NationStates

Nakena wrote:Dude. Bringing FARC apologia in here? Seriously?

I'm sympathetic to why and how FARC were initially created. Remember it all started in 1948 when Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, the very popular left-wing candidate for the presidential, was murdered just before the election, with CIA involvement, granting the "victory" to his opponent. That's what started Colombia's civil war, and the FARC. In that context, it was very legitimate.

After 50 years of guerilla, they somewhat "lost their soul" and became something half-way between a guerilla and a drug/crime cartel, and I've not much sympathy for modern FARC/ELN. But we shouldn't forget they are/were not the main source of political violence in Colombia, the main source of violence are the right-wing paramilitaries that hunt unionists and leftists, and the state that protects, backs and empowers them, when the state security forces don't directly murder their population ("false positive", ...).

Alien Overlord wrote:

Picairn wrote:Hold up, how is providing healthcare to more people, allowing illegal immigrants to achieve citizenship, mandating masks in the federal workforce amidst a pandemic, advancing racial justice, ending support for private prisons, reuniting migrant families, resettling refugees in proper places, combating climate change radical? These measures were all targeted towards civil rights, racial and economic justice, preserving a future for humanity to live, etc. Who in their right mind would say these bills and EOs are radical, if not for fascists and authoritarian tyrants?

Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act is still highly contentious in politics today, enough so that President Donald Trump worked to dismantle it and kill it. Illegal aliens are not citizens and are oftentimes undocumented-which may not sound like a problem until you realize that the left has advocated for and succeeded in allowing them to vote in federal elections. This means that a person with absolutely no understanding of English or American culture or laws is still able to vote for the highest office in the nation when they have no real ties to the country or it's well being given how many are citizens of other countries.

Regarding racial justice, it's contentious because it permits actions like rioting or racism on the basis of skin color. It's been joked and discussed about by politicians, actors, political commentators and more that African Americans can't be racist because their ancestors were enslaved hundreds of years ago. This viewpoint isn't uncommon and has led to conflict many times but race isn't a simple issue in America, it's very complex because of a long history. I'm not a subject matter expert on it, nor do I have enough knowledge personally to debate it reasonably, but I do have enough knowledge to know that it isn't a minority issue, that it's something that a significant portion of the population is split over given the amount of protests, riots and counter protests over racial issues. So whether most of the country is fascist or whatever, those acts are radical and DO NOT help heal the wounds and cracks in the nation.

The ACA has 55% support as of last year, taking it firmly out of extreme territory.

Laws like DACA are specifically targeting children brought over here young, as I understand it, and they still have to go through the citizenship process, which does include learning english and learning about our country. And I'm not convinced it's about getting their votes. Feel free to provide a source proving otherwise.

Racial justice isn't permitting those things either. The racism (white-on-black especially) has long been festering under the surface (after being driven there since about the seventies) and is coming out because blacks are fighting for equal treatment under the law, in a system which seems to be discriminating against them. Again, off-topic, but if I may quote a certain extremist by the name of Martin Luther King Jr.: "A Riot is the language of the unheard" (it should be noted that he didn't have nice things to say about white moderates)

New haven america wrote:Venezuela's in the shitter because of US oil embargoes.

That's true, yes.

New haven america wrote:Maduro's no more dictatorial than any of the other Central and South American dictators the US installed during The Cold War btw.

He's much less so. He's actually much less dictatorial than Colombia, Honduras, Brazil, Chile or Ecuador are nowadays. The level violence of the opposition in Venezuela is much higher, and the security force response was much milder.

New haven america wrote:(Guaido is the legitimate pres. though)

What ? He's just a self-proclaimed puppet from an extreme right party that doesn't have even support from most of the "opposition".

Maduro won the election free and fair, as much as "free and fair" is possible in a country victim of blockade and constant sabotage, at least.

New haven america wrote:

Alien Overlord wrote:To be fair socialists claim that their system helps the common man, but you go a few countries to the left of French Guiana and you have Venezuela, a nation that was capitalist and became socialist and then fell into one of the worst economic crisis in it's history. Which is actually a common theme with left wing governments given the state of remaining socialist governments of which there are less than ten worldwide.

Venezuela's in the shitter because of US oil embargoes.

Maduro's no more dictatorial than any of the other Central and South American dictators the US installed during The Cold War btw. (Guaido is the legitimate pres. though)

That's wrong, it was the policies of Chavez and Maduro which caused the economic collapse in Venezuela. Their initiatives were rocked with corruption and mismanagement where they promoted and invested primarily in the oil industry to the point that most of the economy became centered around it. This became a serious issue in 2014 when the price of oil globally dropped, which led to a serious decline in the Venezuelan economy. To make matters worse the Venezuelan government began accepting money from oil companies in order to fulfill frivolous and unnecessary social programs that it was running which led those companies to not be able to invest into oil, subsequently making the situation worse when a bit later they devalued their currency.

