|
On January 28 2019 06:52 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 06:41 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:07 iamthedave wrote:On January 28 2019 04:32 GoTuNk! wrote:On January 28 2019 04:22 iamthedave wrote:On January 28 2019 04:18 GoTuNk! wrote:On January 28 2019 03:57 Danglars wrote:some of which have been working for years to destabilize Venezuela and its economy in a bid for access to its bountiful natural resources like oil, gas, and gold. My favorite part. It’s like the onion. Just to make it clear for those who isn't obvious; "Telesur" is Maduro's propaganda agency. Not a partisan network, a full blown propaganda outlet. Like Fox News, then? Oh, the clever one liners; I'm sure you are being disingenuous but I'll explain anyway Fox News is a republican partisan outlet, just like NBC and CBS are democrat partisan outlets; they are both privately funded aswell. Given republicans hold the white house now, telesur would be Fox News funded directly by the US government and broadcasting ONLY at DJT whims. At the same time, all other networks have been directly censored into oblivion by the federal government in the previous years, with their top executives, journalists and figures imprisoned or forced into exile under the argument of "treason". If you can't see the difference it's on you. So it's a whoosh, then. Good to know. I'm curious though, are you actually aware of how much you post on here is just random right wing talking points and propaganda that you've not really thought through? Nothing about what he posted in that post is talking points and propaganda. I mean you can find left wind talking points and propaganda posted repeatedly by GH and its a lot more obvious. I'm not saying hes the most steady center poster but his post there is simple and logical. Muduro has been running a terror campaign controling peoples food supply dissolving any government institution that dares go against him and replacing them with ones that report to him directly. You wouldn't trust al Jazeera if they talked about middle east politics and you wouldn't trust RT if they talked about gays in Chechnya. But for some The Venezuelan version is anywhere more trustworthy? Do we trust the election run by muduro to say that he won fairly, the election that was boycotted because he dissolved the courts and elected body that disagreed with him? I think you both make some valid points but I have to ask this for perspective. Do you think Bolsonaro's election was legitimate? Yes he was winning in the polls well before the election and actually performed worse in the election then what was expected. Various potential fraud aside its more likely that bolsonaro's was legitimate then Trumps.
So the most popular candidate being put in prison during the campaign on questionable at best allegations doesn't delegitimize it to you?
|
On January 28 2019 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 06:52 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 06:41 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:07 iamthedave wrote:On January 28 2019 04:32 GoTuNk! wrote:On January 28 2019 04:22 iamthedave wrote:On January 28 2019 04:18 GoTuNk! wrote:On January 28 2019 03:57 Danglars wrote:some of which have been working for years to destabilize Venezuela and its economy in a bid for access to its bountiful natural resources like oil, gas, and gold. My favorite part. It’s like the onion. Just to make it clear for those who isn't obvious; "Telesur" is Maduro's propaganda agency. Not a partisan network, a full blown propaganda outlet. Like Fox News, then? Oh, the clever one liners; I'm sure you are being disingenuous but I'll explain anyway Fox News is a republican partisan outlet, just like NBC and CBS are democrat partisan outlets; they are both privately funded aswell. Given republicans hold the white house now, telesur would be Fox News funded directly by the US government and broadcasting ONLY at DJT whims. At the same time, all other networks have been directly censored into oblivion by the federal government in the previous years, with their top executives, journalists and figures imprisoned or forced into exile under the argument of "treason". If you can't see the difference it's on you. So it's a whoosh, then. Good to know. I'm curious though, are you actually aware of how much you post on here is just random right wing talking points and propaganda that you've not really thought through? Nothing about what he posted in that post is talking points and propaganda. I mean you can find left wind talking points and propaganda posted repeatedly by GH and its a lot more obvious. I'm not saying hes the most steady center poster but his post there is simple and logical. Muduro has been running a terror campaign controling peoples food supply dissolving any government institution that dares go against him and replacing them with ones that report to him directly. You wouldn't trust al Jazeera if they talked about middle east politics and you wouldn't trust RT if they talked about gays in Chechnya. But for some The Venezuelan version is anywhere more trustworthy? Do we trust the election run by muduro to say that he won fairly, the election that was boycotted because he dissolved the courts and elected body that disagreed with him? I think you both make some valid points but I have to ask this for perspective. Do you think Bolsonaro's election was legitimate? Yes he was winning in the polls well before the election and actually performed worse in the election then what was expected. Various potential fraud aside its more likely that bolsonaro's was legitimate then Trumps. So the most popular candidate being put in prison during the campaign on questionable at best allegations doesn't delegitimize it to you?
That would depend on the independence of the courts. I'm not an expert on how the judges and the appeal process of the Brazilian judicial system is but being convicted of corruption and bribery seems like a disqualifiable offense. Let alone being in jail during his presidential term would be hard to reconcile.
|
On January 28 2019 07:03 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 06:52 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 06:41 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:07 iamthedave wrote:On January 28 2019 04:32 GoTuNk! wrote:On January 28 2019 04:22 iamthedave wrote:On January 28 2019 04:18 GoTuNk! wrote:On January 28 2019 03:57 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
My favorite part.
It’s like the onion. Just to make it clear for those who isn't obvious; "Telesur" is Maduro's propaganda agency. Not a partisan network, a full blown propaganda outlet. Like Fox News, then? Oh, the clever one liners; I'm sure you are being disingenuous but I'll explain anyway Fox News is a republican partisan outlet, just like NBC and CBS are democrat partisan outlets; they are both privately funded aswell. Given republicans hold the white house now, telesur would be Fox News funded directly by the US government and broadcasting ONLY at DJT whims. At the same time, all other networks have been directly censored into oblivion by the federal government in the previous years, with their top executives, journalists and figures imprisoned or forced into exile under the argument of "treason". If you can't see the difference it's on you. So it's a whoosh, then. Good to know. I'm curious though, are you actually aware of how much you post on here is just random right wing talking points and propaganda that you've not really thought through? Nothing about what he posted in that post is talking points and propaganda. I mean you can find left wind talking points and propaganda posted repeatedly by GH and its a lot more obvious. I'm not saying hes the most steady center poster but his post there is simple and logical. Muduro has been running a terror campaign controling peoples food supply dissolving any government institution that dares go against him and replacing them with ones that report to him directly. You wouldn't trust al Jazeera if they talked about middle east politics and you wouldn't trust RT if they talked about gays in Chechnya. But for some The Venezuelan version is anywhere more trustworthy? Do we trust the election run by muduro to say that he won fairly, the election that was boycotted because he dissolved the courts and elected body that disagreed with him? I think you both make some valid points but I have to ask this for perspective. Do you think Bolsonaro's election was legitimate? Yes he was winning in the polls well before the election and actually performed worse in the election then what was expected. Various potential fraud aside its more likely that bolsonaro's was legitimate then Trumps. So the most popular candidate being put in prison during the campaign on questionable at best allegations doesn't delegitimize it to you? That would depend on the independence of the courts. I'm not an expert on how the judges and the appeal process of the Brazilian judicial system is but being convicted of corruption and bribery seems like a disqualifiable offense. Let alone being in jail during his presidential term would be hard to reconcile.
