|
On April 29 2019 03:39 JimmiC wrote:
I answered your question. Either they at the time shared your opinion of no coups are good ones no matter what.
Or the more likely that them and Russia swapped places to guard their oppressor from democracy where they might not make as much.
So you're saying your operating under the general belief that either the US prioritizes profit over democracy or that they didn't/don't support coups.
Seeing as how they did support coups before and after it's definitely not that. So we're left with the US prioritizing profit over democracy or lifting oppressed people. So if Guaido (or whoever wins a theoretical election) prioritizes his people over US oligarch's profits (what you're hoping) he (the leader of Venezuela) becomes an enemy of the US again. The last time we had a friendly relationship was when there were a handful of people becoming billionaires exploiting the people to the benefit of western oligarchs.
That's the nature of the relationship with practically every country in South America.
|
|
|
On April 29 2019 03:59 JimmiC wrote:
As the others in the thread were pointing out politely it not only and always US and the US is not the only story. So read it again without the blinders.
The US was acting how the Russians are acting, no care about the people, only caring about the money. In fact they are acting way less aggressively than the Russians because they didn't support a military coup.
Now I believe they are acting about the money with the happy benefit of it helping the people. And you can state that they could two shits about the people and I wouldn't argue. But you would be crazy to think that this won't benefit the people. The lowest class of people do not do better off in authoritarian countries, it just doesn't happen.
As a matter of fact the people did better under Chavez than the preceding regime. When compared to before Chavez many of the most marginalized people are still doing better than they did under the corporate/military dictatorship the US got along fine with.
They aren't stupid or buying BS, they know that marginalized people do better under the exploitation of Russian oligarchs than they do US oligarchs if for no other reason than it takes far less money to satiate Russian or Chinese oligarchs than US ones (granting your framing otherwise).
|
|
|
On April 29 2019 04:09 JimmiC wrote:
That is true. Which is why it should give you hope that again the people will do better under a new leader.
Let me give you the break down because you seem confused and you are proving my point. Chavez came in and took over for a authoritarian made it a democracy and made it better for the people. Either on his own or because of fear of US intervention (which happened and failed) he slowly started making it less democratic. He then died and appointed Maduro. Maduro has made it more and more Authoritarian every year to the point it is now. He also upped the corruption and the thieving. To the point where it got so out of control we are where we are. Now the hope is, that like Chavez Guairdo can bring democracy to Venezuela. The bigger hope is that this time it lasts longer, preferably forever.
Edit: sorry missed you edit. Thank you for finally saying that you think Russian and Chinese Oligarch are some how better and nicer than American ones. I completely disagree, I think there is more of an argument to say worse since they have even less regulation to deal with than the US as long as they pay the man at the top and can do so directly. But at the very least they are just as bad.
What I've been trying to explain in as many ways as I possibly could is that your
Now the hope is, that like Chavez Guairdo can bring democracy to Venezuela. The bigger hope is that this time it lasts longer, preferably forever.
Is unfounded and being wrong has consequences that have historically been worse than what we see now.
|
|
|
On April 29 2019 04:24 JimmiC wrote:
No, as you pointed out it has happened, and that was a military Coup, so it could work again. Either way it makes sense to want it because Authoritarians are bad for the people.
This is a fact that is true, Authoritarians are bad, this is true whether they are with the US or against the US. There is evil in the world that is against the US because their interests might not align. So even if you believe, like you clearly do that the US is the worst of all, that doesn't remove all evil from other players in the globe.
You have like a strange US exceptionalism thing but it exceptionally evil and all powerful instead of exceptionally good.
At some point when a bunch of people are telling you the same thing about you. It might be time to consider that they might be right, or at the very least that you are doing a very poor job of communicating your point.
Or perhaps they share a hegemonic belief that isn't as supported by reality as they believe?
You're missing the point. The US had a friendly government in Venezuela and it exploited the marginalized more than Chavez or Maduro (the billionaires that got rich are still there after opposing Chavez and Maduro). Venezuela had a leader democratize and help those marginalized people (Chavez), the US tried to assassinate him and sponsored a coup.
Maduro may suck, but those people don't want to go back to a US friendly government because they rightly believe the US would rather them suffer worse than they do now than leave profit on the table.
The US is not supporting replacing Maduro with another Chavez they would have to assassinate. Hoping they are is silly imo.
|
|
|
You are right, there is a chance that everyone else is wrong and you are right.
As a matter of fact it wouldn't be the first time here. Bernie not being another Ron Paul is probably one of the most definitive examples. Granted that's not really the case here. Most people said they don't know enough to comment and xmz basically agrees you're having the same problem I'm describing.
