5 ms·

To steel-man and provide a more charitable interpretation of last night: 1. Maduro stole an election. He is not legitimately in power. Many other people in pow

To steel-man and provide a more charitable interpretation of last night: 1. Maduro stole an election. He is not legitimately in power. Many other people in power, like the military and other political factions, opposed this and wants him removed. 2. These people quietly oust Maduro in the middle of the night. 3. With the tacit approval of these folks, the US arrests Maduro for previously indicted crimes. 4. The US bombs some bases, providing plausible deniability to Venezuelan military. This was coordinated and the Venezuelans abandoned these sites ahead of time. 5. There is still stability because most of the people in charge are still there. Only the illegitimate president is gone. Venezuela can have a real election now.

afavour 9mo ago
> Venezuela can have a real election now Assuming the US wants and will allow that. Which isn’t at all clear, given the desire to get a hold of Venezuelan oil.
- Kallikrates 9mo ago
  > ... we're making that decision now. We can't take a chance on letting somebody else run it, just take over where he left off. So we're making that decision they have already signaled that this is not what will be allowed to happen
- adventured 9mo ago
  The US has no use for Venezuelan oil. The US is sitting on a vast reserve of relatively good quality oil and is pumping as much as the global markets can handle. Venezuela is sitting on massive reserves of low quality, difficult to process oil. The US goal is deprive China of access to Venezuelan oil. China is ~80% of all Venezuelan oil exports (legal or illegal). Venezuela represents a very large potential supply of oil for China, for the next 30-50 years (a time after which oil probably won't matter very much to China). Note that the US also did not take Iraq's oil. China & India mostly have got that output. The US spent trillions of dollars, used its super power military to fully invade and occupy Iraq, and then did not take its oil. Read that again if anybody still feels brainwashed from the false campaign that endlessly proclaimed the US invasion of Iraq was to Steal The Oil. Iraq was about the great power conflict with Russia across the Middle East (see: Syria, Libya, etc). Venezuela is about the great power conflict with China and controlling what the US considers its backyard.
  - Forgeties79 9mo ago
    “The US has no use for Venezuelan oil.” > Trump also said he believes that American companies will be “heavily involved” in rebuilding Venezuela’s oil infrastructure. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c5yqygxe41pt https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c5yqygxe41pt Considering this was one of his first statements on what happened, I think it’s a clear signal for what his priorities are. We are straight back to the Reagan years of toppling regimes for our own resource interests. There is no way we did this out of the kindness of our hearts or because we believe in open, free elections. We have clear material interests and he’s not even trying to hide it. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy (/s obviously) but let’s not pretend this was some sort of magnanimous gesture or that it shouldn’t be deeply concerning to their neighbors that the US has no problem attacking a sovereign nation’s capital city and making off with a country’s leader + family when we’re not even at war. Again I am not losing sleep for Maduro specifically but the way this was handled is not something that should be simply glossed over because of who he was and how he came to power, and we should definitely not pretend “the US has no use for Venezuelan oil.”
    - sigwinch 9mo ago
      Agreed, and it would have played out the same if Trump liked the abduction of the Dalai Llama for Tibetan oil.
  - afavour 9mo ago
    > The US has no use for Venezuelan oil Someone should tell Trump that because he’s not been remotely subtle about his thought process. > Note that the US also did not take Iraq's oil That doesn’t mean there was no desire to take that oil. And there very transparently was. Looking at the end result and working backwards is faulty thinking. The US disastrously mismanaged Iraq. They certainly didn’t intend to.
    - monerozcash 9mo ago
      >Someone should tell Trump that because he’s not been remotely subtle about his thought process. Maybe Trump just believes it'll be a good lie for his target demographic, because it certainly is a lie.
- DyslexicAtheist 9mo ago
  it would 100% be somebody who is aligned with far-right Trumpian values. so basically a fascist kleptocrat a la Bolsonaro, Putin, Orban, et al.
  - jennyholzer3 9mo ago
    a la Juan Guaidó
- augusto-moura 9mo ago
  Yes. I am generally dumbfolded on how many of these comments trying to explain the situation completely ignore oil, when it is the main drive for US going to war in the last 50 years. This _is_ an oil motivated attack no doubt
jennyholzer3 9mo ago
Alright well now we know what Joseph Goebbels has to say about this whole thing
kubb 9mo ago
> 4. The US bombs some bases, providing plausible deniability to Venezuelan military. This was coordinated and the Venezuelans abandoned these sites ahead of time. What's the point of this? Surely there's no deniability if the bases were abandoned?
303uru 9mo ago
Do you have zero historical knowledge, like absolutely none?
ycombinary 9mo ago
[flagged]
- jumpman_miya 9mo ago
  [dead]
Kapura 9mo ago
You don't need to do this, actually. Nobody needs you to lie for the regime, to invent a charitable reading of their actions.
- jennyholzer3 9mo ago
  what do you think "steel-man" means, if not inventing a charitable reading of the regime's crimes?
  - daveFNbuck 9mo ago
    steel-man means trying to interpret someone's argument in the most favorable light rather than arguing against a weaker interpretation. It does not mean making up a different argument for them that you like better.
    - seizethecheese 9mo ago
      No. What you describe is closer to “giving the benefit of the doubt”. “Straw manning” was always inventing reasons that are easy to refute, and steel manning has always meant its opposite
- LPisGood 9mo ago
  How is it a lie? It’s a plausible story to be sure and you certainly haven’t given us any reason to think that a different story is more likely than this one
  - array_key_first 9mo ago
