EPT1) The election is questionably legitimate (I doubt it personally, it's way past there been enough smoke for there to likely be some sort of fire)
2) I don't think we should get involved
3) I hope he's not as bad as we fear.
US Politics Mega-Blog - Page 159
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
1) The election is questionably legitimate (I doubt it personally, it's way past there been enough smoke for there to likely be some sort of fire) 2) I don't think we should get involved 3) I hope he's not as bad as we fear. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23445 Posts
On January 28 2019 18:20 iamthedave wrote: Since it is topical, my stance on Bolsonaro on the issues discussed in order: 1) The election is questionably legitimate (I doubt it personally, it's way past there been enough smoke for there to likely be some sort of fire) 2) I don't think we should get involved 3) I hope he's not as bad as we fear. I don't know how bad you fear but he's probably worse, I'd suggest it's unlikely the WSJ's endorsement and Trump's congratulations and Bolsonaro's opponent wanting more socialism and Bolsonaro trying to imitate Trump (Trump loves that) are all coincidence. Plus there's this Brazil's Bolsonaro names judge who jailed his rival as justice minister For those unfamiliar I'll give you a selection of some of his quotes, just a reminder that while Maduro is unacceptable and they are willing to threaten war, conservatives think this guy is not that bad. Also think about the people of Venezuela, but not the Black, lgbtq, indigenous, the left, impoverished, etc... of Brazil The pro-torture former paratrooper pledged to use the presidency to launch a frontal assault on his “red” political rivals. “Either they go overseas, or they go to jail,” Bolsonaro told thousands of cheering supporters who had packed Avenida Paulista, one of São Paulo’s main arteries, for one of his final campaign acts. “These red outlaws will be banished from our homeland. It will be a cleanup the likes of which has never been seen in Brazilian history,” www.theguardian.com Bolsonaro has openly praised the country’s brutal former military dictatorship and said that it should have killed 30,000 more people—“If a few innocent people die, that’s alright” dedicated his vote to impeach Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff to a military colonel accused of torturing 500 left-wing dissidents. + Show Spoiler + National LGBT+ Alliance member Rivania Rodrigues told NBC News of the implications for LGBTQ people: "I think Bolsonaro is worse than a [religious] fundamentalist… We’re going to be burned at the stake like people did at another time in history." "I will not fight nor discriminate, but if I see two men kissing in the street, I’ll hit them." "I would be incapable of loving a homosexual child," he said on a television panel “I’m not going to act like a hypocrite here: I’d rather have my son die in an accident than show up with some moustachioed guy. For me, he would have died." ((at least he's not a hypocrite amirite?)) "If a homosexual couple comes to live next to me it will devalue my home! If they walk around holding hands and kissing, that devalues it." When Bolsonaro met with BBC Out There host Stephen Fry, he was in the midst of attempting to block anti-homophobia laws and education programs in Brazil. In response to the levels of anti-LGBTQ violence in the country, Bolsonaro (inaccurately) told Fry that "the majority of homosexual deaths—they die in drug-related situations, prostitution, or even killed by their own partners," "When I was young, talking about percentages, there were few [gay people]. Over time, due to liberal habits, drugs, with women also working, the number of homosexuals has really increased." ((Then he hit on the reporter, and of course he is married.)) "I would never rape you, because you do not deserve it… slut!" He went on in a later interview: In an interview with GaúchaZH, he expanded: "[De Rosario] doesn’t deserve to be raped, because she’s very ugly. She’s not my type. I would never rape her. I’m not a rapist, but if I were, I wouldn’t rape her because she doesn't deserve it." Bolsonaro strongly opposes legalizing abortion in Brazil He explained that Brazil did not owe its Afro-Brazilian community anything: "What debt of slavery? I never enslaved anyone in my life. Look, if you really look at history, the Portuguese didn’t even step foot in Africa. The Blacks themselves turned over the slaves." ((Brazil is half Black but has a social trend of skin whitening by any means necessary as well as even more extreme racial wealth and income gaps than the US, police, criminal justice, redlining, all that shit, it's basically the 40's-60's US but white people aren't even the majority)). n 2017, Bolsonaro also gave a speech that tore into quilombolas, members of rural Afro-Brazilian communities founded by former slaves, who are on the frontline of the fight to protect the rainforest and land rights. He said that the residents of a quilombola he visited were fat, and added: "They don’t do anything! I don’t think they even serve for procreation anymore." broadly.vice.com That's not a comprehensive list or necessarily the worst ones and pretty much all of that was his public campaigning, not off the record back room fundraiser shit. I certainly don't think conspiring with the US was outside of his ethical zone either. Maduro may well be a lot of the bad things people have accused him of but there's no way he's worse than our WSJ endorsed ally and personally presidentially congratulated fascist in Brazil. Even if Maduro does all the bad shit people accuse him of he's not campaigning on locking up his opposition (though Maduro's opponents were accused of instigating a coup and working with the US and it turns out that's exactly what they were doing). Those gungho about regime change in Venezuela should probably pump the brakes and worry about the potential mass purging of political opposition from Brazil (not that the WSJ is hoping it happens and was probably counting on the coup in Venezuela to help Elliot Abrams cover it up). Imagine being the news editors that determined we need to cover Russian facebook ads 109471097x more than this guy. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
