President Donald Trump says the United States will run Venezuela at least temporarily after an audacious military operation plucked leader Nicolás Maduro from power and removed him from the country.
In what universe would Harris bomb Venezuela and kidnap Nicolás Maduro and his wife? Are you nuts?
At some point the people just doubling down on this train of thought just make me reassess how warped and delusional the argument was during the actual election. I guess when you have the luxury of a hypothetical you can just go forever. Trump will pass a law requiring him to rub his bare ass onto every single female politician and these guys will be going “do you really not think Harris would have her hairy asshole pushed onto people as well?”
Ah, we’ve moved on to the “maybe they wouldn’t have done this batshit crazy thing, but they would have done other things that are bad, so they’re the same”.
Except, obviously, a good way of telling that two things aren’t the same is that they’re different. Also, in cased you missed it, Trump bombed Nigeria on Christmas day. So this isn’t an “or” thing, this is an “and” thing.
Only clones are exacly the same. It is a fact that the US is sn imperlist power who love to destabilize and destroy other countries supported by the two political cults you have
But there are differences between both US political parties, and given the choice, any non-American should absolutely be hoping the actively fascist party loses, obviously.
The notion that they’re both equivalent is so farcical it didn’t hold up to any scrutiny at the time when it mattered, and anybody that pushed that notion then is now partially responsible for this whole mess.
If you are not american that is even worse to defend one of the two cults.
Edit: Nobody said they are exatly the same. The democratic cult is better on domestic affairs but when it come to imperialism they are similar both was involved in bombing and destroying other countries
No, it’s not, that’s not how that works. If one side is ideologically unpalatable and the other side is a gaggle of crazy fascists it’s perfectly valid to propose that one of the two sides is better than the other. Especially if you don’t have as much of a vested interest in domestic reform.
Trump will pass a law requiring him to rub his bare ass onto every single female congressman and these guys will be going “do you really not think Harris would have her hairy asshole pushed onto people as well?”
I see, you don’t understand the difference between domestic policy and foreign policy.
No faction in the US represents my interests, on account of my not being American.
But man, if I have to choose which faction is more likely to, say, roll up with tanks into Greenland, annex Canada or, and I can’t repeat this enough, bomb Caracas and kidnap Nicolás Maduro and his goddamn wife, I am pretty sure there is a single correct answer.
Dude, it really is embarrassing. If they’re not foreign trolls, then so many people on this site have literally zero fucking idea how the US government works. They read the Communist Manifesto, and maybe some Lenin, and now they’re talking like they’re ready to lead a revolution in a 1910s agrarian society, and anyone even mildly critical is their enemy. Fucking useful idiots.
But the moral prohibition on siding with any administration that endorses genocide will force a different flavor of the exact same logic that centrist liberalism has depended on for so long: hold your nose and align with the least worst thing. Only the least worst thing will no longer be the mild, ethics-agnostic emptiness of modern Western liberalism, nor will it be the multitude of barbaric authoritarians and their secret prisons. It will be communal solidarity, or else nothing, a walking away from all of this. Countless otherwise pragmatic people who would in any other circumstance choose liberalism by default will instead decide none of this is worth the damage to one’s soul. They will instead support no one, vote for no one, wash their hands of any ordering of the world that results in choices no better than this. And the obvious centrist refrain—But do you want the deranged right wing to win?—should, after even a moment of self-reflection, yield to a far more important question: How empty does your message have to be for a deranged right wing to even have a chance of winning? Of all the epitaphs that may one day be written on the gravestone of Western liberalism, the most damning is this: Faced off against a nihilistic, endlessly cruel manifestation of conservatism, and somehow managed to make it close.
Omar El-Akkad, noted embarrassing child
It’s not yet a genocide in Venezuela, but the logic of “soul damage” absolutely applies.
America is potentially a democracy when it comes to internal affairs but it is absolutely an autocracy from a foreign affairs standpoint since there are only two national level political parties and they have the same foreign policy.
They demonstrably do not, on account of one of the two just having, and I can’t believe I have to keep typing this out, just kidnapped the president of Venezuela and his wife.
I am pretty sure that’s not some bipartisan policy. That’s the ending of a Metal Gear sequel.
That’s the lesson, isn’t it? People just say things online, and the things need to get entirely dissociated from basic reality before it starts showing that they’re just things people say on the Internet.
Screw under-16s. Social media should be banned altogether.
The de facto outcome is the same. A coup would have been staged regardless. The Republicans add a kidnapping for flair / to look good in the eyes of their supporters. In the end the outcome is neocolonialism / American corporate access to resources regardless. The overall geopolitical strategy remains indistinguishable.