I'm sure they hope that he turns out to be a great leader that stays in power long and that the US economy is improved because of it. And you are right that they hope it doesn't get closed off to them. Maybe they learned from past mistakes, maybe they go lucky that the new boss was a lot like the old boss. I don't know either way that is where we are, today.
I'm at a bit of a loss with your whole comment but this part in particular. My point is that where we're at today is to continue to try to push Guaido (a failed effort imo, but your preference) or take a more realistic (imo) approach that accounts for the conditions on the ground and the history (including contemporary) of the parties involved.
I think our arguments are stronger the less we try to impose positions onto each other we don't hold or aren't arguing.
|
|
|
On April 29 2019 05:13 JimmiC wrote:
I'm not saying everyone agrees with me on Venezuela I'm saying everyone agree's that the root of all your arguments is US is evil and everything they support and position they take is also that way. Guilt by association 100%
K that one is pretty hegemonic here but also based in error as I think is becoming clearer to those in the US politics thread. I'm one of few people who doesn't really even support the concept of "evil" so it's a particularly errant way to characterize my argument.
Maybe your right. I have never said I know Guaido will prevail or even that he will. Just that it will be better for the people if he does.
you don't know that, you hope that.
And that I'm very pleased that he has not called for an invasion and one hasn't happened.
He and the US threatened it if Maduro didn't back down (he hasn't backed down) though?
He could lose, but even so I don't think Maduro has the chops or even the desire to make it better for his people. He has shown he cares more about consolidation of power and wealth for him. I see no reason for that to change.
I don't know/understand what kind of election you think Guaido could hold/win/lose if Maduro stepped down tomorrow or when you think it would/could happen?
|
|
|
On April 29 2019 05:43 JimmiC wrote:
You don't know 90% of the shit you insinuate the difference is I'm willing to put it out there black and white so that later I can be shown wrong. You insinuate a bunch of things than go, oh no I meant this other thing. We are different.
I very recently demonstrated this simply isn't true.
+ Show Spoiler +On April 28 2019 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2019 09:17 JimmiC wrote:
No I still don't know your opinion because I continually get it wrong and for some reason you won't say. "no I don't think that I think this".
I literally just did exactly that. Show nested quote +I don't think that. I think that Guaido's hopes rest entirely on his support from the US. If the US says, "we no longer recognize Guaido as the interim president" the "coup" or "revolution" is practically dead (if it isn't already) and Guaido probably is too. People are free to draw their own conclusions to what level of loyalty that may get the US from Guaido. I think this definitively proves the reason you "don't know [my] opinion" & "continually get it wrong" is not what you think it is. Show nested quote +But you did give a semi opinion that you think they should engage in talks. Or you know retain the status quo (since Maduro has said he won't change) like I suggested you said but you say you don't. There's going to be another election. The quality of the election will be determined by the path we take from here. While I don't share your optimism that there was a path for Guaido to get to one (or still is) I understand your position. My position is that Guaido is generally a lost cause at this point and that the best case scenario for the people of Venezuela is international talks and aid through existing channels while working internationally to ensure through diplomatic means we get as close to the elections we agree were notoriously legitimate as possible. I accept that maybe waiting until Maduro is dying of old age (while doing the best we can with those other things) is the best that can be done.
Yeah they keep saying "everything on the table" so that Guaido doesn't get murdered. At this point it is clear it won't happen unless Maduro really wants it to.
He's already got his police protecting Guaido from angry abuelas, Guaido's fate is his own making.
According to the consititution it is supposed to happen fast. I'm not sure how it would take to set up and free the political prisoners .
That sounds like you quite literally have no idea how Venezuela goes from Maduro stepping down to Guaido holding fair elections or any idea if they would happen in the constitutional time frame or if they even could happen in the next decade without Maduro and just hoping it happens because Guaido said he wants them?
And no you are not showing the people in the US pol thread, they said there piece and then they are not willing to argue with you. That is completely different than agreeing with you. IS this why you always need the last post? Is that winning to you? Odd.
DPB I think is at least one example contrary to your position but this isn't really the place for that.
|
|
|
On April 29 2019 07:20 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2019 05:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2019 05:43 JimmiC wrote:
You don't know 90% of the shit you insinuate the difference is I'm willing to put it out there black and white so that later I can be shown wrong. You insinuate a bunch of things than go, oh no I meant this other thing. We are different.
I very recently demonstrated this simply isn't true. + Show Spoiler +On April 28 2019 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2019 09:17 JimmiC wrote:
No I still don't know your opinion because I continually get it wrong and for some reason you won't say. "no I don't think that I think this".
