[margalabargala]

Obviously.

The things the POTUS says, are intended to further the US Government's goals. The actual statements made may be true or false.

If POTUS says "We did X because Y", that's no guarantee that Y is the reason that X was done, or even that X was done at all. That just means that POTUS would like people to think that Y was the reason X was done.

That Trump is also a serial liar is not actually relevant here, this is true for every President. They make statements in service of their agenda, not in service of the truth.

[bluegatty]

We have to take the Presidents Statements are credible, firstly, because it's the closest thing to the truth anyone has. He has no real strategy, he makes things up on the spot.

Secondly, even if argument could be that 'some other, more credible president would lie' - this actually does not hold up, because nobody could operate in those terms.

The presidents statements in an official context are official, that's it. Except in rare cases.

"He tells people what to do on a whim" and "has longstanding personal beefs and gripes" - that's it.

We don't know what he's going to wake up and tweet tomorrow so all we have are his statements.

Also, I think we give way to much credit to this notion of '4d chess' - he lies in the moment because he can get away with it, not out of some well plotted deception. He's not servicing some complicated scheme - just his gut.

He'll say something else the next day, but for that moment, what he says is policy.

[curt15]

>We have to take the Presidents Statements are credible, firstly, because it's the closest thing to the truth anyone has.

* "Statements", not "statement". Past statements can be used to assess the credibility of more recent ones.

* Actions speak louder than words. Pardoning the king of cocaine trafficking demonstrates just how seriously the administration is trying to counter drug trafficking.

[margalabargala]

> We have to take the Presidents Statements are credible, firstly, because it's the closest thing to the truth anyone has. He has no real strategy, he makes things up on the spot.

I'm sorry, this is nonsense. "He makes things up, therefore we have to take the things he says as credible"?

The President is not an oracle of truth, nor are his words the most accurate representation we have on the intentions of US government actions.

Let's say he had said directly, "The January 3rd operation in Venezuela was a best-effort attempt by the US to take control over Venezuela".

Now let's say he had instead said "The January 3rd operation in Venezuela was a best-effort attempt by the US to take control over Madagascar".

You would genuinely, truly believe that in that moment, the capture of Maduro from Venezuela was the most effective thing the US government could do to take control of Madagascar?

[bluegatty]

No, the position that POTUS statements can't be taken as valid are actually 'nonsense' - it's just the opposite.

The presidents statements are the legitimate statements of the State of the United States of America, it has nothing to do with what you or I think about 'Madagascar'.

He is POTUS, his words are nominally and pragmatically state policy.

If he makes a declaration of 'use of force' against another it should be taken at face value.

This would be true if were only a nominal figurehead, leaving policy to others, but he's not, he has material power and wields it.

Given the construction of the balance of power - 'He is America' at least for the time being.

[margalabargala]

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how the Presidency of the US works.

The statements POTUS makes to the public are simply statements by a person and should be taken as such.

The instructions the POTUS gives, privately or publicly, to the various apparatuses of the US government, are what is nominally and pragmatically state policy. When these contradict public statements POTUS has made, it is these instructions that are what actually matter.

[bluegatty]

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of power and geopolitics.

First this: "The statements POTUS makes to the public are simply statements by a person and should be taken as such." <-- this is definitely not true, even with a basic deference to the more traditional, formal view of the US president's role, or the role of any Head of State for that matter.

The US Presidents proclamations are policy, and always have been. Obviously - a statement at the 'correpondents dinner' is not the same thing as a quick media response, is not the same thing as a statement from behind the podium, is not the same thing as a prepared address or document - but anything above board is representative of the State.

Particularly given the current POTUS leverage over Congress and wide Judicial deference to his power.

Obviously, POTUS is going to have private discussions and give directions that are not consistent with public statements - that adds to the ambiguous nature of his statements, but his public statements are still facto policy and must be taken at face value.

A statement like 'force is on the table' internally may seem like a negotiating tactic or 'populist politics' or 'stuff tough business guys say' or even 'fodder for fox news', but geopolitically it's borderline a declaration of war. It should be taken seriously.

[margalabargala]

Yeah, no.

Sure, what a head of state says should be taken seriously. It has the potential to resemble what the country does.

That's not the same thing as "the most recent thing out of the mouth of the head of state Is The Best Idea We Have Of Current Policy". That's asinine.

[machomaster]

> We have to take the Presidents Statements are credible, firstly, because it's the closest thing to the truth anyone has.

You are welcome to believe everything that President Putin is saying about anything, including Ukraine.

That's a profoundly absurd statement. Appeal to authority is a fallacy, especially with a trackrecord of an "authority" lying.

If the President's words are the truth, what to do with the statements in which he contradicts himself? What about situations in which 2 presidents disagree?

>The presidents statements in an official context are official, that's it.

Official, perhaps most of the time. Truthful, definitely not.

What's up with the inability to separate "opinions/statements" vs. "facts/truth"?..

[bluegatty]

I don't believe anything he says.

But his statements are the position of the US government aka the most 'truthful' representation of US policy.

I'm responding to the notion that because he lies and misrepresents, his statements don't count as representative somehow, which is not true.

If he says 'military force is on the table' for acquiring Greenland, we should assume he means to invade if wants.

[machomaster]

1. "Truth"

2. "Truthful representation of US government policy"

They are 2 very different things. And even the second one can be easily debated against due to:

1. Discrepancy between what countries say vs. what they actually do. Threats, lies, dishonesty, hiding truth, creative paraphrasing, etc. are normal ways the politics operates.

2. Trump's twitter messaging. What he says does not necessarily represent even his own opinions and policy. Case in point, when he announced the no-fly-zone over Venezuela a few weeks ago. The problem? It was only a tweet. No actual commands/decisions were made/given to the diplomats, bureucracy, military. It was a fake news by the President himself.

[NewJazz]

Well, then the polymarket bet was written stupidly because you can argue all day about intent if you refuse to accept the man's words.

[actionfromafar]

He may also claim Venezuela is controlled by aliens. AFAIK the bet was not about what deranged stuff POTUS might express?

[zahlman]

> The resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible sources.

There are other credible sources whose consensus could be checked.

[NewJazz]

What credible source exists for the intent of this administration? You can have all the IR acumen in the world, but you won't be able to get into the head of this president.

[margalabargala]

News sources in Venezuela reporting on the presence of American troops might be one?

An invasion with the intent of taking control of the country would not involve troops arriving in the capital, completing their mission perfectly with no losses on their side, and then everybody leaving, such that no enemy troops remain.

[margalabargala]

The bet wasn't "will President Trump claim to have invaded Venezuela", it was whether the US would actually do it.

Your understanding of the relationship between the truth and the words being spoken by POTUS are the only discontinuity here. Update that expectation and everything makes sense.

[NewJazz]

The US did launch a military offensive in Venezuela, albeit briefly. That is not in question. What is in question is the intent, which how do you know intent without accepting the publicly stated intent of the commander in chief?

The bet was, specifically:

This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".

[margalabargala]

I'm not saying I know the intent. I'm saying you don't know the intent, because the word of the commander in chief is not sufficient evidence.

Maybe Trump's eventual goal is to invade Venezuela with the intent of controlling it. I don't know. I do know that the intent of the brief military offensive was not to control it, because of what was done.

[machomaster]

Yeah, not like the original plan was to keep the territory, but after failing they had to leave. No, they had a specific plan to capture Maduro and to leave; and this is exactly what they did.