Shit hits the fan in Venezuela.

[The Romulan Republic]

Because for some reason it only posted half my post last time....

No one ever said that "the US is pure evil", and your constant attempts to change the topic to Russia which has literally nothing to do with this topic are red herrings in their purest form.

BULL. SHIT.

YOU are the one who dragged Trump/Russia into this, so you could score some cheap points against "the Resistance."

Extremely glad to see the Resistance take a break from hyperventilating about Russia facebook memes to come together and support a coup in a foreign country.

I know from experience that if I posted something like that, I would be in danger of being accused of thread derailment and vendetta.

The argument being made is that US policy in Latin America has always been monstrous and there is no fucking reason to think that has changed now. You clearly don't like this and are willing to bleat in protest even as the policy currently being spearheaded is being undertaken by Donald Fucking Trump, Mike Pompeo, John fucking Bolton, Marco Rubio, and Elliot. Fucking. Abrams.

You could certainly make the argument that the actions of the US government and much of the media right now represent a continuation of more than a century of US foreign policy in Latin America. There would even be, in my opinion, considerable truth to that statement, although I also believe that you have to look at the specifics of each situation, rather than immediately assume that each new crisis is simply a repeat of previous ones.

My problem, as I have said (and been ignored) repeatedly, is not that I support US military intervention in Venezuela (I don't, and I am confident enough of my posting record on that point to report anyone who says otherwise for dishonest debating and libel). Nor is it with you criticizing the history of military intervention in Latin America. It is with you appearing to expand that argument to make broad, sweeping claims about the US as a nation, or using this situation as an excuse for some off-topic Whataboutism in defense of the Kremlin.

Frankly, I think a big problem here is that you're so fixated on "US=bad" that you just assume/insist that anyone who deviates from that position in any way, in any context, is simply an advocate of US Imperialism.

For God's sake, I agree with you about the US invading Venezuela. But you seem to assume that I support it because I don't automatically condemn the US on every issue, or because I dare to also criticize America's enemies.

I'm sorry, the US' monstrous history in Latin America is about nationality and not actions?

No, and you're obfuscating the topic again. I was referring to your insistence on automatically vilifying the US (down to pretending that the US in 1912 and the US in 2019 are identical countries), while automatically defending Russia and its allies.

I don't care if you critique interventions in Latin America, as long as you confine your criticisms to the realm of the fact-based. What I am objecting to here is your reflexive apologism for Putin and his cronies, your gross double-standard in how you treat crimes by America and its allies vs crimes by its enemies, and your obfuscation of the actual topic and of my arguments.

What changed in between 1912 and 1954 that would have any fucking relevance to judging US policies in Latin America?

Vietnam, by your own subsequent acknowledgement.

What a load of utter wank. Leaving aside your attempts to turn arguments about consistency in US foreign policy to an argument about bigotry, your argument couldn't be anymore clueless and self-absorbed. You think become the suit in the White House changes that means there's been some sort of noteworthy change? The US is run on the same principles and with the same basic priorities as it always has. Staunchly pro-capital, anti-worker, and unashamedly imperialist. And this manifests in its foreign policy, and always has. The fundamental underlying premises on which those policies are run never change - the only meaningful change when government changes hands is how nakedly and violently those policies are pursued.

That's actually a fairly meaningful change for the people affected.

I would also contend that US foreign policy is not (or wasn't, until Trump came along) nearly as overtly white supremacist as it once was, although it is often latently racist.

No, I apparently feel it 'doesn't count' because nothing has meaningfully changed.

Which is ridiculous.

It is when nobody brings up Russia in this thread except you, actually. Not hard, this stuff.

Lie.

Extremely glad to see the Resistance take a break from hyperventilating about Russian facebook memes to come together and support a coup in a foreign country.

I'm curious: If Trump is really Putin's bitch, why is he trying to overthrow a pro-Russian government in Venezuela?

Same reason he tried to overthrow a pro-Russian government in Syria. Look guys, we're playing 3-D chess here.

And which one of those things changed a single fucking thing about the priorities on which US foreign policy is formulated? Every single thing you bring up is basically a load of totally irrelevant bullshit. The Vietnam War and anti-war movement is the only remotely relevant example - but it didn't stop the Reagan administration wreaking absolute murderous havoc in Latin America through the 1980s, did it?

You may think the way you arrange the chairs in the same fucking room there's always been - within your own borders - has some sort of meaningful effect on the suffering inflicted outside of them - but thats just being self-absorbed.

Given that we live in a highly interconnected world, I would contend that what happens in one country inevitably affects every other country, where subtly or overtly. Borders are a fiction created by humans.

In any case, Vietnam, as you alluded to, certainly affected the American public's willingness to take the government line at face value, its enthusiasm for prolonged foreign wars, and its willingness to accept a draft to wage such wars. Whatever happens in Venezuela, you can be pretty sure that the US will not carry a war to the point where it will require drafting its own populace- because of Vietnam.

