CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — At least seven explosions and low-flying aircraft were heard around 2 a.m. local time Saturday in Venezuela’s capital, Caracas. The government accused the United States of attacking civilian and military installations in multiple states.
[…]
Venezuela’s government, in the statement, called on its supporters to take to the streets.
“People to the streets!” the statement said. “The Bolivarian Government calls on all social and political forces in the country to activate mobilization plans and repudiate this imperialist attack.”
The statement added that President Nicolás Maduro had “ordered all national defense plans to be implemented” and declared “a state of external disturbance.” That state of emergency gives him the power to suspend people’s rights and expand the role of the armed forces.
NONE OF THIS SHIT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF KAMALA HAD WON.
INACTION TO FASCISM IS COMPLACENCY TO FASCISM
Edit: Seeing all of these bitches coping and seething acting like Kamala would’ve gone on a global blitzkrieg.
You people are fucking pathetic. Your refusal to live in reality is the real reason the left never succeeds. Your lack of action puts Venezuelan blood on your hands too.
I wish America finally got a woman as president. Broader female representation in government and leadership lead to better outcomes globally, would make the world a better place.
Two words: “Margaret Thatcher”
The idea that a woman president is bound to be better just because of being a female is ridiculous.
von der Leyen, Merkel, Corina Machado, Taylor Greene…
I knew someone would say this lmao 😂 and you’re right yeah
Im actually not sure a woman would do better. You would need a person of integrity and honor to be a really good president, and a woman who makes it to president is not going to have that either. The system doesnt let them get there.
They could hardly do much worse. Sure it may not usher in a utopia but the bar is currently several feet below floor level and still dropping.
A fucking rock would be better.
Or just leaving the post unoccupied.
A good woman would be better, but so would a good man. It’s the “good” (person) part that guarantees it would better, not the gender.
Haha you got a point there. :)
That sounds like a non sequitur.
I am Italian and we got a fascist as first female premier, so I really could have agreed with you, but sorry you missed the point.
Removed by mod
While I wholeheartly agree with OP and believe Harris would have taken a different course than the self proclaimed zionist Biden and would’ve given voices like Mamdani, Omar, Sanders and AOC much more weight and I’m convinced that women have a much better potential to fundamentally change the world for good (there are micro loan programs only catered to women because they are so much more trustworthy), it’s still a women named Marina Corina Machado who cheers for this and wants to sell out Venezuela to the US. And other women who I deeply trusted to do the right thing fail miserably all the sudden:
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:5ba3zjugf4kis434frdolgr3/post/3mbjb57n5uc2y
My favorite poster on Mastodon regarding the “Both Sides Bad” discussion always has excellent takes on topic of non- and protest-voting.
https://mastodon.social/@benroyce/115830646002048908
Multiple people in his vicinity including me tried to convince US citizens on Mastodon to vote for Harris to no avail. Some of them didn’t even know about the Heritage Foundation and their plans and if they knew they said it wasn’t in line with Trumps agenda.
Yeah, it’s really hard to talk up our candidate’s anti-war bonafides after throwing anti-war protesters out of our convention and having her hit the campaign trail with the Cheneys
Palestine would still be in the state it is now, other that that, you’re probably right.
Maybe Mamdani will run for POTUS some day although it’s too early to cheer for the guy.
Unfortunately Mamdani wasn’t born in the USA. He’s an immigrant, and that makes him legally not allowed to be president.
That said, there’s many progressives similar to or even better than Mamdani out there, and all they need is the same energy behind them that Mamdani had.
I would like to start out by saying I would’ve preferred Harris over Trump, and that the two parties are NOT the same. For example, the FTC as it was during Biden would never have happened under a republican administration.
What makes you think that bombing Venezuela wouldn’t have happened under Harris? I can only think of three explanations: because she is a woman, because she is a democrat, or because Kamala Harris specifically is against foreign intervention.
I would like to take this moment to reiterate that I would’ve preferred Harris over Trump, and that the two parties are NOT the same.
The first explanation sounds weirdly sexist to me, so I won’t spend too much time on it. We don’t have a female US president to compare with, but look at the voting record in congress and the senate on the use of force in the invasion of Iraq back in 2002. When you control for party affiliation, women were actually more likely than men to vote in favor of the invasion.
I would like to take this moment to reiterate that I would’ve preferred Harris over Trump, and that the two parties are NOT the same.
Maybe because she’s a democrat then? Let’s look at some recent democratic presidents, and see how they fared on foreign interventions.
