On May 03 2019 06:16 VanDerMeyde wrote:
Starving / fasting gives you more energy.
Thermodynamics 101, google it.
On May 03 2019 04:42 Baalim wrote:
And you will get 100x more people marching for King Jong-Un, does that make him a good leader? every single leader will have a following no matter what they do, showing a thousands of people marching in a city of millions mean absolutely nothing.
First we had the brilliant equivalence between punching Richard Spencer and Slavoj Zizek and now we have the comparison between a voluntary pro-government march of citizens on May Day (of all days) and the military parades of a military dictatorship. Nice. I suppose when the coup attempt happened a few days ago and these people stormed the streets to block access to the presidental palace, it also meant absolutely nothing. Just like it means nothing that the US anti-war activists Code Pink are currently protecting the Venezuelan Embassy in the US. They must all be somehow brainwashed by the dictator as well.
In any case, I was responding to GoTunk who is trying to spread far-right propaganda about Maduro having no support. His argument is that people are starving and that is why they want to overthrow him. Yet these thousands of people marching are the poorest people; they are those most affected by this situation, yet here they are, those people who supposedly don't exist. There's more of them than there are of the opposition. Six million people voted for Maduro in the last election (67.8 % of the total vote) and you can't just handwave that number away screaming corruption when there were international observers.
Also if it means nothing, one has to wonder why we are never shown these marches in the mainstream news, but we are shown the even smaller ones from the opposition every time. Not a single opinion piece in the mainstream news opposes regime change: https://fair.org/home/zero-percent-of...rs-oppose-regime-change-in-venezuela/
On May 02 2019 08:06 Stroggoz wrote:
that's what liberal international relations theorists advocate, all nations should engage in trade->decrease the chance of war since it's against their interests. But of course there is the moral question of trading with seriously immoral regimes, which do not go to war but simply oppress their own population. In fact nearly every state in the world does something completely immoral so you could make an argument to stop trading with almost any nation.
Imposing sanctions has actually sometimes strengthened regimes, like saddams regime, when there were sanctions it just ended up meaning the populace got nothing, and saddam was as strong as ever. The sanctions on venezuala have been totally immoral imo, it just meant the poor ended up suffering. http://cepr.net/press-center/press-re...sible-for-tens-of-thousands-of-deaths
And I can see the merits of simply trading with everyone, but Loco saying that only because it suits him is disgustingly hypocritical.
Do you seriously think that Stroggoz buys your reframing of what's being done to Venezuela as simply "not trading"? You've already tried this strategy and it's not working. That's like if I raped your sister and when you confronted me with the fact, I never brought up the harm that I did and simply said "I just wasn't nice to her" and "I have no obligations to be nice to people I don't like." It's desperate reductionism to hide the plain truth. What's the plain truth here? That, as a die-hard capitalist, you cannot overcome the deeply held conviction that you were indoctrinated with and which paints life in a socially Darwinistic "might makes right" light. Capitalism being meritocratic in your view, and the US being globally dominant, they have "earned" the right to bully other countries and strangle them economically -- as long as they are demonic socialists.
Your consent for this economic war has been entirely manufactured, just like your irrational hatred of alternative economic systems. What's sad is that the contradictions are glaring but most people in your situation won't become conscious of them until several years from now on when mainstream media will go back as they previously did and say "oops, our coverage sucked and we enabled a war based on bullshit. Sorry, but we really did the best we could at the time!".
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Ah, twitter links now work again, one of my browser extension was causing the problem. So here's another example of "not trading" that probably makes perfect sense to Baal, much in the same way that it makes perfect sense to Eliott Abrams that Guaido is the Interim President of an Interim that has never started.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Yeah, you fasted as a morbidly obese person. You had plenty of energy to burn in the form of fat storages. By definition, that means that you weren't starving. Starvation is defined as "suffering or death caused by hunger." Still, when you fast for 14 days, you don't do a lot of physical activity. I'm sure you didn't feel like going out to walk, dance, yell or sing for multiple hours. And we've been told that Venezuelans are starving for months now, not two weeks. People who are on hunger strikes for that long (like the Kurdish activists right now) stay in bed or sit most of the time and they are exhausted after a few minutes of conversation.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
The reason you see such a big pro-Maduro protest and there wasn't an equivalent against him is, because if the opposition does it, they will be gassed, shot and ran over by the military. A typical occurrence in every socialism-ran nation. You know.. we're all equal, but some of us are more equal than others.