He's obviously bad. But it's whether or not he actually drags Brazil into dictatorship or not. That part I'm uncertain on right now. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23445 Posts
On January 28 2019 20:22 iamthedave wrote: I should make clear; I know of the dreadful things Bolsanaro has said, I'm just hoping that like Trump he'll mostly be bluster and not actually follow through on the worst of what he's said. And hopefully be at least a competent governor. He's obviously bad. But it's whether or not he actually drags Brazil into dictatorship or not. That part I'm uncertain on right now. I figured, that was for those who aren't who need some context. If he was elected to remove his political opposition he's probably going to at least try, luckily he didn't make it very long before having his cover blown. two recent events have converted what looked to be a classic scandal of money laundering and kickbacks into something much more ominous and terrifying. Earlier this week, Rio de Janeiro police arrested five members of Brazil’s most dangerous militia, one linked to the 2018 assassination of City Council Member Marielle Franco of the left-wing PSOL party. As it turned out, Flávio Bolsonaro formally praised two of the leading members of that militia; gave an award to the militia’s chief; and, most astonishingly of all, kept the mother and the daughter of the militia chief on his payroll for the last 10 years. That the Bolsonaro family has been discovered to have such close and intimate ties with militias, including the one involved in Franco’s brutal assassination, stunned the country. theintercept.com Let's hope his supporters aren't like Trumps who afaik haven't said diddly squat about Trump and the WSJ's support of this guy. For those unfamiliar it stunned the country because most of the news is corporate owned and they have no publicly funded media. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
| ||
|
Hollow
Canada2180 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23445 Posts
This is why waiting until they start campaigning is a terrible time to discover which one you would support.You won't know they've already moved to the right. With no policy page on her website (imagine having 2 announcement events and people go to check your policy positions and all they can do is buy shitty swag) Kamala supports whatever it is you want to believe she supports (but actually none of the good stuff). @P6 Dunno if you still read here but who is your first pick? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23445 Posts
On January 29 2019 09:17 xDaunt wrote: I hope Trump does send 5000 troops to Colombia. Venezuela is on the verge of implosion, and the last thing that we need is that kind of mess in our backyard. I'd rather get the situation stabilized sooner rather than later. I can't really take your positions seriously any more since they are by all appearances just smatterings of incoherent self-interest. You know what would stabilize Venezuela without killing innocent people? Food, economic relief, and a real political strategy. NOT putting a war criminal in charge of a failing coup. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 29 2019 09:36 GreenHorizons wrote: I can't really take your positions seriously any more since they are by all appearances just smatterings of incoherent self-interest. You know what would stabilize Venezuela without killing innocent people? Food, economic relief, and a real political strategy. NOT putting a war criminal in charge of a failing coup. Hold up a mirror. I find it intellectually appalling that you neither understand nor accept that Maduro and Chavez are the reasons why Venezuela is a humanitarian disaster. Nothing that the US has done compares to the destruction that their brand of socialism has inflicted upon that country. The US sanctions a bunch of countries. Virtually none of these other countries is in as bad of shape as Venezuela. Your constant deflection on these critical points is a joke. Who gives a flying a fuck where people are protesting the Maduro government and where they're not when it is undisputed that the country is in a state of utter economic collapse and rampant starvation? In very stark contrast to your own views on Venezuela, mine are strictly principled: America first. The Venezuelan people fucked up their own country. That's on them. Unfortunately, it does create problems for the US in the Western hemisphere, so we're probably going to have to get involved. We might as well do it in a way that benefits us. If that means getting rid of the socialist retards running that country and getting someone in there who will re-implement some semblance of a market economy and protection for foreign (ie American) investment, so be it. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23445 Posts
