[QuickTidal]

Briar King, on 06 January 2026 - 04:36 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 05 January 2026 - 12:43 PM, said:

So the rich ones that left the country and have no real vested interest in it? Gotcha.

Actual real Venezuelans in country are mad as hell at this imperialist power grab.

So if people leave/flee their countries they are no longer “real citizens” gotcha.

Not at all. But only canvasing and showing the ex-pats and claiming that Venezuelans are "happy" is wildly disingenuous. That's my point. The American media has a vested interest in showing you that Venezuelans are universally happy about this, so that regime change doesn't get confronted by the general public. I'm trying to say that you're being intentionally kept in the dark by your govt man.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 05 January 2026 - 12:43 PM, said:

So the rich ones that left the country and have no real vested interest in it? Gotcha.

Quote

Between 2000 and 2012, migration consisted mainly of middle and upper class individuals with high levels of education and destinations outside the region.

From 2012 onwards, the second wave was characterized by an increasingly challenging economic and political environment [...]

Since 2015, a massive influx has transformed the regional migration landscape, with the emergence of so-called " walkers " who left the country by land. In 2018, the migrant profile changed drastically: professionals with networks and savings no longer predominated, and the presence of families, single women, children, and elderly people in highly vulnerable conditions increased .

Between 2022 and 2023, there was an increase in migrants heading to North America , especially the United States, through the dangerous Darien Gap route on the border between Colombia and Panama, where they face high risks of violence and exploitation.

[this is a translation of:

Spoiler

Entre 2000 y 2012, la migración estuvo compuesta principalmente por personas de clase media y alta, con altos niveles educativos y destinos fuera de la región.

A partir de 2012, la segunda ola se caracterizó por un entorno económico y político cada vez más desafiante y un desplazamiento intrarregional.

Desde 2015, se produjo un flujo masivo que transformó el panorama migratorio regional, con la aparición de los llamados "caminantes" que salieron del país por vía terrestre. En 2018, el perfil migratorio cambió drásticamente: dejaron de predominar los profesionales con redes y ahorros, y aumentó la presencia de familias, mujeres solas, niños, niñas y adultos mayores en condiciones de gran vulnerabilidad.

Entre 2022 y 2023, se observó un incremento de migrantes hacia Norteamérica, especialmente Estados Unidos, a través de la peligrosa ruta del tapón del Darién, en la frontera entre Colombia y Panamá, donde enfrentan riesgos elevados de violencia y explotación.

https://www.infobae....econd_number%7D

Quote

Regarding socioeconomic levels and the contexts from which they originate and emigrate, [...] 35% of the migrants belonged to the wealthiest social group [...] more than half of the surveyed households with migrant relatives belonged to the most privileged socioeconomic strata. In contrast, only 12%, a smaller percentage, of the households with emigrants belonged to families with a low economic level.

[translated from:

Spoiler

en cuanto a los niveles socioeconómicos [...] la misma encuesta, decía que un 35% de los/as migrantes eran del grupo social más rico [...] la mayor concentración de hogares con reporte de emigrantes se encuentra en Caracas y en las principales ciudades e igualmente, más de la mitad de los hogares encuestados que tenían familiares migrantes correspondían a los estratos más aventajados. En cambio, el 12%, un porcentaje menor, de los hogares con emigrantes respondían a familias con un nivel económico bajo.

https://ong-aesco.or...ZUELA-FINAL.pdf

[QuickTidal]

Would it help to know that I don't read the stuff you clip and post from other sources instead of using your own words?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 06 January 2026 - 12:54 PM, said:

Would it help to know that I don't read the stuff you clip and post from other sources instead of using your own words?

Oh ffs... you prefer to go by what people paraphrase on social media (frequently riddled with errors and gross oversimplifications) rather than relevant quotes from credible sources? That is a terrible way to determine what's true, and a wonderful way to be misinformed (and chronically enraged). Your objection clearly isn't to length, based on the length of your own posts (and the fact that adding my own paraphrase to every source would make my posts even longer), so I don't think a TL;DR is warranted. But if you really need it simplified for you: you were thinking of the initial wave of migration after Chavez's election, as opposed to the mass migration after 2015, when US and Western sanctions led to deteriorating socioeconomic conditions. While more than half of the surveyed households with emigrant relatives were rich, and only 12% came from the poorest strata, more than half is still not an overwhelming majority. Reality is messier than your oversimplifications.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: Yesterday, 04:19 PM

[QuickTidal]

Azath Vitr (D, on 06 January 2026 - 01:12 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 06 January 2026 - 12:54 PM, said:

Would it help to know that I don't read the stuff you clip and post from other sources instead of using your own words?

Oh ffs... you prefer to go by what people paraphrase on social media (frequently riddled with errors and gross oversimplifications) rather than relevant quotes from credible sources?