    Multiple reasons: 1. Trump lies more than he tells the truth. What that means is that when this administration makes a claim, we must assume it is a lie, and then try to prove it's not a lie. Yes, this is the opposite of how it usually is and no, there is no other reasonable way to go about it. 2. Venezuela has the largest amount of oil reserves in the world. 3. The oil Venezuela has is crude oil, which the US is adept at extracting. 4. There has been past tension between Venezuela and US oil companies, so I think we can all see where this is going. 5. Most US-backed coups are done for reasons outside of official statements. Usually economic and political control reasons. 6. Therefore, the most reasonable answer is that this was done for economic (oil) and political control reasons.
cryptoegorophy 9mo ago
So as long as we have excuses we can bomb a country? Right? This time we don’t sanction and shut off swift, visa, Mastercard? Because this time we are the good guys?
fallinditch 9mo ago
Good background explanation: USA motives, oil, history ... https://youtu.be/4N9-qop-R8M https://youtu.be/4N9-qop-R8M
saubeidl 9mo ago
Alternative explanation: The election was stolen overnight by US barbarism, prepared by years of reactionary rhetoric by the election stealer in chief.
throw0101a 9mo ago
> 1. Maduro stole an election. He is not legitimately in power. Many other people in power, like the military and other political factions, opposed this and wants him removed. Can US administration claim a domestic election (like the upcoming 2026 mid-terms) was stolen and… do stuff? > 3. With the tacit approval of these folks, the US arrests Maduro for previously indicted crimes. Concern: > This argument means that any time a president wants to invade a country "legally," he just has to get his DOJ to indict the country's leader. It makes Congress' power to declare war totally meaningless.( * https://x.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/2007450814097305734#m https://x.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/2007450814097305734#m
- jLaForest 9mo ago
  > Can US administration claim a domestic election (like the upcoming 2026 mid-terms) was stolen and… do stuff? A more direct comparison would be if Mexico decided Trump's lies about the 2020 US election were correct and kidnapped Joe Biden and his wife. You cant condone these actions and also claim to believe in the rule of law...
- WorkerBee28474 9mo ago
  > Can US administration claim a domestic election (like the upcoming 2026 mid-terms) was stolen and… do stuff? With enough guns, anything is possible.
locallost 9mo ago
Or you can just quote the man himself. Fox News: What do you see as the future of Venezuela’s oil industry? Trump: Well, I see that we’re going to be very strongly involved in it. That’s all I can say. We have the greatest oil companies in the world—the biggest, the greatest—and we’re going to be very much involved in it.
hiddencost 9mo ago
No, you're not steel manning. You're just justifying unilateral regime change. None of that matters. There was no declaration of war powers from Congress, this entire operation is a flagrant violation of US and international law. And, to point 1, this operation was carried out by a US President who attempted to violently overthrow the US government to avoid ceding power, which really puts a damper on point 1 I think.
- mvdtnz 9mo ago
  > unilateral regime change. The Venezuelan people voted for regime change. Maduro is the one who acted unilaterally by stealing power.
heresie-dabord 9mo ago
> a more charitable interpretation Never in the past 60 years has it been more clear from observing the current US administration in its international "relations" and its domestic abuses that there is no charitable interpretation.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
rickandmorty99 9mo ago
It doesn't matter. The supreme court has made Trump immune, Trump has no accountability. He can just do this and face little consequences. Your steelman means nothing. Nor does the opposite. We're powerless. Trump isn't. The discussion should be about accountability of his actions first. When he can actually be made accountable then steelmanning and debating his actions in general can come into play because then it will actually mean something.
- cvoss 9mo ago
  The SCOTUS ruling I think you are referring to was about crimes commited by the person who happens to be president, and whether they are punishable. (So not stuff like "you need to undo that bad thing", but "you will go to jail for that".) The acts of the executive branch are absolutely still accountable to the Court via suits of legality and constitutionality. Also, raise hell at your law makers who thought it was a good idea for Congress to give sweeping powers to the executive in the first place.
bongodongobob 9mo ago
Trump literally said we want their oil. We are there to install US oil companies and a US friendly government.
insane_dreamer 9mo ago
Come on, this is borderline insulting. I think most of us are educated enough in US history and foreign policy to know that this is fanciful. I don't doubt that there were people in the Venezuelan govt who want Maduro gone and would be happy for a US-backed coup and collaborated with the US (i.e., provided intel, etc.) But it's still a foreign coup and military-backed regime change, no matter how you or Trump spin it. The lesson to the world continues to be: if you're big and powerful, you can do whatever the f you want in other countries to ensure they are "on your side" and to gain access to their natural resources.
dpkirchner 9mo ago
Steel-manning is always dishonest and never necessary. They can make their own arguments.
augusto-moura 9mo ago
6. Don't forget the oil
pprotas 9mo ago
Good one, can you steelman the Epstein files or Nazi Germany next please?
tjpnz 9mo ago
>Venezuela can have a real election now. Only if the right candidate wins.
colordrops 9mo ago
You might have convinced me that steelmanning is a bullshit rhetorical device.
mempko 9mo ago
What about Trump wanting to accelerate global warming by taking all the oil? EDIT: Instead of just downvoting, tell me how I'm wrong.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
sigmarule 9mo ago
If Maduro stole the election from someone else, and the US does not put that someone else in power, then what does that mean? If the US exercises their own decision making and judgement when installing someone in Maduro’s place and overrides or eclipses the will of the Venezuelan people, then how is this in support of democracy?
komali2 9mo ago
Are dictators hypnotists? Are they wizards? If the regime functioned on the existence of a single man in a single chair, and EVERYONE around him wanted him gone, why does it take the military force of a different country to make it happen? Why isn't it the responsibility of the people in that country to remove him from power?
spacechild1 9mo ago
> To steel-man and provide a more charitable interpretation of last night: But why? Why not stick with the most probable explanation? The idea that Trump's primary goal is to restore democracy in Venezuela is beyond absurd.

