|
On May 09 2019 08:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Literacy would be one example. Hard to even vote in a democracy if you can't read and write. So as a matter of fact marginalized people are more literate under Maduro than they were under western supported leadership. I think literacy being better than being illiterate is also indisputable beyond the argument of "ignorance is bliss". Just for reference, Puerto Rico, which is home to US citizens, has a literacy rate of 92%. You'll also notice it's grown more slowly than Venezuela over the same period as well. Also worth noting Puerto Rican votes don't count anyway when it comes to the presidents/congress/senate in charge of US policy, despite their "full" citizenship. Which is probably worse (from a moral perspective) than jailing popular opposition figures in some ways. First I don't want to discount literacy because it is clearly important. But really when you talk about the 2016 you are talking about how things were 2010 and before it is not the biggest example of how things are now. It is also such a small piece of the picture, and given the hunger and so on I think the people there would not rate it as the most important factor. I think what Chavez initially did was impressive I just don't believe that literacy rates from 2016 mean it is better for the people now than it was. For example, the country with the best Literacy rates in the world is NK, way ahead of Portugal, I can't imagine that you would make the argument that the people have it better in NK than in Portugal? (feel free to insert any country Portugal is just a placeholder since NK is # 1 and beats them all) "Just for reference, Puerto Rico, which is home to US citizens, has a literacy rate of 92%. You'll also notice it's grown more slowly than Venezuela over the same period as well. Also worth noting Puerto Rican votes don't count anyway when it comes to the presidents/congress/senate in charge of US policy, despite their "full" citizenship. Which is probably worse (from a moral perspective) than jailing popular opposition figures in some ways." What are you attempting to show with writing this? I don't see how it is related to the current discussion? If you are attempting to show that the US has done a pretty darn shitty job of taking care of its own marginalized people I would agree. Often times you throw out these red herrings about how bad the US is, if it for me it is not needed I don't think the US is amazing. If the US supported Maduro instead of Guadio or instead of free elections I would be supporting the side of free elections. How bad they are is not relevant or at least no more relevant that how bad Syria, or Russia is, and you don't see me constantly, or ever throwing out these so please stop, it isn't helping move the discussion forward.
I was looking for the metric you're using to say it's worse under Maduro and you pointed to "the hunger" what metric are you using for that?
I'm attempting to demonstrate that the US needs to worry about getting Puerto Rico as literate as Venezuela and democratic (so they can vote in US elections without having to emigrate out of their US homes), get Flint clean water, millions of hungry US citizens fed, and so on before they go around threatening other nations leaders with war should they not do a better job in the country they lead.
This is important and relevant because you yourself acknowledge Guaido would be dead/in prison without the US and he would have 0% chance at early elections. So had the US minded it's business Guaido and the rest of the opposition could still be in international talks about how to make the next election as legitimate as possible instead of exacerbating the suffering hoping it triggers a collapse of Maduro's power.
|
|
|
On May 09 2019 13:45 JimmiC wrote:
I didn't say it is worse under Maduro, I was merely pointing out an example of one of the things that is terrible right now. You said it is a fact that it was worse than then it is now. And me and another user doubted it to be fact and asked for source or some sort of proof. First try you just repeated the "fact" in question and on your second try brought up literacy. I then showed why that is not the best way to show that it is better or worse for the people. I then suggested things you could look into.
The real confusing part to me is when I would say something is fact and then double down that it is one I would have some way of showing it was a fact. Otherwise I would call that an opinion, and even with a opinion I would have reasoning for it likely containing some related facts and sources.
You are not attempting to spin this around because you don't actually have any reason to say that it is a fact are you?
To your second point. You are now advocating for isolationism? Where the US creates a super system, perhaps even a utopia and then goes out to help the world? If it is this point it is probably a better point to make in the US pol thread
Or are you now trying to say that it is currently worse in the US than it is in Venezuela? If so I'd like to know why you think this because I would say it is very inaccurate.
There is also further to unpack and more inaccuracies with your final points but we can get to that once we clear up the first part. I think it would be simpler and easier if we just stayed to one or maybe two points at a time.
Much appreciated.
You didn't say it was worse, and I've provided an argument for why it's better. You're free to argue the point you are, it however isn't an example of a metric that you're using to determine that they aren't better. So we have literacy (reasonably agreed on as a fact, which you dispute the significance of) vs your opinion that literacy isn't enough to argue that they are better off under Maduro than those the US liked and no metric for which you're basing it on.
