Hacker News Reader

Comment by SllX | Hacker News Reader

There is nothing both public and credible to substantiate the claim by the POTUS.

It’s possible we have de facto control of the regime through some backroom that only the Trump Administration knows about, but that’s just speculative on my part. We don’t know this is actually the case, and thus far there hasn’t been anything to substantiate the existence of such a thing.

So we’re at at a point where if put on the spot, gun to my head, I had to answer whether the United States controls the Government of Venezuela in any meaningful way, I would have to say “No” despite what Trump himself said. This is subject to change, pending further evidence made available to the American people.

View on HN

It doesn’t matter whether the US actually has control, only that the military action was taken with intent to establish control.

>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".

What the military actually did was a raid which captured Maduro and his wife, and likely took out some of Venezuela’s anti-air capabilities—for all the good they did them—in the process. As far as we know, that was the intent. Actually establishing control is an occupational effort.

I see your argument, and I think it is even defensible but I think it falls short. An actual resolution to this question may require a judge to weigh in on the contract.

The Chavez Museum was also destroyed...but no it wasn't an invasion. It didn't control land which is the definition in this case. The blockade provides de facto control which is what Trump is referring to.

The bet never used the phrase invasion fwiw.

Rubio literally said that the US could control Venezuela via the leverage they have.

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.

Words that prove intent.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

“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.

They have a tape of Maduro blowing Bubba?

"Actually establishing control is an occupational effort."

Not quite.

They're trying to establish control by threatening to kill or imprison the leaders and by blockade.

Venezuela apparently handed over a lot of oil, it seems like they've been able to do something.

That said - we don't really know how much 'control' that is.

If I were Polymarket, I wouldn't say that the US has control either, but, it's entirely plausible.

We'll see.

This could go the way of DOGE or the Trade War aka just a trailing mess of ongoing concerns that people forget about, though to play my own devil's advocate, ICE is consistently ramping up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com