On January 29 2019 10:10 xDaunt wrote: Hold up a mirror. I find it intellectually appalling that you neither understand nor accept that Maduro and Chavez are the reasons why Venezuela is a humanitarian disaster. Nothing that the US has done compares to the destruction that their brand of socialism has inflicted upon that country. The US sanctions a bunch of countries. Virtually none of these other countries is in as bad of shape as Venezuela. Your constant deflection on these critical points is a joke. Who gives a flying a fuck where people are protesting the Maduro government and where they're not when it is undisputed that the country is in a state of utter economic collapse and rampant starvation? In very stark contrast to your own views on Venezuela, mine are strictly principled: America first. The Venezuelan people fucked up their own country. That's on them. Unfortunately, it does create problems for the US in the Western hemisphere, so we're probably going to have to get involved. We might as well do it in a way that benefits us. If that means getting rid of the socialist retards running that country and getting someone in there who will re-implement some semblance of a market economy and protection for foreign (ie American) investment, so be it. I just find your position of "who cares if we fuck up other countries" intellectually, morally, and ethically appalling. The US has inflicted exponentially more horrific crimes against humanity than anything you can pin on Chavez or Maduro during their times. It's not a deflection, it's just when you support fascists that are openly talking about imprisoning their political opposition and are linked to the assassination of another I simply think you're full of shit about your concern for Venezuelans. You're just attempting to use them. I mean how legitimate was Saudi Arabia's election? "America first" isn't a principal, it's an empty slogan. They sure as shit didn't do it on their own. 20 years of US led undermining of their government, economy and trying to usurp and kill the leader certainly helped. No we don't have to get involved, and if we do it can be to help the people you're allegedly caring about with food, economic relief and real political solution again not putting a war criminal in charge of our policy on the coup. Lastly you won't call anyone "retards" on this blog period. I don't care what politics they have. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14041 Posts
Saudi Arabia doesn't have elections and you personally can't stop anyone from calling people retards on your blog. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23445 Posts
On January 29 2019 11:17 Sermokala wrote: You can't blame the US for the shitty state of Venezuela's economy. Its a direct intention of chavez and maduro policies to keep the economy in a third world status while making the only methods to avoid poverty and starvation is loyalty to the state. Saudi Arabia doesn't have elections and you personally can't stop anyone from calling people retards on your blog. There's plenty to blame when it comes to the Venezuelan economy and the US certainly deserves plenty of it. I feel like if I'm going to engage you on this we have to go back to where we left off but I'm also curious why you guys think if Maduro is so corrupt, why wouldn't he just sell out to the west? On the "retard" thing, it's wholly inappropriate and I won't stand for it. I'm against a lot of the other ableism that's allowed and I imagine it's allowed elsewhere but I won't let it happen here. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14041 Posts
On January 29 2019 11:24 GreenHorizons wrote: There's plenty to blame when it comes to the Venezuelan economy and the US certainly deserves plenty of it. I feel like if I'm going to engage you on this we have to go back to where we left off but I'm also curious why you guys think if Maduro is so corrupt, why wouldn't he just sell out to the west? On the "retard" thing, it's wholly inappropriate and I won't stand for it. I'm against a lot of the other ableism that's allowed and I imagine it's allowed elsewhere but I won't let it happen here. I would like to point out for the gallery that I used it in its proper sense. I agree the united states as a whole has played a part in venezuelans economic woes but globalism is a two way highway. The government of venezuela was given large sums of Dollars for its oil even if it wasn't the amount an american oil company could extract from the same supply. What the naton did with the money is the responsibility of whoever is in charge of that country and in this case is/was maduro and chavez. They subsidized their nation so that the poor wouldn't be living in the living conditions that they were living in before chavez. that doesn't mean that they were any less poor or that their economy could sustain these subsidies if the oil ran out. There isn't a reason for maduro to sell out to the west and a lot for him not to. He had money, power and an easy ability to threaten any of the people who would threaten him. The US is the easiest propaganda enemy he could possibly ask for. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23445 Posts