Nations' foreign policies are generally based largely on self-interest, yes (much as I wish it were not so). That's true of the US, and I expect that its true of just about every other nation that's ever existed. That doesn't mean that the subtler shifts within that framework don't matter- they absolutely do. They're what we call "history". What bothers me is a) your inability or refusal to show any nuance in your analysis of foreign policy, and b) your gross double standard in how you condemn selfish and unethical foreign policy by America, vs. by other nations.

I will also note that your insistent dismissal of changes in administration as "irrelevant" closely echoes the "Deep State" and "Both Sides" rhetoric Trumpers and the Kremlin routinely employ to bait gullible Leftists into supporting neo-fascism.

In so far as foreign policy is concerned, its the same damn country. Let me know when you depose the forces of rapacious capital in some form, and then I'll revisit that assessment.

Working on it.

If being opposed to the overthrow of Maduro makes someone a "dictator apologist", doesn't supporting the overthrow make someone a death squad apologist? I mean Elliott Abrams' track record in turning Einsatzgruppen loose on hapless villagers is well known. When one forensics crew sifted through a mass grave in Guatemala the leader opined:

"It's too bad {Milwaukee mass murder suspect} Jeffrey Dahmer didn't come to Guatemala 'cause he'd be a general by now," Snow said with disgust.

That's what the US foreign policy establishment has in store for Venezuela, too. Funny how they get behind Trump when he decides to back fascists.

Be careful of your insinuations: I'm not sure who this is addressed to, but if you insinuate that I support military intervention in Venezuela, much less that I support fascism and genocidal death sqauds, I will report it for the despicable libel that it is.

Arguing against Maduro's overthrow because you feel that the risk or cost of doing so outweighs any benefit that is likely to be gained, or because you distrust America's motives, does not make you a dictator apologist. Opposing an overthrow that comes from without rather than within because you believe in national sovereignty as an absolute principle doesn't either, even if I think its idiotic. Opposing it because you believe the opposition is just as bad or worse does not make you a dictator apologist.

Opposing it because you think that Maduro is some sort of noble champion of downtrodden Venezuelans against US Imperialism/capitalism does.

I don't have a problem with people opposing US intervention. I have a problem with people arguing (as you did) that Maduro is some sort of innocent victim, some heroic champion of the downtrodden masses. I am sick of seeing seemingly intelligent and well-meaning people mindlessly repeat the propaganda of corrupt tyrants who would probably see their lives as worth no more than an ant's, simply because they're against America. We should be capable of greater subtlety, greater nuance. Greater honesty. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

(That is the most generous interpretation of your motives- the other is that you are simply lying.)

As to your allegations that Maduro's opponent is a fascist, I honestly don't know enough about him to judge them either way, though your obvious biases make me reluctant to take any claims that you make at face value. I suspect you see very little, if any, distinction between "has the support of the US/is opposed to a US enemy" and "fascist".

I do think, though, that it diminishes the people of countries such as the Ukraine, Venezuela, Libya, etc. to imply that any opposition to their current regimes is simply a product of US-backed coups and agitprop. Not only are you repeating the propaganda of said regimes, which they use to justify rounding up/torturing/massacring dissidents, but you are denying the people of those countries their agency. You are so wrapped up in your worldview of "US=evil, enemies of the US=good" that you dismiss the possibility that their might be large numbers of people in those countries who, of their own free will and without simply being fronts for an American agenda, might desire a change to the status quo.

[stormthebeaches]

Macron's police just shot one of the Yellow Vest leaders in the eye. Imagine if Maduro did that to the Preppie Pinochet that Trump wants to foist on Venezuela. Which reminds me: If Maduro is this godawful tyrant, how is it Uncle Sam's newest quisling isn't already in jail or dead?

Presumably because killing the "Preppie Pinochet" would just turn him into a martyr. Remember that National Assembly appointed him their leader and later appointed him Interim President. If Maduro had him murdered, the National Assembly would simply nominate someone else leader of the National Assembly and Interim President of the nation.

Also, is there any evidence that Juan Guaido is a "Preppie Pinochet"? I don't know much about him personally but the political party he is a member of (Popular Will), advocates social-democratic party and was admitted into the Socialist International in 2014. Not what I'd expect of a Fascist.

When Corbyn calls for other countries to help him instigate a coup, get back to me.

I don't like May but this comparison falls flat on a number of levels. Theresa May and her political party haven't been packing the courts the way Maduro has or stripped an entire branch of Government from power just because she didn't like the results of an election, to name a few of Maduro's authoritarian positions. Furthermore, the constitutional matters are different as well. Juan Guaido is the head of the National Assembly. The Venezuelan line of succession, stated in the Venezuelan Constitution, is that if the Presidency and Vice-Presidency are vacant the head of the National Assembly becomes Interim President. The opposition claim that the 2018 elections are illegitimate, which means that the Presidency and Vice Presidency should be considered vacant, making the head of the National Assembly Interim President. Jeremy Corbyn, in comparison, is not the head of any Government institution, his party holds a minority in Parliament. There is absolutely nothing in the British Constitution that would put Jeremy Corbyn in the line of succession.

[The Romulan Republic]

"Both Sides" and Whataboutism are the standard stock-in-trade for the defenders of dictators, whether or not their equivalencies have any basis in value.

