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.
I knew someone would say this lmao 😂 and you’re right yeah
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
Let me repeat my question from another post:
If Kamala Harris launched a midnight attack on Venezuela she would have been impeached by afternoon.
This ^^ and all the republicans would yell: “Look look!! Warhungry Democrats strikes again! IMPEACH!!”
She would’ve gotten the Nobel Peace Prize like Obama.
Meanwhile Democrats voted against impeaching Trump earlier this year, so apparently they’re good with what he’s doing.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Really fucking weak arguments
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.