The US didn't even impose an embargo until years later in 2019 along with other nations, mainly because the socialists refused to give up power to a democratic opposition leader despite having no viable plan or initive to fix the economy and improve the lives of it's people. Socialism killed Venezuela, not the United States.

Alien Overlord wrote:That's wrong, it was the policies of Chavez and Maduro which caused the economic collapse in Venezuela. Their initiatives were rocked with corruption and mismanagement

Corruption was endemic in Venezuela before Chávez, and still occurred during Chávez, but there is no evidence it was worse.

Alien Overlord wrote:where they promoted and invested primarily in the oil industry to the point that most of the economy became centered around it.

That was already the case since decades when Chávez took power in 1998. If anything, he tried to diversify the economy with programs like Sembra Petrolera, subsidies to farmers, investment in superior education and digital litterracy, ... Yes, he didn't push hard enough on that aspect, but he did try, unlike the ones before.

Alien Overlord wrote:This became a serious issue in 2014 when the price of oil globally dropped, which led to a serious decline in the Venezuelan economy.

2013-2014 was a triple strike against Venezuela. Collapsing oil prices, record drought (which paralyzed both agriculture and hydroeletric power generation) and massive sabotage/violence organized by the CIA-backed opposition. That brought the economy of Venezuela down, but that's not primarily the fault of neither Maduro nor Chávez.

Alien Overlord wrote:To make matters worse the Venezuelan government began accepting money from oil companies in order to fulfill frivolous and unnecessary social programs that it was running which led those companies to not be able to invest into oil, subsequently making the situation worse when a bit later they devalued their currency.

You're contradicting yourself. You can't both criticize Chávez/Maduro to use the oil money to try to kickstart a non-oil economy, and blame them for not investing everything into oil production.

Alien Overlord wrote:The US didn't even impose an embargo until years later in 2019 along with other nations, mainly because the socialists refused to give up power to a democratic opposition leader despite having no viable plan or initive to fix the economy and improve the lives of it's people. Socialism killed Venezuela, not the United States.

Wrong, the sanctions started in 2014 ("oddly", exactly when things started to get wrong) with the highly hypocritically named "Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act" : https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-con ... -bill/2142 and since them they have been made worse and worse regularly.

Kilobugya wrote:

Nakena wrote:Dude. Bringing FARC apologia in here? Seriously?

I'm sympathetic to why and how FARC were initially created. Remember it all started in 1948 when Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, the very popular left-wing candidate for the presidential, was murdered just before the election, with CIA involvement, granting the "victory" to his opponent. That's what started Colombia's civil war, and the FARC. In that context, it was very legitimate.

The farc started a little later than the Violencia between conservatives and liberals.

Kilobugya wrote:After 50 years of guerilla, they somewhat "lost their soul" and became something half-way between a guerilla and a drug/crime cartel, and I've not much sympathy for modern FARC/ELN. But we shouldn't forget they are/were not the main source of political violence in Colombia, the main source of violence are the right-wing paramilitaries that hunt unionists and leftists, and the state that protects, backs and empowers them, when the state security forces don't directly murder their population ("false positive", ...).

Mostly drug cartel nowadays and the AUC have been long disbanded.

Kilobugya wrote:He's much less so. He's actually much less dictatorial than Colombia, Honduras, Brazil, Chile or Ecuador are nowadays. The level violence of the opposition in Venezuela is much higher, and the security force response was much milder.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Really now? Do you expect us to buy that?

Kilobugya wrote:Maduro won the election free and fair, as much as "free and fair" is possible in a country victim of blockade and constant sabotage, at least.

Thats a very bad hill there...

Nakena wrote:

Kilobugya wrote:Maduro won the election free and fair, as much as "free and fair" is possible in a country victim of blockade and constant sabotage, at least.

Thats a very bad hill there...

But stanning the Beto o'Rourke of Venezuela is a great one?

Neu California wrote:A little over four times as many right wing terror attacks as left wing. Not surprising to anyone paying attention, but really, this leads to two questions:

1. Why is the right so much more violent than the left?
2. What can be done to reduce the instances of right-wing terrorism?

