https://winteryknight.com/2024/07/27/will-venezuelas-socialist-totalitarians-finally-be-voted-out-on-sunday/
As Dan frequently uses Nicaragua as an example of US interference destroying other countries, it'd be interesting to hear how he blames the US for Maduro blocking one of his most popular challengers from the ballot. It's kind of like what the DFL tried to do in a few states recently. It's almost exactly like what the DFL did with RFK Jr and Bernie.
I'm sure that somehow, something that Regan did back in the '80s is the only possible reason why Nicaragua has declined drastically under it's socialist rulers, and why the socialists desperately want to prevent an avowed capitalist from running.
27 comments:
When you do things like this: Make vague accusations of some unknown misdeed done (almost exclusively by Democrats), it makes it hard to take you seriously. WHAT has the Us "blocked" in Venezuela. I googled and found THIS from the reputable Reuters:
" The White House on Thursday expressed concern about the threat of violence in Venezuela's election on Sunday and warned President Nicolas Maduro of the need to hold a fair vote free of political repression or intimidation."
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-warns-venezuelas-maduro-need-free-election-sunday-2024-07-25/
Well, of course, we want to promote free and fair elections with no oppression or violence. That's not a bad thing.
And it doesn't compare to the US interfering in Latin American nations for decades and including putting explosive mines in the harbor of another nation (Nicaragua, a literal war crime for which we were convicted) and otherwise negatively impacting Latino nations for our own perceived benefits.
You really would make more sense if, you know, told us what in the name of all that's holy you're talking about.
Vague accusations are meaningless at best and dangerous at worst.
Dan seems to have limited info on Nicaragua based on one-sided testimonies from refugee/asylum seekers, who curiously are never victims of Sandanista death squads. Dan cites lefty social workers who also seem to be unaware of Sandanista atrocities against Nicaraguan Indians. All stories told us through Dan point only to that evil Ronald Reagan.
--Art
"When you do things like this: Make vague accusations of some unknown misdeed done (almost exclusively by Democrats), it makes it hard to take you seriously. WHAT has the Us "blocked" in Venezuela."
You're the one who's regularly complaining about how the US has caused Venezuela all sorts of problems resulting in Venezuela's current situation.
"Well, of course, we want to promote free and fair elections with no oppression or violence. That's not a bad thing."
So, has Maduro actually allowed his main rival on the ballot yet?
"And it doesn't compare to the US interfering in Latin American nations for decades and including putting explosive mines in the harbor of another nation (Nicaragua, a literal war crime for which we were convicted) and otherwise negatively impacting Latino nations for our own perceived benefits."
It's so much fun when you demonstrate the point I'm trying to make in my posts.
The fact that you are more worried about stuff that happened decades ago, instead of what's happening right now.
"You really would make more sense if, you know, told us what in the name of all that's holy you're talking about."
I think you probably missed the link at the top of the post, or are unable to work the Google machine.
"Vague accusations are meaningless at best and dangerous at worst."
"As Venezuela girds for what could be a historic presidential election this weekend, one of the most important names in the race isn’t on the ballot: María Corina Machado – the woman who galvanized Venezuela’s opposition movement, and whom many voters see as the real challenger to socialist incumbent Nicolás Maduro."
From the linked post above, a quote from the revered CNN, real journalists, which states the problem clearly. If you 're unable to figure out that your hero Maduro literally preventing his main opponent from being on the ballot (sound familiar)?
You make your self look like a fool when you so quickly and explicitly demonstrate the point I'm making.
1992 Venezuela became the 3rd richest country in the Western Hemisphare
2001 Voted for socialist president for "income equality"
2004 Private healthcare is socialized
2007 Higer education becomes "free", read paid for by the state.
2009 Private ownership of guns banned.
2012 Bernie Sanders praises their "American Dream"
2014 Opposition leaders are imprisoned
2016 Food/healthcare shortages become widespread
2017 Constitution and elections are suspended
2019 Unarmed citizens massacred by the Venezuelan givernment
Obviously it's all Regan's fault for stuff that happened back in the '8os.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/29/americas/venezuela-election-maduro-winner-intl-hnk/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/07/29/venezuela-presidential-election-result-maduro/
https://apnews.com/article/venezuela-presidential-election-maduro-machado-edmundo-5ce255ae90614162590bfe1207d2e1d0
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/28/world/americas/venezuela-election-results.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/29/maduro-wins-third-term-contradicting-exit-polls.html
Somehow, according to there revered real sources of real journalism, the Venezuelan elections were not "free and fair". There is serious doubt of the accuracy of the results.
