Polymarket Refuses To Pay Bets That US Would 'Invade' Venezuela (ft.com) 135
Polymarket is disputing that the mission to capture Nicolas Maduro constituted an invasion and said it will only settle a prediction contract if the US military takes control of Venezuelan territory. From a report: The decision by the prediction market has angered gamblers and added to the controversy surrounding a successful wager on the timing of Maduro's capture that netted more than $400,000 in winnings for a mystery trader.
The dispute over the definition of "invade" highlights just one of the controversies faced by the mostly unregulated industry. Polymarket -- which only recently gained regulatory approval to operate legally in the US -- says on its website that it will resolve the "Will the US invade Venezuela by ... ?" contract if the US "commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela" by one of three dates. "The resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible sources," it adds. Prediction platforms such as Polymarket do not typically make directional wagers in their own markets. Rather, they act as an intermediary matching long and short positions and adjudicating the outcome of events, collecting a fee in the process.
The dispute over the definition of "invade" highlights just one of the controversies faced by the mostly unregulated industry. Polymarket -- which only recently gained regulatory approval to operate legally in the US -- says on its website that it will resolve the "Will the US invade Venezuela by ... ?" contract if the US "commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela" by one of three dates. "The resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible sources," it adds. Prediction platforms such as Polymarket do not typically make directional wagers in their own markets. Rather, they act as an intermediary matching long and short positions and adjudicating the outcome of events, collecting a fee in the process.
'prediction markets' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:'prediction markets' (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire point is you can argue over the definition, so if there's an argument to be had, what do you expect when betting on it? One can't argue about a number, but we can sure argue over what is the definition of the word "invasion". Yet another reason why prediction markets are bound for shit like this. I cannot imagine why somebody would choose to bet over something in which the book holder gets to decide what constitutes a successful prediction (I mean, other than being a compulsive gambler, of course .. just another industry taking advantage of people who have problems to exploit)
Re:'prediction markets' (Score:5, Insightful)
Also for these open ended predictions, 'insider knowledge' is supremely likely to get gamed...
If you have orders to get ready to strike a country, well then you can turn that knowledge around pretty easily...
It's hard enough to contend with insider knowledge in more regulated contexts, it's just utterly impossible in these sorts of offerings.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Does the bookie have a stake in the outcome? Or are they just brokering between clients who choose opposite sides of the bet, so the house makes the same money either way? This seems like an important distinction as to what Polymarket actually is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
right now the control is still in the same people, it just changed the president...
Even if the USA manage to change the government, without troops in the ground to control it, that also do not match a invasion, that is just pressure to a peaceful government change (or a civil war if it is not that peaceful)
so i'm on the Polymarket "side" (not that i support betting, i actually think it is the most dump thing to do and everyone that bets deserve to lose their money always)
Re:'prediction markets' (Score:4, Informative)
Even if the USA manage to change the government, without troops in the ground to control it, that also do not match a invasion,
There were troops on the ground. They just left already. Presumably what Polymarket intended the word "invade" to mean is "occupy", i.e. invade the country and then continue to keep troops there long-term to stabilize the country. However, as a general matter of law, the word "invade" does not require occupation, but rather occurs when you have two factors: entry and enmity.
Entry: The presence of foreign troops on another country's soil. Clearly, U.S. troops were on Venezuelan soil, because they captured Maduro.
Enmity: This means the intent to act as an enemy of the the country in question. Clearly U.S. troops had hostile intent towards the government of Venezuela, because they arrested its leader. And as a general matter of international law, having hostile intent towards a nation's government is generally considered to be hostile intent towards the country (except if the actor is part of that country, e.g. in the case of a civil war). Therefore, this military action appears to involve enmity.
Now folks can certainly argue that the intent was to rescue Venezuela from that government, and argue that the troops did not intend to act as enemies of a country, but only of a specific individual, but as the head of state, this argument is problematic at best.
So the question is whether Polymarket provided a definition for "invade" ahead of time that is different from the traditionally held legal definition, in which case they might have ground to stand on, or failed to do so, in which case they will likely be forced to pay out.