So without knowing you made the assumption that the courts in Brazil are better than the courts in Venezuela?
|
On January 28 2019 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 07:03 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 06:52 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 06:41 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:07 iamthedave wrote:On January 28 2019 04:32 GoTuNk! wrote:On January 28 2019 04:22 iamthedave wrote:On January 28 2019 04:18 GoTuNk! wrote:
[quote]
Just to make it clear for those who isn't obvious; "Telesur" is Maduro's propaganda agency. Not a partisan network, a full blown propaganda outlet. Like Fox News, then? Oh, the clever one liners; I'm sure you are being disingenuous but I'll explain anyway Fox News is a republican partisan outlet, just like NBC and CBS are democrat partisan outlets; they are both privately funded aswell. Given republicans hold the white house now, telesur would be Fox News funded directly by the US government and broadcasting ONLY at DJT whims. At the same time, all other networks have been directly censored into oblivion by the federal government in the previous years, with their top executives, journalists and figures imprisoned or forced into exile under the argument of "treason". If you can't see the difference it's on you. So it's a whoosh, then. Good to know. I'm curious though, are you actually aware of how much you post on here is just random right wing talking points and propaganda that you've not really thought through? Nothing about what he posted in that post is talking points and propaganda. I mean you can find left wind talking points and propaganda posted repeatedly by GH and its a lot more obvious. I'm not saying hes the most steady center poster but his post there is simple and logical. Muduro has been running a terror campaign controling peoples food supply dissolving any government institution that dares go against him and replacing them with ones that report to him directly. You wouldn't trust al Jazeera if they talked about middle east politics and you wouldn't trust RT if they talked about gays in Chechnya. But for some The Venezuelan version is anywhere more trustworthy? Do we trust the election run by muduro to say that he won fairly, the election that was boycotted because he dissolved the courts and elected body that disagreed with him? I think you both make some valid points but I have to ask this for perspective. Do you think Bolsonaro's election was legitimate? Yes he was winning in the polls well before the election and actually performed worse in the election then what was expected. Various potential fraud aside its more likely that bolsonaro's was legitimate then Trumps. So the most popular candidate being put in prison during the campaign on questionable at best allegations doesn't delegitimize it to you? That would depend on the independence of the courts. I'm not an expert on how the judges and the appeal process of the Brazilian judicial system is but being convicted of corruption and bribery seems like a disqualifiable offense. Let alone being in jail during his presidential term would be hard to reconcile. So without knowing you made the assumption that the courts in Brazil are better than the courts in Venezuela?
In the absence of knowing the courts in brazil vs knowing the courts in Venezuela are an extension of maduro I did make the assumption that the brazilian courts are better then the ones in Venezuela. If my flaw is that I don't automatically assume south America is effectively a lawless collection of failed states then I'll accept that.
|
On January 28 2019 07:15 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:03 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 06:52 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 06:41 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:07 iamthedave wrote:On January 28 2019 04:32 GoTuNk! wrote:On January 28 2019 04:22 iamthedave wrote:
[quote]
Like Fox News, then?
Oh, the clever one liners; I'm sure you are being disingenuous but I'll explain anyway Fox News is a republican partisan outlet, just like NBC and CBS are democrat partisan outlets; they are both privately funded aswell. Given republicans hold the white house now, telesur would be Fox News funded directly by the US government and broadcasting ONLY at DJT whims. At the same time, all other networks have been directly censored into oblivion by the federal government in the previous years, with their top executives, journalists and figures imprisoned or forced into exile under the argument of "treason". If you can't see the difference it's on you. So it's a whoosh, then. Good to know. I'm curious though, are you actually aware of how much you post on here is just random right wing talking points and propaganda that you've not really thought through? Nothing about what he posted in that post is talking points and propaganda. I mean you can find left wind talking points and propaganda posted repeatedly by GH and its a lot more obvious. I'm not saying hes the most steady center poster but his post there is simple and logical. Muduro has been running a terror campaign controling peoples food supply dissolving any government institution that dares go against him and replacing them with ones that report to him directly. You wouldn't trust al Jazeera if they talked about middle east politics and you wouldn't trust RT if they talked about gays in Chechnya. But for some The Venezuelan version is anywhere more trustworthy? Do we trust the election run by muduro to say that he won fairly, the election that was boycotted because he dissolved the courts and elected body that disagreed with him? I think you both make some valid points but I have to ask this for perspective. Do you think Bolsonaro's election was legitimate? Yes he was winning in the polls well before the election and actually performed worse in the election then what was expected. Various potential fraud aside its more likely that bolsonaro's was legitimate then Trumps. So the most popular candidate being put in prison during the campaign on questionable at best allegations doesn't delegitimize it to you? That would depend on the independence of the courts. I'm not an expert on how the judges and the appeal process of the Brazilian judicial system is but being convicted of corruption and bribery seems like a disqualifiable offense. Let alone being in jail during his presidential term would be hard to reconcile. So without knowing you made the assumption that the courts in Brazil are better than the courts in Venezuela? In the absence of knowing the courts in brazil vs knowing the courts in Venezuela are an extension of maduro I did make the assumption that the brazilian courts are better then the ones in Venezuela. If my flaw is that I don't automatically assume south America is effectively a lawless collection of failed states then I'll accept that.
No I just want to be clear about the assumptions we're making and what you would consider enough to make an election legitimate or illegitimate.
I think it's fair to point out there is a long and sordid history of US and western interference in those countries. Fair to say very much so over the last decades.