For me the answers aren't simple but can be boiled (mostly accurately) down to this:

1. The right has this sense of their old power slipping away and they're lashing out. This is why we had Trump and the storming of the capitol as well.
2. Honestly, I have no good answers here. The best I can say is keep the modern neo-nazis out of the spotlight and make it harder for people who could be converted to find their rhetoric. Is it deplatforming? You could say that, but most places don't want to host hate speech anyway, and they can legally kick people who espouse this sort of thing off so I don't see a big problem.

I know the answers. But I doubt anyone here wants to know them. As usual. All I can say is I am not surprised, and this was predictable years ago that it would come to that.

Neu California wrote:

Alien Overlord wrote:Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act is still highly contentious in politics today, enough so that President Donald Trump worked to dismantle it and kill it. Illegal aliens are not citizens and are oftentimes undocumented-which may not sound like a problem until you realize that the left has advocated for and succeeded in allowing them to vote in federal elections. This means that a person with absolutely no understanding of English or American culture or laws is still able to vote for the highest office in the nation when they have no real ties to the country or it's well being given how many are citizens of other countries.

Regarding racial justice, it's contentious because it permits actions like rioting or racism on the basis of skin color. It's been joked and discussed about by politicians, actors, political commentators and more that African Americans can't be racist because their ancestors were enslaved hundreds of years ago. This viewpoint isn't uncommon and has led to conflict many times but race isn't a simple issue in America, it's very complex because of a long history. I'm not a subject matter expert on it, nor do I have enough knowledge personally to debate it reasonably, but I do have enough knowledge to know that it isn't a minority issue, that it's something that a significant portion of the population is split over given the amount of protests, riots and counter protests over racial issues. So whether most of the country is fascist or whatever, those acts are radical and DO NOT help heal the wounds and cracks in the nation.

The ACA has 55% support as of last year, taking it firmly out of extreme territory.

Laws like DACA are specifically targeting children brought over here young, as I understand it, and they still have to go through the citizenship process, which does include learning english and learning about our country. And I'm not convinced it's about getting their votes. Feel free to provide a source proving otherwise.

Racial justice isn't permitting those things either. The racism (white-on-black especially) has long been festering under the surface (after being driven there since about the seventies) and is coming out because blacks are fighting for equal treatment under the law, in a system which seems to be discriminating against them. Again, off-topic, but if I may quote a certain extremist by the name of Martin Luther King Jr.: "A Riot is the language of the unheard" (it should be noted that he didn't have nice things to say about white moderates)

When 45% of your population doesn't support something, it's considered radical (which is not a synonym for extreme). Not to mention the inaccuracy of a poll by Forbes of all things. Polling in generally is remarkably inaccurate if the 2016 elections are anything to go by. This source is only a year old and it claims only 42% of American's though it was a good idea, the majority thought it was a bad idea or had no opinion on it. I would label it then as radical. Or perhaps a better word is divisive?

I never claimed it was about getting votes, but I am saying it does permit them to vote, which actually did lead to real world consequences when it led people to believe that the 2020 election had been stolen, subsequently leading to a march on the nations capital. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but it is polarizing without a doubt.

If we're reading quotes, I'd like to mention this quote from Malcolm X. “But let’s not forget the Jew. Anybody that gives even a just criticism of the Jew is instantly labeled anti-Semite. The Jew cries louder than anybody else if anybody criticizes him. You can tell the truth about any minority in America, but make a true observation about the Jew, and if it doesn’t 't pat him on the back, then he uses his grip on the news media to label you anti-Semite.”. If you were to replace "Jew" with "African American" and "anti-Semite" with "racist" and you'll get a good idea of the right wing opinion today.

One thing I do like about this quote though is it shows that no one is perfect and that every group has it's bad apples. Malcolm X is often decried as a great civil rights leader, but it's quietly forgotten that he was also an anti-Semite.

This article offers a little more insight into MLK Jr's opinions and methods. Did you know he never once participated in a riot himself? And going by the justification that you're trying to put forwards, was the "riot" in DC last year justified?

If we use MLK to justify BLM rioting, why can't we also apply it to the "rioting" in the capital?

I don't remember the year and the names in my own reference, I remember The Farc Leaders supposedly gave up the guerilla war and joined the Colombian Political Parties as a new Political Party with a similar name. I once saw an interview in Spanish of one of the leaders talking about how Democratic and hopeful they have become, I wonder if any of you can comment further and update me and all of us, thank you? I know I need to update myself?