I fully believe that you can write fan fiction for evil dems that will take you to whatever arbitrary ending this situation happens to have.
It’s a prodigious stretch to argue that “the outcome is the same” at this point, though. Especially since there is every justification for a solution without Maduro in power that isn’t an illegitimate coup. Because… you know, Maduro did not have legitimacy in the first pace, arguably.
But hey, who cares about details like what was actually happening or what people actually said or did, right? If you squint hard enough it all blurs together sufficiently to keep posting simplistic crap online.
Let’s not get lost in the weeds here. Trump has said that the US is “going to run” Venezuela until a safe proper and judicious transition can occur. Who will power be transferred to? Almost certainly Machado who has already verbalized her willingness to be a Trump/US vassal. This outcome would have happened under a democratic government also, +/- capturing Maduro. It’s not like the US has not captured heads of state to install their puppets before (Panama, as one of many examples).
Venezuela has 20% of global oil and has been selling 65 to 80% of its supply to China over the past several years. It nationalized its oil reserves decades ago which is typically considered a grave sin from the Western perspective (as Iran learned in the 50s). If we’re honestly reflecting on how America handles a situation like this, especially when it’s happened in their own hemisphere, it’s obvious that the elected political party has little impact on this geopolitical outcome.
See, unlike people willing to retroactively support their preferred choices I am making zero assumptions about what’s going to happen.
What Trump says is going to happen and what happens don’t necessarily line up, and there is zero indication that under a different US regime the outcome would be anywhere close to Maduro being deposed. That ship seemed to have very thoroughly sailed at the time of the election.
And certainly, CERTAINLY not this way. Not by kidnapping Maduro by force and hoping that somehow the internal opposition groups are spooked enough to put forward zero resistance to an opposition government as a US puppet. Even if that is nominally implemented at any point, that’s a whole bunch of new ships that need sailing.
So no, not at all the same, not at all an outcome you would have expected from a dem government and not at all something consistent with US geopolitical stances in the past what? thirty, forty years?
The one thing I’ve learned today is that cosplay online leftists will say pretty much anything and that I’m pretty sure any even vaguely left of center leader in the Americas is currently re-reading their emergency protocols. Including those in Canada. And certainly in Greenland.
The US has an imperial neocolonial legacy of overthrowing governments for access to natural resources. This is consistent with that legacy. Surely we can agree on that much, if we’re living in the same reality.
That geopolitical strategy persists regardless of which political party is in power. It may not have played out exactly in this way but the outcome of a US friendly government being installed so that US companies can access local resources has recurred so often it’s the most predictable part of the US foreign policy playbook.
I think you’re primarily addressing the capture of Maduro. While that’s not always a component of the US approach to ovethrowing a government, it’s relatively immaterial to the outcome of installing a US puppet and gaining access to local resources. The US can achieve that with or without theatrics though we know Trump will almost always choose the theatrical option.
My argument is the outcome would be the same regardless of political party. You’re arguing that the particulars would be different with the Dems - sure. But the outcome, from a US national interest and geopolitical perspective, is the same.
No, that’s not a remotely acceptable representation of what happened today, of the policies and strategies at play or the history of the situation. At all.
Does the US have a history of intervening in foreign regimes? Sure. For access to natural resources? Definitely. Except in Latin America the Monroe doctrine had been phased out since the Cold War, and whatever version of it got implemented as the “War on Terror” in the Middle East was patently a disaster and very much a contentious issue that was not widely bipartisan in the first place.
This is a “neocolonial legacy” spanning all political sides in the same way France suddenly deciding to invade Vietnam in 2026 would be a continuation of a colonial legacy. Which is to say only in the most superficial, entirely ahistorical reading possible.
Which is, incidentally, why Maduro was currently in power when he very likely had stolen the election, was actively disputed and actively hostile to every party in the US political spectrum. Not because the US was setting up a coup, but because they were… not doing that despite some pressure, internally and externally, to do so.
And in turn it’s presumably why Trump is out there saying he has no intention to give the country over to Machado and nobody knows what the fuck is going on.
So no, the outcome wouldn’t be the same, the process wouldn’t be the same. The geopolitical view underpinning the situation wouldn’t have been the same (in that this is bucking a trend that started in what? the 80s?) and it’s not all part of the same, bipartisan approach to geopolitics. If you squint any harder to make it seem that way you may pop out an eyeball.
I had no particular desier to see Maduro remain in power indefinitely, but holy hell is the notion of looking at the Trump blitzkrieg play out and go “Harris would have been doing the same, just nicer” a massive, epoch-defining missing of the point. It’d be funny if it wasn’t horrifying.