Without indicting all of South America, but rather just the country that elected an open fascist I do think the assumption that their election and judicial system is functioning well enough to confidently (without further research) assert that one believes Bolsonaro was legitimately elected is bold, and indeed, a mistake.
|
On January 28 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 07:15 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:03 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 06:52 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 06:41 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:07 iamthedave wrote:On January 28 2019 04:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
[quote]
Oh, the clever one liners; I'm sure you are being disingenuous but I'll explain anyway
Fox News is a republican partisan outlet, just like NBC and CBS are democrat partisan outlets; they are both privately funded aswell.
Given republicans hold the white house now, telesur would be Fox News funded directly by the US government and broadcasting ONLY at DJT whims. At the same time, all other networks have been directly censored into oblivion by the federal government in the previous years, with their top executives, journalists and figures imprisoned or forced into exile under the argument of "treason".
If you can't see the difference it's on you. So it's a whoosh, then. Good to know. I'm curious though, are you actually aware of how much you post on here is just random right wing talking points and propaganda that you've not really thought through? Nothing about what he posted in that post is talking points and propaganda. I mean you can find left wind talking points and propaganda posted repeatedly by GH and its a lot more obvious. I'm not saying hes the most steady center poster but his post there is simple and logical. Muduro has been running a terror campaign controling peoples food supply dissolving any government institution that dares go against him and replacing them with ones that report to him directly. You wouldn't trust al Jazeera if they talked about middle east politics and you wouldn't trust RT if they talked about gays in Chechnya. But for some The Venezuelan version is anywhere more trustworthy? Do we trust the election run by muduro to say that he won fairly, the election that was boycotted because he dissolved the courts and elected body that disagreed with him? I think you both make some valid points but I have to ask this for perspective. Do you think Bolsonaro's election was legitimate? Yes he was winning in the polls well before the election and actually performed worse in the election then what was expected. Various potential fraud aside its more likely that bolsonaro's was legitimate then Trumps. So the most popular candidate being put in prison during the campaign on questionable at best allegations doesn't delegitimize it to you? That would depend on the independence of the courts. I'm not an expert on how the judges and the appeal process of the Brazilian judicial system is but being convicted of corruption and bribery seems like a disqualifiable offense. Let alone being in jail during his presidential term would be hard to reconcile. So without knowing you made the assumption that the courts in Brazil are better than the courts in Venezuela? In the absence of knowing the courts in brazil vs knowing the courts in Venezuela are an extension of maduro I did make the assumption that the brazilian courts are better then the ones in Venezuela. If my flaw is that I don't automatically assume south America is effectively a lawless collection of failed states then I'll accept that. No I just want to be clear about the assumptions we're making and what you would consider enough to make an election legitimate or illegitimate. I think it's fair to point out there is a long and sordid history of US and western interference in those countries. Fair to say very much so over the last decades. Without indicting all of South America, but rather just the country that elected an open fascist I do think the assumption that their election and judicial system is functioning well enough to confidently (without further research) assert that one believes Bolsonaro was legitimately elected is bold, and indeed, a mistake.
But whats the alternative? You either have to support them making their own mistakes or support a supermassive intervention on all of these countries to remake their governments in an image of a western europian one for a generation. There is no good option on what to do with south america, only what is easiest for us.
|
On January 28 2019 07:37 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:15 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:03 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 06:52 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 06:41 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:07 iamthedave wrote:
[quote]
So it's a whoosh, then. Good to know.
I'm curious though, are you actually aware of how much you post on here is just random right wing talking points and propaganda that you've not really thought through? Nothing about what he posted in that post is talking points and propaganda. I mean you can find left wind talking points and propaganda posted repeatedly by GH and its a lot more obvious. I'm not saying hes the most steady center poster but his post there is simple and logical. Muduro has been running a terror campaign controling peoples food supply dissolving any government institution that dares go against him and replacing them with ones that report to him directly. You wouldn't trust al Jazeera if they talked about middle east politics and you wouldn't trust RT if they talked about gays in Chechnya. But for some The Venezuelan version is anywhere more trustworthy? Do we trust the election run by muduro to say that he won fairly, the election that was boycotted because he dissolved the courts and elected body that disagreed with him? I think you both make some valid points but I have to ask this for perspective. Do you think Bolsonaro's election was legitimate? Yes he was winning in the polls well before the election and actually performed worse in the election then what was expected. Various potential fraud aside its more likely that bolsonaro's was legitimate then Trumps. So the most popular candidate being put in prison during the campaign on questionable at best allegations doesn't delegitimize it to you? That would depend on the independence of the courts. I'm not an expert on how the judges and the appeal process of the Brazilian judicial system is but being convicted of corruption and bribery seems like a disqualifiable offense. Let alone being in jail during his presidential term would be hard to reconcile. So without knowing you made the assumption that the courts in Brazil are better than the courts in Venezuela? In the absence of knowing the courts in brazil vs knowing the courts in Venezuela are an extension of maduro I did make the assumption that the brazilian courts are better then the ones in Venezuela. If my flaw is that I don't automatically assume south America is effectively a lawless collection of failed states then I'll accept that. No I just want to be clear about the assumptions we're making and what you would consider enough to make an election legitimate or illegitimate. I think it's fair to point out there is a long and sordid history of US and western interference in those countries. Fair to say very much so over the last decades. Without indicting all of South America, but rather just the country that elected an open fascist I do think the assumption that their election and judicial system is functioning well enough to confidently (without further research) assert that one believes Bolsonaro was legitimately elected is bold, and indeed, a mistake. But whats the alternative? You either have to support them making their own mistakes or support a supermassive intervention on all of these countries to remake their governments in an image of a western europian one for a generation. There is no good option on what to do with south america, only what is easiest for us.
Wait, are you asking what's the alternative to assuming Brazil's election and judicial system is legitimate enough to confidently believe Bolsonaro (an open fascist) was legitimately elected?
|
On January 28 2019 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 07:37 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:15 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:03 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 06:52 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 06:41 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
Nothing about what he posted in that post is talking points and propaganda. I mean you can find left wind talking points and propaganda posted repeatedly by GH and its a lot more obvious. I'm not saying hes the most steady center poster but his post there is simple and logical. Muduro has been running a terror campaign controling peoples food supply dissolving any government institution that dares go against him and replacing them with ones that report to him directly.