Alien Overlord wrote:Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act is still highly contentious in politics today, enough so that President Donald Trump worked to dismantle it and kill it. Illegal aliens are not citizens and are oftentimes undocumented-which may not sound like a problem until you realize that the left has advocated for and succeeded in allowing them to vote in federal elections. This means that a person with absolutely no understanding of English or American culture or laws is still able to vote for the highest office in the nation when they have no real ties to the country or it's well being given how many are citizens of other countries.

Nonsense, Trump never touched Medicaid, and his repeals on ACA only worked for the individual mandate, in a tax law which was only passed with reconciliation. Americans have supported the ACA more than opposing it ever since Trump tried to repeal it. Illegal aliens who have worked, paid taxes and abided by the law for a long time should definitely get citizenship, and I will need credible citations for Democrats helping illegals to vote in federal elections. Otherwise I call bullshit.

Regarding racial justice, it's contentious because it permits actions like rioting or racism on the basis of skin color. It's been joked and discussed about by politicians, actors, political commentators and more that African Americans can't be racist because their ancestors were enslaved hundreds of years ago. This viewpoint isn't uncommon and has led to conflict many times but race isn't a simple issue in America, it's very complex because of a long history. I'm not a subject matter expert on it, nor do I have enough knowledge personally to debate it reasonably, but I do have enough knowledge to know that it isn't a minority issue, that it's something that a significant portion of the population is split over given the amount of protests, riots and counter protests over racial issues. So whether most of the country is fascist or whatever, those acts are radical and DO NOT help heal the wounds and cracks in the nation.

Black people have generally been oppressed or faced serious disadvantages due to racism. It's sad that you are so fixated on riots instead of the causes that caused them to happen, aka a black man getting a knee on his neck for straight 8 minutes until he died. Isn't that tyranny? Further, most of the protests are peaceful, 93% of them in fact. You are exaggerating the radical viewpoints while attempting to equate them with the more moderate bills (literally none of the racial justice EOs and bills has stated that African Americans can't be racist), while ignoring the causes of the eruption at racism.

Lastly, these bills and EOs are necessary reforms to repair the US. If you want to argue how black people should be content with the police shooting them and kneeling on their necks or how we shouldn't have a mask mandate amidst a pandemic then I can refute you all day with facts and studies.

Wait are you saying that the Far Right - which is entirely compromised of ideologies based in ultranationalist and authoritarian strains of thought - are more predisposed to violence!?

Wow! What a shocking revelation! I, for one, definitely didn't see this coming!

/s

Kilobugya wrote:
Maduro won the election free and fair, as much as "free and fair" is possible in a country victim of blockade and constant sabotage, at least.

Do yourself a favor and stop defending Venezuela

If you want authoritarian ideologies to go away you need to get authoritarian yourself. Deplatforming isn’t enough.

Nakena wrote:

Kilobugya wrote:He's much less so. He's actually much less dictatorial than Colombia, Honduras, Brazil, Chile or Ecuador are nowadays. The level violence of the opposition in Venezuela is much higher, and the security force response was much milder.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Really now? Do you expect us to buy that?

Venezuela very violent protests of 2014 : 43 deaths (a majority of them supporters of Maduro or police officers), 5,285 wounded, 3,689 arrested.
Chile peaceful protests of 2019 : 36 deaths (AFAIK only protesters), 11,564 wounded, 28,000 arrested.

But yeah, it's Maduro the dictator.

Nakena wrote:

Kilobugya wrote:Maduro won the election free and fair, as much as "free and fair" is possible in a country victim of blockade and constant sabotage, at least.

Thats a very bad hill there...

And I thought that after Trump's fiasco, yelling "fraud !" with no single evidence was out of fashion...

National Capitalist United States wrote:

Kilobugya wrote:
Maduro won the election free and fair, as much as "free and fair" is possible in a country victim of blockade and constant sabotage, at least.

Do yourself a favor and stop defending Venezuela

No, sorry, I won't let people whose only arguments are pointless laughter get in the way of me stating facts.

Kilobugya wrote:

Nakena wrote:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Really now? Do you expect us to buy that?

Venezuela very violent protests of 2014 : 43 deaths (a majority of them supporters of Maduro or police officers), 5,285 wounded, 3,689 arrested.
Chile peaceful protests of 2019 : 36 deaths (AFAIK only protesters), 11,564 wounded, 28,000 arrested.

But yeah, it's Maduro the dictator.

Ah yes. That makes Venezuela a complete utopia

Nakena wrote:

Kilobugya wrote:Maduro won the election free and fair, as much as "free and fair" is possible in a country victim of blockade and constant sabotage, at least.

Thats a very bad hill there...

And I thought that after Trump's fiasco, yelling "fraud !" with no single evidence was out of fashion...