Obama: 40 billion in military aid to Israel, expanded drone campaigns in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan. Surge of 30k troops to Afghanistan. Continued use of black sites and torture camps like Gitmo. Explicit legal protection for the torturers.
Biden: 18B in military aid to Israel as it was committing a genocide. Air strikes on Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan.
I would like to take this moment to reiterate that I would’ve preferred Harris over Trump, and that the two parties are NOT the same.
Maybe Harris is an especially anti foreign intervention person then. From her DNC speech I quote: “I will ensure America has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.” What do you reckon she wanted that fighting force for? A tea party?
I would’ve preferred Harris over Trump. It would’ve mattered a great deal for women’s rights, lgbt rights, and to some small extent even a bit for worker’s rights. But to pretend the electorate has any meaningful choice when it comes to US imperialism, is, I think, not realistic.
Your reply is a colossal waste of time to cope and seeth.
You try so hard to cope and fail so miserably.
It doesn’t matter if you spam fuck you’d prefer Kamala over Trump. What your spreading is objectively, pro-Trump propaganda and outright lies.
This “both sides” bullshit doesn’t just only benefit the fascists, its also blatantly untrue for anyone who actually researches the topic.
Was Kamala an angel? FUCK NO!
Are the Dems virtuous and pro-proletariat? FUCK NO!
Are we and the rest of the world worse off under Trump than Kamala? OBJECTIVELY FUCK YES!
I don’t know man, I see a pattern of every single democratic president since Eisenhower, no exceptions, enthusiastically committing war crimes, and you’re trying to tell me “no, not this one, this one is different”. Sounds like one of us is maybe a little bit in denial.
Also, implying that it’s a waste of time to look at the past actions of democrats to try and get a feel for what they will do in the future is such a self report.
Idk man, I think you’re reading what you want to read and not what I said, and instead are coping hard to justify surrender to fascists in 2024.
There is zero evidence whatsoever that Venezuela, let alone the absolute rapid-fire destruction of the US constitution and rule of law to get us here would have happened under Kamala. Especially since it didn’t happen under Biden. Venezuela was only ever really discussed by the fascists and invading it and taking over was in Project 2025
I think you’re coping with an extreme reach in this situation. You’re pointing to the actions of past Dems to claim Kamala might have very specifically attacked Venezuela unprovoked.
Insane cope. Just accept the left foolishly surrendered to fascists because they became too blinded for their hate of neo-liberals to see they were cutting their own balls off.
So to convince me that candidate A would not do xyz, you keep harping on about candidate B and how they would do xyz. Do you understand why that’s not a very convincing argument? We all know about project 2025, we all know about republicans. We’re looking at it. That doesn’t make democrats any better (on imperial foreign interventionist policies).
You clearly don’t read.
You and your camp make the dumb ass claim that Kamala would have likely done the same thing with Venezuela, when I say this wouldn’t have happened under Kamala.
I’ve provided my reasoning for why. You lot absolutely refuse to provide any reasoning or evidence to your side that does t rely on circumstances that don’t directly relate to the situation.
The US famously never invaded another country during Democrat administration? Lmfao
I guess what happened in Afghanistan was just a blowjob.
but she wasn’t going to cut all funding to israel
Really glad then that the guy we got instead increased their funding, bombed Iran and took out a world leader just for oil. Clearly a much better situation than the latter would have been.
USA does not like rules and democracy anyway, the USA and Israel even reject the jurisdiction of the international crime court. Neither country is among the 125 signatories of the Rome Statute, which established the ICC in 1998. Afghanistan signed it in 2003 and the state of Palestine in 2014.
Because why would anyone sign something that will hold themselves accountable? Why not just keep the wild west theme so we can do what we want, blackmail who we want, use big companies how we want because we are the most powerful country for now so yeah… the wild wild west
Haha, i think you missed the /s
Probably not Kamala but Hillary Clinton is evil as fuck.
Let me repeat my question from another post:
If Kamala Harris launched a midnight attack on Venezuela she would have been impeached by afternoon.
Meanwhile Democrats voted against impeaching Trump earlier this year, so apparently they’re good with what he’s doing.
This ^^ and all the republicans would yell: “Look look!! Warhungry Democrats strikes again! IMPEACH!!”
She would’ve gotten the Nobel Peace Prize like Obama.
As a European, I don’t understand it: You had the chance to vote against Trump but chose not to - whether out of misguided belief that he’d be better for Gaza, that Harris and Trump are the same, or any other of your “questions”.
Let me be blunt: if you didn’t use your vote to prevent Trump from becoming president, you’re complicit. You can’t weasel out this responsibility for the failure. The rest of the world will struggle to take you seriously - or trust you - after this."