My position as far as this thread goes is that the US should stay out of Venezuela's affairs other than offering economic aid to the existing channels for supplies. Other countries/references outside of the region only serve as examples for why that's the case.
|
On May 09 2019 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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. Literacy would be one example. Hard to even vote in a democracy if you can't read and write. So as a matter of fact marginalized people are more literate under Maduro than they were under western supported leadership. I think literacy being better than being illiterate is also indisputable beyond the argument of "ignorance is bliss". Just for reference, Puerto Rico, which is home to US citizens, has a literacy rate of 92%. You'll also notice it's grown more slowly than Venezuela over the same period as well. Also worth noting Puerto Rican votes don't count anyway when it comes to the presidents/congress/senate in charge of US policy, despite their "full" citizenship. Which is probably worse (from a moral perspective) than jailing popular opposition figures in some ways.
Actually none of the fall in illiteracy rate is due to policy from Chavez or Maduro.
Where the government says it taught 1.5m, the study found that only 1.1m were illiterate to begin with, and that the fall over the 2003-05 period was less than 100,000. Even this improvement could largely be explained by a long-term demographic trend (many illiterate adults are elderly and die off).
https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2008/02/28/propaganda-not-policy
In addition people are going hungry and poverty rates are approaching 90%!
Last year, the three universities found that Venezuelans said they had lost an average of 8 kilograms during 2016. This time, the study’s dozen investigators surveyed 6,168 Venezuelans between the ages of 20 and 65 across the country of 30 million people.
The study showed that 87 percent of people in Venezuela, one of Latin America’s wealthiest nations back in the 1970s, were living in poverty last year, rising from 82 percent in 2016 and 48 percent in 2014.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-food/venezuelans-report-big-weight-losses-in-2017-as-hunger-hits-idUSKCN1G52HA
There's really nothing to suggest that people are better off now than they were before Maduro. It's also rather curious that your only source for people being better off is the literacy rate which according to your own source was already at about 90% before Chavez even took power. Once again I'll ask for a source about people being better off now than they were before.
|
|
|
On May 10 2019 14:49 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 13:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 13:45 JimmiC wrote:
I didn't say it is worse under Maduro, I was merely pointing out an example of one of the things that is terrible right now. You said it is a fact that it was worse than then it is now. And me and another user doubted it to be fact and asked for source or some sort of proof. First try you just repeated the "fact" in question and on your second try brought up literacy. I then showed why that is not the best way to show that it is better or worse for the people. I then suggested things you could look into.
The real confusing part to me is when I would say something is fact and then double down that it is one I would have some way of showing it was a fact. Otherwise I would call that an opinion, and even with a opinion I would have reasoning for it likely containing some related facts and sources.
You are not attempting to spin this around because you don't actually have any reason to say that it is a fact are you?
To your second point. You are now advocating for isolationism? Where the US creates a super system, perhaps even a utopia and then goes out to help the world? If it is this point it is probably a better point to make in the US pol thread
Or are you now trying to say that it is currently worse in the US than it is in Venezuela? If so I'd like to know why you think this because I would say it is very inaccurate.
There is also further to unpack and more inaccuracies with your final points but we can get to that once we clear up the first part. I think it would be simpler and easier if we just stayed to one or maybe two points at a time.
Much appreciated.