The definition that they provided as their justification — “US military operations intended to establish control” — appears to still be problematic for them, as the clear intent of that military operation was to establish control. Our president literally said that the U.S. would run Venezuela until a new president could be elected. So the control over Venezuela being temporary doesn't change that the intent was to establish control. Additionally, he made it clear that part of the intent is to restore U.S. corporate control over Venezuela's oil fields, which is also a form of establishing control, and is likely *not* temporary. So whether you use the legal definition or their own, Polymarket's conclusion seems dubious at best, and potentially outright fraudulent, depending on whether they have skin in the game.
Re: (Score:3)
hey, the "house" always win in bets, the lose definition of invasion is a plus for them.
So for those that bet: you always lose in the end!
The house always wins! (Score:2)
Just joking. The YOB already proved that even casinos can go bankrupt. (But why did you feed the vacuous sock puppet and propagate its vacuous Subject?)
I have a new joke about the most despicable man in the world, but I hear food coming. Perhaps later...
Re: (Score:2)
Except that other than capturing Maduro and bringing him to New York, the US did nothing. All the institutions of power are still w/ Maduro's party, and the Venezuelan police are still punishing anybody who celebrated Maduro's capture. It's hardly an invasion when only 2 people were taken, but the entire power apparatus of the target country remains intact after the operation
I accept that Polymarket is greedy and doesn't want to pay out. But they do have a good argument that Venezuela has not been inva
Re: (Score:2)
definitions (Score:5, Interesting)
I am seeing the definition of invasion being to occupy or subjugate and Cheeto Benito says we're going to run Venezuela, so the latter absolutely applies.
In the best case this is a ploy to unmask the anonymous bettor, who they believe had inside information. In order to get paid they will have to sue, and then their identity will be revealed. If the other bets don't amount to a hill of beans compared to that 400k, it's a good plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump: "I'm going to run Venezuela just like a ran my casinos!" The entire world: Groans in unison.
You mean loot them without accountability and leave them ruined and bankrupt? There was this phrase, something like might makes but I can’t remember the last part.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump: "I'm going to run Venezuela just like a ran my casinos!" The entire world: Groans in unison.
You mean loot them without accountability and leave them ruined and bankrupt? There was this phrase, something like might makes but I can’t remember the last part.
Pretty much it seems. At least bush and that had the decency to pretend it wasn't about the oil. Trump said the quiet part out loud on purpose because he thinks it makes him cool.
Re:definitions (Score:5, Interesting)
23 years old but relevant again: No Blood For Oil vs. Exactly How Much Oil Are We Talking About? [theonion.com]
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't say it to make him look cool, he said it to make him look powerful. That action demonstrated numerous things:
So he was right. At this point, it's only a matter of time before he does the same thing to another cou
Re: (Score:2)
This outcome was obvious since last year's Nobel Peace Prize. That was the announcement that Maduro was getting deposed one way or another. Machado will be back soon and likely elected (or reelected as it were) President when the cur
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The entire world: Groans in unison.
And just sits by and lets it happen.
Re: (Score:2)
hey, money talks! no one wants to lose the american market access... or be a target for Trump ego... all will fade away after Trump lose next elections anyway
Also, central/south america is USA playground, just as old URSS countries are Russia playground. Ukraine would never happened if Europe and USA didn't see Russia as fragile and weak... but they were not that weak after all (and also not as strong as they imagine themselves too)
With Russia busy, Europe economically dependent of the USA, we have China...
Re:definitions (Score:4)
Refusing to to unload American flagged ships at your ports would be one way countries to react. Cancellation of business licenses of American-owed corporations is another. I think ultimately countries would have to act in concert to avoid retaliation. If Yemen does it, that's not going to be effective. If Belgium or Australia does it, then there is potentially a peaceful resolution. Even a week long boycott on trade with the US would disrupt supply chains enough to make some important people sweat.
With Russia busy, Europe economically dependent of the USA, we have China
Russia isn't that busy. They would ship arms to Venezuela even while fighting in Ukraine. Maybe not enough to make a material difference, but the symbolic threat would have significant geopolitical value to Russia that I suspect they would attempt it.
Europe isn't a vassal state, and they would accept some short-term economic pain if it suits long-term diplomatic interests. Expect them to make that calculation regularly while this develops.