On January 29 2019 12:28 Sermokala wrote: I would like to point out for the gallery that I used it in its proper sense. I agree the united states as a whole has played a part in venezuelans economic woes but globalism is a two way highway. The government of venezuela was given large sums of Dollars for its oil even if it wasn't the amount an american oil company could extract from the same supply. What the naton did with the money is the responsibility of whoever is in charge of that country and in this case is/was maduro and chavez. They subsidized their nation so that the poor wouldn't be living in the living conditions that they were living in before chavez. that doesn't mean that they were any less poor or that their economy could sustain these subsidies if the oil ran out. There isn't a reason for maduro to sell out to the west and a lot for him not to. He had money, power and an easy ability to threaten any of the people who would threaten him. The US is the easiest propaganda enemy he could possibly ask for. They made people more literate, and all sorts of other absolutely necessary things if they were to ever improve and those things were not coming from the capitalists/fascists that preceded Chavez and Maduro. It's fair then to presume they weren't coming regardless and that despite not being ideal leaders, the impoverished and marginalized of Venezuela are more likely to be able to reach liberation than they would have been without Chavez and Maduro. Whether that was their previous leaders or one of the US backed ones. I don't think that makes sense. Why not sell out, be more brutal, and get the US to give you free guns to do it? He's literally got the US ready to go to war to get rid of him when he could just sell out and they'd back off immediately. The US supported opposition would evaporate overnight as well. On January 29 2019 12:29 Doodsmack wrote: Here's a nice little dose of mental midgetry for anyone interested. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1090074254010404864 I'm going to have to get on you for "midget" too. Just call it "dipshitery" if you don't want to offend people who did nothing to offend you and I'm pretty sure you want to support in their struggles. If you keep using it I'll presume you don't care and making fun of Trump doesn't magically make it okay. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 29 2019 12:28 Sermokala wrote: I would like to point out for the gallery that I used it in its proper sense. I agree the united states as a whole has played a part in venezuelans economic woes but globalism is a two way highway. The government of venezuela was given large sums of Dollars for its oil even if it wasn't the amount an american oil company could extract from the same supply. What the naton did with the money is the responsibility of whoever is in charge of that country and in this case is/was maduro and chavez. They subsidized their nation so that the poor wouldn't be living in the living conditions that they were living in before chavez. that doesn't mean that they were any less poor or that their economy could sustain these subsidies if the oil ran out. There isn't a reason for maduro to sell out to the west and a lot for him not to. He had money, power and an easy ability to threaten any of the people who would threaten him. The US is the easiest propaganda enemy he could possibly ask for. This is a good wrap-up. On January 29 2019 10:10 xDaunt wrote: Hold up a mirror. I find it intellectually appalling that you neither understand nor accept that Maduro and Chavez are the reasons why Venezuela is a humanitarian disaster. Nothing that the US has done compares to the destruction that their brand of socialism has inflicted upon that country. The US sanctions a bunch of countries. Virtually none of these other countries is in as bad of shape as Venezuela. Your constant deflection on these critical points is a joke. Who gives a flying a fuck where people are protesting the Maduro government and where they're not when it is undisputed that the country is in a state of utter economic collapse and rampant starvation? In very stark contrast to your own views on Venezuela, mine are strictly principled: America first. The Venezuelan people fucked up their own country. That's on them. Unfortunately, it does create problems for the US in the Western hemisphere, so we're probably going to have to get involved. We might as well do it in a way that benefits us. If that means getting rid of the socialist retards running that country and getting someone in there who will re-implement some semblance of a market economy and protection for foreign (ie American) investment, so be it. I'm fine supporting the usual conception of America first. I think it excludes screwing around with foreign competitors, since in one sense of the word it justifies military intervention in other nations with a critical competitive advantage, say in labor. If China was a democracy that didn't plunder IP and hack American firms, and got some kind of labor or industrial advantage in economy, I couldn't support a war to put American citizens at the top of the heap like in WWII. But America first, properly imagined, stands as a bulwark against bad New World Order-style ideas, and the greater stability of limits to what we'll interfere over. "Getting rid of socialist retards" is a good use of the term, both in terms of retarding economic development and progress, as well as the ideological disability seen in those advancing it (although the short-term gains for the people running it like Chavez and Maduro makes some sense) | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23445 Posts