I don't see how that's not an obvious fact tbh... It's also been the case for any anti-Maduro protest so far.
That being said, if the UN was an actual adequate institution, they would've assembled by now and told the US to fuck off with their coup propaganda. US's intervention so far is much more frightening than Maduro's regime
Guy on the right literally says "its very obvious that the Maduro-backing people are a minority"
He also says that this does not mean that pro-Guiadio movement is the majority though. People just want to get their control back, which means both sides should fuck off.
Guy on the left is a puppet of Maduro, but makes a lot of good points.
Last edit: 04/05/2019 02:15
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. May 04 2019 02:46. Posts 5329
Baal it is the opposite, you can make a case for not trading with almost any nation, so why selectively pick out venezeula as a nation to stop trading with? Because America is trying to assert it's dominance over latin america once again. Loco is not being selective here, it is the American government that is being selective. and this is very obvious, with america doing this to cuba, vietnam, iraq in the past. Did it ever topple these regimes? No, it didn't. You can't topple a regime this way, it is simply a form of punishement, and it gets dished out to the poor, since the powerful always get what they want and the weak suffer what they must. You definitely cannot make a case for making sanctions like this, since doing nothing is a better choice.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Last edit: 04/05/2019 03:03
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. May 04 2019 03:08. Posts 5329
On May 03 2019 15:14 VanDerMeyde wrote:
I fasted for 14 days before, it makes u sharper. Cuz the brain needs to find a solution to find food, duh. Ur argument is invalid
Good argument man, i guess Mao must have made a ton of people mentally sharp in the 1960's.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On May 04 2019 01:46 Stroggoz wrote:
Baal it is the opposite, you can make a case for not trading with almost any nation, so why selectively pick out venezeula as a nation to stop trading with? Because America is trying to assert it's dominance over latin america once again. Loco is not being selective here, it is the American government that is being selective. and this is very obvious, with america doing this to cuba, vietnam, iraq in the past. Did it ever topple these regimes? No, it didn't. You can't topple a regime this way, it is simply a form of punishement, and it gets dished out to the poor, since the powerful always get what they want and the weak suffer what they must. You definitely cannot make a case for making sanctions like this, since doing nothing is a better choice.
You misunderstood me, I said that its subjective who deserves it or not, and that we could discuss if Venezuela or other country fits in the category or doesn't. I never said that Venezuela fits and SaudiArabia doesn't I was arguing about the concept that sanctions arent automatically wrong and especially a communist like loco arguing for absolulte free trade between nations no matter what is hillariously hypocritical.
I think you have me confused for somebody who supports the US foreign policy, quite the contrary I've been quite vocally against it for over a decade on this forums.
Also economic downfall due to sanctions doesn't just affect the poor, they are the one more visibly affected because they starve, but the middle class becomes improvished, the businesses of the upper classes go bankrupt etc.
Sanctions shouldnt be used as economical warfare, but as a moral position to refuse to engage in economic activity with an immoral entity (kind of like why you dont sell gunpowder to ISIS), and yeah of course talking about moral positions in states is ridiculous but we are just discussing the concept
On May 04 2019 00:53 Spitfiree wrote:
The reason you see such a big pro-Maduro protest and there wasn't an equivalent against him is, because if the opposition does it, they will be gassed, shot and ran over by the military. A typical occurrence in every socialism-ran nation. You know.. we're all equal, but some of us are more equal than others.
I don't see how that's not an obvious fact tbh....