And as already noted, there is extensive support for a second referendum in Britain. I am not, however, aware of anything about Macron's election that was sufficiently fishy to justify demands for new elections (one protestor being shot, while certainly not a good thing, is not remotely equivalent to a systematic effort to seize control of the government by undemocratic means). Portraying the situation to France as equivalent to Venezuela's is the most disingenuous Whataboutism, divorced from facts.

On a semi-unrelated note, its also pretty obvious by now that a lot of the "Yellow Vest" people are probably just the Alt. Reich rebranding itself yet again to gain the sympathies of gullible Leftists- or at best, they are rapidly being coopted by the neo-fascists (the Alt. Reich has gotten very good at infiltrating and coopting what should be progressive movements, though Yellow Vest was anti-environmentalist in tone, and thus likely predisposed towards the Right, from the outset):

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... protesters

[Vympel]

BULL. SHIT.

YOU are the one who dragged Trump/Russia into this, so you could score some cheap points against "the Resistance."

Extremely glad to see the Resistance take a break from hyperventilating about Russia facebook memes to come together and support a coup in a foreign country.

I know from experience that if I posted something like that, I would be in danger of being accused of thread derailment and vendetta.

ROFL, what? That post has nothing to do with Russia per se. It's pointing out how a political movement which thinks 'Russian election interference' is an act of war has no fucking problem with the US engineering coups in other countries in a far more blatant and obvious way. It has absolutely fucking nothing to do with what you laughably call 'whataboutism in defense of the Kremlin'. All the Russiagate charges could be 100% factual and my comment on the values of the Resistance would still be 100% accurate.

You could certainly make the argument that the actions of the US government and much of the media right now represent a continuation of more than a century of US foreign policy in Latin America. There would even be, in my opinion, considerable truth to that statement, although I also believe that you have to look at the specifics of each situation, rather than immediately assume that each new crisis is simply a repeat of previous ones.

My problem, as I have said (and been ignored) repeatedly, is not that I support US military intervention in Venezuela (I don't, and I am confident enough of my posting record on that point to report anyone who says otherwise for dishonest debating and libel). Nor is it with you criticizing the history of military intervention in Latin America. It is with you appearing to expand that argument to make broad, sweeping claims about the US as a nation, or using this situation as an excuse for some off-topic Whataboutism in defense of the Kremlin.

What is it like, I wonder, looking at a century of bloodshed inflicted by your country on Latin America and then complaining about someone who points at it that they're making 'broad, sweeping claims about he US as a nation'?

Frankly, I think a big problem here is that you're so fixated on "US=bad" that you just assume/insist that anyone who deviates from that position in any way, in any context, is simply an advocate of US Imperialism.

'Apologist' would be more apt. I have no patience whatsoever for people who treat a consistent mode of conduct for over a century as irrelevant and forgettable (as Block did). Its not.

For God's sake, I agree with you about the US invading Venezuela. But you seem to assume that I support it because I don't automatically condemn the US on every issue, or because I dare to also criticize America's enemies.

You're the one who insinuated yourself into my calling bullshit on Block, remember?

No, and you're obfuscating the topic again. I was referring to your insistence on automatically vilifying the US (down to pretending that the US in 1912 and the US in 2019 are identical countries), while automatically defending Russia and its allies.

In so far as the effects of its foreign policy are felt by its neighbors - they are identical countries.

I don't care if you critique interventions in Latin America, as long as you confine your criticisms to the realm of the fact-based. What I am objecting to here is your reflexive apologism for Putin and his cronies, your gross double-standard in how you treat crimes by America and its allies vs crimes by its enemies, and your obfuscation of the actual topic and of my arguments.

Pointing to a century of historical bloodshed in service of deposing regimes that threaten US business interests is fact-based criticism.

Vietnam, by your own subsequent acknowledgement.

I didn't say anything of the kind. I expressly said that Vietnam changed absolutely nothing about US conduct in Latin America, because it did the same fucking thing before Vietnam that it did after it - supporting right-wing dictators and militias against leftist governments. Over and over and over again.

That's actually a fairly meaningful change for the people affected.

Yeah I'm sure the thousands of people killed by the Contras would feel that's a meaningful distinction if asked.

I would also contend that US foreign policy is not (or wasn't, until Trump came along) nearly as overtly white supremacist as it once was, although it is often latently racist.

How so? Apart from escalating the brutality of existing US military actions, what has Trump done that is markedly different from Obama?

Which is ridiculous.

Because of gay marriage? LOL. How much more politically progressive your internal policies became doesn't matter.

Lie.

Leaving aside my comment above, I look forward to you going after aerius for his 'Russia apologism', if that's what you actually think his post is about (spoiler alert: its not about that at all).

Given that we live in a highly interconnected world, I would contend that what happens in one country inevitably affects every other country, where subtly or overtly. Borders are a fiction created by humans.

In any case, Vietnam, as you alluded to, certainly affected the American public's willingness to take the government line at face value, its enthusiasm for prolonged foreign wars, and its willingness to accept a draft to wage such wars. Whatever happens in Venezuela, you can be pretty sure that the US will not carry a war to the point where it will require drafting its own populace- because of Vietnam.