On January 29 2019 13:02 Danglars wrote: This is a good wrap-up. I'm fine supporting the usual conception of America first. I think it excludes screwing around with foreign competitors, since in one sense of the word it justifies military intervention in other nations with a critical competitive advantage, say in labor. If China was a democracy that didn't plunder IP and hack American firms, and got some kind of labor or industrial advantage in economy, I couldn't support a war to put American citizens at the top of the heap like in WWII. But America first, properly imagined, stands as a bulwark against bad New World Order-style ideas, and the greater stability of limits to what we'll interfere over. "Getting rid of socialist retards" is a good use of the term, both in terms of retarding economic development and progress, as well as the ideological disability seen in those advancing it (although the short-term gains for the people running it like Chavez and Maduro makes some sense) You guys can use it elsewhere, or in PM's but you won't use it here. It's a small request and before you go on some victim tirade it has nothing to do with your politics. Keep the same trashy posts without the word and I object but it's acceptable. I can also appreciate you pointing out even if somewhat awkwardly my point about at least one problem with what he's describing even. This is the last time I'll say it won't be accepted going forward. If you disagree you can take it up with me in PM. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14041 Posts
On January 29 2019 12:44 GreenHorizons wrote: They made people more literate, and all sorts of other absolutely necessary things if they were to ever improve and those things were not coming from the capitalists/fascists that preceded Chavez and Maduro. It's fair then to presume they weren't coming regardless and that despite not being ideal leaders, the impoverished and marginalized of Venezuela are more likely to be able to reach liberation than they would have been without Chavez and Maduro. Whether that was their previous leaders or one of the US backed ones. I don't think that makes sense. Why not sell out, be more brutal, and get the US to give you free guns to do it? He's literally got the US ready to go to war to get rid of him when he could just sell out and they'd back off immediately. The US supported opposition would evaporate overnight as well. I'm going to have to get on you for "midget" too. Just call it "dipshitery" if you don't want to offend people who did nothing to offend you and I'm pretty sure you want to support in their struggles. If you keep using it I'll presume you don't care and making fun of Trump doesn't magically make it okay. Literacy doesn't feed you creating a competitive market for your farmers does. It doesn't come when a dictator doesn't want you to be able to read but the people before chavez were hardly captalist/facist. They were military dictators wanting to hold onto power just the same as chavez and maduro. Pointing to other south american countries even like columbia shows that they would have gotten liberation and a path to prosperity without having a strongman deciding who lives and who dies based on their loyalty to him. Heck even african countries have gotten their act together and are growing just fine despite way worse situations then what Venezuela faced after their military dictators were thrown out of power. Fidel made his country work under much worse conditions then Chavez and maduro. He had an actual invasion and repeated coup attempts by the CIA. He would be held accountable to some degree in the 21st century and everyone can see it. Being a brutal us backed dictator would have been a thing during the cold war but uncle same doesn't give a shit anymore. "bread and games" is the core of every successful civilization this side of Rome and Maduro had the oil money to keep the party going with painting any trouble the nation had on the evil white devils. Its a simple and effective strategy to hold onto power. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23445 Posts
On January 29 2019 14:27 Sermokala wrote: Literacy doesn't feed you creating a competitive market for your farmers does. It doesn't come when a dictator doesn't want you to be able to read but the people before chavez were hardly captalist/facist. They were military dictators wanting to hold onto power just the same as chavez and maduro. Pointing to other south american countries even like columbia shows that they would have gotten liberation and a path to prosperity without having a strongman deciding who lives and who dies based on their loyalty to him. Heck even african countries have gotten their act together and are growing just fine despite way worse situations then what Venezuela faced after their military dictators were thrown out of power. Fidel made his country work under much worse conditions then Chavez and maduro. He had an actual invasion and repeated coup attempts by the CIA. He would be held accountable to some degree in the 21st century and everyone can see it. Being a brutal us backed dictator would have been a thing during the cold war but uncle same doesn't give a shit anymore. "bread and games" is the core of every successful civilization this side of Rome and Maduro had the oil money to keep the party going with painting any trouble the nation had on the evil white devils. Its a simple and effective strategy to hold onto power. I suspected we would get here. that just gave me so many questions. How many people do you think Chavez and/or Maduro have killed over political loyalty? I'll grant you Castro is a fucking hero of anti-imperialism. "History will absolve me" is a great read as well. | ||
| ||