You really think Harris wouldn’t have done this? Because AmeriKKKa is uniparty in terms of foreign policy.
Yes, you weirdo.
In what universe would Harris bomb Venezuela and kidnap Nicolás Maduro and his wife? Are you nuts?
At some point the people just doubling down on this train of thought just make me reassess how warped and delusional the argument was during the actual election. I guess when you have the luxury of a hypothetical you can just go forever. Trump will pass a law requiring him to rub his bare ass onto every single female politician and these guys will be going “do you really not think Harris would have her hairy asshole pushed onto people as well?”
We live in the dumbest dystopia.
Obama bombed multiple african country. Maybe Harris eould have not attacked Venezuela but she could bomb other countries
Also let see how many establishment dems will condemn the abduction
Ah, we’ve moved on to the “maybe they wouldn’t have done this batshit crazy thing, but they would have done other things that are bad, so they’re the same”.
Except, obviously, a good way of telling that two things aren’t the same is that they’re different. Also, in cased you missed it, Trump bombed Nigeria on Christmas day. So this isn’t an “or” thing, this is an “and” thing.
Only clones are exacly the same. It is a fact that the US is sn imperlist power who love to destabilize and destroy other countries supported by the two political cults you have
Yes, nobody denied that and defended it here
Who is “you”? I’m not American.
But there are differences between both US political parties, and given the choice, any non-American should absolutely be hoping the actively fascist party loses, obviously.
The notion that they’re both equivalent is so farcical it didn’t hold up to any scrutiny at the time when it mattered, and anybody that pushed that notion then is now partially responsible for this whole mess.
If you are not american that is even worse to defend one of the two cults.
Edit: Nobody said they are exatly the same. The democratic cult is better on domestic affairs but when it come to imperialism they are similar both was involved in bombing and destroying other countries
No, it’s not, that’s not how that works. If one side is ideologically unpalatable and the other side is a gaggle of crazy fascists it’s perfectly valid to propose that one of the two sides is better than the other. Especially if you don’t have as much of a vested interest in domestic reform.
That’s an absurdly childish stance.
One side is better overall than the other but here we are talking about imperialism they are similar not 100% but they are similar.
You are childish with your bullshit of the lesser of two evil. The lesser of the two evil is still evil
There he is!
Unironically yes
The one where I wasn’t born yesterday
I see, you don’t understand the difference between domestic policy and foreign policy.
You… think the differentiating element there is domestic vs foreign policy? That’s the objection you…
… you know what? I rest my case.
No, I think you’ve been duped by one faction of the capitalist class into thinking they represent your interests.
No faction in the US represents my interests, on account of my not being American.
But man, if I have to choose which faction is more likely to, say, roll up with tanks into Greenland, annex Canada or, and I can’t repeat this enough, bomb Caracas and kidnap Nicolás Maduro and his goddamn wife, I am pretty sure there is a single correct answer.
Yeah, the correct answer is both of them, since both parties are subservient to the will of the capitalist class.
Man, save me from cosplayers playing at revolution online.
It’s embarrassing, you know? Like watching your little child try to act like you and accidentally exposing all your garbage.
Dude, it really is embarrassing. If they’re not foreign trolls, then so many people on this site have literally zero fucking idea how the US government works. They read the Communist Manifesto, and maybe some Lenin, and now they’re talking like they’re ready to lead a revolution in a 1910s agrarian society, and anyone even mildly critical is their enemy. Fucking useful idiots.
It’s not yet a genocide in Venezuela, but the logic of “soul damage” absolutely applies.
America is potentially a democracy when it comes to internal affairs but it is absolutely an autocracy from a foreign affairs standpoint since there are only two national level political parties and they have the same foreign policy.
They demonstrably do not, on account of one of the two just having, and I can’t believe I have to keep typing this out, just kidnapped the president of Venezuela and his wife.
I am pretty sure that’s not some bipartisan policy. That’s the ending of a Metal Gear sequel.
That’s the lesson, isn’t it? People just say things online, and the things need to get entirely dissociated from basic reality before it starts showing that they’re just things people say on the Internet.
Screw under-16s. Social media should be banned altogether.
The de facto outcome is the same. A coup would have been staged regardless. The Republicans add a kidnapping for flair / to look good in the eyes of their supporters. In the end the outcome is neocolonialism / American corporate access to resources regardless. The overall geopolitical strategy remains indistinguishable.
I fully believe that you can write fan fiction for evil dems that will take you to whatever arbitrary ending this situation happens to have.