The US didn't need the draft to fuck around in Latin America either before or after Vietnam. They just funded and supported right-wing militias, remember?

Nations' foreign policies are generally based largely on self-interest, yes (much as I wish it were not so). That's true of the US, and I expect that its true of just about every other nation that's ever existed. That doesn't mean that the subtler shifts within that framework don't matter- they absolutely do. They're what we call "history". What bothers me is a) your inability or refusal to show any nuance in your analysis of foreign policy, and b) your gross double standard in how you condemn selfish and unethical foreign policy by America, vs. by other nations.

There's no double standard at play here at all. The US is the single greatest purveyor of violence, state terror and instability on planet Earth, and has been for decades. It is not even close. So naturally I devote a majority of my time for activity like this to condemning it's bullshit, particularly where it has constructed a gigantic worldwide propaganda edifice to dress up its depravity as concern for 'democracy' and 'human rights'.

I will also note that your insistent dismissal of changes in administration as "irrelevant" closely echoes the "Deep State" and "Both Sides" rhetoric Trumpers and the Kremlin routinely employ to bait gullible Leftists into supporting neo-fascism.

ROFL. Look maybe you were totally asleep politically prior to Trump and now your entire understanding of politics has been irretrievably brain-poisoned with the fad of the moment, but it's a pretty basic political concept that there's a long bipartisan foreign policy consensus in the US, and even the concept of the 'Deep State' predates Trump-era discourse. You can trace its intellectual origins to fucking Eisenhower, ffs.

As for your absurd notion that 'the Kremlin' 'routinely employs' 'rhetoric' to 'bait gullible Leftists into supporting neo-facsism', I look forward to receiving any evidence from you whatsoever that this is an actual thing that has ever happened.

[Elfdart]

Macron's police just shot one of the Yellow Vest leaders in the eye. Imagine if Maduro did that to the Preppie Pinochet that Trump wants to foist on Venezuela. Which reminds me: If Maduro is this godawful tyrant, how is it Uncle Sam's newest quisling isn't already in jail or dead?

Presumably because killing the "Preppie Pinochet" would just turn him into a martyr. Remember that National Assembly appointed him their leader and later appointed him Interim President. If Maduro had him murdered, the National Assembly would simply nominate someone else leader of the National Assembly and Interim President of the nation.

Also, is there any evidence that Juan Guaido is a "Preppie Pinochet"? I don't know much about him personally but the political party he is a member of (Popular Will), advocates social-democratic party and was admitted into the Socialist International in 2014. Not what I'd expect of a Fascist.

Here he is being all chummy with Maria Corina Machado:



And who is Maria Corina Machado? She's a paid US agent (the National Endowment for Democracy. the same bunch backing the Contras, gave her $31,000) who was expelled from the National Assembly after being implicated in several plots against the government, including involvement in the botched coup of 2002 and assassination attempts against Maduro. If you think this is just pro-Maduro agitprop, keep in mind that the attorney general in the case who led the investigation, Luisa Ortega Diaz, turned against Maduro and is currently in Colombia.

Pinochet also got all chummy with US-funded fifth columnists who plotted to assassinate the elected head of state (Salvador Allende) and overthrow the government, since it was his ticket to take over. Just because Guaido wears polo shirts instead of field grey doesn't make him any less of a quisling.

[stormthebeaches]

Macron's police just shot one of the Yellow Vest leaders in the eye. Imagine if Maduro did that to the Preppie Pinochet that Trump wants to foist on Venezuela. Which reminds me: If Maduro is this godawful tyrant, how is it Uncle Sam's newest quisling isn't already in jail or dead?

Presumably because killing the "Preppie Pinochet" would just turn him into a martyr. Remember that National Assembly appointed him their leader and later appointed him Interim President. If Maduro had him murdered, the National Assembly would simply nominate someone else leader of the National Assembly and Interim President of the nation.

Also, is there any evidence that Juan Guaido is a "Preppie Pinochet"? I don't know much about him personally but the political party he is a member of (Popular Will), advocates social-democratic party and was admitted into the Socialist International in 2014. Not what I'd expect of a Fascist.

Here he is being all chummy with Maria Corina Machado:



And who is Maria Corina Machado? She's a paid US agent (the National Endowment for Democracy. the same bunch backing the Contras, gave her $31,000) who was expelled from the National Assembly after being implicated in several plots against the government, including involvement in the botched coup of 2002 and assassination attempts against Maduro. If you think this is just pro-Maduro agitprop, keep in mind that the attorney general in the case who led the investigation, Luisa Ortega Diaz, turned against Maduro and is currently in Colombia.

Pinochet also got all chummy with US-funded fifth columnists who plotted to assassinate the elected head of state (Salvador Allende) and overthrow the government, since it was his ticket to take over. Just because Guaido wears polo shirts instead of field grey doesn't make him any less of a quisling.

Having your picture taken with a bad person indicates bad judgement, not that you necessarily support that person or their beliefs.

This is a picture of Jill Stein having dinner with Vladimir Putin.



Does this mean that we should assume that Jill Stein is a Putin crony because of that picture? I would say no but if we go by your logic...