OP argued that Harris wouldn’t have attacked. I doubted that. I haven’t argued that Trump was a good choice.
Harris would have had a full Republican Congress trying to impeach her for anything she did. Checks and balances. Trump has unitary executive theory and power of a king. Next question?
It’s a country with more guns than people, what’s taking so long?
They spent the last 30 years brainwashing the crazies wit guns, that’s who controls the government. Next question!
You can’t prove a negative. Why would she have?
You are right about the proof so it’s all hypothetical.
Like with Cuba, the Democrats have maintained the pressure on Venezuela. Obama killed Gaddafi for his African currency. Democrats must have been involved in the recent changes in Peru, Bolivia and Equador. The USA seem to clean up South America before they have to take care of China.
Harris was willing to do the necessary to have forced firefighters. So if she would be president she would have continued this necessary project.
Nope, Biden cut sanctions on Venezuela and Cuba.
Gaddafi was killed by his own people for being a dictator.
Peru did have elections and some issues, but nothing which could be called a regime change. Similar story for Ecuador. Bolivia had a failed coup, but that is not a regime change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_sanctions_during_the_Venezuelan_crisis
Technically correct but there is the Hillary quote.
Democrats are no saints. I asked for a reason why Harris wouldn’t order the attack. Evading that question like this suggests that she would have given the order.
Once again, you cannot prove a negative. No one is evading your question, your question is just irrelevant because of fucks that didn’t vote for her because Gaza. We will never know what she would have done, and what she would have done does not matter now, because of protest voters and Trumpers (which are effectively the same thing in this case, and both are complicit in everything that has happened in the past year). If Kamala were elected, and she did this, I’d be just as fucking upset. But we will never know that she would order this kidnapping.
I’m not stupid, and I would argue that no one here is saying democrats are “saints”. I’m not sure where you’re getting that idea.
If we can’t say what she would have done then the entire discussion doesn’t matter.
You are wildly misrepresenting the firefighter situation. Bad faith bot.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/despite-orders-free-prisoners-officials-cling-cheap-inmate-200148253.html
What an incredibly loaded editorial with no actual references or citations. Did you write that shit? No, it’s older than you probably are. Opposing early parole isn’t keeping prisoners as slaves or whatever the fuck nonsense you said. Your shit is weak.
Where are your references and citations if you feel those are important? You’ve simply stated that he’s wrong and attacked the source but can’t seem to provide any evidence to the contrary other than your emotions.
Because the editorial was sensationalist garbage not worth a response. What the guy said is basically a lie. People vocally opposed an early parole system. Ruspublican agitprop screamed they were refusing to release prisoners for work programs. None of that was true. I’m not gonna debunk obvious bullshit that’s already been addressed and debunked. Ain’t my job to tell you the sky is blue and not red when any asshole can plainly see it’s blue.
Please correct me.
None of these are good points at all
Then use an easy argument to refute them, please.
They aren’t even coherent points, that’s why people aren’t addressing them directly. They’re half baked, partial thoughts that are only somewhat related to the situation.
Thanks for the feedback. To me they are in order and make an argument. Does this help? https://feddit.org/post/23819517/10764510
Well first why don’t you make an actual argument than throwing up a vague list of unrelated “points”
Because they are not unrelated but show that the attack is not a personal Trump project.
Which one of these even remotely suggests that?
https://feddit.org/post/23819517/10764510
The other commentor did a pretty good job wading through that moronic slop you call an argument
You sound a lot like the Soviet Union after Chernobyl exploded and the first thing they did was publicly speculating how bad the reactors in other countries are.
I am not comparing Harris to Trump. My argument is something else.
Really fucking weak arguments
It’s a subtle difference only a political scholar could truly understand so I get your confusion.
I haven’t received an answer so far to be confused about. Please don’t hold back. Please explain with all subtlety why Harris wouldn’t have ordered the attack.
The Republican Party has been obsessed with Venezuela and Iran for decades. It’s about oil. Kamala Harris was not about to commit political suicide over a 40 year old beef between Exxon and Venezuela. If it was on their priority list they would have done it. I’m sure she would have bombed someone but not specifically Venezuela.
They’ve been wanting to do this for longer than you’ve been alive. Trump was the only president unhinged enough, and unconfined enough to do it.
He just told you? What about reading the god damn answers: “SHE WOULD BE IMPEACHED!” Harris would probably sanction Venezuela.
Do you think that is a serious argument?
Venezuela has been sanctioned. That’s where their poverty came from.