That's because it's not an obvious fact at all, it is the opposite that is obvious according to the evidence at hand. You have a tendency to make these extremely strong claims that this and that is obvious when you are holding an extreme minority position. Example from your previous post where you said that the situation does not meet "a single precondition for civil war", when literally every news outlet in the world seems to be suggesting that they are on the brink of it, and "there is no way in which this ends without the US taking control of Venezuela" which has been your basic statement from the very start.
But even lieutenant colonel Daniel L. Davis, a foreign policy/defense analyst writing for Fox News, thinks that the complete opposite is true: "the last thing America should do is involve itself – especially militarily – in Venezuela’s violent, chaotic political crisis and humanitarian disaster. If we attempt to pick a winner in the political crisis now unfolding in Caracas, our chances of failure are so high as to be virtually guaranteed." (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/daniel-davis-us-troops-should-stay-out-of-venezuela-military-intervention-would-fail)
If anything, the current coup seems to be uniting people around Maduro, it is having the complete opposite effect that the US wanted it to have, especially since they lied about the opposition having the support of the military. Now let's get to the debunking of another one of those types of statements: the opposition is being so extremely repressed that "this is why we don't see it in large numbers". First, we do see it. We've been seeing it for years. We know who it consists of (wealthy, light-skinned Venezuelans) and we know what their numbers are.
Secondly, let's remember the video I previously shared of Max Blumental of Gray Zone going to a mall in Caracas looking for said-dictatorship, where basically everyone is a member of the opposition (since it's a wealthy area): they admit that "socialism is a small thing here in Venezuela". None of them are revolted and claiming to be living in the type of dictatorship that you are painting. They don't like their government but they're not taking any action against it. Only a minority of the opposition are of the violent types who think they can overthrow the government, but they don't have the numbers, and that's why they fail, not because of a dictatorial crackdown.
In the type of socialist dictatorship that you are describing, Juan Guaido and other members of the opposition who are committing crimes and threatening to overthrow the government wouldn't still be free to voice their opinions in the streets --- that's obvious.
We can go back to a few days ago when stage four of the coup was attempted since you seem to be referring to that and generalizing from it. Venezuelan police initially started shooting tear gas, and it was the opposition that shot live rounds at them. We were also expected to uncritically believe that the government tanks that were used to drive into the crowd were under the command of Maduro (and also that they did this unprovoked), but it was later revealed that several of those tanks had been hijacked by the opposition previously, so it no longer became clear who was responsible. I posted about this and now the Twitter account associated with the footage has been temporarily restricted. Nothing surprising if you are familiar with Twitter and how it is used to control certain narratives. But whether one is true or the other, you can't use this instance and generalize from it about police repression and violence. It's one isolated incident.
If you want to actually see what police repression is like in Venezuela, you have to look at the independent journalists who were on the grounds and followed the fights. I previously posted the video, and it paints a completely different picture than the one you are painting. It's also extremely interesting to me how you come to the defense of cops in France at the first opportunity and claim that there are just "a few bad eggs" there when the repression and violence has been extreme and shows no sign of stopping, but when there is a socialist government in a country with a mixed economy, it's automatically no longer a case of just a few bad eggs for you, it's the rule.
Guy on the right literally says "its very obvious that the Maduro-backing people are a minority"
He also says that this does not mean that pro-Guiadio movement is the majority though. People just want to get their control back, which means both sides should fuck off.
That's what I've been saying since the beginning, but things have changed. You can see people waving the anarchist black/red flags at the pro-Maduro rally on May Day. Think about this: everywhere else, May Day is an anti-government day, and it's not peaceful. Yet you have anarchists coming out in support of their government in Venezuela? How much of a brutally repressive socialist dictatorship can it be when you see things like this? Yes, they don't support Maduro, but a choice is made to unite against imperialism because it's critically important to avoid the worst. Guaido being placed as a puppet of the US and privatizing the oil would not lead to more democracy, and that's why those people show up despite the harsh conditions they are living in right now.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On May 04 2019 01:46 Stroggoz wrote:
Baal it is the opposite, you can make a case for not trading with almost any nation, so why selectively pick out venezeula as a nation to stop trading with? Because America is trying to assert it's dominance over latin america once again. Loco is not being selective here, it is the American government that is being selective. and this is very obvious, with america doing this to cuba, vietnam, iraq in the past. Did it ever topple these regimes? No, it didn't. You can't topple a regime this way, it is simply a form of punishement, and it gets dished out to the poor, since the powerful always get what they want and the weak suffer what they must. You definitely cannot make a case for making sanctions like this, since doing nothing is a better choice.