You didn't say it was worse, and I've provided an argument for why it's better. You're free to argue the point you are, it however isn't an example of a metric that you're using to determine that they aren't better. So we have literacy (reasonably agreed on as a fact, which you dispute the significance of) vs your opinion that literacy isn't enough to argue that they are better off under Maduro than those the US liked and no metric for which you're basing it on. My position as far as this thread goes is that the US should stay out of Venezuela's affairs other than offering economic aid to the existing channels for supplies. Other countries/references outside of the region only serve as examples for why that's the case. Poverty rates are a much better way to determine your question if we pick just one stat, I already explained why literacy is bad. I can bring up a bunch more stats as you need them but I request you attempt to bring up positive ones, you will run out awfully soon since you are already picking a pretty shady statistic to hang your hat on. Before Chavez they were horrible, I have read that they were as high as 64%!(I picked a source that is slightly lower than the 64 % because it is positive to Chavez so I thought you might trust but you may look up the numbers yourself if you would like https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6624007_Poverty_Rates_in_Venezuela_Getting_the_Numbers_Right_ Yikes that is bad, until as RVB says they were up to 90 and latest report has them at 97%! At 97% you are basically a Oilgarch, a high ranking official, a General a druglord (or a mix of those) or almost starving poor. Even if you dispute 97% I think you will struggle to find anything close to the 64% high estimate of Pre-Chavez. It is not so much that it isn't a fact that it was worse then, it is laughable to suggest it. And even more so to double down when multiple people point out to you just how foolish it is. This one has a UN report citing 94% in March. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_in_VenezuelaHere is a report from the governments own reports that are far worse than 64% back in 2017. Spoiler there are other stats included just in case you are not convinced. https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/4-charts-that-show-venezuela-s-economic-social-collapse-1.4266650Wikipedia shows the numbers as 1997 48% of households and in 2017 87% every year that it was recorded the % of people was much higher than the households but the numbers for pop stop at 2013. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_VenezuelaI have also included this awesome, at times depressing poverty clock that sadly only goes back to 2016 (still long before US sanctions) and has Venezuela as the ONLY country in South America where it is rising. over 3 million in 2016 and almost 7 million now living in extreme poverty. Which is amazing to think when you consider almost 3 million have also left in that time. https://worldpoverty.io/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=Worldpovertyclock&campaignid=1695797724&adgroupid=71780550171&adid=329359359825&gclid=Cj0KCQjwn8_mBRCLARIsAKxi0GKXPbGSwvb3HHWD_dL9COjr7g91pcgu5VbBacYeMK3SqXFa4BnShcQaAk-XEALw_wcBAs to your other point I disagree, they should do what they are doing and follow other democracies leads. Today's world is global and without outside assistance and at least protection it would be near impossible for one to replace a dictatorship. Clearly what they did before not only didn't work also only had their own interests in mind no matter the cost, so it is good to see them do something different. The problem with staying out of it is countries like Russia and China won't and countries that you may trust more like Norway or something do not have the might to stand up to a dictator like Maduro let alone those two. Isolationism has shown to cause far greater problems than it solves. Also, why do you keep bringing up what the US does as the central point of everything you say. I get that in the US pol thread but it doesn't make sense here. It is weird how you often talk like the US is the only foreign country doing anything or that only they matter. I want to call it American exceptionalism but that doesn't feel right because the US is always the villain. Perhaps scapegoating?
I want to appreciate the good part of your and RVB posts and address them (I will address them), but this part is easy.
Also, why do you keep bringing up what the US does as the central point of everything you say. I get that in the US pol thread but it doesn't make sense here.
Because they are central. You yourself acknowledged without them Guaido would be dead or in prison not holding out hope for Maduro to step down.
|
|
|
On May 10 2019 15:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2019 15:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2019 14:49 JimmiC wrote:On May 09 2019 13:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 13:45 JimmiC wrote:
I didn't say it is worse under Maduro, I was merely pointing out an example of one of the things that is terrible right now. You said it is a fact that it was worse than then it is now. And me and another user doubted it to be fact and asked for source or some sort of proof. First try you just repeated the "fact" in question and on your second try brought up literacy. I then showed why that is not the best way to show that it is better or worse for the people. I then suggested things you could look into.
The real confusing part to me is when I would say something is fact and then double down that it is one I would have some way of showing it was a fact. Otherwise I would call that an opinion, and even with a opinion I would have reasoning for it likely containing some related facts and sources.
You are not attempting to spin this around because you don't actually have any reason to say that it is a fact are you?
To your second point. You are now advocating for isolationism? Where the US creates a super system, perhaps even a utopia and then goes out to help the world? If it is this point it is probably a better point to make in the US pol thread
Or are you now trying to say that it is currently worse in the US than it is in Venezuela? If so I'd like to know why you think this because I would say it is very inaccurate.
There is also further to unpack and more inaccuracies with your final points but we can get to that once we clear up the first part. I think it would be simpler and easier if we just stayed to one or maybe two points at a time.
Much appreciated.