Clearly Ronald Regan has managed to reach out from the grave and somehow affect the results on an election in Venezuela. The fact that Dan chooses not to give the people and leaders of Venezuela agency and to acknowledge that they are responsible for their own choices, is telling.
The fact that he wants immigrants from Venezuela to come to the US, unvetted and unchecked, seems like a desire to import Venezuela's problems into the US.
"Dan seems to have limited info on Nicaragua based on one-sided testimonies from refugee/asylum seekers, who curiously are never victims of Sandanista death squads."
Sigh. No. I've been there. Several of my friends have lived there, some Nicaraguans and some from the US.
I've sat in on meetings literally between Sandinista families and Contra families, including some former Conta soldiers.
I've read extensively . My friends who lived there have firsthand knowledge and informed views.
And to be clear, Ortega is deeply problematic today. Nicaragua had their own problems back in the 80s. Reagan literally made it worse. Literally committed war crimes. Literally lied to the US to then supply arms to terrorists.
You just don't know what you're speaking of.
Same for you Craig. I've offered no commentary specifically about Venezuela, at least not that I recall.
Dan
"You're the one who's regularly complaining about how the US has caused Venezuela all sorts of problems..."
This is strange. I can't imagine I've taken any stands specifically about them, even if I've forgotten it in passing. But I absolutely haven't "regularly complained" or talked about Venezuela. You must be confusing me with someone else.
What I have done is talked about how US involvement in much of Latin America has caused problems for Latin Americans, because of course it has. But specifically talking regularly about Venezuela? No, you're mistaken.
Madura? My HERO?
WHAT are you talking about? You've clearly confusing me for someone else.
Dan
Kim Jong Un, Erdogan, Ortega, Manduro, Putin... these are all authoritarian strongman type leaders and are an interference to their nations enjoying a free democracy, human rights and an unfettered press. Progressives like me are opposed to that kind of thing. How do you not know this?
I think you're confusing me for Trump. He's the one who's expressed support for authoritarians, not me.
Dan
"The fact that Dan chooses not to give the people and leaders of Venezuela agency and to acknowledge that they are responsible for their own choices, is telling...."
??? "Fact..."??
What are you talking about? This is so deeply strange. All I can guess is, as noted, you must be confusing me with someone else.
This appears to be a deeply problematic election, from what I hear. I'm opposed to ACTUAL election fraud of the sort that happens in authoritarian nations. The sort that Trump often admires.
Not progressives like me.
Dan
What Democrats are saying...
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-07-29/blinken-calls-for-venezuela-to-publish-tabulation-of-votes-in-sundays-election
Oh, if only we had more statesmen and stateswomen like Jimmy Carter.
Dan
"Oh, if only we had more statesmen and stateswomen like Jimmy Carter."
If only, I can see why you'd wish for more people like Carter who's "statecraft" managed to get a US embassy held hostage and his "statecraft" also manged to get Regan elected. Not to mention his horrible economy.
Your linked article referred to ONE "democrat", not to "democrats". Of course, this is just a way from diverting attention away from the point of the post and contains nothing that wasn't in the multiple links to revered bastions of journalistic integrity I posted.
"Sigh. No. I've been there. Several of my friends have lived there, some Nicaraguans and some from the US."
So?
"I've sat in on meetings literally between Sandinista families and Contra families, including some former Conta soldiers."
So?
"I've read extensively . My friends who lived there have firsthand knowledge and informed views."
So?
"And to be clear, Ortega is deeply problematic today. Nicaragua had their own problems back in the 80s. Reagan literally made it worse. Literally committed war crimes. Literally lied to the US to then supply arms to terrorists."
So? You keep bitching about stuff that happened in the '80' as if that is totally/mostly responsible for the current disaster that is Nicaragua.
"Same for you Craig. I've offered no commentary specifically about Venezuela, at least not that I recall."
No just general commentary about how US interference has caused all of the problems in Central America.
"What I have done is talked about how US involvement in much of Latin America has caused problems for Latin Americans, because of course it has. But specifically talking regularly about Venezuela? No, you're mistaken."