You misunderstood me, I said that its subjective who deserves it or not, and that we could discuss if Venezuela or other country fits in the category or doesn't. I never said that Venezuela fits and SaudiArabia doesn't I was arguing about the concept that sanctions arent automatically wrong and especially a communist like loco arguing for absolulte free trade between nations no matter what is hillariously hypocritical.
I think you have me confused for somebody who supports the US foreign policy, quite the contrary I've been quite vocally against it for over a decade on this forums.
Also economic downfall due to sanctions doesn't just affect the poor, they are the one more visibly affected because they starve, but the middle class becomes improvished, the businesses of the upper classes go bankrupt etc.
Sanctions shouldnt be used as economical warfare, but as a moral position to refuse to engage in economic activity with an immoral entity (kind of like why you dont sell gunpowder to ISIS), and yeah of course talking about moral positions in states is ridiculous but we are just discussing the concept
We don't have you confused with anyone... you are simply a confused person on this issue (and I'd argue other issues). That's part and parcel of being an anarcho-capitalist or a "libertarian", when the very origin of those ideologies are confused since they rest on a perversion and a hijacking of coherent left-wing political philosophies in order to justify forms of violence.
I never made the case for "free trade for all", this has been your go-to straw man to ignore dealing with the inconsistencies of your position. That would have to be enforced and so it would be coercive, and I am attacking sanctions precisely because they are coercive and barbaric, as any real libertarian (libertaire) ought to do. Plus it isn't even practically possible to enforce free trade for all, so there is no reason to argue for it. It's interesting how you went from saying that you were going to call me a communist because you think it pisses me off, to now actually arguing like I'm a communist, and not just any communist, but one who is advocating for a complete and total vertical one-world government. When edgelordism fails, I guess.
Sanctions and economic blockades have strictly nothing to do with moral principles. They have everything to do with power, greed and expansion. There is no categorical or moral difference between freezing assets and imposing sanctions that involve in their very nature threats to all countries to toe the line "or else". That's not "not trading". It's unilateral coercive measures put in place to bully a country into acting in accordance with the interests of dominant powers.
We weren't having a philosophical conversation about the concept of sanctions and what they might look like in an alternative world. I brought up the impacts of the actual real-world sanctions that you openly admitted to supporting previously, and you're focusing on the "concept of sanctions" and how they might be justifiable. This is a completely separate and irrelevant topic and I think you've brought it up to avoid admitting (to yourself) that you were wrong, and that sanctions don't work as you thought or as you wish they would.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Anyway, just looking at a crowd of people and saying "they must be well fed and they cant be threated that bad" is obv a retarded argument Loco "Their dictator cant be that cruel!!"
when literally every news outlet in the world seems to be suggesting that they are on the brink of it, and "there is no way in which this ends without the US taking control of Venezuela" which has been your basic statement from the very start.
Every news outlet also said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, plus you never refer to mass media, but now you do cause it suits you? Cmon... Claiming that Venezuela is on the brink of civil war makes good headlines. If anything all of the developments the past week points a very good picture of that being a rather unlikely. Turns out most Venezuelians actually have brains and have an adequate opinion on what's happening, which is rather impressive (even more impressive considering a good amount of smart people already fled the country so they won't get involved in this shit). Even if everything goes to shit I don't see the military putting it all on the line to protect Maduro. If Maduro gets forcefully taken out AND the USA appoint a puppet president in the most obvious manner possible, then there would definitely be a civil war, thats the only way a civil war can happen and its something that cannot occur now.