China's best option will be to quietly take some disputed territory if the US gets in too deep while screwing around in South America. Controlling the South China Sea is a realistic goal for China, and lately the US has seemed to have lost interest in preventing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that base is useless to start any attack, it is mostly radar station
on the other hand, Greenland have so few people that a few helis and naval unload are enough for a military take over
Now calling NATO to respond to one attack could be possible, it could require USA expulsion first... but the UK nukes are really controlled by USA, i suspect UK would never vote for it (UK is really a vassal of USA at this point)
Re: (Score:2)
on the other hand, Greenland have so few people that a few helis and naval unload are enough for a military take over
France and UK would be obligated to defend an NATO ally. And they will be a bit of a tougher nut to crack.
Re: (Score:2)
but USA is also part of NATO... and that creates a huge problem for NATO to work
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly complicates things! I suspect under such as scenario the spirit of the agreement would be honored by most member states, with the exclusion of the aggressor state.
Formal expulsion of a member state from NATO is technically not possible. The smart play for the US would be to remain in NATO and keep the situation ambiguous, but domestic politics would likely drive the US to withdraw. I say that given Trump and MAGA's insistence that NATO members are not paying "their fair share". For the most part,
Re: (Score:2)
NATO article 5:
Decision-Making: The invocation of Article 5 requires a consensus among all NATO allies. Each country decides its own level of contribution; military action is not strictly mandatory if a nation deems other forms of assistance more appropriate.
Can't imagine America would help form a consensus against itself...
I'd assume most countries would deem a strongly worded letter to be more appropriate than armed conflict with the US...
Re: (Score:2)
No consensus is needed. See https://www.nato.int/en/what-w... [nato.int]
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Re: (Score:2)
NATO Allies meet regularly in the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s principal political decision-making body, to discuss security issues of concern to the Alliance. If a NATO Ally experiences an armed attack, a meeting of the Council will be convened immediately to discuss whether this attack is regarded as an action covered by Article 5. If it is determined that the two conditions above have been met, NATO Allies may issue a political statement invoking or declaring that they are taking collective defence actions under Article 5.
So the NAC will hold a meeting to decide if Article 5 will be invoked.
During the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but differing views on how this commitment would be implemented in practice. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically deploy its armed forces to defend their territory should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a specific pledge, and this is reflected in the more flexible wording of Article 5, which obliges Allies to provide assistance but does not specify the type or degree of assistance that they choose to provide.
Even if it is. Nobody really has to do anything.
Importantly, Article 11 of the Treaty acknowledges and accepts that there may be constitutional limitations that impact how individual Allies fulfil their obligation under Article 5 (the deployment of armed forces abroad may, for instance, be subject to prior parliamentary approval or consultation in some countries).
We'd "really like to help", but Parliament has to approve *shrugs*
Do you need warm blankets?
Tea and a hug?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest to Denmark to proactively tell the US to GFO of Greenland.
And when they say NO?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't be delusional enough to think Denmark will be the ones to do it.
Re: definitions (Score:2)
That would be insane.
Donny dumbfuck is that crazy but no one else is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I maintain time to kick him in the balls. He'll back down.
He absolutely will not. This would be the pretext he needs to invade anything he wants.
Re: (Score:2)
As shitty as it is, "the rules based order" just means the strong countries are not using their strength at the moment.
When that changes, the strong will do what they like until they decide to make another temporary "rules based order".
Weaker countries can align themselves with the strong. Or band together to attempt to be strong too. But Europe is too fragmented to be as strong as America or China.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Destroying the US economy will sever the primary reason that Europe tolerates our nonsense. So thanks to DJT this problem Europe has with the US might solve itself, or rather the decision will be made for Europe regardless if it wanted to make the decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia isn't that busy. They would ship arms to Venezuela even while fighting in Ukraine.
How'd that work out for them....
Europe isn't a vassal state, and they would accept some short-term economic pain if it suits long-term diplomatic interests. Expect them to make that calculation regularly while this develops.
Europe can't do anything.
They were energy dependent on Russia.
Then they changed that to being energy dependent on America.
Only way they can meaningfully go against America is to go back cap in hand to Russia. Not going to happen.
Europe requires unanimity: In highly sensitive areas, such as common foreign and security policy, taxation, and the EU budget, a single member state can veto a decision. This requires all members to agree for a measure to pass.