I literally just did exactly that. Show nested quote +I don't think that. I think that Guaido's hopes rest entirely on his support from the US. If the US says, "we no longer recognize Guaido as the interim president" the "coup" or "revolution" is practically dead (if it isn't already) and Guaido probably is too. People are free to draw their own conclusions to what level of loyalty that may get the US from Guaido. I think this definitively proves the reason you "don't know [my] opinion" & "continually get it wrong" is not what you think it is. Show nested quote +But you did give a semi opinion that you think they should engage in talks. Or you know retain the status quo (since Maduro has said he won't change) like I suggested you said but you say you don't. There's going to be another election. The quality of the election will be determined by the path we take from here. While I don't share your optimism that there was a path for Guaido to get to one (or still is) I understand your position. My position is that Guaido is generally a lost cause at this point and that the best case scenario for the people of Venezuela is international talks and aid through existing channels while working internationally to ensure through diplomatic means we get as close to the elections we agree were notoriously legitimate as possible. I accept that maybe waiting until Maduro is dying of old age (while doing the best we can with those other things) is the best that can be done. Yeah they keep saying "everything on the table" so that Guaido doesn't get murdered. At this point it is clear it won't happen unless Maduro really wants it to. He's already got his police protecting Guaido from angry abuelas, Guaido's fate is his own making. According to the consititution it is supposed to happen fast. I'm not sure how it would take to set up and free the political prisoners . That sounds like you quite literally have no idea how Venezuela goes from Maduro stepping down to Guaido holding fair elections or any idea if they would happen in the constitutional time frame or if they even could happen in the next decade without Maduro and just hoping it happens because Guaido said he wants them? And no you are not showing the people in the US pol thread, they said there piece and then they are not willing to argue with you. That is completely different than agreeing with you. IS this why you always need the last post? Is that winning to you? Odd. DPB I think is at least one example contrary to your position but this isn't really the place for that. Of course I don't.
Some of us are familiar with what regime change entails and that influences our asessments, that you freely admit you are clueless is helpful and should be considered when evaluating your perspective.
Not going round and around again. If Marduro stays I suspect we won't see it get better. If it does we will get to see if I'm right or you are. I'm pretty confident by now that the Coup you promised and invasion you suggest is not coming and that I am happy about. I'll keep up with the news, you can feel free to post why it all the US fault or why Maduro is good, but then say you don't support Maduro and circle of life can continue!
This is a great example of what I'm talking about when I say that it's important to take into consideration your admitted ignorance about what exactly you are hoping happens vs their own (whomever reads your posts) review of the context you've chosen to ignore and/or disregard.
|
|
|
On April 29 2019 07:51 JimmiC wrote:
You can be condescending as you want. In the end you can claim your a revolutionist and for the people. But after much talk it becomes clear that you simply just hate the US and everything else is just BS to bring you back to that point. No actual revolutionist would think talks with an authoritarian are the best way, especially when the guy already says he won't bend. I'm sure you were very proud of Trump for accomplishing so much with his.
I'm quite confident after our exchanges that your familiarity with socialist revolution is about as detailed as your familiarity with what regime change in Venezuela entails. On it's own, that's perfectly reasonable btw.
I'm really not being condescending though man. I'm genuinely trying to be polite and clear despite not thinking your engagement has been reflective of someone willing to offer that same respect to myself or others for that matter.
|
|
|
On April 29 2019 08:28 JimmiC wrote:
Rolf you are like Ricky Bobby you can't be super condescending then say "I'm really not being condescending" it doesn't work that way.
When you are a nonstop condescending and refuse to answer things. Or pull out one sentence out of context to say its dumb or only answer that and than the reason for the dodge is I'm not smart enough or whatever dig you use you can't then expect me to just be super nice back. It is not going to happen. I'm either going to ignore you, make snide comments about you, bow out gracefully, or argue with you in an unpleasant manner. You guarantee these outcomes by your behavior, it is not others it is you. And you can see it all on the US pol or here and you can see it repeat.
I would love to be talking to someone who when they disagree they bring a source to the party not just their presumption. But I'm stuck with you since no one else is that interested, or at least keeps up so here we are. And at times we will probably have good conversation and others you will just be insulting me and feeling superior when I can deal with it I will and other times I will ignore. Such is the life of this thread.
Honestly is your perception of these last 10 pages of engagement that I should post in a manner that more closely reflects yours?
I don't think anyone would support that. I honestly think it's the opposite despite my generally disliked presence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