But even lieutenant colonel Daniel L. Davis, a foreign policy/defense analyst writing for Fox News, thinks that the complete opposite is true: "the last thing America should do is involve itself – especially militarily – in Venezuela’s violent, chaotic political crisis and humanitarian disaster. If we attempt to pick a winner in the political crisis now unfolding in Caracas, our chances of failure are so high as to be virtually guaranteed." (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/daniel-davis-us-troops-should-stay-out-of-venezuela-military-intervention-would-fail)
Not interested in anything aired on Fox News sorry.
It's also extremely interesting to me how you come to the defense of cops in France at the first opportunity and claim that there are just "a few bad eggs" there when the repression and violence has been extreme and shows no sign of stopping, but when there is a socialist government in a country with a mixed economy, it's automatically no longer a case of just a few bad eggs for you, it's the rule.
Socialistic governments are evil by nature. There hasn't been single practical evidence of such government serving anything other than its own self and it usually ends up with establishing an authoritarian regime. Thats why it's also much easier for me to jump to that conclusion, which makes me biased and wrong on a different topic but doesn't really change my mind about socialistic governments. It's a falling for the statistical bias based on constant previous behavior which creates expectations. You don't jump to that conclusion cause you praise socialistic governments, cause apparently, you are not exactly aware of the horrors they created and still create throughout the world. It's hard to learn from history and facts I guess You protect that naive belief while ignoring counter-arguments e.g. in my previous post, instead you only attack my gaps in logic, which you should obviously do, but being selective while defending an ideology only means the ideology is crap.
Let's continue with something, which you pointed out previously. Apparently 40,000 deaths caused by US measures right? - https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14446
Maduro's government has been linked to corruption, bribes, money laundering, budget-draining and all kinds of other nasty shit, but yeah its the US's sanctions that caused everything. Cool shit.
Obviously, Maduro inherited that shit show from Chavez, but he was aware of it...
That's what I've been saying since the beginning, but things have changed.
It's also what I would do for Venezuelians if i had magical powers and could snap my fingers to do it for them, but thats not how the real world works, so they have to choose between a lesser evil, or wait until the 2 evils kill each other.
On May 03 2019 15:14 VanDerMeyde wrote:
I fasted for 14 days before, it makes u sharper. Cuz the brain needs to find a solution to find food, duh. Ur argument is invalid
Good argument man, i guess Mao must have made a ton of people mentally sharp in the 1960's.
Probably for a while, but eventually people cant fast anymore obviously.
My grandfather sat in Sachsenhausen concentration camp (and survived) and he had some unbelieveable stories about people learning entire languages in a few days. Your mind is set to do anything or learn anything to find food under those circumstances.
On May 05 2019 01:06 Spitfiree wrote:
Every news outlet also said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, plus you never refer to mass media, but now you do cause it suits you?
I didn't refer to mass media but all media. It's pretty much universally agreed upon. Can you find me a single news outlet of any kind that had someone on who said that there was no threat of a civil war looming?
Cmon... Claiming that Venezuela is on the brink of civil war makes good headlines. If anything all of the developments the past week points a very good picture of that being a rather unlikely. Turns out most Venezuelians actually have brains and have an adequate opinion on what's happening, which is rather impressive (even more impressive considering a good amount of smart people already fled the country so they won't get involved in this shit).
I don't believe it has much of anything to do with intelligence. You can either afford to go build a life elsewhere or you can't (financially or otherwise).
Even if everything goes to shit I don't see the military putting it all on the line to protect Maduro. If Maduro gets forcefully taken out AND the USA appoint a puppet president in the most obvious manner possible, then there would definitely be a civil war, thats the only way a civil war can happen and its something that cannot occur now.
So you just congratulated the Venezuelan people for "having brains" (I assume that meant knowing that the opposition is US-backed), but now you say there's some kind of chance it's not obvious enough to them that he would be a puppet of the US? These are contradictory positions. The whole point is that they know Guaido represents US interests and not theirs. That's why the threat has been real from the start.