You didn't say it was worse, and I've provided an argument for why it's better. You're free to argue the point you are, it however isn't an example of a metric that you're using to determine that they aren't better. So we have literacy (reasonably agreed on as a fact, which you dispute the significance of) vs your opinion that literacy isn't enough to argue that they are better off under Maduro than those the US liked and no metric for which you're basing it on. My position as far as this thread goes is that the US should stay out of Venezuela's affairs other than offering economic aid to the existing channels for supplies. Other countries/references outside of the region only serve as examples for why that's the case. Poverty rates are a much better way to determine your question if we pick just one stat, I already explained why literacy is bad. I can bring up a bunch more stats as you need them but I request you attempt to bring up positive ones, you will run out awfully soon since you are already picking a pretty shady statistic to hang your hat on. Before Chavez they were horrible, I have read that they were as high as 64%!(I picked a source that is slightly lower than the 64 % because it is positive to Chavez so I thought you might trust but you may look up the numbers yourself if you would like https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6624007_Poverty_Rates_in_Venezuela_Getting_the_Numbers_Right_ Yikes that is bad, until as RVB says they were up to 90 and latest report has them at 97%! At 97% you are basically a Oilgarch, a high ranking official, a General a druglord (or a mix of those) or almost starving poor. Even if you dispute 97% I think you will struggle to find anything close to the 64% high estimate of Pre-Chavez. It is not so much that it isn't a fact that it was worse then, it is laughable to suggest it. And even more so to double down when multiple people point out to you just how foolish it is. This one has a UN report citing 94% in March. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_in_VenezuelaHere is a report from the governments own reports that are far worse than 64% back in 2017. Spoiler there are other stats included just in case you are not convinced. https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/4-charts-that-show-venezuela-s-economic-social-collapse-1.4266650Wikipedia shows the numbers as 1997 48% of households and in 2017 87% every year that it was recorded the % of people was much higher than the households but the numbers for pop stop at 2013. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_VenezuelaI have also included this awesome, at times depressing poverty clock that sadly only goes back to 2016 (still long before US sanctions) and has Venezuela as the ONLY country in South America where it is rising. over 3 million in 2016 and almost 7 million now living in extreme poverty. Which is amazing to think when you consider almost 3 million have also left in that time. https://worldpoverty.io/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=Worldpovertyclock&campaignid=1695797724&adgroupid=71780550171&adid=329359359825&gclid=Cj0KCQjwn8_mBRCLARIsAKxi0GKXPbGSwvb3HHWD_dL9COjr7g91pcgu5VbBacYeMK3SqXFa4BnShcQaAk-XEALw_wcBAs to your other point I disagree, they should do what they are doing and follow other democracies leads. Today's world is global and without outside assistance and at least protection it would be near impossible for one to replace a dictatorship. Clearly what they did before not only didn't work also only had their own interests in mind no matter the cost, so it is good to see them do something different. The problem with staying out of it is countries like Russia and China won't and countries that you may trust more like Norway or something do not have the might to stand up to a dictator like Maduro let alone those two. Isolationism has shown to cause far greater problems than it solves. Also, why do you keep bringing up what the US does as the central point of everything you say. I get that in the US pol thread but it doesn't make sense here. It is weird how you often talk like the US is the only foreign country doing anything or that only they matter. I want to call it American exceptionalism but that doesn't feel right because the US is always the villain. Perhaps scapegoating? I want to appreciate the good part of your and RVB posts and address them (I will address them), but this part is easy. Also, why do you keep bringing up what the US does as the central point of everything you say. I get that in the US pol thread but it doesn't make sense here. Because they are central. You yourself acknowledged without them Guaido would be dead or in prison not holding out hope for Maduro to step down. I believe I said without international support, if I got drawn into writing the US than my apologies. Or you may have just taken it hat way given your feelings on the US. It does bring up another question you can get to when ready, do you wish Guaido to be dead, or tortured in prison?
To clarify it's that the US is the only country (I'm familiar with) entertaining invasion, which is the threat you were referring to when you said it.
I agree that the spector of an invasion was a problem and is a problem. However, on the flip side without out them Guaido would probably be dead or in jail.
To your other question, no, I've told you countless times my preference was for him to remain in international talks instead of backing out of talks, refusing to participate in the election, and then swearing himself in as president, all with the support of the US and looming specter of invasion.
|
|
|
On May 11 2019 00:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2019 15:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2019 15:18 JimmiC wrote:On May 10 2019 15:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 10 2019 14:49 JimmiC wrote:On May 09 2019 13:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2019 13:45 JimmiC wrote:
I didn't say it is worse under Maduro, I was merely pointing out an example of one of the things that is terrible right now. You said it is a fact that it was worse than then it is now. And me and another user doubted it to be fact and asked for source or some sort of proof. First try you just repeated the "fact" in question and on your second try brought up literacy. I then showed why that is not the best way to show that it is better or worse for the people. I then suggested things you could look into.
