South American Politics thread - Page 26

On May 08 2019 10:23 JimmiC wrote:
I understand how accountability works this is why my position is clear and has been from the start. This is also why I quickly admitted that there was not proof that Chavez daughter is a billionaire,+ Show Spoiler + but you have never admitted like why you have stated over 50 countries support Maduro among other factually inaccurate things you have stated. But your last sentence is another, of the many examples of why I say you are condescending.

realized I shouldn't trust your numbers presuming you wouldn't get it wrong.

The only one I found with 65 supporting Guaido had 50 supporting Maduro, not 10 as you say.

The mystifying part about your position is that you talk about over 50 countries as the US. Much like how you were factually inaccurate on the other page that the US was the first to support him.

Exactly, without the US being the first major country to support Guaido and pressure allies to do the same it/Guaido are dead in the water.

And I continue to be confused on your position because it is not clear.

Did you believe that this was a US lead coup?

Do you still believe this?

Do you believe that Maduro is a socialist?

I have more questions, but if you answer these maybe it will be worth continuing, and if you don't want to all good. I'm more than happy to just stop the conversation, but it would be nice if you stop falsely attributing me with positions. Thanks.

On May 08 2019 12:33 JimmiC wrote:
Yes it does matter, that is why I keep asking it. For all I know you do still think he is and still think this is some attack on the "left" and are living in that delusion. The fact that you avoid it as hard as possible is one of two things, either you do believe he still is and for some reason are embarrassed of that belief. Or you have some crazy strong psychological barrier from ever admitting you were wrong about anything. Either way, just another reason to not have discussions with you.

It is not quibbling. There is a very major difference between a US lead coup and a attempted revolution supported by not just the US but many (most of the countries that have weighed in and almost all the democracies that have/)

The reason I don't quote you is it is too much effort and I'm not trying to continue whatever this is or at least not put in the effort because when I do, and fully source it you say BS like this.



It is not my interpenetration, it is not unclear. Those are the countries that have publicly supported one side or another. These are facts, and yet you argue them. So why put in effort?





I don't know if you edited in Major or just bolded it since, but it is still not true, Canada is a Major country by basically every definition and I would argue as are some of the other members (The members: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay and Peru.). Again facts you won't recognize, I could also probably find some more Major countries that supported him before the US. But no point because you would find someway to change what you said, or a new interpretation or whatever. Again and again you just prove further to me why I shouldn't talk to you not why I should.

You are the one lobbing the unsupported accusations not me. You continue to paint a false narrative both on what I said and continue to say about Chavez daughter. Feel free to prove she is not wealthy, and then you will see how hard it is to prove she is by the bar you set. And this is just another reason why I'm trying to end the conversation not continue it. You are the one that seems to want to continue and I'm not sure why.

You are the one that seems to want to continue and I'm not sure why.

On May 08 2019 15:03 JimmiC wrote:
Considering you lack of credibility you have with me, you very well could have added it, but if you think that Canada member of the g8 is not major it wouldn't surprise me, you have a bad case of american exceptionalism. The pressure you speak of like fact is again just your assumptions. And while some did what they thought was the right thing probably basing their info on the far more trust worthy nations that were going they the info. They did and the ones what waited did not crumble under US pressure as you have insinuated but rather gave Maduro time to hold an election.

+ Show Spoiler +

The pressure you speak of like fact is again just your assumptions.

The United States on Saturday called on the world to “pick a side” on Venezuela

Meanwhile, Vice President Mike Pence called on the UN Security Council to acknowledge self-declared interim President Juan Guaido as the legal ruler of Venezuela.

"The time has come for the United Nations to recognize [Guaido] as the legitimate president of Venezuela and seat his representative in this body," Pence said.

On May 08 2019 15:59 JimmiC wrote:
Do you know understand that only 22 countries in the world support Maduro and 75% of them are Authoritarians?


The precise numbers are unclear, the measure of "authoritarianism" is unreliable (I honestly don't remember if you posted it but I'd imagine Israel scores relatively well despite engaging in ethnic cleansing), and the relative value of those ratings to the argument is unclear. According to sources you've provided/your interpretation at least 22 countries support Maduro and 75% of them are authoritarian. Like I've mentioned, the reality is complex and reports all around are unreliable so it's probably somewhere between the 50 they've claimed and the 22 that have gone on the record.


It is not my interpenetration, it is not unclear. Those are the countries that have publicly supported one side or another. These are facts, and yet you argue them. So why put in effort?

This is your mistake, it is very clear.

and do you think Maduro is a socialist?

Not a hard question for anyone but a conspiracy theory nut trying to keep together the threads of his myth.


As to some of your other junk

+ Show Spoiler +

Maybe have called for the UN to do so but the votes keep being 7-2 with Russia and china voting against, than Russia puts on forward. It is like you don't get that he is grandstanding to impress his base.

It is very Crazy how much influence you think the US has over other countries. You act like the US pressed them to support Guaido., so they did. When what really happened is the countries that were not sure asked Maduro to hold elections and he wouldn't so they supported the person that would.

You are dodging it as hard as you possibly can, just say it put your cards out, it is a US lead neo lib, coup conspiracy against the great Socialist Madruo .

do you think Maduro is a socialist?

While the United States is not part of the Lima Group, the State Department said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo participated in Friday’s meeting by video conference.


Earlier this week, Mr. Pompeo toured Latin America, meeting with allied nations and discussing the situation in Venezuela.

On Tuesday, he met with the foreign minister of Peru to discuss putting pressure on Mr. Maduro “to return democracy and prosperity to the Venezuelan people,” according to a spokesman for the State Department.

