Garibaldee

This comment has inflicted psychic damage on me, congrats.

Venzuelanalysis republished this artcle, what are you even talking about?

https://venezuelanalysis.com/opinion/nyt-advises-trump-to-kill-more-venezuelans/

radical groups

I think it's bad they got their funding taken away, but I'm not gonna pretend this group was a radical group. Saying Free Palestine and doing climate change advocacy might be radical to Americans, but both of those things are only advocacy.

In response to the escalating climate disasters that our member groups are experiencing on the ground in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and North Carolina, the Climate Justice Alliance works with frontline groups on the ground to assess and rebuild with a collective vision for a Just Recovery. We are tracking ways to support frontline communities on the ground in the regions impacted by these climate disasters. We are also working with local grassroots groups and networks to provide crucial resources and support to those in immediate need.

Frontline leaders within CJA’s membership are modeling Food Sovereignty as an essential part of a Just Transition to healthy, resilient communities and a regenerative economy through the practice and scaling out of agroecology – a science, a practice, and a movement centered on growing food in harmony with ecological systems.

It Takes Roots utilizes the common frame to protect our land, water, homes, and bodies. We engage in both trans-local power building and mass mobilizations. We come together to share tools, exercise power, and engage a rapid response committed to building resistance and visionary opposition to oppression, extraction, and exploitation.

Currently, with thirty-four active Our Power Communities, our goal is to create living examples of how communities can put people to work transforming their localities, while reducing both cost and pollution burden for present and future generations. These local living economic models are being built through Just Transition. Our Power Communities (OPC’s) bring together the different sectors of a community to fight the bad and build the new.

Reinvest in Our Power is a collaborative effort led by CJA to address inequity and democratize wealth by moving capital and governance from the extractive to regenerative economy. By leveraging momentum and political power, RiOP, including CJA member groups, is moving money into The Financial Cooperative, a democratically-governed cooperative of local, non-extractive revolving loan funds that invest in projects owned/operated by frontline communities to build economic democracy rooted in ecological integrity.

https://climatejusticealliance.org/

Nothing they are doing is outside of the current system and everything they are doing requires grant money and donations to function in the capacity that they do. There was no "structural trap". The organization needs state dollars to function, they lost $50 million dollars from this (that is a lot of money for a "grassroots" organization) people would largely not be willing to donate the money needed for this organization to be functional in it's current capacity. Maybe now that they have lost the grants they will be able to fundraise enough to keep functioning, but the organization was never "radical" to begin with. Radical groups (at least radical US leftist groups*) are not being given $50 million dollars by the US government.

She will not pardon Adams, she politcally largely agrees with him, other than being embaressed about his flagrant corruption, they are both centrist to rightwing Democrats. This article is making it seem like she's some kind of dyed in the wool progressive who really wants to get rid of someone like him which she is absolutely not.

They could show, they want peace

The alternative will hurt them more

And they will use the weapons they have at hand. I don’t blame them.

I didn't realize Adolf Hitler created a lemmy account 10 months ago.

Having less nukes is not the same as disarmament it's not even comparable. They dropped two nukes and did that much destruction in Japan, 2, and those were 1940s nukes, even with this change the US would still have thousands of nukes.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-many-nuclear-weapons-exist-and-who-has-them/

the United States admits to having 5,550

Ukraine went to 0 nukes, the US has 5000+ nukes, how would that even be comparable if the US let's say went down to 1000 nukes. That's still 1000 nukes more than 0.

Having less nukes is not the same as disarmament it's not even comparable. They dropped two nukes and did that much destruction in Japan, 2, and those were 1940s nukes, even with this change the US would still have thousands of nukes.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-many-nuclear-weapons-exist-and-who-has-them/

the United States admits to having 5,550

Ukraine went to 0 nukes, the US has 5000+ nukes, how would that even be comparable if the US let's say went down to 1000 nukes. That's still 1000 nukes more than 0.

which isn’t exactly clear of bias.

that is why I said

you are a child if you think like that

I don't think you should expect any reporting to be clear of bias, they link dozens of sources throughout the article each with it's own set of biases, do you really need to link a source from every perspective to not disparage them for not being "clear of bias". And I think they quite clearly elaborate why they have included the two Venezuelanalysis articles in the following.