[Elfdart]

Has Jill Stein made death threats against elected officials? Has she been involved in attempts to overthrow the government? Does she take part in riots wearing the same gear and using the same tactics as the Proud Boys and other neo-Nazis like the ones who killed Heather Heyer in Charlottesville?

[stormthebeaches]

Has Jill Stein made death threats against elected officials? Has she been involved in attempts to overthrow the government? Does she take part in riots wearing the same gear and using the same tactics as the Proud Boys and other neo-Nazis like the ones who killed Heather Heyer in Charlottesville?

I think you misunderstand me. I'm NOT accusing Jill Stein of being Putin's stooge. I'm just pointing out that having your picture taken with a bad person doesn't mean that you endorse them or their beliefs. That's guilt by association. You said she was at one point a member of the National Assembly, since Guaido is also a member of the National Assembly it means that he would have met her many times simply because they both work in the same place. That photo could have been taken before she was charged with anything. Or he could have been doing photo ops with all his co-workers that day. One photo out of context really doesn't prove anything. There are photos of me hanging out with all of my co-workers, for all I know, one of them could have committed a serious crime.

As I pointed out before, he is a member of Popular Will, a political party that advocates social democracy and was invited into the Socialist International in 2014. That is not what I would expect of the next Pinochet. Your recent photo's show some far right people taking part in the demonstrations, given the size of the protests it is inevitable that some of the protestors would be bad people. Maduro has been trying to portray everyone opposed to him as far right, however, I haven't seen anything to indicate that the far right are anything more than a small minority of the protestors.

[stormthebeaches]

Has Jill Stein made death threats against elected officials? Has she been involved in attempts to overthrow the government? Does she take part in riots wearing the same gear and using the same tactics as the Proud Boys and other neo-Nazis like the ones who killed Heather Heyer in Charlottesville?

I think you misunderstand me. I'm NOT accusing Jill Stein of being Putin's stooge. I'm just pointing out that having your picture taken with a bad person doesn't mean that you endorse them or their beliefs. That's guilt by association. You said she was a member of the National Assembly at one point, since Guaido is also a member of the National Assembly I expect them to have met many times simply because they both work in the same place. That photo could have been taken before she was charged with anything. Or he could have been doing photo ops with all his co-workers that day. One photo out of context really doesn't prove anything. There are photos of me hanging out with all of my co-workers, for all I know, one of them could have committed serious crimes.

As I pointed out before, he is a member of Popular Will, a political party that advocates social democracy and was invited into the Socialist International in 2014. That is not what I would expect of the next Pinochet. Your recent photo's show some far right people taking part in the demonstrations, given the size of the protests it is inevitable that some of the protestors would be bad people. Maduro has been trying to portray everyone opposed to him as far right, however, I haven't seen anything to indicate that the far right are anything more than a small minority of the protestors.

[Elfdart]

How many practitioners of social democracy do you really think would seek aid from Donald Trump, Mike Pence, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams?

[stormthebeaches]

How many practitioners of social democracy do you really think would seek aid from Donald Trump, Mike Pence, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams?

He sought aid from the entire International community, not just the USA.

[Vympel]

How many practitioners of social democracy do you really think would seek aid from Donald Trump, Mike Pence, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams?

He sought aid from the entire International community, not just the USA.

This is like saying that the invasion of Iraq wasn't the work of US regime change lunatics, because Bush managed to cobble together a 'coalition of the willing'. He's a quisling of the US first and foremost.

[stormthebeaches]

How many practitioners of social democracy do you really think would seek aid from Donald Trump, Mike Pence, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams?

He sought aid from the entire International community, not just the USA.

This is like saying that the invasion of Iraq wasn't the work of US regime change lunatics, because Bush managed to cobble together a 'coalition of the willing'. He's a quisling of the US first and foremost.

This analogy doesn't really work. In the Iraq war the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq and tried to rally other countries to get behind the invasion. In this case, Guaide called on the international community for support, some countries decided to support him, some didn't. And, quisling implies that he will work to benefit the US at the expense of his own country if he takes power, do things like sell oil Venezuelan assets to US companies on the cheap, or slash social programs to help the poor. As mentioned before, there is nothing in the political affiliation of the party he is a member to that would indicate he would take such actions. Furthermore, he was appointed to his position of power by the National Assembly. Presumably, Venezuela's National Assembly would have more sense than to put a quisling in power, and if they accidentally did, surely they would replace the quisling with someone who is, well, not a quisling.

[Elfdart]

If he wasn't eager to sell out his own country, Trump and his henchmen wouldn't be backing him.

LINK

Elements of Venezeula’s opposition have portrayed themselves to credulous foreign observers as “social democratic,” but their real intentions are very clear: The opposition-controlled legislature has demanded mass privatization of state assets and a return to a capitalist oligarch-controlled economic system built on “property rights and freedom of enterprise.”

In 2017, the Venezuelan government declared the creation of the Constituent Assembly, to rewrite the constitution. Venezuela’s opposition refused to recognize this body and boycotted the elections. The opposition instead remained in control of the National Assembly and decided to run it as a separate parallel legislature.

