this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2026
842 points (99.0% liked)

World News

51767 readers
3056 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world 148 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (52 children)

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.

[–] Puddinghelmet@lemmy.world 21 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Two words: "Margaret Thatcher"

The idea that a woman president is bound to be better just because of being a female is ridiculous.

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

von der Leyen, Merkel, Corina Machado, Taylor Greene...

[–] Puddinghelmet@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago

I knew someone would say this lmao 😂 and you're right yeah

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 19 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] gnutrino@programming.dev 35 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Im actually not sure a woman would do better.

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.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

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.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 13 points 5 days ago

Haha you got a point there. :)

[–] biofaust@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] boomzilla@programming.dev 15 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 14 points 5 days ago

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

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

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.

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Your reply is a colossal waste of time to cope and seeth.

  1. Kamala, nor Biden, ever made any indications that regime change in Venezuela was on their radar. Biden had 4 years to execute such a thing, but his focus was never on Venezuela. We have no evidence whatsoever that Kamala's would be either.
  2. Understand that regime change in Venezuela was a part of project 2025. Trump's policy from the Heritage Foundation,a Trump ally. It was always specifically on his roadmap, not Kamala's.
  3. Trump attempted regime change in Venezuela in his first term and failed. Much of this due to the safe guards of competent military leadership there to push back against his illegal orders. Under Biden, this leadership wasn't purged for yes men. There's no reason to believe Kamala would've done it either. Trump, however, immediately started purging military leadership in his 2nd term, specifically so he could have yes men in place who'd agree to this.
  4. The constitution, although battered, wasn't set on fire under Biden like it has been under Trump, and there's zero indication that it would have been under Kamala. Neither Biden nor Kamala ever indicated they would ever take power to eliminate all safe guards and watch dogs, send the National Guard to invade US cities to terrorize dissonance, nor give their own private Gestapo (ICE) a budget to dwarf the Marines.
  5. Not Biden nor Kamala certainly indicated they'd declare all opposition domestic terrorists (NSPM-7) with the explicit goal of finding legal means to kidnap and kill dissonant voices. Especially on the eve of the most unpopular was in US history.

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!

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] wpb@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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).

[–] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago

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.

load more comments (49 replies)