It’s a prodigious stretch to argue that “the outcome is the same” at this point, though. Especially since there is every justification for a solution without Maduro in power that isn’t an illegitimate coup. Because… you know, Maduro did not have legitimacy in the first pace, arguably.
But hey, who cares about details like what was actually happening or what people actually said or did, right? If you squint hard enough it all blurs together sufficiently to keep posting simplistic crap online.
Let’s not get lost in the weeds here. Trump has said that the US is “going to run” Venezuela until a safe proper and judicious transition can occur. Who will power be transferred to? Almost certainly Machado who has already verbalized her willingness to be a Trump/US vassal. This outcome would have happened under a democratic government also, +/- capturing Maduro. It’s not like the US has not captured heads of state to install their puppets before (Panama, as one of many examples).
Venezuela has 20% of global oil and has been selling 65 to 80% of its supply to China over the past several years. It nationalized its oil reserves decades ago which is typically considered a grave sin from the Western perspective (as Iran learned in the 50s). If we’re honestly reflecting on how America handles a situation like this, especially when it’s happened in their own hemisphere, it’s obvious that the elected political party has little impact on this geopolitical outcome.
See, unlike people willing to retroactively support their preferred choices I am making zero assumptions about what’s going to happen.
What Trump says is going to happen and what happens don’t necessarily line up, and there is zero indication that under a different US regime the outcome would be anywhere close to Maduro being deposed. That ship seemed to have very thoroughly sailed at the time of the election.
And certainly, CERTAINLY not this way. Not by kidnapping Maduro by force and hoping that somehow the internal opposition groups are spooked enough to put forward zero resistance to an opposition government as a US puppet. Even if that is nominally implemented at any point, that’s a whole bunch of new ships that need sailing.
So no, not at all the same, not at all an outcome you would have expected from a dem government and not at all something consistent with US geopolitical stances in the past what? thirty, forty years?
The one thing I’ve learned today is that cosplay online leftists will say pretty much anything and that I’m pretty sure any even vaguely left of center leader in the Americas is currently re-reading their emergency protocols. Including those in Canada. And certainly in Greenland.
The US has an imperial neocolonial legacy of overthrowing governments for access to natural resources. This is consistent with that legacy. Surely we can agree on that much, if we’re living in the same reality.
That geopolitical strategy persists regardless of which political party is in power. It may not have played out exactly in this way but the outcome of a US friendly government being installed so that US companies can access local resources has recurred so often it’s the most predictable part of the US foreign policy playbook.
I think you’re primarily addressing the capture of Maduro. While that’s not always a component of the US approach to ovethrowing a government, it’s relatively immaterial to the outcome of installing a US puppet and gaining access to local resources. The US can achieve that with or without theatrics though we know Trump will almost always choose the theatrical option.
My argument is the outcome would be the same regardless of political party. You’re arguing that the particulars would be different with the Dems - sure. But the outcome, from a US national interest and geopolitical perspective, is the same.
No, that’s not a remotely acceptable representation of what happened today, of the policies and strategies at play or the history of the situation. At all.
Does the US have a history of intervening in foreign regimes? Sure. For access to natural resources? Definitely. Except in Latin America the Monroe doctrine had been phased out since the Cold War, and whatever version of it got implemented as the “War on Terror” in the Middle East was patently a disaster and very much a contentious issue that was not widely bipartisan in the first place.
This is a “neocolonial legacy” spanning all political sides in the same way France suddenly deciding to invade Vietnam in 2026 would be a continuation of a colonial legacy. Which is to say only in the most superficial, entirely ahistorical reading possible.
Which is, incidentally, why Maduro was currently in power when he very likely had stolen the election, was actively disputed and actively hostile to every party in the US political spectrum. Not because the US was setting up a coup, but because they were… not doing that despite some pressure, internally and externally, to do so.
And in turn it’s presumably why Trump is out there saying he has no intention to give the country over to Machado and nobody knows what the fuck is going on.
So no, the outcome wouldn’t be the same, the process wouldn’t be the same. The geopolitical view underpinning the situation wouldn’t have been the same (in that this is bucking a trend that started in what? the 80s?) and it’s not all part of the same, bipartisan approach to geopolitics. If you squint any harder to make it seem that way you may pop out an eyeball.
I had no particular desier to see Maduro remain in power indefinitely, but holy hell is the notion of looking at the Trump blitzkrieg play out and go “Harris would have been doing the same, just nicer” a massive, epoch-defining missing of the point. It’d be funny if it wasn’t horrifying.
The word “potentially” is doing a lot of lifting here 😆