Are you in love with Maduro or something? Like seriously, why are you defending him? He's not even hot

Kilobugya wrote:And I thought that after Trump's fiasco, yelling "fraud !" with no single evidence was out of fashion...

Events in Bolivia indicate otherwise.

Alien Overlord wrote:Careful now, an idea like that nowadays can get you lynched. Jokes aside though you make a fair point and i actually completely agree with you. I think that American Conservatism has pretty much stayed consistent whereas the left has become more radical, forcing conservatives to radicalize. One of the big pulls for many voters this past election with Biden was his message that he would heal divides in the nation-a promise he has failed spectacularly to live up to by reversing Donald Trumps policies, which were themselves a reaction to left wing pushes. Biden is refusing to deradicalize the nation and is pushing us further towards a metaphorical cliff where reactions like we saw at the capital last year may happen again to populations that feel they have no other options.

This whole rant is so detached from reality I can't help but laugh. How exactly has the right wing not becoming more radical ever since Jan. 6? And the fact that white supremacy and the far-right saw resurgence under Trump? https://www.tpr.org/show/the-source/201 ... in-america

National Capitalist United States wrote:

Kilobugya wrote:
Maduro won the election free and fair, as much as "free and fair" is possible in a country victim of blockade and constant sabotage, at least.

Do yourself a favor and stop defending Venezuela

Dude, I will join you in your lol attack at the context of Kilobugya's post on Maduro and Venezuela,

Kilobugya wrote:-CUT-

I can and will blame the Venezuelan government for it's policies. Their mistake was not investing the massive profits they earned from the oil industry into diversifying the economy and modernizing it instead of useless social programs. Here's a fact for you, the murder rate quadrupledunder Chavez and that's not a wider trend for Venezuela, it was because of Chavez. Here is another article that explains some of ways Venezuela's economy was weakened under Chavez. This article predates the economic crash but foreshadows it.

It's convenient to blame the CIA, droughts, US embargoes and internal opposition and perhaps some of these did play a factor, but if that's the case why is it only Venezuela that has a collapsed economy right now. Colombia should arguably be in a worse state given it's problems with guerrillas and narcos except that it's not. Venezuela was set up for success and collapsed because it was mismanaged. If it had taken the route of many Middle Eastern nations like Saudi Arabia and instead have put money into diversifying the economy and moving away from oil, it would have been better off. For every dollar he gave to farmers he could have given to tech companies or towards new factories. Because of Chavez and Maduro's failure to diversify the economy and failure to allow democracy, the country is in a state of collapse. Socialism failed Venezuela, no other country is to blame-especially since there are nations with worse off situations in terms of natural resources that are still doing better.

Has it ever come across someone's mind that we should...ban these groups? They are literally the white supremacist equivalent to Al-Qaeda and ISIS. I have no problem banning Proud Boys, KKK and the Three Percenters. I'm quite shocked that a blanket ban hasn't already been instituted. If America truly hates terrorism, than they should focus on the terrorism that's going on in their own country as well.

National Capitalist United States wrote:Ah yes. That makes Venezuela a complete utopia

That's not what I said. Things are not binary, it's not either "a complete hell" or "a complete utopia", and you can point to faults or limitations in Maduro's policies (as I do) without calling him dictator or recognizing the self-proclaimed nobody as president. And you can analyze the current situation and realize that most of the blame doesn't fall on his shoulders.

National Capitalist United States wrote:

And I thought that after Trump's fiasco, yelling "fraud !" with no single evidence was out of fashion...

Are you in love with Maduro or something? Like seriously, why are you defending him? He's not even hot

I'm in love with truth and fairness, so I defend someone who is accused wrongly.

Arisyan wrote:Has it ever come across someone's mind that we should...ban these groups? They are literally the white supremacist equivalent to Al-Qaeda and ISIS. I have no problem banning Proud Boys, KKK and the Three Percenters. I'm quite shocked that a blanket ban hasn't already been instituted. If America truly hates terrorism, than they should focus on the terrorism that's going on in their own country as well.

Correction. America hates Non-American Terrorism. It's when other people do it that they get the drone missiles thrown at them.

Arisyan wrote:Has it ever come across someone's mind that we should...ban these groups? They are literally the white supremacist equivalent to Al-Qaeda and ISIS. I have no problem banning Proud Boys, KKK and the Three Percenters. I'm quite shocked that a blanket ban hasn't already been instituted. If America truly hates terrorism, than they should focus on the terrorism that's going on in their own country as well.

I believe the 1st amendment stops them from doing that