The real confusing part to me is when I would say something is fact and then double down that it is one I would have some way of showing it was a fact. Otherwise I would call that an opinion, and even with a opinion I would have reasoning for it likely containing some related facts and sources.
You are not attempting to spin this around because you don't actually have any reason to say that it is a fact are you?
To your second point. You are now advocating for isolationism? Where the US creates a super system, perhaps even a utopia and then goes out to help the world? If it is this point it is probably a better point to make in the US pol thread
Or are you now trying to say that it is currently worse in the US than it is in Venezuela? If so I'd like to know why you think this because I would say it is very inaccurate.
There is also further to unpack and more inaccuracies with your final points but we can get to that once we clear up the first part. I think it would be simpler and easier if we just stayed to one or maybe two points at a time.
Much appreciated.
You didn't say it was worse, and I've provided an argument for why it's better. You're free to argue the point you are, it however isn't an example of a metric that you're using to determine that they aren't better. So we have literacy (reasonably agreed on as a fact, which you dispute the significance of) vs your opinion that literacy isn't enough to argue that they are better off under Maduro than those the US liked and no metric for which you're basing it on. My position as far as this thread goes is that the US should stay out of Venezuela's affairs other than offering economic aid to the existing channels for supplies. Other countries/references outside of the region only serve as examples for why that's the case. Poverty rates are a much better way to determine your question if we pick just one stat, I already explained why literacy is bad. I can bring up a bunch more stats as you need them but I request you attempt to bring up positive ones, you will run out awfully soon since you are already picking a pretty shady statistic to hang your hat on. Before Chavez they were horrible, I have read that they were as high as 64%!(I picked a source that is slightly lower than the 64 % because it is positive to Chavez so I thought you might trust but you may look up the numbers yourself if you would like https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6624007_Poverty_Rates_in_Venezuela_Getting_the_Numbers_Right_ Yikes that is bad, until as RVB says they were up to 90 and latest report has them at 97%! At 97% you are basically a Oilgarch, a high ranking official, a General a druglord (or a mix of those) or almost starving poor. Even if you dispute 97% I think you will struggle to find anything close to the 64% high estimate of Pre-Chavez. It is not so much that it isn't a fact that it was worse then, it is laughable to suggest it. And even more so to double down when multiple people point out to you just how foolish it is. This one has a UN report citing 94% in March. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_in_VenezuelaHere is a report from the governments own reports that are far worse than 64% back in 2017. Spoiler there are other stats included just in case you are not convinced. https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/4-charts-that-show-venezuela-s-economic-social-collapse-1.4266650Wikipedia shows the numbers as 1997 48% of households and in 2017 87% every year that it was recorded the % of people was much higher than the households but the numbers for pop stop at 2013. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_VenezuelaI have also included this awesome, at times depressing poverty clock that sadly only goes back to 2016 (still long before US sanctions) and has Venezuela as the ONLY country in South America where it is rising. over 3 million in 2016 and almost 7 million now living in extreme poverty. Which is amazing to think when you consider almost 3 million have also left in that time. https://worldpoverty.io/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=Worldpovertyclock&campaignid=1695797724&adgroupid=71780550171&adid=329359359825&gclid=Cj0KCQjwn8_mBRCLARIsAKxi0GKXPbGSwvb3HHWD_dL9COjr7g91pcgu5VbBacYeMK3SqXFa4BnShcQaAk-XEALw_wcBAs to your other point I disagree, they should do what they are doing and follow other democracies leads. Today's world is global and without outside assistance and at least protection it would be near impossible for one to replace a dictatorship. Clearly what they did before not only didn't work also only had their own interests in mind no matter the cost, so it is good to see them do something different. The problem with staying out of it is countries like Russia and China won't and countries that you may trust more like Norway or something do not have the might to stand up to a dictator like Maduro let alone those two. Isolationism has shown to cause far greater problems than it solves. Also, why do you keep bringing up what the US does as the central point of everything you say. I get that in the US pol thread but it doesn't make sense here. It is weird how you often talk like the US is the only foreign country doing anything or that only they matter. I want to call it American exceptionalism but that doesn't feel right because the US is always the villain. Perhaps scapegoating? I want to appreciate the good part of your and RVB posts and address them (I will address them), but this part is easy. Also, why do you keep bringing up what the US does as the central point of everything you say. I get that in the US pol thread but it doesn't make sense here. Because they are central. You yourself acknowledged without them Guaido would be dead or in prison not holding out hope for Maduro to step down. I believe I said without international support, if I got drawn into writing the US than my apologies. Or you may have just taken it hat way given your feelings on the US. It does bring up another question you can get to when ready, do you wish Guaido to be dead, or tortured in prison? To clarify it's that the US is the only country (I'm familiar with) entertaining invasion, which is the threat you were referring to when you said it. I agree that the spector of an invasion was a problem and is a problem. However, on the flip side without out them Guaido would probably be dead or in jail. To your other question, no, I've told you countless times my preference was for him to remain in international talks instead of backing out of talks, refusing to participate in the election, and then swearing himself in as president, all with the support of the US and looming specter of invasion. The only reason the talks came up was because Maduro didn't just arrest (like he did his #2) or murder him. Other countries have told Maduro to leave Guaido or there will be consequences, they are just not morons and their citizens don't eat it up the way the US do when sabres are rattled publicly. And unlike what you asserting I believe or think, I do think the US being so public and aggressive with all of that is hurting not helping. Which I've said tine and time again. But this is getting far away from the topic at hand as you pull it back to all about the USA, honestly stop!