No, I'm just not interested in discussion which consists of you constantly posting snippets of other peoples words, instead of engaging with everyone here the way we engage with others. We've brought this to your attention before in fact, but you persist. You want to engage? Then engage man. This is a discussion forum not a NewsNet.

Moreover, the venue of where I receive my information doesn't matter as much as the person reporting it to me, and their adherence to the hierarchy of evidence. And in the case of the feeling of the Venzuelans about this, grassroots news orgs on the ground in the country had video of the people speaking for themselves...if that's not from the horses mouth, I don't know what is. And that's one of the things I was seeing, and hearing.

But let's get into it...the sources you post, as usual, have caveats that make them suspect for context....infobae being the purview of a wealthy Argentinan businessman with interests in North America notwithstanding...so not exactly unbiased. It also leaves the context out of migration in general numbers. It uses the big scary number of migrants in the last decade being 8mil, right? That seems large until you realize the country has 31million+, and then that's divided across an entire decade or more, and even then it's not split up into viable numbers based on social status...the article can TELL me till it's blue in the face that most of the recent migrants were not in any way wealthy or well off enough to shift...but I am given no proof whatsoever of that demographic split in that article. Not even the linked R4V is able to definitively tell me that, so I'm talking the articles' word that it is so?

Does this mean that my original statement is wrong? I would argue that since the vast majority of the news items showing "celebrations" are either misinformation (Alex jones posted anti-Maduro demonstrations in Caracas from 2024 and pretended it was now; and another newsworthy example was actually in Florida coincidentally where the wealthiest of the diaspora landed), or happened in America where the migrants would be more well off than "walkers" in Latin America. Does that mean your source is BS? No. It means that everything is filtered through news orgs with a vested interest in having a narrative.

Am I saying that there aren't poorer migrants leaving the country? No. All I said was that the "proof" being offered up on the American news about Venzuelans being universally happy about this, is filtered through American lenses...and again, this is not to say Maduro was good or that they should not be happy he's gone (though unseating him and leaving his entire govt apparatus in place speaks to the idiocy of the trump admin)...more that "American Regime Change" has rarely yielded good results for the nation in question.

Azath Vitr (D, on 06 January 2026 - 01:12 PM, said:

That is a terrible way to determine what's true, and a wonderful way to be misinformed (and chronically enraged).

No sir, my point was that I find the way you discuss on the discussion board irritating. Just flinging (sometimes oddly sourced, or contextless) news items into the ether, instead of engaging in discussion as you see it and then linking at the end for proof of what you said if that's required.

Azath Vitr (D, on 06 January 2026 - 01:12 PM, said:

But if you really need it simplified for you: you were thinking of the initial wave of migration after Chavez's election, as opposed to the mass migration after 2015, when US and Western sanctions under Trump led to deteriorating socioeconomic conditions. While more than half of the surveyed households with emigrant relatives were rich, and only 12% came from the poorest strata, more than half is still not an overwhelming majority. Reality is messier than your oversimplifications.[/size]

And this just proves that you missed the entire point of my comment about the POV through the lens of America that MAGA is pushing that this is universally a loved thing...when many in country know what a poison pill it is.

You know you and I can discuss things here without going for the throat, but I find it hard to engage with you when you come off like every comment I make is worthy of derision, or calling what I've posted oversimplifications since I'm not giving a lecture on the subject and diving deep.

[QuickTidal]

Arrested mid-protest about Venezuela....for allegedly blocking the street...the bullshittiest of bullshit charges...but yeah, don't mess with the narrative about Venezuela in the States, or the Law will snatch you.




America is such a mess.

Silence all opposition. Make clear the cost to disagreement is high and silence anyone else thinking about it.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: Yesterday, 02:03 PM

[the broken]

The US media is agenda driven, but so are the news organisations in Venezuela, because it's an authoritarian regime. This is why Westerners should be careful about speaking for Venezuelans.

[QuickTidal]

the broken, on 06 January 2026 - 02:48 PM, said:

The US media is agenda driven, but so are the news organisations in Venezuela, because it's an authoritarian regime. This is why Westerners should be careful about speaking for Venezuelans.

Is anyone doing this other than the news media?

[QuickTidal]

Let's run down the list and see how many of these events with the US or US-backed were about oil (or other resources):

Iran - 1953 (nationalizes oil, coup)
Guatemala - 1954 (indirectly oil; coup)
Iraq - 1963 (PM Abd al-Karim Qasim natiionalizes oil, coup)
Chile - 1973 (Allende nationalizes copper; coup)
Nigeria - 1975 (rumour has it that the cIA was involved in this one, again about oil boom; coup)
Venezuela - 2002 (failed coup; oil)
Iraq - 2003 (Iraq says no more US dollar for oil, coup)
Libya - 2011 (Largest African oil reserves, Gadaffi says gold-backed currency for oil, US backed unseating of Gadaffi, coup)
Venezuela 2025 - They have 1 trillion in gold, and 17 trillion in oil, coup)

I wonder what resource the world will chase like this in the name of liberation when oil is not longer king...fresh water maybe?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 06 January 2026 - 01:49 PM, said:

No, I'm just not interested in discussion which consists of you constantly posting snippets of other peoples words, instead of engaging with everyone here the way we engage with others. We've brought this to your attention before in fact, but you persist. You want to engage? Then engage man. This is a discussion forum not a NewsNet.