afavour 9mo ago

> Venezuela can have a real election now Assuming the US wants and will allow that. Which isn’t at all clear, given the desire to get a hold of Venezuelan oil.

Kallikrates 9mo ago
> ... we're making that decision now. We can't take a chance on letting somebody else run it, just take over where he left off. So we're making that decision they have already signaled that this is not what will be allowed to happen
adventured 9mo ago
The US has no use for Venezuelan oil. The US is sitting on a vast reserve of relatively good quality oil and is pumping as much as the global markets can handle. Venezuela is sitting on massive reserves of low quality, difficult to process oil. The US goal is deprive China of access to Venezuelan oil. China is ~80% of all Venezuelan oil exports (legal or illegal). Venezuela represents a very large potential supply of oil for China, for the next 30-50 years (a time after which oil probably won't matter very much to China). Note that the US also did not take Iraq's oil. China & India mostly have got that output. The US spent trillions of dollars, used its super power military to fully invade and occupy Iraq, and then did not take its oil. Read that again if anybody still feels brainwashed from the false campaign that endlessly proclaimed the US invasion of Iraq was to Steal The Oil. Iraq was about the great power conflict with Russia across the Middle East (see: Syria, Libya, etc). Venezuela is about the great power conflict with China and controlling what the US considers its backyard.
- Forgeties79 9mo ago
  “The US has no use for Venezuelan oil.” > Trump also said he believes that American companies will be “heavily involved” in rebuilding Venezuela’s oil infrastructure. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c5yqygxe41pt https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c5yqygxe41pt Considering this was one of his first statements on what happened, I think it’s a clear signal for what his priorities are. We are straight back to the Reagan years of toppling regimes for our own resource interests. There is no way we did this out of the kindness of our hearts or because we believe in open, free elections. We have clear material interests and he’s not even trying to hide it. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy (/s obviously) but let’s not pretend this was some sort of magnanimous gesture or that it shouldn’t be deeply concerning to their neighbors that the US has no problem attacking a sovereign nation’s capital city and making off with a country’s leader + family when we’re not even at war. Again I am not losing sleep for Maduro specifically but the way this was handled is not something that should be simply glossed over because of who he was and how he came to power, and we should definitely not pretend “the US has no use for Venezuelan oil.”
  - sigwinch 9mo ago
    Agreed, and it would have played out the same if Trump liked the abduction of the Dalai Llama for Tibetan oil.
- afavour 9mo ago
  > The US has no use for Venezuelan oil Someone should tell Trump that because he’s not been remotely subtle about his thought process. > Note that the US also did not take Iraq's oil That doesn’t mean there was no desire to take that oil. And there very transparently was. Looking at the end result and working backwards is faulty thinking. The US disastrously mismanaged Iraq. They certainly didn’t intend to.
  - monerozcash 9mo ago
    >Someone should tell Trump that because he’s not been remotely subtle about his thought process. Maybe Trump just believes it'll be a good lie for his target demographic, because it certainly is a lie.
DyslexicAtheist 9mo ago
it would 100% be somebody who is aligned with far-right Trumpian values. so basically a fascist kleptocrat a la Bolsonaro, Putin, Orban, et al.
- jennyholzer3 9mo ago
  a la Juan Guaidó
augusto-moura 9mo ago
Yes. I am generally dumbfolded on how many of these comments trying to explain the situation completely ignore oil, when it is the main drive for US going to war in the last 50 years. This _is_ an oil motivated attack no doubt