The opposition-controlled National Assembly drafted a “transition” law that openly outlines what policies the opposition, led by Juan Guaidó, would pursue in its illegitimate, US-recognized “government” in Venezuela.

[stormthebeaches]

If he wasn't eager to sell out his own country, Trump and his henchmen wouldn't be backing him.

Maybe Trump is getting played?

LINK

Your source makes several dubious claims. Right in the first paragraph it claims that the opposition is unelected. This is a lie. The opposition was voted into the National Assembly in the 2015 parliamentary elections. It does make me wonder how accurate the source is when they are willing to lie right out the gate. The article praises Maduro for holding elections, while failing to mention that in the 2018 Presidential elections, three of the most influential opposition parties were not allowed to participate. Not individual opposition leaders, but entire political parties.

Also, the main statement quoted in that article didn't call for mass privatisation. It called for the abolishment of centralized controls and arbitrary measures of expropriation. This might be beneficial for Venezuela. For example, the price controls put in place by Chavez and Maduro have been a disaster and contributed to run away inflation, as well as caused a shortage of goods. Abolishing them would help the Venezuelan economy.

[Elfdart]

Unelected to the presidency, numbnuts.

As for "privatization" (a euphemism for a sheriff's auction of state assets), if you had read the article you would have caught this part:

What this means, in plain language, is massive dismissal of workers from state companies and the entry of private capital into them: a policy of looting which has already proved to be a disaster in all countries where it has been applied.

It gets better. Trump's quisling wants to bring in the IMF, which means "austerity", which means every dime from the oil will go to pay off IMF loans and the only thing the poor in Venezuela will get from the new regime should the coup succeed, is US-trained death squads.

By the way, what kind of social democrat supports an outright fascist like Bolsonaro?

[madd0ct0r]

Unelected to the presidency, numbnuts.

As for "privatization" (a euphemism for a sheriff's auction of state assets), if you had read the article you would have caught this part:

What this means, in plain language, is massive dismissal of workers from state companies and the entry of private capital into them: a policy of looting which has already proved to be a disaster in all countries where it has been applied.

It gets better. Trump's quisling wants to bring in the IMF, which means "austerity", which means every dime from the oil will go to pay off IMF loans and the only thing the poor in Venezuela will get from the new regime is US trained dwath squads.

A couple of points here.
1) massive dismissal of workers from state companies does not neccesarily mean that lots of productive people are fired. Im back in Vietnam at the moment and full of memories from the stibrs friends did at state companies. They had fuck all to do, existed merely to pad the pay of their boss and do exams on their behalf so the boss could climb the system. Pay was shit, but leaving on bad terms meant endless legal trouble and frustrations. One waa never promoted cos he could not afford the bribes. A few friends still have semi official travel bans. One was having to pay back a % of her wage to her boss, in cash. Others need five days to get a normally three hour licence for home diy work.
Reducing the state companies, IF they are bloated and perversly incentivised, will free up the government to spend cash on multipliers. It does mean reduced spending by government employees, but shortage of demand aint venuzelas problem.

2) the imf is not super hot on austerity any more. They released their own paper examining the results and pulled back. Thats not to say a failing petro-welfare isnt in for a realignment. If they were fine with status quo thread would not exist

3) imf is big on banks getting paid and not sentimental. It is also not a fan of bloody revolutions and tends not to have them, grinding the poor is only profitable to a point, and they try not to go beyond as it is bad for the long term.

[stormthebeaches]

Unelected to the presidency, numbnuts.

The article should have said "unelected to the presidency" because, if one just reads the article one gets the impression that the opposition are unelected, period. This is lying by omission.

As for "privatization" (a euphemism for a sheriff's auction of state assets), if you had read the article you would have caught this part:

I read the whole article, that was the author of the article's interpretation of what he was saying. "Public companies will be subject to a restructuring process that ensures their efficient and transparent management, including through public-private agreements.” This does not necessarily mean mass privatization. Restructuring to ensure efficiency and transparency is something that Venezuela desperately needs as corruption and rampant. Furthermore, any reform will require working through public-private agreements as that is what the Venezuelan economy is based. None of this indicates mass privatization. Also, privatization is not inherently bad. Some limited privatization can benefit an economy. When it comes to public/private ownership it's about getting the balance right. The author of the article you cited is 1) assuming he meant privatization, and 2) assuming the privatization would be irresponsible mass privatization. In order words, the author of the article is interpreting his statements in the worst manner possible.

It gets better. Trump's quisling wants to bring in the IMF, which means "austerity", which means every dime from the oil will go to pay off IMF loans and the only thing the poor in Venezuela will get from the new regime should the coup succeed, is US-trained death squads.

He is asking numerous international organisations for funds, this is necessary to rebuild the Venezuelan economy. As for the rest of the IMF stuff, madd0ct0r covers it pretty well.

By the way, what kind of social democrat supports an outright fascist like Bolsonaro?

He congratulated him on his election. That doesn't indicate support, it's just being diplomatic. Politicians congratulate each other on elections all the time. Obama congratulated Putin on his re-election, but no sane person would use that as evidence that Obama supports Putin, because politicians congratulating each other on winning elections is how international diplomacy usually works.