You wouldn't trust al Jazeera if they talked about middle east politics and you wouldn't trust RT if they talked about gays in Chechnya. But for some The Venezuelan version is anywhere more trustworthy? Do we trust the election run by muduro to say that he won fairly, the election that was boycotted because he dissolved the courts and elected body that disagreed with him? I think you both make some valid points but I have to ask this for perspective. Do you think Bolsonaro's election was legitimate? Yes he was winning in the polls well before the election and actually performed worse in the election then what was expected. Various potential fraud aside its more likely that bolsonaro's was legitimate then Trumps. So the most popular candidate being put in prison during the campaign on questionable at best allegations doesn't delegitimize it to you? That would depend on the independence of the courts. I'm not an expert on how the judges and the appeal process of the Brazilian judicial system is but being convicted of corruption and bribery seems like a disqualifiable offense. Let alone being in jail during his presidential term would be hard to reconcile. So without knowing you made the assumption that the courts in Brazil are better than the courts in Venezuela? In the absence of knowing the courts in brazil vs knowing the courts in Venezuela are an extension of maduro I did make the assumption that the brazilian courts are better then the ones in Venezuela. If my flaw is that I don't automatically assume south America is effectively a lawless collection of failed states then I'll accept that. No I just want to be clear about the assumptions we're making and what you would consider enough to make an election legitimate or illegitimate. I think it's fair to point out there is a long and sordid history of US and western interference in those countries. Fair to say very much so over the last decades. Without indicting all of South America, but rather just the country that elected an open fascist I do think the assumption that their election and judicial system is functioning well enough to confidently (without further research) assert that one believes Bolsonaro was legitimately elected is bold, and indeed, a mistake. But whats the alternative? You either have to support them making their own mistakes or support a supermassive intervention on all of these countries to remake their governments in an image of a western europian one for a generation. There is no good option on what to do with south america, only what is easiest for us. Wait, are you asking what's the alternative to assuming Brazil's election and judicial system is legitimate enough to confidently believe Bolsonaro (an open fascist) was legitimately elected?
Pretty much yeah. If we don't we destablize the country for no real reason only to spite them. I though you were for not influencing south american elections?
|
On January 28 2019 07:58 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:37 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:15 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:03 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 06:52 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I think you both make some valid points but I have to ask this for perspective. Do you think Bolsonaro's election was legitimate? Yes he was winning in the polls well before the election and actually performed worse in the election then what was expected. Various potential fraud aside its more likely that bolsonaro's was legitimate then Trumps. So the most popular candidate being put in prison during the campaign on questionable at best allegations doesn't delegitimize it to you? That would depend on the independence of the courts. I'm not an expert on how the judges and the appeal process of the Brazilian judicial system is but being convicted of corruption and bribery seems like a disqualifiable offense. Let alone being in jail during his presidential term would be hard to reconcile. So without knowing you made the assumption that the courts in Brazil are better than the courts in Venezuela? In the absence of knowing the courts in brazil vs knowing the courts in Venezuela are an extension of maduro I did make the assumption that the brazilian courts are better then the ones in Venezuela. If my flaw is that I don't automatically assume south America is effectively a lawless collection of failed states then I'll accept that. No I just want to be clear about the assumptions we're making and what you would consider enough to make an election legitimate or illegitimate. I think it's fair to point out there is a long and sordid history of US and western interference in those countries. Fair to say very much so over the last decades. Without indicting all of South America, but rather just the country that elected an open fascist I do think the assumption that their election and judicial system is functioning well enough to confidently (without further research) assert that one believes Bolsonaro was legitimately elected is bold, and indeed, a mistake. But whats the alternative? You either have to support them making their own mistakes or support a supermassive intervention on all of these countries to remake their governments in an image of a western europian one for a generation. There is no good option on what to do with south america, only what is easiest for us. Wait, are you asking what's the alternative to assuming Brazil's election and judicial system is legitimate enough to confidently believe Bolsonaro (an open fascist) was legitimately elected? Pretty much yeah.
Say "I don't know if it was a legitimate election".
|
On January 28 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 07:58 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:37 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:15 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:03 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 06:52 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
Yes he was winning in the polls well before the election and actually performed worse in the election then what was expected. Various potential fraud aside its more likely that bolsonaro's was legitimate then Trumps. So the most popular candidate being put in prison during the campaign on questionable at best allegations doesn't delegitimize it to you? That would depend on the independence of the courts. I'm not an expert on how the judges and the appeal process of the Brazilian judicial system is but being convicted of corruption and bribery seems like a disqualifiable offense. Let alone being in jail during his presidential term would be hard to reconcile. So without knowing you made the assumption that the courts in Brazil are better than the courts in Venezuela? In the absence of knowing the courts in brazil vs knowing the courts in Venezuela are an extension of maduro I did make the assumption that the brazilian courts are better then the ones in Venezuela. If my flaw is that I don't automatically assume south America is effectively a lawless collection of failed states then I'll accept that. No I just want to be clear about the assumptions we're making and what you would consider enough to make an election legitimate or illegitimate. I think it's fair to point out there is a long and sordid history of US and western interference in those countries. Fair to say very much so over the last decades. Without indicting all of South America, but rather just the country that elected an open fascist I do think the assumption that their election and judicial system is functioning well enough to confidently (without further research) assert that one believes Bolsonaro was legitimately elected is bold, and indeed, a mistake. But whats the alternative? You either have to support them making their own mistakes or support a supermassive intervention on all of these countries to remake their governments in an image of a western europian one for a generation. There is no good option on what to do with south america, only what is easiest for us. Wait, are you asking what's the alternative to assuming Brazil's election and judicial system is legitimate enough to confidently believe Bolsonaro (an open fascist) was legitimately elected? Pretty much yeah. Say "I don't know if it was a legitimate election".
