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.
Let me repeat my question from another post:
If Kamala Harris launched a midnight attack on Venezuela she would have been impeached by afternoon.
This ^^ and all the republicans would yell: “Look look!! Warhungry Democrats strikes again! IMPEACH!!”
Meanwhile Democrats voted against impeaching Trump earlier this year, so apparently they’re good with what he’s doing.
She would’ve gotten the Nobel Peace Prize like Obama.
Harris would have had a full Republican Congress trying to impeach her for anything she did. Checks and balances. Trump has unitary executive theory and power of a king. Next question?
It’s a country with more guns than people, what’s taking so long?
They spent the last 30 years brainwashing the crazies wit guns, that’s who controls the government. Next question!
You can’t prove a negative. Why would she have?
You are right about the proof so it’s all hypothetical.
Like with Cuba, the Democrats have maintained the pressure on Venezuela. Obama killed Gaddafi for his African currency. Democrats must have been involved in the recent changes in Peru, Bolivia and Equador. The USA seem to clean up South America before they have to take care of China.
Harris was willing to do the necessary to have forced firefighters. So if she would be president she would have continued this necessary project.
You are wildly misrepresenting the firefighter situation. Bad faith bot.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/despite-orders-free-prisoners-officials-cling-cheap-inmate-200148253.html
What an incredibly loaded editorial with no actual references or citations. Did you write that shit? No, it’s older than you probably are. Opposing early parole isn’t keeping prisoners as slaves or whatever the fuck nonsense you said. Your shit is weak.
Where are your references and citations if you feel those are important? You’ve simply stated that he’s wrong and attacked the source but can’t seem to provide any evidence to the contrary other than your emotions.
Because the editorial was sensationalist garbage not worth a response. What the guy said is basically a lie. People vocally opposed an early parole system. Ruspublican agitprop screamed they were refusing to release prisoners for work programs. None of that was true. I’m not gonna debunk obvious bullshit that’s already been addressed and debunked. Ain’t my job to tell you the sky is blue and not red when any asshole can plainly see it’s blue.
So you’re saying you can’t source any of this and we should just believe you because it’s not worth your effort to respond to despite this being at least your third response on the topic and sources don’t matter anymore when it’s your turn to provide one because it’s “common knowledge.”
I’ve read through all the replies here and not a single one has been able to provide any information apart from “thats not true!!1!” which usually indicates a bunch of people making emotional arguments. You feel that every Democrat is good and above reproach and if anyone says otherwise that makes you feel bad therefore it must be a lie.
Please correct me.
None of these are good points at all
Then use an easy argument to refute them, please.
Well first why don’t you make an actual argument than throwing up a vague list of unrelated “points”
Because they are not unrelated but show that the attack is not a personal Trump project.
Which one of these even remotely suggests that?
https://feddit.org/post/23819517/10764510
The other commentor did a pretty good job wading through that moronic slop you call an argument
Have you seen my reply? His comment is wrong.
It’s a subtle difference only a political scholar could truly understand so I get your confusion.
I haven’t received an answer so far to be confused about. Please don’t hold back. Please explain with all subtlety why Harris wouldn’t have ordered the attack.
He just told you? What about reading the god damn answers: “SHE WOULD BE IMPEACHED!” Harris would probably sanction Venezuela.
Do you think that is a serious argument?
Venezuela has been sanctioned. That’s where their poverty came from.
The Republican Party has been obsessed with Venezuela and Iran for decades. It’s about oil. Kamala Harris was not about to commit political suicide over a 40 year old beef between Exxon and Venezuela. If it was on their priority list they would have done it. I’m sure she would have bombed someone but not specifically Venezuela.
They’ve been wanting to do this for longer than you’ve been alive. Trump was the only president unhinged enough, and unconfined enough to do it.
You sound a lot like the Soviet Union after Chernobyl exploded and the first thing they did was publicly speculating how bad the reactors in other countries are.
I am not comparing Harris to Trump. My argument is something else.