Makes it fairly ea
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it is more like a small European country, the leader of which is in bed with putin, that tends to block everything.
Re: (Score:2)
But there's no reason to believe America, or China, couldn't do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
How'd that work out for them....
Shipping container with some rockets and drone parts. Maybe some land mines, that'd be a nasty surprise and would really piss off the US.
Doesn't have to be a useful amount of material. Russia shouldn't care if Venezuela wins or not, it's geopolitical chess and Venezuela is another pawn in the game.
Europe can't do anything.
Europe can absolutely do a LOT of things.
Now will the governments and people of Europe be willing to take some short-term pain? Only if they are confident that the long-term pain is worse.
Europe requires unanimity
I'm not sure why you beli
Re: (Score:2)
Europe can absolutely do a LOT of things.
Anything meaningful that wont just result in America turning off the gas and plunging half the continent into darkness?
America doesn't even need to be mean. They can just stop being nice.
Europe is not energy independent. Pick Russia or the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, but actually no. Putler had the same delusions of grandeur, yet nothing has been plunged into darkness. What his attempt at blackmail did was raising energy prices quite a lot for about a year - unpleasant, sure, but nowhere near as bad as he hoped it would be.
And that was a far larger natural gas supplier than the USA is right now since while the USA is indeed the largest LNG supplier to the EU, the majority of natural gas on the EU market is pipeline gas, not LNG.
Europe is, however, dependent
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, but actually no. Putler had the same delusions of grandeur, yet nothing has been plunged into darkness.
Because Europe changed to being reliant on US gas to replace the shortfall. Who would they turn to next?
Norway is the top supplier, providing around 30% of its needs, though production is nearing its peak. (America is providing a similar amount, high 20s or 30 depending on source). Where are they going to find another Norway? How many years will it take for that infrastructure to be built to replace both American and Russian gas?
the majority of natural gas on the EU market is pipeline gas, not LNG
While that used to be true, it's currently around 50/50 with LNG expected to b
Re: definitions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
sure, all true... but Ukraine without the west money and supply would be defeated long ago... and despite all that money and modern armament, they still gain ground every day. So yes, they are weaker than they want to accept, but not as weak as you think
Re:definitions (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:definitions (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheeto said the quiet part out loud and Rubio has to backtrack https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/... [cnbc.com] Plus he told the oil companies about the kidnapping ahead of time. https://thehill.com/homenews/a... [thehill.com]
Cheeto does exactly as he says. You just haven't been paying attention.
Re:definitions (Score:4, Insightful)
Cheeto does exactly as he says. You just haven't been paying attention.
During Trump's first term, someone (a journalist?) remarked that we should not pay attention to what Trump says but rather to what he does.
Even so, what he says is often a hell of a hint. So perhaps yes, pay attention to it.
And then what? As another journalist said during his first term, his detractors take him literally but not seriously, and his supporters take him seriously but not literally.
All of this can leave us distracted and/or confused -- and that's on-brand for Trump. So, we're back to paying attention to what he does.
Re: (Score:2)
We should always pay attention to what a politician does, regardless of political affiliation.
Re:definitions (Score:5, Insightful)
Is your definition on sending armed military into a sovereign nation to kidnap a person different than mine?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: definitions (Score:2)
a raid is a type of invasion you fuckwit
Re: definitions (Score:3)
" There are no US troops in the country. "
I see you don't count their waters
Re: (Score:2)
Re: definitions (Score:2)
You are mixing up invasion and occupation. To invade is to enter without being welcome. The US military did that the instant they set foot in Venezuela. If they had done that mistakenly because they can't read a map, it would still have been an invasion.
Perhaps an analogy helps. If I enter your home without being welcome or invited, I am invading your home. If I leave five seconds later, I still have invaded your home for five seconds. If someone placed a bet that I would invade your home, they won that bet
Re: (Score:2)
I am seeing the definition of invasion being to occupy or subjugate
Why does an invasion have to be successful? Do we have to wait until Putin flies the Russian flag in Kiev before the "special military operation" is officially an invasion? A invasion is an act of intrusion, regardless of what the actual outcome is. If an invasion is inept or incomplete, it's still an invasion. If someone tried to break into my home but couldn't get past the front door, it's still a home invasion.