[stormthebeaches]

I would also like to point out that Juan Guaido's political party, Popular Will, was admitted into the Socialist International in December 2014. So they can't be that right wing. Unless the Socialist International does a terrible job of vetting who they let in...

[mr friendly guy]

Unelected to the presidency, numbnuts.

The article should have said "unelected to the presidency" because, if one just reads the article one gets the impression that the opposition are unelected, period. This is lying by omission.

No offense, but this is the second time in this thread you interpreted a simple statement differently to others, and in a different manner to how that statement would be commonly interpreted. The sentence you're discussing says "Trump recognized unelected right-wing opposition leader Juan Guaidó as new “president,” who plans mass privatization and neoliberal capitalist policies."

You can't twist it to say it was referring him to be anything but unelected to the presidency when in the same sentence as "unelected" they mention "presidency." There is no way in hell one can interpret it to mean, the author is claiming he was unelected to some position other than President.

If we apply your logic, calling Xi Jinping unelected is also incorrect, because he was elected to the leader of the CCP. Granted you were most probably thinking of the position of president of China rather than the position of CCP leader, but hey, that type of twisting statements is fair game by your standards.

[stormthebeaches]

Unelected to the presidency, numbnuts.

The article should have said "unelected to the presidency" because, if one just reads the article one gets the impression that the opposition are unelected, period. This is lying by omission.

No offense, but this is the second time in this thread you interpreted a simple statement differently to others, and in a different manner to how that statement would be commonly interpreted. The sentence you're discussing says "Trump recognized unelected right-wing opposition leader Juan Guaidó as new “president,” who plans mass privatization and neoliberal capitalist policies."

You can't twist it to say it was referring him to be anything but unelected to the presidency when in the same sentence as "unelected" they mention "presidency." There is no way in hell one can interpret it to mean, the author is claiming he was unelected to some position other than President.

If we apply your logic, calling Xi Jinping unelected is also incorrect, because he was elected to the leader of the CCP. Granted you were most probably thinking of the position of president of China rather than the position of CCP leader, but hey, that type of twisting statements is fair game by your standards.

I still feel that the author should have mentioned the 2015 elections at least once in the article. Something like "although his party was elected to the Parliament, Guaido himself has not been elected President" would be more balanced. As it stands, I feel that the article is cherry picking facts to create a false narrative.

[stormthebeaches]

Missed the edit window...

The statement could have been reworded to say "Trump recognises Guaido, who was unelected to the Presidency", that would have removed any ambiguity. Alternatively, the author could at least mention the 2015 elections. If the author can mention the 2017 elections he can certainly mention the 2015 elections.

For an example of how cherry picking facts can create a false narrative, I could say "British Prime Ministers are unelected", and technically I would be correct. All British Prime Ministers are unelected as Britain has a closed list political system, that is, you vote for the party not the person. The party that controls Parliament decides upon a Prime Minister.

Granted you were most probably thinking of the position of president of China rather than the position of CCP leader,

I never mentioned the Chinese government in this thread, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth.

[mr friendly guy]

Granted you were most probably thinking of the position of president of China rather than the position of CCP leader,

I never mentioned the Chinese government in this thread, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth.

See what I mean about how you interpret sentences in ways no one else interprets it.

Obviously you didn't mention China. I used it as an example of how you selectively choose to interpret the word "unelected," such that Chinese leaders can be considered "elected," by your definition. Therefore when I follow up by saying "YOU were most probably thinking of the position of president of China rather than the position of CCP," it can only mean what you were thinking AFTER you read my example. Jesus fucking Christ man. You would have failed English in my high school buddy.

No one else interpreted the article to create a false narrative. Because whether Guaido was elected to some other position other than president is IRRELEVANT when talking about the position of president. How you interpret basic English creates a strawman. I am not accusing you of dishonesty, I think for some reason you just "don't get it." You interpret sentences and words in ways most people would not. Just like how to interpret government to mean something other than, well government.

[stormthebeaches]

Granted you were most probably thinking of the position of president of China rather than the position of CCP leader,

I never mentioned the Chinese government in this thread, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth.

See what I mean about how you interpret sentences in ways no one else interprets it.

Obviously you didn't mention China. I used it as an example of how you selectively choose to interpret the word "unelected," such that Chinese leaders can be considered "elected," by your definition. Therefore when I follow up by saying "YOU were most probably thinking of the position of president of China rather than the position of CCP," it can only mean what you were thinking AFTER you read my example. Jesus fucking Christ man. You would have failed English in my high school buddy.

No one else interpreted the article to create a false narrative. Because whether Guaido was elected to some other position other than president is IRRELEVANT when talking about the position of president. How you interpret basic English creates a strawman. I am not accusing you of dishonesty, I think for some reason you just "don't get it." You interpret sentences and words in ways most people would not. Just like how to interpret government to mean something other than, well government.

I'm going to respond to this in bullet point format.