Quote

You know you and I can discuss things here without going for the throat, but I find it hard to engage with you when you come off like every comment I make is worthy of derision, or calling what I've posted oversimplifications since I'm not giving a lecture on the subject and diving deep.

First of all, since you weren't one of the ones objecting when we had that discussion a long time ago, and I've made some obvious stylistic concessions since then in most of my posts, I think it's obvious that that isn't the real primary issue.

With a few obvious exceptions, in our recent exchanges I've been striving for a neutral and objective tone, and I'm sorry that you felt like I was being derisive towards you in all of them. Bluntly and neutrally pointing out errors, misconceptions, or potentially misleading oversimplifications is not derision, though I'd suppose I could have made that clearer with some extra polite or empathetic verbiage for softening. The only intended snark iirc was in my response to your "that's not the flex you think it is, dawg", and I thought it was pretty mild. Even though you've been responding to my posts with things like, "Sigh. Azath…come on man, think it through.", "LOL, okay chief.", and "Jeezus christ. Okay man, whatever."

I think what set you off might have been when I wrote "Canada would be more difficult and a much harder sell to the US public and the armed forces"---after posting that I almost revised it because I thought you might misinterpret that as implying that selling it to the US public would be more difficult than actually invading Canada, or that seizing Canada would be more difficult but not much more difficult than seizing Greenland; but before I could edit it I noticed at the bottom of the forum that you were already viewing the thread, so I didn't bother. I know this is a very sensitive topic for you and I'm sorry for not having phrased that more sensitively.

I do value your posts and I'm very curious about your opinion on whether a more realistic version of the "Trump class" fleet could actually blockade Canada, assuming MAGA seizes Greenland. That's largely speculation on my part. Obviously there's a very large amount of coastline, so it might not be practical (at least with existing technology).

If you actually didn't read the text I quoted on potash and US food security, the TL;DR is that it would not be necessary for US food security, but might put US food producers at a competitive disadvantage on the global export market. I'd imagine you and Abyss are better informed than most Canadians on these issues so I think it's important that you examine whether reasons you've read or thought of for the belief that the United States, even under someone as deranged as Trump or his MAGA followers, would never attack Canada are actually as valid or as certain as they might have seemed.

Quote

Moreover, the venue of where I receive my information doesn't matter as much as the person reporting it to me, and their adherence to the hierarchy of evidence. And in the case of the feeling of the Venzuelans about this, grassroots news orgs on the ground in the country had video of the people speaking for themselves...if that's not from the horses mouth, I don't know what is. And that's one of the things I was seeing, and hearing.

Linking to sources is helpful for verifying their credibility, and for verifying that your interpretation of what they said is accurate. Just about all of us, myself included, have been fooled by mislabeled or misleading videos or non-credible sources. And of course credible sources make errors---though they tend to strive not to---especially if they haven't gone through rigorous fact-checks.

Quote

But let's get into it...the sources you post, as usual, have caveats that make them suspect for context....infobae being the purview of a wealthy Argentinan businessman with interests in North America notwithstanding...so not exactly unbiased.

Media Matters rates Infobae as accurate ("generally trustworthy for information") but with a left-center bias "based on story selection and the use of left-leaning sources".

https://mediabiasfac...ck.com/infobae/

The issue of media companies being owned by wealthy people---whether individuals or investors---is significant though, and it can be a major source of bias, depending on how much it actually influences the media organization in question (which in turn can be difficult to determine).

Quote

the article can TELL me till it's blue in the face that most of the recent migrants were not in any way wealthy or well off enough to shift...but I am given no proof whatsoever of that demographic split in that article. Not even the linked R4V is able to definitively tell me that, so I'm talking the articles' word that it is so?

The survey data I linked to directly addresses the claim that the vast majority of Venezuelan expats are wealthy, which is what I thought you were implying, and which I also thought was true, so I wanted to look up whether it's actually true. Apparently it's not the vast majority, but closer to a simple majority. Now (if I understand correctly) you're saying that what you actually meant is that the expats BK was seeing interviewed were probably in the United States, and that the vast majority of those who made it to the United States are wealthy, which is a fair response, though if you're going to make that assertion it would be better to back it up with data-based evidence beyond anecdotal experience---although of course anecdotes still have value (and are worth posting).