Ok question the legitimacy of the brazilian government destabilize the nation and deliver chaos for what end? I thought you were against influceing south american elections and would be happy with his election?
|
On January 28 2019 08:00 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:58 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:37 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:15 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:03 Sermokala wrote:That would depend on the independence of the courts. I'm not an expert on how the judges and the appeal process of the Brazilian judicial system is but being convicted of corruption and bribery seems like a disqualifiable offense. Let alone being in jail during his presidential term would be hard to reconcile. So without knowing you made the assumption that the courts in Brazil are better than the courts in Venezuela? In the absence of knowing the courts in brazil vs knowing the courts in Venezuela are an extension of maduro I did make the assumption that the brazilian courts are better then the ones in Venezuela. If my flaw is that I don't automatically assume south America is effectively a lawless collection of failed states then I'll accept that. No I just want to be clear about the assumptions we're making and what you would consider enough to make an election legitimate or illegitimate. I think it's fair to point out there is a long and sordid history of US and western interference in those countries. Fair to say very much so over the last decades. Without indicting all of South America, but rather just the country that elected an open fascist I do think the assumption that their election and judicial system is functioning well enough to confidently (without further research) assert that one believes Bolsonaro was legitimately elected is bold, and indeed, a mistake. But whats the alternative? You either have to support them making their own mistakes or support a supermassive intervention on all of these countries to remake their governments in an image of a western europian one for a generation. There is no good option on what to do with south america, only what is easiest for us. Wait, are you asking what's the alternative to assuming Brazil's election and judicial system is legitimate enough to confidently believe Bolsonaro (an open fascist) was legitimately elected? Pretty much yeah. Say "I don't know if it was a legitimate election". Ok question the legitimacy of the brazilian government destabilize the nation and deliver chaos for what end? I thought you were against influceing south american elections and would be happy with his election?
I think Brazil could avoid spiraling into chaos just because when asked if you think Bolsonaro was legitimately elected you said
"I don't know if it was legit, I think it might/probably have been because... despite..."
instead of
"yes he was legitimately elected... "
Does that make sense? (this is in a clarifying tone, not condescending. I appreciate your engagement thusfar on this).
|
On January 28 2019 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 08:00 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:58 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:37 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:15 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:03 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
That would depend on the independence of the courts. I'm not an expert on how the judges and the appeal process of the Brazilian judicial system is but being convicted of corruption and bribery seems like a disqualifiable offense. Let alone being in jail during his presidential term would be hard to reconcile. So without knowing you made the assumption that the courts in Brazil are better than the courts in Venezuela? In the absence of knowing the courts in brazil vs knowing the courts in Venezuela are an extension of maduro I did make the assumption that the brazilian courts are better then the ones in Venezuela. If my flaw is that I don't automatically assume south America is effectively a lawless collection of failed states then I'll accept that. No I just want to be clear about the assumptions we're making and what you would consider enough to make an election legitimate or illegitimate. I think it's fair to point out there is a long and sordid history of US and western interference in those countries. Fair to say very much so over the last decades. Without indicting all of South America, but rather just the country that elected an open fascist I do think the assumption that their election and judicial system is functioning well enough to confidently (without further research) assert that one believes Bolsonaro was legitimately elected is bold, and indeed, a mistake. But whats the alternative? You either have to support them making their own mistakes or support a supermassive intervention on all of these countries to remake their governments in an image of a western europian one for a generation. There is no good option on what to do with south america, only what is easiest for us. Wait, are you asking what's the alternative to assuming Brazil's election and judicial system is legitimate enough to confidently believe Bolsonaro (an open fascist) was legitimately elected? Pretty much yeah. Say "I don't know if it was a legitimate election". Ok question the legitimacy of the brazilian government destabilize the nation and deliver chaos for what end? I thought you were against influceing south american elections and would be happy with his election? I think Brazil could avoid spiraling into chaos just because when asked if you think Bolsonaro was legitimately elected you said "I don't know if it was legit, I think it might/probably have been because... despite..." instead of "yes he was legitimately elected... " Does that make sense? (this is in a clarifying tone, not condescending. I appreciate your engagement thusfar on this).
Yeah that makes sense but if you look at Americas earliest elections they were far more illegitimate then the brazilian one looks like. Strength and legitimacy of these institutions develops over decades. Andrew Jackson entirely ignored the supreme court when he moved the indian tribes out west.
Effectively the idea that the courts might be legimate/uncorupt is worth a lot more then them actualy being it at this point. Maduro crossed the Rubicon when he dissolved the courts and the congress and then reformed then so that he would control their apointment.
|
On January 28 2019 08:20 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 08:00 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:58 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:37 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:15 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
So without knowing you made the assumption that the courts in Brazil are better than the courts in Venezuela?
In the absence of knowing the courts in brazil vs knowing the courts in Venezuela are an extension of maduro I did make the assumption that the brazilian courts are better then the ones in Venezuela. If my flaw is that I don't automatically assume south America is effectively a lawless collection of failed states then I'll accept that. No I just want to be clear about the assumptions we're making and what you would consider enough to make an election legitimate or illegitimate. I think it's fair to point out there is a long and sordid history of US and western interference in those countries. Fair to say very much so over the last decades. Without indicting all of South America, but rather just the country that elected an open fascist I do think the assumption that their election and judicial system is functioning well enough to confidently (without further research) assert that one believes Bolsonaro was legitimately elected is bold, and indeed, a mistake. But whats the alternative? You either have to support them making their own mistakes or support a supermassive intervention on all of these countries to remake their governments in an image of a western europian one for a generation. There is no good option on what to do with south america, only what is easiest for us. Wait, are you asking what's the alternative to assuming Brazil's election and judicial system is legitimate enough to confidently believe Bolsonaro (an open fascist) was legitimately elected? Pretty much yeah. Say "I don't know if it was a legitimate election". Ok question the legitimacy of the brazilian government destabilize the nation and deliver chaos for what end? I thought you were against influceing south american elections and would be happy with his election? I think Brazil could avoid spiraling into chaos just because when asked if you think Bolsonaro was legitimately elected you said "I don't know if it was legit, I think it might/probably have been because... despite..." instead of "yes he was legitimately elected... " Does that make sense? (this is in a clarifying tone, not condescending. I appreciate your engagement thusfar on this). Yeah that makes sense but if you look at Americas earliest elections they were far more illegitimate then the brazilian one looks like. Strength and legitimacy of these institutions develops over decades. Andrew Jackson entirely ignored the supreme court when he moved the indian tribes out west. Effectively the idea that the courts might be legimate/uncorupt is worth a lot more then them actualy being it at this point. Maduro crossed the Rubicon when he dissolved the courts and the congress and then reformed then so that he would control their apointment.
