Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Eh, I'll confess to not having a YT account. Something written would be nice.
Chapter III: National Constituent Assembly
Btw this is a contradictory statement. De Zaya isn't saying that Guaido was illegimately elected, I think he concedes he was elected properly to the Assembly. His point is that Art. 233 only applies to unavailable presidents. The Assembly's argument is that Maduro was - as you indicate may indeed be the case - installed by a sham election, then he is in fact not president legally and thus there is no president. It's a good point and IMO correct. You can disagree that's fine but there's obviously an argument there. It's also a pretty simple rule of all western democracies that legislatures can ultimately remove presidents. That's true here, the UK and everywhere with normal republican democracy.
That would allow for a 1999 style referendum - which did not happen.
He said Article 233 is inapplicable. Meaning that there is no application of Article 233, that it is not "legitimizing" of "Guaidó’s self-proclamation as interim President," and called it a coup.
I saw that, and my point is if the President was illegally elected there is no president, he’s thus unavailable, so it does apply. You don’t have to agree but at least understand the argument the Assembly is making. I certainly see the Maduro argument, I don’t agree with it but I understand it.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
The problem as I see it is that Venezuela's constitution has numerous provisions that deal with an unavailable/incapacitated president, but it doesn't contain any language regarding a president who was elected through a stolen election.
The interim president should call for and hold a presidential election to select a new leader.
You said it was a contradictory statement though. It really wasn't. All I was saying wrt "sham" elections was that I don't know for a fact that the election process was entirely valid- I accept that Mike Prysner has biases, just like opposition-sourced reporting is biased. And newspapers with editorial boards who just so happen to cheerlead every regime change operation the US engages in have biases. I'm just conceding that it's possible.
It’s incredible. People are starving, the government won’t let food or humanitarian supplies in, yet ren hoek continues to argue that Maduro is legitimate and that this is our fault, amd that this is like Iraq. Yet we’re not invading; we’re the ones sending the food and the medical supplies that they’re not letting in.
If you're conceding it's possible the presidential election was illegal, then you're conceding that Guaido and the Assembly may be in the right.
It is like Iraq in a sense. Regime change for oil. Big Media manufacturing consent for another US intervention. Total lies and distortion in the runup to conflict. The real difference is the pretext for overthrowing it. Their ability to market this to people is nothing short of phenomenal.
Did they also talk to the 10% of the population that has already fled the disasterregime and are cluttering up neighboring countries?
Not to mention that the brain drain is real in the diaspora. A lot of professionals - educated, trained, and contributing to Venezuelan economy before they left are now plying their trades elsewhere (Colombia, Panama, Peru, Mexico, USA, Spain). That was a significant percentage of the early departures. These were the people best placed to help rebuild the economy. They also pulled their capital out of the country (or at least what was left). Furthermore, their children were displaced from Venezuela. Children that are now unlikely to contribute to rebuilding the economy in 2025 - 2050.
While I'm sure there are private companies that will want their repatriated pieces back (or due compensation, like what Exxon is suing for), the thought that we're angling to loot Venezuela's oil in a governmental sense is completely ridiculous. This is Alex Jones land.
The only thing I disagree with is "as does the rest of the western world" - no, this insane, imperialist concept is not shared in the western world, it's aberrant and bizarre.
I know I've said this, but I do agree about Abrams. It's an example of how Trump can screw and corrupt even the most basic, defensible things. - However right now from what I can tell it looks like the US is doing the right thing and taking the right approach.
There but for the grace of God (complete luck of the draw) go I.
I will ask my family.adonis said:
Did you actually watch that report from the "Canadian reporter" (who seems to have no trail as a journalist btw)? I stood in a line longer than that for Stones tickets a few weeks back. The interviews include snip, such as "we're not starving" and "we're not fighting with each other". Really? Have you seen the protests against Maduro? You've got a single penny in your pocket that's worth more than the bolivar right now.Franknbeans said:
Do you think this could have something to do with crushing sanctions and financial blockade against Venezuela? The US has no legitimate pretense for further crippling the Venezuelan economy this way. Sanctions kill.
It really isn't. If you're going to mention how the bolivar has collapsed, at least acknowledge the impact western sanctions have had against VZ economy. That was the point of them all along- to economically strangle Venezuela into compliance with US interests. This isn't the first time that mainstream media has advanced a narrative that suited regime change goals.
So if Venezuela's economic collapse started in late 2013/early 2014 and the US didn't apply major sanctions related to Maduro's dictatorship until a year later, why are we blaming the US for this situation?
Because the US controls the price of oil, duh. One could say the US runs a cartel of oil suppliers.
If this is the case, why would Dore launch a whole show off a false premise and pseudojournalism then?
We can’t, not rationally. And I’ll add that the hallmark of VZ’s decline has been more about its character as a kleptocracy or kakocracy rather than its socialism.
Right. Not following it closely, I was surprised the decline started before the collapse in oil prices. It almost seems like Maduro started Venezuela's decline. That is consistent with the economic data I see, even if it runs counter to what Russian propaganda says.
When you've emptied all savings, the collapse comes quickly. So that points to Chavez' policies as well