But even lieutenant colonel Daniel L. Davis, a foreign policy/defense analyst writing for Fox News, thinks that the complete opposite is true: "the last thing America should do is involve itself – especially militarily – in Venezuela’s violent, chaotic political crisis and humanitarian disaster. If we attempt to pick a winner in the political crisis now unfolding in Caracas, our chances of failure are so high as to be virtually guaranteed." (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/daniel-davis-us-troops-should-stay-out-of-venezuela-military-intervention-would-fail)
Not interested in anything aired on Fox News sorry.
Fine, I thought the fact that even an ex-military officer on Fox News says it should say something, but just look at the latest interview with economist Jeffrey Sachs on Democracy Now!, he essentially says the same thing: sanctions never work to create regime change, the US will not succeed in a coup, etc.
It's also extremely interesting to me how you come to the defense of cops in France at the first opportunity and claim that there are just "a few bad eggs" there when the repression and violence has been extreme and shows no sign of stopping, but when there is a socialist government in a country with a mixed economy, it's automatically no longer a case of just a few bad eggs for you, it's the rule.
Socialistic governments are evil by nature. There hasn't been single practical evidence of such government serving anything other than its own self and it usually ends up with establishing an authoritarian regime.
So let me get something straight, you think there is more corruption in Venezuela than there is in the US gov? Maduro is more self-interested than Trump "by nature" because his government implements more social programs? I don't follow the logic. Of course I agree that socialist governments can become more authoritarian than capitalist ones, though that doesn't necessarily translate in the degree of harm they can dish out. It's not "in their nature" though. We don't say that about the Scandinavian countries even though they have the same kind of mixed economy as Venezuela with a strong focus on social programs...
I don't have the time to research this in depth right now but from what I'm reading, this money was suddenly found from a US tip-off to Bulgarian officers. That tip off came from the Guaido team itself, according to your link. Bulgaria supposedly "denied" that there was such a thing, and then they accepted it. (Sounds like the kind of thing that would happen when you're threatened?). And then we have the usual war hawk response:
“I am honoured to convey, on behalf of the US government, the most sincere thanks for your efforts to discontinue the financial transactions of the illegitimate regime of Maduro, thus helping to protect the assets of Venezuelan citizens,” Pompeo said, according to the Bulgarian government statement. This important act of support would help Venezuela return to the path of democracy and prosperity, Pompeo said."
Consider me skeptical for now. Note that the news says millions, not billions. A billion is a thousand millions. The US has frozen 7 billions Us dollars in Venezuelan assets in Washington, mentioned in that very article you linked.
Maduro's government has been linked to corruption, bribes, money laundering, budget-draining and all kinds of other nasty shit, but yeah its the US's sanctions that caused everything. Cool shit.
Yes it has, like every single government in the world. I never said that the US was responsible for every problem in Venezuela. I believe they bear the majority of the responsibility for the crisis, but not all of it. And it's not just through sanctions. They have been funding a violent opposition in Venezuela for a long time.
That's what I've been saying since the beginning, but things have changed.
It's also what I would do for Venezuelians if i had magical powers and could snap my fingers to do it for them, but thats not how the real world works, so they have to choose between a lesser evil, or wait until the 2 evils kill each other.
In the real world, it essentially always works the same: the small(er) guy is the lesser evil. There is currently no place for a third party solution/a non-violent solution for as long as the US refuses to stop meddling in their affairs and refuses negotiations, so the priority is denouncing them and fighting them off. There is a massive disparity of evil between the two, which apparently you still can't see.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
I implied that if the USA sets its puppet, it wouldn't be Guiado. I'm pretty certain Guaido is done for, maybe they can use him in different ways, but him becoming an interim president wouldn't be one.
The article I linked says millions, and indeed it could be a push from American government. I said billions, cause I was talking about all of the government stealing going for the past 20+ years in Venezuela. Every government steals, but if you do it while your population is struggling, thats a different thing.