You said it makes sense, then you said "but" followed by important perspective stuff but unrelated to how we, here, now, discuss what you think. Before we move on to the importance of what the United States official policy is and what obligations that puts on politicians in general as well as other examples of the importance of the perception of the court nationally or internationally I want to first establish that we're operating under the condition that the previously accepted/presented position that "Brazil's court and Bolsonaro's election were legitimate" has been rejected and substituted with something more accurate/supported by argument and applicable sources (I believe this is both sorto of pending and what you've been adding so far but I want to get it clearly stated to avoid confusion).
Can I keep asking if we're clear without it being presumed I'm being condescending, I just want to make sure I end with a question and it helps me know if you've chosen to disengage, disagree, or we're on the same page so that we don't lose each other by stringing together to many positions inconclusively or making too many presumptions about each others positions (fair to presume you can make some if you've read my posts carefully so far, but please be careful not to ascribe to me something I haven't said)?
That was a long one but we good still?
|
On January 28 2019 06:41 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 06:07 iamthedave wrote:On January 28 2019 04:32 GoTuNk! wrote:On January 28 2019 04:22 iamthedave wrote:On January 28 2019 04:18 GoTuNk! wrote:On January 28 2019 03:57 Danglars wrote:some of which have been working for years to destabilize Venezuela and its economy in a bid for access to its bountiful natural resources like oil, gas, and gold. My favorite part. It’s like the onion. Just to make it clear for those who isn't obvious; "Telesur" is Maduro's propaganda agency. Not a partisan network, a full blown propaganda outlet. Like Fox News, then? Oh, the clever one liners; I'm sure you are being disingenuous but I'll explain anyway Fox News is a republican partisan outlet, just like NBC and CBS are democrat partisan outlets; they are both privately funded aswell. Given republicans hold the white house now, telesur would be Fox News funded directly by the US government and broadcasting ONLY at DJT whims. At the same time, all other networks have been directly censored into oblivion by the federal government in the previous years, with their top executives, journalists and figures imprisoned or forced into exile under the argument of "treason". If you can't see the difference it's on you. So it's a whoosh, then. Good to know. I'm curious though, are you actually aware of how much you post on here is just random right wing talking points and propaganda that you've not really thought through? Nothing about what he posted in that post is talking points and propaganda. I mean you can find left wind talking points and propaganda posted repeatedly by GH and its a lot more obvious. I'm not saying hes the most steady center poster but his post there is simple and logical. Muduro has been running a terror campaign controling peoples food supply dissolving any government institution that dares go against him and replacing them with ones that report to him directly. You wouldn't trust al Jazeera if they talked about middle east politics and you wouldn't trust RT if they talked about gays in Chechnya. But for some The Venezuelan version is anywhere more trustworthy? Do we trust the election run by muduro to say that he won fairly, the election that was boycotted because he dissolved the courts and elected body that disagreed with him?
No, that was a comment about Gotunk's posting in general, not that specific post. He pretty much unthinkingly parrots the party line on tons of things, at times almost word-for-word posting stuff from Fox.
On the general point about Venezuala, the problem is that the West has been negatively portraying Venezuala forever, and that necessarily blurs the line. There's a side of the story that we aren't hearing. The link GH posted on the other page from the BBC, and that Guardian article, both point to some things that are being conveniently missed from the Maduro the Baddie narrative.
I don't trust Venezuala state media, no, but I don't trust our media either, because they have an established history of only posting negativity about Venezuala. As Jock's pointed out, it's impossible to get a true picture of what's going on there because we're not getting the full story and we likely never will.
The crisis in Venezuala is real, that much is true, and Maduro should step down in some form, this is also true. That doesn't mean the West has the right to force his hand or arbitrarily decide whether or not their elections are legitimate. People keep saying elections in Russia are rigged, I don't see world leaders declaring Putin's opposition to be the real President of Russia. Why? Because Venezuala's in trouble and we feel we can push them around. Russia would just ignore us.
And the last thing Venezuala needs is Western 'soft power' picking its next leader and throwing it right back into the pre-Chavez era of crony capitalism, which is 100% what our leaders are hoping for.
|
On January 28 2019 10:26 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 06:41 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 06:07 iamthedave wrote:On January 28 2019 04:32 GoTuNk! wrote:On January 28 2019 04:22 iamthedave wrote:On January 28 2019 04:18 GoTuNk! wrote:On January 28 2019 03:57 Danglars wrote:some of which have been working for years to destabilize Venezuela and its economy in a bid for access to its bountiful natural resources like oil, gas, and gold. My favorite part. It’s like the onion. Just to make it clear for those who isn't obvious; "Telesur" is Maduro's propaganda agency. Not a partisan network, a full blown propaganda outlet. Like Fox News, then? Oh, the clever one liners; I'm sure you are being disingenuous but I'll explain anyway Fox News is a republican partisan outlet, just like NBC and CBS are democrat partisan outlets; they are both privately funded aswell. Given republicans hold the white house now, telesur would be Fox News funded directly by the US government and broadcasting ONLY at DJT whims. At the same time, all other networks have been directly censored into oblivion by the federal government in the previous years, with their top executives, journalists and figures imprisoned or forced into exile under the argument of "treason". If you can't see the difference it's on you. So it's a whoosh, then. Good to know. I'm curious though, are you actually aware of how much you post on here is just random right wing talking points and propaganda that you've not really thought through? Nothing about what he posted in that post is talking points and propaganda. I mean you can find left wind talking points and propaganda posted repeatedly by GH and its a lot more obvious. I'm not saying hes the most steady center poster but his post there is simple and logical. Muduro has been running a terror campaign controling peoples food supply dissolving any government institution that dares go against him and replacing them with ones that report to him directly. You wouldn't trust al Jazeera if they talked about middle east politics and you wouldn't trust RT if they talked about gays in Chechnya. But for some The Venezuelan version is anywhere more trustworthy? Do we trust the election run by muduro to say that he won fairly, the election that was boycotted because he dissolved the courts and elected body that disagreed with him? No, that was a comment about Gotunk's posting in general, not that specific post. He pretty much unthinkingly parrots the party line on tons of things, at times almost word-for-word posting stuff from Fox. On the general point about Venezuala, the problem is that the West has been negatively portraying Venezuala forever, and that necessarily blurs the line. There's a side of the story that we aren't hearing. The link GH posted on the other page from the BBC, and that Guardian article, both point to some things that are being conveniently missed from the Maduro the Baddie narrative. I don't trust Venezuala state media, no, but I don't trust our media either, because they have an established history of only posting negativity about Venezuala. As Jock's pointed out, it's impossible to get a true picture of what's going on there because we're not getting the full story and we likely never will. The crisis in Venezuala is real, that much is true, and Maduro should step down in some form, this is also true. That doesn't mean the West has the right to force his hand or arbitrarily decide whether or not their elections are legitimate. People keep saying elections in Russia are rigged, I don't see world leaders declaring Putin's opposition to be the real President of Russia. Why? Because Venezuala's in trouble and we feel we can push them around. Russia would just ignore us. And the last thing Venezuala needs is Western 'soft power' picking its next leader and throwing it right back into the pre-Chavez era of crony capitalism, which is 100% what our leaders are hoping for.