Re: (Score:2)
Our military didn't invade. They were just undocumented visitors for a brief period of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Invade can mean several things, but in a military context it does usually mean when an army makes an incursion on to another country's territory for conquest or plunder. In any case an invasion is an act of war.
The US government statements don't really help, Trump indeed says they are in control but in reality this hasn't happened. The Venezuelan regime just swore in the vice president as the new president and nothing else changed. Rubio said that it was a law enforcement action and not a military operation
Int'l Law Says it's an Invasion (Score:5, Insightful)
According to International law, crossing the border of a sovereign nation with a military force and conducting an operation constitutes an invasion.
Re: (Score:2)
According to International law, crossing the border of a sovereign nation with a military force and conducting an operation constitutes an invasion.
Which international law are you citing here?
Re: Int'l Law Says it's an Invasion (Score:2, Funny)
Conquest, do you understand what it means you stupid GED holding fuckwit?
Capturing a leader (legit or not) is a fucking conquest.
Now I dont know if I'd consider fucking your mother a conquest since she readily gives it up, but many lonely men would consider it so.
Re: (Score:2)
Time for legally mandated clarity (Score:5, Insightful)
The government should clearly define what this is. Polymarket should fall inline with Travel Insurance policies. Either this was an invasion (act of war) or it wasn't. You can't pick and choose in order to pocket the cash.
Travel insurance companies are saying this was an act of war.
The Orange Moron in Chief is saying the USA runs the country after a military action if that isn't an invasion I don't know what is. The us took military action and now has control.
Re: (Score:2)
The government should clearly define what this is. Polymarket should fall inline with Travel Insurance policies. Either this was an invasion (act of war) or it wasn't. You can't pick and choose in order to pocket the cash.
Sure you can. You pick what minimizes your liability.
Travel insurance companies are saying this was an act of war.
That means they don't pay out.
The Orange Moron in Chief is saying the USA runs the country after a military action if that isn't an invasion I don't know what is. The us took military action and now has control.
Personally, embargoing shipping establishes control over territorial waters, which meets the definition of what was needed to pay out.
Re:Time for legally mandated clarity (Score:4, Interesting)
Travel insurance companies are saying this was an act of war.
A blockade is an "act of war". Or a missile attack. A major act of sabotage, a cyberattack. Insurance policies have definitions to refer to.
Invasion is bit vague. In common English, an invasion can mean something larger, intending to take territory, as Polymarket says. Its not a word I'd have used for what happened.
But in formal legal and military language an invasion is "the unconsented entry of one state's armed forces into the territory of another."
So unless they defined it otherwise, it *was* an invasion.
Re: (Score:2)
I went through some UN resolutions, and they don't seem to use the word in that way. Rather, they seem to call that an "Act of Aggression", and Invasion doesn't seem to be defined, but seems to imply "more".
The definition of "The unconsented entry of one state's armed forces into the territory of another..." means the number of invasions of the 20th century has just increased overwhelmingly. Hell, France invaded New Zealand.
That word is just too damn ambiguou
Re: (Score:2)
Coo, but that distinction doesn't actually matter because we DID put boots on the ground. A very small group of American soldiers absolutely invaded Venezuela. There is no definition of the word "invasion" that wouldn't apply to the recent military action. Polymarket didn't say "ma
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to talk semantics, you've posted to the wrong article.
Re: (Score:2)
what control? i don't see anything
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
everyone is waiting to see the next steps... but RIGHT NOW, everything is the same, minus the president and several soldiers dead
don't kid yourself, maduro had many supporters, not everyone disliked him... if it wasn't the USA embargo, economy would struggle so hard and he would have probably much support... but with the economy down, he lost many supporters, but there are still many left
again, for what will happen, everyone is waiting to see... locally, people want to find food and keep doing business and
Re: (Score:2)
don't kid yourself, maduro had many supporters
Not enough to win an election though.
Re: (Score:2)
what control? i don't see anything
What you see is irrelevant. The government made an assertion and as the authority of the state of the land the law should follow it. That includes polymarket. Whether you see something or not is irrelevant.
