3 ms·

I think it's not an unreasonable assumption to start from that the US government is working in collusion with the opposition it openly backs in Venezuela? It al

I think it's not an unreasonable assumption to start from that the US government is working in collusion with the opposition it openly backs in Venezuela? It also feels silly to imagine that Venezuelan opposition was really hoping anything other than this while openly courting US support. Also, to be fair, the comment I was responding to earlier referred to the Venezuelan opposition as a US puppet. I think that effectively concedes this point anyway.

chrisjj 10mo ago
I suggested evidence. Your mere assumption is somewhat short of evidence.
- monerozcash 10mo ago
  I don't think I've stated anything that requires evidence, but please feel free to be more specific.
  - chrisjj 10mo ago
    Again, your "if they were invited in by what they consider to be representatives of the legitimate government".
    - monerozcash 10mo ago
      What part of that do you think requires evidence? The US has been very public about who they consider to have won the previous elections, and the opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela.
      - chrisjj 10mo ago
        "they were invited in".
        monerozcash 10mo ago
        The opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela, this is basically what any kind of effective intervention would look like. It seems more than reasonable to assume that they were in fact invited in.
        chrisjj 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        monerozcash 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        chrisjj 10mo ago
        > "The opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela" is not an assumption, it is a direct reference to evidence ... and is not the statement in question. The statement in question is your "they were invited in". And when I look for evidence of that, I find only counter-evidence e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmlz7r0zrxo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmlz7r0zrxo Trump also said he had not spoken to Venezuela's opposition leader María Corina Machado, who he characterised as having neither the support nor the respect within Venezuela to become its leader.
        monerozcash 10mo ago
        >> "The opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela" is not an assumption, it is a direct reference to evidence >... and is not the statement in question. >The statement in question is your "they were invited in". I think "they were invited in" inherently follows from the "lobbying for foreign intervention". Unless you have some alternative explanation as to what the Venezuelan opposition could possibly have been pursuing during their extensive international lobbying tours, "they were invited in" is the simplest and most reasonable hypothesis. The alternative is that they were just lobbying for fun and didn't actually hope to achieve any change in Venezuela, but that seems kind of silly.

chrisjj 10mo ago

I suggested evidence. Your mere assumption is somewhat short of evidence.

monerozcash 10mo ago
I don't think I've stated anything that requires evidence, but please feel free to be more specific.
- chrisjj 10mo ago
  Again, your "if they were invited in by what they consider to be representatives of the legitimate government".
  - monerozcash 10mo ago
    What part of that do you think requires evidence? The US has been very public about who they consider to have won the previous elections, and the opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela.
    - chrisjj 10mo ago
      "they were invited in".
      - monerozcash 10mo ago
        The opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela, this is basically what any kind of effective intervention would look like. It seems more than reasonable to assume that they were in fact invited in.
        chrisjj 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        monerozcash 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        chrisjj 10mo ago
        > "The opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela" is not an assumption, it is a direct reference to evidence ... and is not the statement in question. The statement in question is your "they were invited in". And when I look for evidence of that, I find only counter-evidence e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmlz7r0zrxo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmlz7r0zrxo Trump also said he had not spoken to Venezuela's opposition leader María Corina Machado, who he characterised as having neither the support nor the respect within Venezuela to become its leader.
        monerozcash 10mo ago
        >> "The opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela" is not an assumption, it is a direct reference to evidence >... and is not the statement in question. >The statement in question is your "they were invited in". I think "they were invited in" inherently follows from the "lobbying for foreign intervention". Unless you have some alternative explanation as to what the Venezuelan opposition could possibly have been pursuing during their extensive international lobbying tours, "they were invited in" is the simplest and most reasonable hypothesis. The alternative is that they were just lobbying for fun and didn't actually hope to achieve any change in Venezuela, but that seems kind of silly.