[QuickTidal]

I don't think you and I can converse amicably here dude. Every time I post something you rebut with quoted snippets. Probably best to ignore me, as I don't think any of this is fruitful for either of us.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 06 January 2026 - 05:21 PM, said:

I don't think you and I can converse amicably here dude. Every time I post something you rebut with quoted snippets. Probably best to ignore me, as I don't think any of this is fruitful for either of us.

I'm going to resist the urge to rebut this with quoted snippets.

But you know we conversed amicably on here for years, even though I was using far more quotations for much of that time. I can recall at least one time when I responded to one of your posts primarily with a quotation and you seemed to clearly acknowledge that it was fruitful for you.

That said, if you want to discuss this further we should move it over to PMs, and let this thread get back on topic.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: Yesterday, 05:41 PM

[QuickTidal]

On the ground in Venezuela is a very different picture of the view of US interventions.

EDIT: Translation of the chants is..."Listen little yankee, here's what I have to say, you will not intervene in my country! (Repeated back) You will not intervene in my country! Listen little gringo, we are prepared! (repeated back) Listen, little gringo we are prepared! We are the youth, we're waiting for you! (Repeated back) We are the youth, we're waiting for you!"

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: Yesterday, 07:22 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Sociologist Ben Brucato (author of Race and Police, former lecturer at Amherst):

Quote

Policing [...] is not the neutral enforcement of law. It is the production of order through authorized violence. [...] Seen in this light, the attack on Caracas is not a transition from policing to war. It is policing without restraint.

[...] The Constitution did not need to be suspended to become irrelevant. It simply had to be ignored where it would restrain power and invoked where it would empower it.
This is what a successful administrative coup looks like. Not tanks in the streets, but institutions functioning in ways that no longer constrain violence. The Constitution remains on the books, but only as an instrument, one used to prosecute enemies, discipline dissent, and legitimize executive action.

https://www.facebook...YU8ALG4Y5mbu2Nl

Justice that is blind
to truth and only feels
power...

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: Yesterday, 11:10 PM

[the broken]

Funny how they were allowed to stream for that long, given how other journalists in Caracas are being treated?

General trend is, people in Carcacas who are willing to show faces and names are pro regime, while the ones interviewed off camera with fake names are more complex in their views.

This post has been edited by the broken: Today, 03:38 AM

[Maark Abbott]

Trump suggesting America would use military force to annex Greenland.

Of particular concern should be NATO article 5. If the US makes a military strike against a country who is part of the treaty, it essentially means we could be looking at NATO vs America whilst Russia is up to no good over on the Eastern side.

Granted, this is EXACTLY what Trump's boss wants, but the thought of a large scale conflict between the US and NATO being not just feasible but now plausible is fucking terrifying. When are the 2nd Menmint bros going to get off their arse and do something?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Maark Abbott, on 07 January 2026 - 09:54 AM, said:

Trump suggesting America would use military force to annex Greenland.

Of particular concern should be NATO article 5. If the US makes a military strike against a country who is part of the treaty, it essentially means we could be looking at NATO vs America whilst Russia is up to no good over on the Eastern side.

Granted, this is EXACTLY what Trump's boss wants, but the thought of a large scale conflict between the US and NATO being not just feasible but now plausible is fucking terrifying. When are the 2nd Menmint bros going to get off their arse and do something?

Article 5 can only be formally invoked if no NATO members object. Since the United States would object, by the terms of the treaty NATO would not be bound to respond.

The prime minister of Denmark acknowledged that if the United States seizes Greenland it will effectively be the end of NATO. She clearly does not think that NATO nations would take military action against the United States on behalf of Greenland and Denmark.

However, the major longer term concern is what might eventually happen if MAGA remains in power and sides with Putin or his successor in military assaults against other NATO members, coordinating their attacks and their militarily relevant resources, in Europe or North America or both. They may also coordinate their attacks with China, in exchange for the United States not interfering in the Chinese invasion of Taiwan (once the United States is no longer technologically dependent on Taiwan).

[QuickTidal]

When I say that Canada and other ally nations will not forgive the US populace easily, I mean it. The damage that this man has done to ally relations across the globe in just over a year has been nothing short of country-destroying.

The sheer amount of years it will take to heal these relationships when the public who voted this man AND all the Republicans into power and have just allowed this administration to to run unchecked by anyone cannot be trusted...how many millions of American citizens endorse this shit?

I don't think anyone can underline how defying NATO, and therefore essentially ENDING NATO as it stands after SEVENTY years...all for one failed game show host fake rich conman's revenge tour...is insane.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: Today, 12:31 PM

[Maark Abbott]

Yeah, there isn't a country in the globe who will quickly forget or forgive the utter damage and disrespect of this administration. It'll take decades. Centuries, maybe.

[Macros]

Nah, a few years.

People forget.

Hence how that orange stain is back in power