We have the same vision of the situation in Venezuela, just different ways of the situation being resolved in practice.
The USA is obviously the bigger evil, except submitting to them would also be less painful and not necessarily worse for the Venezuelians. While going with Maduro it would prolong their period of suffering indefinitely.
Today, does a state have to become Socially Democratic before it can become some form of Anarchy? I have been thinking this for a while but I was just looking at the Anarchy flags in support of the Chavistas and it brought it to the forefront. The Zapatistas are perhaps a good example where this is not necessary but I just read an article about how in some part of Chiapas there is a Coca Cola plant that uses all the water and there is no water for the people so everyone drinks Coca Cola and that is some dystopia shit. I also don't want to risk my life going through Syria just to go on a hunger strike in Rojava. I am looking for more meaning in my life but don't think I want to go full on Tulsi Gabbard retard mode. I like what AOC is doing shaking things up a bit. I think the USA needs more of that and strategically they might have to take a chance on someone to get Trump out of office.
Unless he gets killed, no one will replace Guaido as "interim" president. Even though they've propped up someone who was mostly unknown and got people to rally behind him, they can't just do it anew and toss Guaido to the side. It's not politically credible. If he gets killed and that motivates military invasion, then it's a pointless discussion. If he gets killed and replaced, it's going to be by someone from his administration, making no difference to the crisis.
There can be no such thing as submission. The people who fight against the opposition could not be more convinced that they are defending their constitution and the very essence of democracy. "Submitting" here means giving up the idea of living in a democracy, which is probably worse than death. (The opposition largely thinks the same, of course, at least for the first part.) It's accepting that social programs will be cut and most people's entire way of life will be forced to change and fall in line with business culture. It's what hundreds if not thousands of people died protesting against right before Chavez was elected. They don't want to go back to this and they'll fight with all they got to protect the sovereignty that they have gained, even if they know there are a lot of government officials in the Maduro administration who are enriching themselves illegally. (And many do know this and have been pressing Maduro about it who has done a subpar job, especially compared to Chavez.)
If you want to talk about a kleptocracy and neglecting the needs of their citizens, they don't hold a candle to the US. And the US isn't just screwing the Venezuelans; their theft, their manipulations and their wars are screwing all of us and guaranteeing that most people on this planet will not have a life worth living in the coming decades.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On May 07 2019 17:28 RiKD wrote:
Today, does a state have to become Socially Democratic before it can become some form of Anarchy? I have been thinking this for a while but I was just looking at the Anarchy flags in support of the Chavistas and it brought it to the forefront. The Zapatistas are perhaps a good example where this is not necessary but I just read an article about how in some part of Chiapas there is a Coca Cola plant that uses all the water and there is no water for the people so everyone drinks Coca Cola and that is some dystopia shit. I also don't want to risk my life going through Syria just to go on a hunger strike in Rojava. I am looking for more meaning in my life but don't think I want to go full on Tulsi Gabbard retard mode. I like what AOC is doing shaking things up a bit. I think the USA needs more of that and strategically they might have to take a chance on someone to get Trump out of office.
The Zapatistas did not transform a society into a stateless one, they have coexisted in a constant struggle with the state in the same kind of horizontal society they have always lived in. I'm using "coexist" lightly here. Their isolation and strategic use of the terrain/mountains, and the public support for them, is what made it possible to resist against the near constant aggression they have faced.
AOC and Bernie are shit on foreign policy. Tulsi Gabbard is the only one speaking out and not holding back. Yang also spoke out once that I know of, but it hasn't been a big part of his campaign. I don't know what Tulsi Gabbard "retard mode" means.
Anarchy can only exist where there are enough ideologically-liberated individuals who want to live in a functional society that maximizes personal freedom. It doesn't ultimately matter what the system is that came before, the precondition is the same. It's just that arguably, a society that provided a free education of quality to all its citizens would have more chances to have citizens who would want that.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Contact Users: 957 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 13:05
"Their dictator cant be that cruel!!"
United States. May 07 2019 18:28. Posts 8990