1. I took issue with the statement "Trump recognized unelected right-wing opposition leader Juan Guaidó as new president," because I felt that it implied that Guaido wasn't elected at all. I have given several examples of how to better phrase the statement and avoid any ambiguity, "Trump recognises Guaido, who was unelected to the Presidency" or "although his party was elected to the Parliament, Guaido himself has not been elected President", are both examples I gave of how to phrase the statement better.

2. The statement "You were most probably thinking of the position of President of China rather than the position of CCP" is wrong because the thought never crossed my mind after reading your example. In the UK the leader of the party in power is always the Prime Minister. This is because we have a closed list system, which means that you vote for the party, instead of the candidate. My first thought was, oh, China has a closed list system, similar to the UK. The reason why I wouldn't call China's President "elected" is because China is a one party state. "Elected" implies that they came to power in elections that are free and fair, which is not the case in a one party state. I know that someone is going to say "well, Western elections aren't fair because of corporate financing", which will lead to a debate about what constitutes "free and fair", open list vs closed list, multi-party state vs one party state, so if someone wants to start such a topic they should start a new thread, otherwise this one will get pulled off topic.

3. When someone reads your whole sentence "Granted you were most probably thinking of the position of president of China rather than the position of CCP leader, but hey, that type of twisting statements is fair game by your standards." it implies that I made a statement about the Chinese government in this thread and that you are deliberately twisting that statement to show me why it is wrong to twist the statements of others. The whole sentence as unnecessary. It would have been better to simply say, "If you apply your logic, calling Xi Jinping unelected is also incorrect, because he was elected to the leader of the CCP", that would have gotten your point across very clearly.

4. When someone said Government, I interpreted it to mean Parliament because Parliament is the legislative branch of the British government, and is the most powerful branch of Government.

[mr friendly guy]

1. I took issue with the statement "Trump recognized unelected right-wing opposition leader Juan Guaidó as new president," because I felt that it implied that Guaido wasn't elected at all. I have given several examples of how to better phrase the statement and avoid any ambiguity, "Trump recognises Guaido, who was unelected to the Presidency" or "although his party was elected to the Parliament, Guaido himself has not been elected President", are both examples I gave of how to phrase the statement better.

Only to you did it imply this. Everyone else reading it interpreted he was not elected to the presidency. It did not mean he was not elected for something else. There is no need (except for you) to mention he was elected to another position, because they weren't discussing it. There is no way in hell someone with a decent grasp of English and who can follow sentences logically would interpret it the way you did, as I explained earlier.

2. The statement "You were most probably thinking of the position of President of China rather than the position of CCP" is wrong because the thought never crossed my mind after reading your example. In the UK the leader of the party in power is always the Prime Minister. This is because we have a closed list system, which means that you vote for the party, instead of the candidate. My first thought was, oh, China has a closed list system, similar to the UK. The reason why I wouldn't call China's President "elected" is because China is a one party state. "Elected" implies that they came to power in elections that are free and fair, which is not the case in a one party state. I know that someone is going to say "well, Western elections aren't fair because of corporate financing", which will lead to a debate about what constitutes "free and fair", open list vs closed list, multi-party state vs one party state, so if someone wants to start such a topic they should start a new thread, otherwise this one will get pulled off topic.

Except in your interpretation of the article, whereas everyone interpreted it to mean "elected to president", you interpreted it to mean "elected to any position." You're looking at one word out of context. Hence the China example is pertinent, since Xi Jinping is elected to non presidential positions within his party by party members, and hence using your logic, its not fair to say he is unelected to the presidency without needing to mention he was elected to other positions, even if those other positions are not being discussed.

3. When someone reads your whole sentence "Granted you were most probably thinking of the position of president of China rather than the position of CCP leader, but hey, that type of twisting statements is fair game by your standards." it implies that I made a statement about the Chinese government in this thread and that you are deliberately twisting that statement to show me why it is wrong to twist the statements of others. The whole sentence as unnecessary. It would have been better to simply say, "If you apply your logic, calling Xi Jinping unelected is also incorrect, because he was elected to the leader of the CCP", that would have gotten your point across very clearly.

No it did not. It implied your "standards" can be used to justify that bullshit statement I used earlier for illustrative purposes.

Seriously, do you understand phrases and concepts like "by your logic." Not joking here, because I don't think you do. I don't think you understand the concept of an analogy very well. Here is a clue. If someone uses the phrase "by your logic I can justify X"(or something similar like I did), it does not imply you gave an opinion on X. It just means your arguments can be used to justify X, even if you disagree with X. People use analogies in this manner to examine your underlying logic, and show your "logic" isn't very well thought out, if it can be used to justify X when the author disagrees with X.

Your definition of "elected," is such, it would be DECEPTIVE to state someone is unelected for position A, if they just so happened to be elected (fairly of course) to unrelated position B. Even though the former does not preclude the latter.

4. When someone said Government, I interpreted it to mean Parliament because Parliament is the legislative branch of the British government, and is the most powerful branch of Government.

How is anyone is supposed to take your argument seriously, your argument being that you interpret government to mean parliament, when in that same statement you defined them as two different things. The problem with you buddy, is words don't have pre agreed upon meaning. They mean whatever the hell you want when its convenient for your argument.