Re:Time for legally mandated clarity (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the things that makes these such Interesting Times is that while your statement would normally make perfect sense, these days the government has a financial conflict of interest in this situation, so I think they should be completely disqualified from defining anything!
Trump is doing this for the purpose of personally profiting from it, and might possibly might even be one of the bettors. He (and everyone who works for him, since they necessarily lack independence) should not have any say at all in this bet's adjudication, other than as a biased advocate for whatever position best maximizes their own interests.
If you and I have a conflict, then neither you nor I are fit to be a neutral judge in that conflict.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Time for legally mandated clarity (Score:4, Insightful)
They're just addicted to the scams, they can't stop skimming money no matter how much they make. It's never enough, greed to the point that it's a medical condition. These people were already millionaires/billionaires.
Trumps crypto venture is the POTUS building their own bribery system, Trump Jr started a "club" that charges $500k for access to the cabinet, Jared Kushner both gets to negotiate on behalf of the nation while also making international deals all while not having an actual job, unconfirmed. Where are the Trump phones?
well they definately invaded (Score:3)
"special military operation" (Score:2)
invasion: an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force
As USA's putin-in-charge puts it, "special military operation" was biggly successful but all bets are off about what next.
Re: (Score:2)
Invasion - what someone does when they invade
Let's look up what it means to invade.
Invade - (of an armed force or its commander) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it. "it was all part of a grander French plan to invade Ireland"
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about Venezuela, not Iraq.
There was nothing "limited in scope" regarding the military operation in Iraq.
Dumbfucks always resorting to logical fallacies to prop up their dumbshit worldview. News at 11.
Some way.... (Score:2)
What have Trump or others said? (Score:4)
Has Trump said they invaded Venezuela? Or any of his cabinet? Has the term been used?
Here's my question in all this - why is Venezuela doing anything he asks? How has he 'gained control' of the country, and as he says, is going to 'run it for a while'?
Sure, he kidnapped their leader, but the rest of their country remains untouched.
What happens if they say no to Trump? The US kidnaps the next in charge as well?
How long will this be tolerated by the rest of the world?
If someone kidnapped Trump, does that mean they can steal all the oil they want from the US?
I don't really get what's going on here.
Re: (Score:2)
While the U.S. may not be directly in contr
Re: (Score:2)
So who's running Venezuela right now tho? Maduro's #2.
That doesn't seem like an improvement for the country or population.
Also she isn't really a US shill either, I presume.
The CIA may have assets, but they'd become pretty obvious, and no doubt removed. I would imagine anyone saying 'let's just do what the US is asking' is going to find themselves on the ground floor, absent stairs or elevators.
Without 'boots on the ground', I'm struggling to see how the current gov't capitulates.
All I hear is what Trump sa
Polymarket should be sued (Score:2)
They are reneging on their bookmaking.
The US itself has said that they are now in control of Venezuela and have taken it over, after invading with live people, explosions, etc., and kidnapping their leader.
Re: (Score:3)
The US itself has said that they are now in control of Venezuela
There's plenty of evidence that they're lying or, most charitably, deluded. They say it in the present tense but it seems clear that the US military was only in the country for hours. If they were still there, there would be ongoing fighting, unless you claim some conspiracy and cover-up involving the current Venezuelan government to hide the fact that they're under US control. Are you really surprised that Trump is lying about this?
It's true that the US government is in a good position to know the truth
Re: (Score:2)
Invading doesn't mean staying there.
Were they invaded? Yes.
Did the invaders leave no boots on the ground? Also yes. But they have blockaded the entire country. So it is an ongoing invasion, with one ground attack so far.
So what part of the first statement is false? That means polymarket should pay.
only pays when they want to? (Score:2)
so they’re no better than chumba casino
Re: (Score:3)
per dictionary:
invasion: an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force
Re: (Score:2)
That's rather circular.
Re: U.S. has not invaded Venezuela... (Score:2)
Trump clearly stated in press conferences that it was for oil.
Fits your definition (which you clearly do not understand, you must have faiked middle school,) very well.
Re: (Score:2)
What happened though is how we must define.... what happened.
We can even say, "By Trump's bloviating dumbshittery, it would be defined as an invasion."
What really happened, however, was a very small military strike to kidnap a leader and demonstrate to the world that Russian air defenses are flat out fucking useless against Western assets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)