russian officials.

Trump is equally credible.

[NewJazz]

Words that prove intent.