jennyholzer3 9mo ago

Alright well now we know what Joseph Goebbels has to say about this whole thing

kubb 9mo ago

> 4. The US bombs some bases, providing plausible deniability to Venezuelan military. This was coordinated and the Venezuelans abandoned these sites ahead of time. What's the point of this? Surely there's no deniability if the bases were abandoned?

303uru 9mo ago

Do you have zero historical knowledge, like absolutely none?

ycombinary 9mo ago

[flagged]

jumpman_miya 9mo ago
[dead]

Kapura 9mo ago

You don't need to do this, actually. Nobody needs you to lie for the regime, to invent a charitable reading of their actions.

jennyholzer3 9mo ago
what do you think "steel-man" means, if not inventing a charitable reading of the regime's crimes?
- daveFNbuck 9mo ago
  steel-man means trying to interpret someone's argument in the most favorable light rather than arguing against a weaker interpretation. It does not mean making up a different argument for them that you like better.
  - seizethecheese 9mo ago
    No. What you describe is closer to “giving the benefit of the doubt”. “Straw manning” was always inventing reasons that are easy to refute, and steel manning has always meant its opposite
LPisGood 9mo ago
How is it a lie? It’s a plausible story to be sure and you certainly haven’t given us any reason to think that a different story is more likely than this one
- array_key_first 9mo ago
  Multiple reasons: 1. Trump lies more than he tells the truth. What that means is that when this administration makes a claim, we must assume it is a lie, and then try to prove it's not a lie. Yes, this is the opposite of how it usually is and no, there is no other reasonable way to go about it. 2. Venezuela has the largest amount of oil reserves in the world. 3. The oil Venezuela has is crude oil, which the US is adept at extracting. 4. There has been past tension between Venezuela and US oil companies, so I think we can all see where this is going. 5. Most US-backed coups are done for reasons outside of official statements. Usually economic and political control reasons. 6. Therefore, the most reasonable answer is that this was done for economic (oil) and political control reasons.

cryptoegorophy 9mo ago

So as long as we have excuses we can bomb a country? Right? This time we don’t sanction and shut off swift, visa, Mastercard? Because this time we are the good guys?

fallinditch 9mo ago

Good background explanation: USA motives, oil, history ... https://youtu.be/4N9-qop-R8M https://youtu.be/4N9-qop-R8M

saubeidl 9mo ago

Alternative explanation: The election was stolen overnight by US barbarism, prepared by years of reactionary rhetoric by the election stealer in chief.