I don't know what you're talking about with
The only reason the talks came up was because Maduro didn't just arrest (like he did his #2) or murder him.
The US is (the only country) threatening to invade Venezuela if Maduro doesn't step down, there's no way that's not always topical to Venezuela, central to Guaido's efforts, and as you say also detrimental. So they shouldn't do it, but also, Guaido would have never backed out of talks and refused to participate in the election without the assurance that the US supported it. Because again, no one else was willing to threaten invasion for Guaido's interim presidency, and you note he'd probably dead if he had tried anyway.
Allow me to say though, had the US admonished Guaido for leaving talks, refusing to participate in the election, and swearing himself in as president, I wouldn't bother mentioning them (because the generic political recognition is worthless without a threat to back it up, and that's not been enough to date still).
|
|
|
On May 11 2019 07:54 JimmiC wrote:
You are moving the goal posts. Please head back to why it was worse before Chavez than it is now and why that is a fact. Or concede that it wasn't even close to as bad.
The last statement is a round and round again, you are believing Maduro's propaganda. Which is likely why you are fighting this so hard, most of what you wrote is not true in context. If you don't know that, there is not point discussing it any more than there would be discussing why Kim Jong-un Dad did not actually hit a hole in one at everyhole.
I honestly thought we were past that it was all rightwing propaganda that Madruo was bad talk. I guess not. I'm not going through the whole process again with you, especially if you are not willing to explain the "facts" behind your logic or admit that they are in fact not facts at all.
I don't know what you're talking about "moving the goal posts". You asked why I talk about the US's critical role in Venezuela's affairs, so I explained.
As to the argument it's worse now, that's going to be more work but I'll probably pursue that with RVB because I trust it's less likely to devolve into a mess and it's complicated. But little evidence (if any, I have to go back and check) that it's worse now, just that it's bad.
There's a history of bad reporting on Venezuela. Venezuela Coverage Takes Us Back to Golden Age of Lying About Latin America
I walked out of the apartment to the nearest pharmacy, four blocks away, where I found plenty of aspirin, as well as acetaminophen (generic Tylenol) and ibuprofen (generic Advil), in a well-stocked pharmacy with a knowledgeable professional staff that would be the envy of any US drugstore.
A few days after the Time story, CNBC (6/22/16) carried a claim that there was no acetaminophen to be found anywhere, either: “Basic things like Tylenol aren’t even available.” That must have taken the Pfizer Corporation by surprise, since it was their Venezuelan subsidiary, Pfizer Venezuela SA, which produced the acetaminophen I purchased. (Neither Time writer Ian Bremer nor CNBC commentator Richard Washington was in Venezuela, and there was no evidence offered that either of them had ever been there.)
I purchased all three products, plus cough syrup and other over-the-counter medications, because I doubted that anyone in the United States would believe me if I couldn’t produce the medications in their packages.
The report cited by RVB and referenced by you has been a bit distorted which I can expand on. You just keep insisting I not talk about the country whose threats are keeping the interim president (in your view) alive and that's it's off topic and that's categorically wrong and easy to address so I was doing that first. The US has also been calling Venezuela a threat to the US which also mirrors the pretense leading up to Iraq (Except now it's Hezbollah in Venezuela instead of Al Qaeda in Iraq).
iirc the report cited by RVB claiming people were losing weight from hunger also noted that most people say they have enough food. But the negative stuff is what people payed attention to rather than the inconclusive (at best) nature of their findings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