The next day, after Mr. Pompeo met with Brazil’s foreign minister, the State Department issued a similar note saying the two talked about working together on challenges in the region, “including supporting the people of Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua in restoring their democratic governance and their human rights.”

Mr. Pompeo also met with President Iván Duque of Colombia to discuss intervention in Venezuela. Venezuela’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs denounced that meeting and said both countries “seek to subjugate and violate the sovereignty and self-determination of the Venezuelan people.”

On May 09 2019 01:07 JimmiC wrote:



As usual you have attributed a position to me that is incorrect.

Do not bring up what you thought XMZ) point was, because we have discussed them much further than on this board and I can tell you are not getting them right, but more than that. It is not a good habit you have of saying what others think. I do not like it when you do it for me, my suspicions are others feel the same.


Yes you have stuck by positions that are false, or that are your opinion and you have treated them as fact. The Lima group was the first to support Guaido, and there are major countries in that group. Then a group of other major countries all supported Guaido, in that group was the US. That group including the US asked the others to take a position. They did, that Maduro was not a legitimate elected leader and he would have 8 days to call elections. When he did not they joined in supporting Guaido against Maduro. While it is factual to say the US pressured other nations, it is not honest. Because it is leaving out all the other nations that also pressured the other nations to make a decision. It is much like how you bring up the meetings Guaido had with the US before announcing and then draw the conclusion that the US is behind it. Without recognizing that he had a meeting with every country he could.

It is much like how you make statements like the UN supports Maduro. When in fact they don't, they have not taken a position because either the US or Russia uses their veto. And the support for Guaido is much greater among the membership.

For some reason your posts are always about what the US has done, they do not appear to take into account what all of the other independent players do. This is why I have lost interest in discussing with you and have not put in the effort I once did.

"You seem to be demanding I take imperfect information and either agree with it, or disagree with it so you can label me" I found this statement especially funny. It was very recent that I told you that you think things are black and white when there is much grey and now you are not wanting agree to really basic facts. This is what you do to me all the time over and over. It actually made me laugh aloud when I read it so thank you for that.

I also appreciate that we have moved on from Maduro is a great socialist and Venezuela would be fine and successful if not for the US coup. I think some of that remains but however much we have moved is an accomplishment I can live with.

Because of the above reasons and many more, as well as the warning I received which makes me think your feelings are being hurt. It is better if we don't discuss at least for a while. I find your defense of Maduro and excuses for his absolutely awful treatment of his own people to be offensive. Not to mention all the digs you continue to throw my way.

So have a good day, please don't attribute positions to me in attempts to goad me back into a conversation. If you are reporting me you can't be having a good time and we can not agree on the basic facts so any more interesting discussion really can't happen.

On May 09 2019 04:40 JimmiC wrote:
Fair enough, just don't be in the feedback threads claiming you don't like the system or it is over moderated or whatever and don't expect a discussion. Take all the pot shots you feel you need to make.

I think this is an interesting article about some of the non violent options the US has to support revolution in Venezuela whether that is Guaido or not. What I really like is that most people are trying to learn from Iraq, Syria so on. I think it is worth trying different approaches even if they fail rather than to just let millions suffer and here are some of those possibilities along with a few of the risks.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/05/08/venezuela-us-military-intervention-strategic-nonviolent-maduro-regime-guaido-column/1117684001/

Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó is considering asking the US military to get more involved. Yet what should this look like? Arguably, the White House’s jingoistic rhetoric and diplomatic half-measures have only strengthened President Nicholas Maduro’s hand, as he consolidates power, rallies volunteers into his armed forces and thumbs his nose at Washington. Not to mention there would be very little American appetite for a large military intervention, and Venezuelans appear to be dead-set against it. Operationally it would be difficult, too; Venezuela is twice the size of Iraq.

While Maduro’s ouster may not usher in a thriving democracy overnight, the main goal at this stage is to avoid an all-out civil war.

There is a threat the crisis turns more violent, which would undermine the opposition’s legitimacy.

It was a civil war of the 1980s, one that pitted leftist revolutionaries against the alliance of countries, oligarchs, and generals that had ruled the country for decades—with U.S. support—keeping peasants illiterate and impoverished. It was a bloody, brutal, and dirty war. More than 75,000 Salvadorans were killed in the fighting, most of them victims of the military and its death squads. Peasants were shot en masse, often while trying to flee. Student and union leaders had their thumbs tied behind their backs before being shot in the head, their bodies left on roadsides as a warning to others.

On May 09 2019 05:17 JimmiC wrote:

A I've said before I've never intentional distorted your arguments I just don't understand them, they do not seem logically congruent and in my opinion you don't talk directly. Your choice to then link the post you made that was not clear to me does not further my understanding. It would have been a lot more helpful if you would have instead answered much more simply or chosen a different wording in an attempt to be more clear. But that ship has long sailed, have a good one!

Edit: and to your edit. Yes the US has done a lot of shitty things in the past, and in the recent past, we never differed on that yet sometimes you always made it appear to me like you thought we did. Where we differ is I think the Russians are just as bad and while I don't trust the US or Russia I do trust many of the other countries that happen to fall on the same side of the US. They also have not gone in guns a blazing so here is hope that they are trying new less violent approaches and that they have greater long term success.

By 1989 poverty had increased over 150% from its 1980 level.. The largest rise in poverty took place at the beginning of the decade when the head count ratio rose by 36% between 1982 to 1985. However, poverty increased in Venezuela both during this recessionary sub-period and during the expansion between 1986 and 1988.

On May 09 2019 07:33 JimmiC wrote:
We can get to the rest later and there is some interesting stuff to unpack. But you have made a statement that you said was fact, that it is worse than it is now. We all agree it was bad then, the question is why is it factual that it was worse then it is now.