throw0101a 9mo ago

> 1. Maduro stole an election. He is not legitimately in power. Many other people in power, like the military and other political factions, opposed this and wants him removed. Can US administration claim a domestic election (like the upcoming 2026 mid-terms) was stolen and… do stuff? > 3. With the tacit approval of these folks, the US arrests Maduro for previously indicted crimes. Concern: > This argument means that any time a president wants to invade a country "legally," he just has to get his DOJ to indict the country's leader. It makes Congress' power to declare war totally meaningless.( * https://x.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/2007450814097305734#m https://x.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/2007450814097305734#m

jLaForest 9mo ago
> Can US administration claim a domestic election (like the upcoming 2026 mid-terms) was stolen and… do stuff? A more direct comparison would be if Mexico decided Trump's lies about the 2020 US election were correct and kidnapped Joe Biden and his wife. You cant condone these actions and also claim to believe in the rule of law...
WorkerBee28474 9mo ago
> Can US administration claim a domestic election (like the upcoming 2026 mid-terms) was stolen and… do stuff? With enough guns, anything is possible.

locallost 9mo ago

Or you can just quote the man himself. Fox News: What do you see as the future of Venezuela’s oil industry? Trump: Well, I see that we’re going to be very strongly involved in it. That’s all I can say. We have the greatest oil companies in the world—the biggest, the greatest—and we’re going to be very much involved in it.

hiddencost 9mo ago

No, you're not steel manning. You're just justifying unilateral regime change. None of that matters. There was no declaration of war powers from Congress, this entire operation is a flagrant violation of US and international law. And, to point 1, this operation was carried out by a US President who attempted to violently overthrow the US government to avoid ceding power, which really puts a damper on point 1 I think.

mvdtnz 9mo ago
> unilateral regime change. The Venezuelan people voted for regime change. Maduro is the one who acted unilaterally by stealing power.

heresie-dabord 9mo ago

> a more charitable interpretation Never in the past 60 years has it been more clear from observing the current US administration in its international "relations" and its domestic abuses that there is no charitable interpretation.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

rickandmorty99 9mo ago

It doesn't matter. The supreme court has made Trump immune, Trump has no accountability. He can just do this and face little consequences. Your steelman means nothing. Nor does the opposite. We're powerless. Trump isn't. The discussion should be about accountability of his actions first. When he can actually be made accountable then steelmanning and debating his actions in general can come into play because then it will actually mean something.

cvoss 9mo ago
The SCOTUS ruling I think you are referring to was about crimes commited by the person who happens to be president, and whether they are punishable. (So not stuff like "you need to undo that bad thing", but "you will go to jail for that".) The acts of the executive branch are absolutely still accountable to the Court via suits of legality and constitutionality. Also, raise hell at your law makers who thought it was a good idea for Congress to give sweeping powers to the executive in the first place.

bongodongobob 9mo ago

Trump literally said we want their oil. We are there to install US oil companies and a US friendly government.

insane_dreamer 9mo ago

Come on, this is borderline insulting. I think most of us are educated enough in US history and foreign policy to know that this is fanciful. I don't doubt that there were people in the Venezuelan govt who want Maduro gone and would be happy for a US-backed coup and collaborated with the US (i.e., provided intel, etc.) But it's still a foreign coup and military-backed regime change, no matter how you or Trump spin it. The lesson to the world continues to be: if you're big and powerful, you can do whatever the f you want in other countries to ensure they are "on your side" and to gain access to their natural resources.

dpkirchner 9mo ago

Steel-manning is always dishonest and never necessary. They can make their own arguments.

augusto-moura 9mo ago

6. Don't forget the oil

pprotas 9mo ago

Good one, can you steelman the Epstein files or Nazi Germany next please?

tjpnz 9mo ago

>Venezuela can have a real election now. Only if the right candidate wins.

colordrops 9mo ago

You might have convinced me that steelmanning is a bullshit rhetorical device.

mempko 9mo ago

What about Trump wanting to accelerate global warming by taking all the oil? EDIT: Instead of just downvoting, tell me how I'm wrong.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

sigmarule 9mo ago

If Maduro stole the election from someone else, and the US does not put that someone else in power, then what does that mean? If the US exercises their own decision making and judgement when installing someone in Maduro’s place and overrides or eclipses the will of the Venezuelan people, then how is this in support of democracy?

komali2 9mo ago

Are dictators hypnotists? Are they wizards? If the regime functioned on the existence of a single man in a single chair, and EVERYONE around him wanted him gone, why does it take the military force of a different country to make it happen? Why isn't it the responsibility of the people in that country to remove him from power?

spacechild1 9mo ago

> To steel-man and provide a more charitable interpretation of last night: But why? Why not stick with the most probable explanation? The idea that Trump's primary goal is to restore democracy in Venezuela is beyond absurd.