5 ms·

regardless of what you think of Trump, this is the correct action. The maduro govt is not just full of issues, they are murdering and starving their own populat

regardless of what you think of Trump, this is the correct action. The maduro govt is not just full of issues, they are murdering and starving their own population and any funds are used to prop up the privileged few elite in the aristocracy. El mercosur is about to expulse venezuela so this is not just some yankee only EEUU foreign agression bs. If you support the Maduro government, you're against humanity at this point. https://elhem.co/2017/07/27/nicolas-maduro-accused-of-crimes-against-humanity/ https://elhem.co/2017/07/27/nicolas-maduro-accused-of-crimes...

abalone 9y ago
54% of the population supported the Maduro government in the election.[1] If you think Trump is taking the "correct action," you're against democracy at this point. [1] https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/venezuela-election-result-blow-right-wing-opposition-trump https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/venezuela-election-resu...
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  You're really citing results from an authoritarian regime known for scrubbing numbers and propaganda as evidence of popular support?
  - r00fus 9y ago
    Wait are we talking about Trump or Maduro?
  - abalone 9y ago
    No, there is good reason to believe the election was fair. The mainstream U.S. reporting on this is extremely biased; the U.S. has a long history of deeply anti-democractic attitudes towards Latin America (since at least the Monroe Doctrine). Excellent and detailed reporting here:[1] "...key opposition candidates in the governor's races in Venezuela are gradually accepting the results as legitimate, except for one controversial close race that is being challenged in the State of Bolivar where opposition has some serious allegations due to the discrepancy in the results that the CNE announced, that's the election commission in Venezuela, the results that they announce and the printout of the report that was given to each party by the voting machines." "ALEXANDER MAIN: First of all, it's really nothing new... Already in 2002, much of the corporate media internationally was suggesting that the presidency of Chávez had become something of a dictatorship and completely ignoring some of the anti-democratic activities of the opposition parties in Venezuela, and namely a coup d'etat was supported by most of Venezuela's opposition parties in April of 2002. This was initially represented as some sort of a popular uprising against the dictatorship, and it was really, I think, thanks to the reaction of other governments in the region that clearly saw that there was a coup d'etat that the narrative began to change around that. "Soon afterwards, we got back into this tradition of suggesting that there was creeping authoritarianism going on in Venezuela. Very little was said about the fact that nearly every year, sometimes twice a year in Venezuela, you had elections being held at different institutional levels. These elections would typically have very big turnouts, they'd be very transparent, very free and fair... In fact, it can be argued that the electoral system in Venezuela has gotten more and more refined in terms of the degree of transparency, to the extent that in fact, it [speaks] in part to that transparency and the internal checks and balances that today you do have this controversy in the state of Bolivar... They can do this, in fact, because they have records from electronic voting machines, which everyone believes... the fact is that you have a system that's in place that can very easily allow for verification... It really is sort of a direct contradiction of this constant claim that the country is slipping into dictatorship. You don't have that when you have constant elections in which people, the majority of voters participate and where you can have confidence in the results." [1] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=20273 http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=...
    - aaron-lebo 9y ago
      Chavez was a military man who established a dictatorship, and his successor continues. You are kidding yourself if you really think this has anything to do with big bad guy US. Not all problems derive from the US.
      - smnrchrds 9y ago
        If you consider Chavez's presidency as dictatorship, you are very mistaken. He was a populist, but never a dictator. I know Vox is not always the best source of news, but this article is spot on: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/world/2017/9/19/16189742/venezuela-maduro-dictator-chavez-collapse https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/world/2017/9/19/16189742/ve...
        aaron-lebo 9y ago
        This is technically true, but while in office, Chavez eliminated most of the institutions necessary for a healthy democracy (eg independent judiciary). If he was not technically a dictator, he acted like one, and his successor is filling the role he made possible.
    - Bartweiss 9y ago
      My go-to source on this has actually been Jacobin - first because socialist regimes abroad are their wheelhouse, and second because they're particularly incentivized to give a positive view of Venezuela. They gave Chavez consistent support well past 2002, which makes me think they're not subject to the criticism you've offered here. And yet... Well, these days their reporting looks like: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/07/venezuela-maduro-helicopter-attack-psuv-extractivism-oil https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/07/venezuela-maduro-helicopt... https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/07/venezuela-elections-chavez-maduro-bolivarianism https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/07/venezuela-elections-chave... https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/venezuela-crisis-maduro-opposition-violence-elections-economy https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/venezuela-crisis-maduro-o... You don't have to be a capitalist imperialist to recognize that this particular government has abandoned legitimacy and the interests of the people.
  - baursak 9y ago
    As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I recommend watching Abby Martin's on the ground reporting in Venezuela to get a full picture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYWrPiUeWY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYWrPiUeWY (this particular episode is one of many examples)
- jfaucett 9y ago
  When this is the outcome, I am definitely against democracy. The Nazis were elected into power through democratic processes, does that make anything they did somehow ligitimate? Do the venezuelan people deserve to die of starvation and lack of basic medical necesities b/c they elected a criminal into power (assuming your stats are true)?
  - stickfigure 9y ago
    The Nazis were elected into power through democratic processes This is not true. The high-water mark for the Nazis was 43.9% in the 1933 election, far short of a majority. Hitler was appointed chancellor in a shady backroom deal and shortly afterwards banned all other political parties.
    - jfaucett 9y ago
      It seems you're assuming democratic systems/processes are only two party and rule by majority i.e. votes of > 50% means power. Thats not what I said, but if thats your definition then though a valid point, it still doesn't apply to the nazi situation. Most social democratic systems in Europe now and then dont work this way. You can easily become a controlling party by getting 20-30% of the vote even today in Germany for instance. At the time it was much worse, you could become a represented political party with a very low % of votes (under 5%)
- Para2016 9y ago
  Another high quality comment on HN.
  - abalone 9y ago
    Curious what you thought was low-quality about it.