It really shouldn't have been like pulling teeth with toilet paper to get someone to articulate a version of this I can disagree with some aspects but doesn't REEK of being inundated with western propaganda. That said I'm happy we got here and am happy to return serm if you wish.
I have to say that if the first few posts in the other thread are indicative of what the primary is going to be like it won't be all bad. It's going to be horrific, but at least not all bad.
I've already said Bernie is the only one close to getting my vote let alone my support I wonder what besides "not Trump" Democrats are looking for, what their expectations are, if there's anyone besides Trump they wouldn't vote for under any circumstances, how they think their reformism avoids a climate catastrophe or how they plan on dealing with it, lots of good questions they should have formed before Democrats tell them who they can choose from.
Kamala is a hard no for me and it's a long list of reasons that puts her wayyyyy behind even Warren and I'm kind of the opinion that anyone supporting her would be fine with more "tough on crime" shit so long as it beat Trump.
|
On January 28 2019 09:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 08:20 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 08:00 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:58 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:37 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:15 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
In the absence of knowing the courts in brazil vs knowing the courts in Venezuela are an extension of maduro I did make the assumption that the brazilian courts are better then the ones in Venezuela. If my flaw is that I don't automatically assume south America is effectively a lawless collection of failed states then I'll accept that. No I just want to be clear about the assumptions we're making and what you would consider enough to make an election legitimate or illegitimate. I think it's fair to point out there is a long and sordid history of US and western interference in those countries. Fair to say very much so over the last decades. Without indicting all of South America, but rather just the country that elected an open fascist I do think the assumption that their election and judicial system is functioning well enough to confidently (without further research) assert that one believes Bolsonaro was legitimately elected is bold, and indeed, a mistake. But whats the alternative? You either have to support them making their own mistakes or support a supermassive intervention on all of these countries to remake their governments in an image of a western europian one for a generation. There is no good option on what to do with south america, only what is easiest for us. Wait, are you asking what's the alternative to assuming Brazil's election and judicial system is legitimate enough to confidently believe Bolsonaro (an open fascist) was legitimately elected? Pretty much yeah. Say "I don't know if it was a legitimate election". Ok question the legitimacy of the brazilian government destabilize the nation and deliver chaos for what end? I thought you were against influceing south american elections and would be happy with his election? I think Brazil could avoid spiraling into chaos just because when asked if you think Bolsonaro was legitimately elected you said "I don't know if it was legit, I think it might/probably have been because... despite..." instead of "yes he was legitimately elected... " Does that make sense? (this is in a clarifying tone, not condescending. I appreciate your engagement thusfar on this). Yeah that makes sense but if you look at Americas earliest elections they were far more illegitimate then the brazilian one looks like. Strength and legitimacy of these institutions develops over decades. Andrew Jackson entirely ignored the supreme court when he moved the indian tribes out west. Effectively the idea that the courts might be legimate/uncorupt is worth a lot more then them actualy being it at this point. Maduro crossed the Rubicon when he dissolved the courts and the congress and then reformed then so that he would control their apointment. You said it makes sense, then you said "but" followed by important perspective stuff but unrelated to how we, here, now, discuss what you think. Before we move on to the importance of what the United States official policy is and what obligations that puts on politicians in general as well as other examples of the importance of the perception of the court nationally or internationally I want to first establish that we're operating under the condition that the previously accepted/presented position that "Brazil's court and Bolsonaro's election were legitimate" has been rejected and substituted with something more accurate/supported by argument and applicable sources (I believe this is both sorto of pending and what you've been adding so far but I want to get it clearly stated to avoid confusion). Can I keep asking if we're clear without it being presumed I'm being condescending, I just want to make sure I end with a question and it helps me know if you've chosen to disengage, disagree, or we're on the same page so that we don't lose each other by stringing together to many positions inconclusively or making too many presumptions about each others positions (fair to presume you can make some if you've read my posts carefully so far, but please be careful not to ascribe to me something I haven't said)? That was a long one but we good still?
I'm really conflicted on the issue but I think the brazilian-venesulian dynamic exposes a lot of the issues with peoples arguments on what to do. Venezuela is an economic mess thats worse then some African nations. Brazil is at least a functioning if not thriving nation that just needs time to work out its issues. Bolsonaro might stress the nations fragile progress but Venezuela isn't going to get better under maduro its going to get worse.
Kamila harris is everything wrong with Obama. Tons of potential in service to the absolute least that could be done.
|
On January 28 2019 13:36 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 09:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 08:20 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 08:00 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:58 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 28 2019 07:37 Sermokala wrote:On January 28 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
No I just want to be clear about the assumptions we're making and what you would consider enough to make an election legitimate or illegitimate.
I think it's fair to point out there is a long and sordid history of US and western interference in those countries. Fair to say very much so over the last decades.
