you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -40 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Liberals, please stop with leading with the legal minutiae. Stop pretending that you would've been fine with this if only Trump had congressional approval. You know it's just about oil and imperialism. Trump literally spelt it out for you. Stop censoring yourself because you think its "strategic". Its not.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 79 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Saying "Trump did X and broke the law doing it" is not the same thing as saying "This would be fine if Trump had done it through legal channels".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -39 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I literally said I know you oppose the action. Put that on the sign, its the most important thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Maybe we're reading things differently, but I thought their sign implied that fairly strongly, just that they wanted to tack "Trump is a criminal" onto that without drastically increasing the wording.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -30 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Maybe that's what they intended but I've noticed a trend of liberals immediately triangulating themselves into this "least-controversial" legalistic take because they don't want to talk about Maduro. A stalinist waving a PSUV flag is more helpful at that point.

    I'm not accusing you in particular of this or OP for that matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Quit calling people you don’t know liberals. That’s a trend that needs to stop, comrade. Most of the people you say that shit to are on our side, they just don’t put the terms and thoughts together.

    Also, go complain to the protestors, or better yet, be at the protests.

    If you want real change, quit nitpicking people on lemmy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago*

    Yup, it's divide and conquer technique.... Same with boomers... lumping everyone over 45 into the boomer category, divide this again.

    They've done it with race, they've done it with politics, they've done it with age and sexual orientation.

    Now they're working on male vs female.. Toxic, masculinity trad wife.

    Its a class war 99 against 1 percent

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Isn’t everyone on this site a liberal though? I don’t think I’ve seen a single conservative on here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago*

    This is part of the reason I told him to stop.

    I’ll let you Google the definitions of things like liberal, neo-liberal, conservatism, etc. to boil it it down, they are mostly considered "right" ideologies based on capitalism and aren’t that far apart in a global context.

    In American lexicon, yes liberal is left and conservative is right.

    Edit: there are conservatives here. Not a lot but they have their own spaces.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Most people on most instances here I've encountered appear to be leftist more than liberal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Aren’t those the same thing? Liberals are to the left.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago*

    While both may be to the left of the political spectrum, liberals want to see the continuation of capitalism or at least are comfortable existing within it. Leftists generally veer towards a fundamental shift away from and the deconstruction of current systems of capital.

    Caveat emptor and all that since these are huge generalizations.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Maybe when conservatives stop playing "gotcha" games - attacking the absolute slightest imperfection in any liberal's argument, all the while completely ignoring/blowing off the constant flat out blatant lies and lies of omission made by their so-called "leaders," Maybe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Why are you playing by conservative gotcha games then? Just say what you believe and say it as loud as you can. It is indeed a shouting match, not a debate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    I prefer honest communication. Without that, there's no point in saying/shouting anything at all. I prefer to waste my time in more satisfying ways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Protests are shouting matches. We're not talking about general discussion. Do you censor yourself in general discussion because conservatives play gotcha games with you? How is that honest communication?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    Protests can (and admittedly often do) devolve into shouting matches, but not necessarily. As I've aged I've reached the understanding that those never accomplish anything positive or useful. As such, I rarely bother anymore - if I go to a protest, I'm there simply to be counted as one of the (hopefully) many on that side of things. I do my best not to allow myself to be baited because it's just so pointless.

    Do I censor myself? Maybe - if you consider choosing not to bother arguing a point because it seems likely that they're not going to engage in good faith to be self-censoring. Otherwise, not really - I do try to consider my words carefully because there can be a LOT of logical steps to an argument that I don't normally consciously think about as I likely reached my stance a LONG time ago and all that immediately comes to mind is my final conclusion.

    My life involved significant patches of effective solitude, and so I never really had to learn to argue my perspectives until I was old/mature enough to understand the importance of politics. Up until then, my thought processes were solely focused on determining the end result - the important things to remember. All the steps that got me to a final answer weren't important enough to bother trying to remember because I usually didn't need to recall them very often.

    Unfortunately, politics is ALL about arguing those individual steps before the final conclusion I reached, but my brain wasn't trained during my lifetime to work that way - so I have to think out what I'm saying each time. It's why I prefer this text-based type of social site - I can't think on the spot quickly enough to do video, for example.

    So if you consider that to be self-censorship, well I disagree. I consider it making sure I'm communicating what I intend to effectively so that the conversation doesn't get derailed too easily.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Fuck your congressional approval. Get a UN resolution. Nothing liberal about following international law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    Lmao international law and the UN was literally a Liberal Invention.

    If even they had UN approval the US shouldnt invade Venezuela.

    What matters first and foremost is the will of the people actually living in the country.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    If Trump felt beholden to congress, he would not have gotten approval. He would have had to spend years spreading propaganda and trying to build up a case, like Bush did. All that effort might have prevented him from doing it at all.

    More importantly, doing this is trying to peel off people who might waver because Maduro is unsympathetic. It highlights that yes, this is a dictatorship in the making.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    If Trump felt beholden to congress, he would not have gotten approval. He would have had to spend years spreading propaganda and trying to build up a case, like Bush did. All that effort might have prevented him from doing it at all.

    Didn't stop Bush did it?

    More importantly, doing this is trying to peel off people who might waver because Maduro is unsympathetic

    Saddam was even less sympathetic but the Iraq war was still wrong. Most of the US understands that. It's bipartisan amongst the populace at this point. Call it Jungle Iraq. Your son is going to die for oil... again. That'll alarm people way more than the bazillionth instance of presidential over-reach.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago

    Bush had the "advantage" of 9/11 happening during his first year in office, shocking what was at the time still mostly a relatively sane country (compared to today). We were (theoretically) attacked first, so that gave DUHbya all sorts of popular support for a response in kind. Not the case here.

    You're right regarding what people will actually care about, tho.

  • source
  • parent