However, Washington’s blockade ensured that the elections would never be free and fair. As the main factor driving economic hardship and migration, US sanctions meant Venezuelans headed to the polls with a gun to their heads, not unlike Nicaraguans in 1990.

It is the height of hypocrisy for US officials and their corporate media stenographers to claim the right to arbitrate other sovereign nations’ democratic legitimacy, even as they advance fascism at home and genocidal war across the globe. That sectors of the Western “compatible left” echo Stephens and his ilk, caricaturing the Maduro government as a “corrupt” and “repressive” regime, is unfortunate but not surprising (Ebb, 10/3/24).

The core racial assumption, going back to the 19th century, is that Global South states that refuse to bow to Western imperialist diktat constitute “tropical despotisms” to be toppled in a never-ending “civilizing mission,” with its anti-Communist, “war on terror” and neo-Orientalist mutations.

especially with

It is the height of hypocrisy for US officials and their corporate media stenographers to claim the right to arbitrate other sovereign nations’ democratic legitimacy, even as they advance fascism at home and genocidal war across the globe

The author is rejecting the premise of the US and other countries like the UK to "claim the right to arbitrate other sovereign nations’ democratic legitimacy" So why would they link articles like the ones you linked when the author is clearly saying they don't believe in the premise.

Or maybe just maybe you might be the one that's wrong. Just a thought.

I don't think the elections were either "free" or "fair" and they probably did rig it, but that doesn't justify invading a country, if you think it does you are just a warmonger. There are plenty of countries with similarly rigged elections that the US doesn't consider invading and the main reason they are so interested in Venezuela is the massive oil resources American oil companies would be able to access if a government friendly to US companies would somehow get into power.

Both sources provided in this article about the election in Venezuela come from the same website, which isn’t exactly clear of bias.

No media is clear of bias, you are a child if you think like that. You just disagree with the bias which is fair, it's your opinion.

Ukraine should have been given NATO membership, OR at least NATO protection way back when they were forced to give up their nukes. I say it was a mistake that putin took advantage of.

I don't disagree with this. They should have either kept the nukes or gotten guarenteed protection like a NATO membership they were given a horrible deal by getting neither.

But the right thing to do currently, and something I do think Harris and/or Biden would have done or worked towards (undermining internal US politics not taken in account) is put a permanent American security force inside Ukraine, including naval bases.

I don't think Harris would have done this at all. I don't think a single troop would have gone there in a non weapons training capacity if she were the president. I think she would have kept on sending weapons and that's about it, and, there's a decent chance a end of hostilties a peace deal whatever you want to call it would have happened under her in the next four years if Trump lost as I personally don't believe this conflict has 4 years left in it, regardless of who the president is.

However, to actually respond to your point: Trump is going behind Ukraine’s back to draft a peace deal that will result in them losing territory if they accept it. Harris was not going to do that. Rather than Harris being a positive Trump is being a negative here.

Harris was most likely going to continue what Biden was doing. If you think what Biden was doing was a positive I can't understand why? I don't think giving just enough help to keep things at a standstill is particularly positive. If she offered to do much more than Biden was doing I could follow your logic.

So it doesn’t count anymore, two years is way too long from today.

How many years until it counts

You want me to give you a citation for what’s going to happen ten years from now?

I was clearly asking you for sources that predict change to happen, not to say what is going to happen in the future. You are just being obtuse.

How they feel or what they will do, I don’t know. But I’m fairly well convinced that those are the options they’ll be choosing between, and that Harris wouldn’t have done that. Can you give me a citation otherwise?

I think Harris would keep on doing exactly what Biden was doing, I never implied she wouldn't, I just don't think what Biden was doing past for the past few years has amounted to much.

Russia agrees not to invade, then invades, and you put the onus on the West? I already pointed out that the “one side will stop the other side” is nowhere in the memorandum. I don’t know why you are persistently pretending it is, or ignoring me pointing out that it isn’t.

Yes, why even pressure Ukraine and Kazakhstan to disarm if they weren't going to do anything if Russia decided to reneg. There was no reason to pressure them to disarm then if it wasn't implied they would provide security if Russia renegged. It's the worst deal of all time if that was the case.