Without indicting all of South America, but rather just the country that elected an open fascist I do think the assumption that their election and judicial system is functioning well enough to confidently (without further research) assert that one believes Bolsonaro was legitimately elected is bold, and indeed, a mistake. But whats the alternative? You either have to support them making their own mistakes or support a supermassive intervention on all of these countries to remake their governments in an image of a western europian one for a generation. There is no good option on what to do with south america, only what is easiest for us. Wait, are you asking what's the alternative to assuming Brazil's election and judicial system is legitimate enough to confidently believe Bolsonaro (an open fascist) was legitimately elected? Pretty much yeah. Say "I don't know if it was a legitimate election". Ok question the legitimacy of the brazilian government destabilize the nation and deliver chaos for what end? I thought you were against influceing south american elections and would be happy with his election? I think Brazil could avoid spiraling into chaos just because when asked if you think Bolsonaro was legitimately elected you said "I don't know if it was legit, I think it might/probably have been because... despite..." instead of "yes he was legitimately elected... " Does that make sense? (this is in a clarifying tone, not condescending. I appreciate your engagement thusfar on this). Yeah that makes sense but if you look at Americas earliest elections they were far more illegitimate then the brazilian one looks like. Strength and legitimacy of these institutions develops over decades. Andrew Jackson entirely ignored the supreme court when he moved the indian tribes out west. Effectively the idea that the courts might be legimate/uncorupt is worth a lot more then them actualy being it at this point. Maduro crossed the Rubicon when he dissolved the courts and the congress and then reformed then so that he would control their apointment. You said it makes sense, then you said "but" followed by important perspective stuff but unrelated to how we, here, now, discuss what you think. Before we move on to the importance of what the United States official policy is and what obligations that puts on politicians in general as well as other examples of the importance of the perception of the court nationally or internationally I want to first establish that we're operating under the condition that the previously accepted/presented position that "Brazil's court and Bolsonaro's election were legitimate" has been rejected and substituted with something more accurate/supported by argument and applicable sources (I believe this is both sorto of pending and what you've been adding so far but I want to get it clearly stated to avoid confusion). Can I keep asking if we're clear without it being presumed I'm being condescending, I just want to make sure I end with a question and it helps me know if you've chosen to disengage, disagree, or we're on the same page so that we don't lose each other by stringing together to many positions inconclusively or making too many presumptions about each others positions (fair to presume you can make some if you've read my posts carefully so far, but please be careful not to ascribe to me something I haven't said)? That was a long one but we good still? I'm really conflicted on the issue but I think the brazilian-venesulian dynamic exposes a lot of the issues with peoples arguments on what to do. Venezuela is an economic mess thats worse then some African nations. Brazil is at least a functioning if not thriving nation that just needs time to work out its issues. Bolsonaro might stress the nations fragile progress but Venezuela isn't going to get better under maduro its going to get worse.
Not trying to be a dick but I'm presuming that's a "yes, we agree that we don't know whether Bolsonaro was legitimately elected"
With that in mind I agree it does expose a lot. There are many similarities and differences between Venezuela and Brazil but the one thing my position is consistent on is that the US shouldn't be intervening in punitive ways, particularly when no one believes our governments preferred leader in Venezuela would be obligated to treat the people suffering in Venezuela any better than Saudi Arabia treats women and other marginalized people in their communities or Maduro treats them. With a new leader they can have the same problems and suddenly they are due to structural issues that can last decades, no worries lots of guns and other aid will be coming shortly from the US to secure what is at best regime change by force.
Those that, without hesitation, suggested the US's intervention in the coup was good because Maduro was bad were displaying the very reactive "my side good, your side bad" attitude I'm regularly accused of. If nothing else I hope we all learned that it's okay to say "I don't know" before you make a decision and talk about your thinking and you should be far more questioning when the people who have been fighting over practically everything suddenly come together without hesitation or questioning. Particularly on something that really should have alternative perspectives presented.
The immediate moments after the coup felt very much like the leadup to the Iraq war where opposing it was tantamount to treason in some circles and even liberals (Hillary Clinton the most notorious) lined up behind Bush for what was predicted by some of the very people involved to be a shit show that didn't help Iraqi's.
Except even faster and more unanimous, that why I have been so relentless about it.
My position is that the US always screws this up no matter how justified so anything other than staying out of it is inhumane. That doesn't mean we couldn't stop people from starving in pretty short order with some food and encourage an election and observers remove sanctions and stabilize the country pretty easily.
My primary contention is (and as was suggested in the interview I posted) that the US would rather them have illegitimate elections, starving people, and a US/capitalist friendly Venezuela than a well fed, legitimately led, socialist country.
There are a lot of reasons imo but one that's big and pretty easy to see is that the less you have to pay the people who live on top of the resources the more money you make (Africa) the more repressive the regime the more profit (Saudi Arabia), and the worst possible situation is a country that uses the resource you intend to exploit to uplift poor people (even if you steal a bunch of it for yourself, because that's part of every government).
That's why I think the US would support a theocratic monarchy if they thought it was the most profitable option. Which is one reason the easiest way to make Maduro popular is let him make an enemy out of the US.
So even if one's bandwagon hopping (not accusing you of this) onto the coup was an honest error, at this point everyone should either admit they don't know about the situation that well (and qualify ones position accordingly) or recognize how what Trump did was one of the worst things he could do if he actually wanted to remove Maduro by any other way than warfare.
For perspective I said before all this started that I'm not that familiar with Brazil or Venezuela and you've seen what I had to be the only person explaining and providing alternative perspectives that while not all indisputable fact, are comparable to any contrary opinions I was presented, for a while.
|
I clearly like discussing this stuff but I enjoy shitty tv and tabloid politics like the rest of people so if we want something everyone should be able to laugh at
I'm not sure if this means politicians are getting more expensive and worse or if billionaires are getting cheaper and more bold.
This is some guy who works at Starbucks I guess?
|
My contention is that Venezuela has never been well led or socialist. It's a nation run by strongmen who retarded the nation's economy to hold power. That they came after murderous military dictators only makes them marginally better off.
I'm not going so far to say I don't think the Brazilian election was illegitimate but I don't think there was any reason to believe that the winner was involved in the guys conviction or appeal being denied.
|
On January 28 2019 15:52 Sermokala wrote:
My contention is that Venezuela has never been well led or socialist. It's a nation run by strongmen who retarded the nation's economy to hold power. That they came after murderous military dictators only makes them marginally better off.
I'm not going so far to say I don't think the Brazilian election was illegitimate but I don't think there was any reason to believe that the winner was involved in the guys conviction or appeal being denied.
I'm saying 1 is a pretty common story more or less, many of which are our allies, which I would suggest has a lot to do with their varying economic success both for the wealthiest and poorest people (or migrant work forces where applicable).
Still not a reason to orchestrate a coup, particularly for the US, but places like Canada too regardless even if your description is 100% accurate (which I would disagree with but isn't important atm) imo.
As to Brazil are you saying that you're unaware based on your limited understanding/research of any reason to believe the arrest of the guy who Bolsonaro said he would arrest (or at least his supporters) were related or are you asserting that there isn't?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