abalone 9y ago

54% of the population supported the Maduro government in the election.[1] If you think Trump is taking the "correct action," you're against democracy at this point. [1] https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/venezuela-election-result-blow-right-wing-opposition-trump https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/venezuela-election-resu...

aaron-lebo 9y ago
You're really citing results from an authoritarian regime known for scrubbing numbers and propaganda as evidence of popular support?
- r00fus 9y ago
  Wait are we talking about Trump or Maduro?
- abalone 9y ago
  No, there is good reason to believe the election was fair. The mainstream U.S. reporting on this is extremely biased; the U.S. has a long history of deeply anti-democractic attitudes towards Latin America (since at least the Monroe Doctrine). Excellent and detailed reporting here:[1] "...key opposition candidates in the governor's races in Venezuela are gradually accepting the results as legitimate, except for one controversial close race that is being challenged in the State of Bolivar where opposition has some serious allegations due to the discrepancy in the results that the CNE announced, that's the election commission in Venezuela, the results that they announce and the printout of the report that was given to each party by the voting machines." "ALEXANDER MAIN: First of all, it's really nothing new... Already in 2002, much of the corporate media internationally was suggesting that the presidency of Chávez had become something of a dictatorship and completely ignoring some of the anti-democratic activities of the opposition parties in Venezuela, and namely a coup d'etat was supported by most of Venezuela's opposition parties in April of 2002. This was initially represented as some sort of a popular uprising against the dictatorship, and it was really, I think, thanks to the reaction of other governments in the region that clearly saw that there was a coup d'etat that the narrative began to change around that. "Soon afterwards, we got back into this tradition of suggesting that there was creeping authoritarianism going on in Venezuela. Very little was said about the fact that nearly every year, sometimes twice a year in Venezuela, you had elections being held at different institutional levels. These elections would typically have very big turnouts, they'd be very transparent, very free and fair... In fact, it can be argued that the electoral system in Venezuela has gotten more and more refined in terms of the degree of transparency, to the extent that in fact, it [speaks] in part to that transparency and the internal checks and balances that today you do have this controversy in the state of Bolivar... They can do this, in fact, because they have records from electronic voting machines, which everyone believes... the fact is that you have a system that's in place that can very easily allow for verification... It really is sort of a direct contradiction of this constant claim that the country is slipping into dictatorship. You don't have that when you have constant elections in which people, the majority of voters participate and where you can have confidence in the results." [1] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=20273 http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=...
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    Chavez was a military man who established a dictatorship, and his successor continues. You are kidding yourself if you really think this has anything to do with big bad guy US. Not all problems derive from the US.
    - smnrchrds 9y ago
      If you consider Chavez's presidency as dictatorship, you are very mistaken. He was a populist, but never a dictator. I know Vox is not always the best source of news, but this article is spot on: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/world/2017/9/19/16189742/venezuela-maduro-dictator-chavez-collapse https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/world/2017/9/19/16189742/ve...
      - aaron-lebo 9y ago
        This is technically true, but while in office, Chavez eliminated most of the institutions necessary for a healthy democracy (eg independent judiciary). If he was not technically a dictator, he acted like one, and his successor is filling the role he made possible.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    My go-to source on this has actually been Jacobin - first because socialist regimes abroad are their wheelhouse, and second because they're particularly incentivized to give a positive view of Venezuela. They gave Chavez consistent support well past 2002, which makes me think they're not subject to the criticism you've offered here. And yet... Well, these days their reporting looks like: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/07/venezuela-maduro-helicopter-attack-psuv-extractivism-oil https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/07/venezuela-maduro-helicopt... https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/07/venezuela-elections-chavez-maduro-bolivarianism https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/07/venezuela-elections-chave... https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/venezuela-crisis-maduro-opposition-violence-elections-economy https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/venezuela-crisis-maduro-o... You don't have to be a capitalist imperialist to recognize that this particular government has abandoned legitimacy and the interests of the people.
- baursak 9y ago
  As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I recommend watching Abby Martin's on the ground reporting in Venezuela to get a full picture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYWrPiUeWY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYWrPiUeWY (this particular episode is one of many examples)
jfaucett 9y ago
When this is the outcome, I am definitely against democracy. The Nazis were elected into power through democratic processes, does that make anything they did somehow ligitimate? Do the venezuelan people deserve to die of starvation and lack of basic medical necesities b/c they elected a criminal into power (assuming your stats are true)?
- stickfigure 9y ago
  The Nazis were elected into power through democratic processes This is not true. The high-water mark for the Nazis was 43.9% in the 1933 election, far short of a majority. Hitler was appointed chancellor in a shady backroom deal and shortly afterwards banned all other political parties.
  - jfaucett 9y ago
    It seems you're assuming democratic systems/processes are only two party and rule by majority i.e. votes of > 50% means power. Thats not what I said, but if thats your definition then though a valid point, it still doesn't apply to the nazi situation. Most social democratic systems in Europe now and then dont work this way. You can easily become a controlling party by getting 20-30% of the vote even today in Germany for instance. At the time it was much worse, you could become a represented political party with a very low % of votes (under 5%)
Para2016 9y ago
Another high quality comment on HN.
- abalone 9y ago
  Curious what you thought was low-quality about it.