Again, thank you for making my point. I'm not an expery in geography, but I'm pretty sure that Venezuela is within "Latin America".
"Madura? My HERO?"
Hyperbole, from anyone but Dan!!!!! Oh, the horror!!!!!!
"Kim Jong Un, Erdogan, Ortega, Manduro, Putin... these are all authoritarian strongman type leaders and are an interference to their nations enjoying a free democracy, human rights and an unfettered press. Progressives like me are opposed to that kind of thing. How do you not know this?"
Off topic obfuscation, to be expected. Anything to get past your contention that US interference in Latin America is the cause of all of their problems.
Fact 1. I have never said that centuries of subjugation and colonization by Europe,followed by decades of Cold War interference has caused all the problems of Latin American nations. Period. This is a literally false claim, on contrast with reality.
Fact 2. Nonetheless, centuries of subjugation and colonization by Europe, followed by decades of Cold War interference have had hugely negative impacts for nations around the world impacted by all of that, including in Latin America. Many/most historians and scholars will tell you this.
Are you familiar with these experts and scholars?
Dan
Dan seems to struggle with the fact that when he always blames the US in general and Regan specifically for most if not all of what is wrong in Central, northers South America. and the Caribbean, that we take him at his word. The fact that he's never mentioned the entire history of that region as a potential cause for their current troubles is immaterial. Strangely, he doesn't consider that much of Latin America was dominated by cultures that valued human sacrifice to be a cause at all.
I'll note that Dan references "these scholars" yet provides absolutely zero proof of who "these scholars" are and what they've actually said.
Of course the point of the post is that the problems that send thousands of Venezuelans into the US illegally are literally unrelated to anything the US or "colonizers" did in the past. They ARE the result of the decisions of the Venezuelan people who chose "socialists" to rule them back in 2001.
"I'll note that Dan references "these scholars" yet provides absolutely zero proof of who "these scholars" are and what they've actually said."
When people offer a lot of opinions on, for instance, the global South, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I'm glad to share sources...
Here's one, for starters...
https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/305724.html
Dan
"Of course the point of the post is that the problems that send thousands of Venezuelans into the US illegally are literally unrelated to anything the US or "colonizers" did in the past..."
Of course, that is a literally unproven claim made without support.
Is it not possible that precisely because (IN PART*) that because of Western and US interference, that this created room and opportunities for authoritarian type leaders to take charge?
* The reality of national and international histories is that there are many moving parts involved. People who say, This ONE thing led to all these problems! Are not approaching the topic in a scholarly manner. Which is why I don't do that.
Another reality is that one can not write comprehensively in a few paragraphs on a blog about topics so large. So, in this context you should understand that when I speak of the problems and concerns associated with US intervention ism in Latin America, I'm never speaking of ONE cause.
When I say the Reagan administration was charged with war crimes in Nica, I am speaking of that reality.
The states of nations evolve over decades and centuries on actions and reactions.
I've never said otherwise.
Dan
"When people offer a lot of opinions on, for instance, the global South, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I'm glad to share sources..."
Given how rarely you do "share sources" I seriously doubt it. Of course the fact that you demand "proof" when someone mentions a widely covered news story and whine when you don't get spoon fed the perfect "proof" from a source you "revere", it's always amusing when your double standard shows up.
https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/305724.html
Of course, this few paragraphs on history from pre 1973, doesn't explain how the US is responsible for Venezuela going from the most prosperous country in the '90's to an economic nightmare where the socialist dictator steal selections in 2024.
"Of course, that is a literally unproven claim made without support."
What's good for the goose...
"Is it not possible that precisely because (IN PART*) that because of Western and US interference, that this created room and opportunities for authoritarian type leaders to take charge?"
I guess anything is possible, but in the 1990's Venezuela was one of the most prosperous countries in the hemisphere, they didn't turn into a shit hole until they elected socialists who destroyed the place. But sure, blame something the US did back in the '50's for that.
"The reality of national and international histories is that there are many moving parts involved. People who say, This ONE thing led to all these problems! Are not approaching the topic in a scholarly manner. Which is why I don't do that."
What you claim you "do" as opposed to what you write about can be, and are, two different things. You've written volumes about how the US destroyed Latin America and Haiti (at least), with never a word about these other "moving parts". I get it, it's easier to blame the US and ignore the "moving parts" that don't fit the narrative.
"Another reality is that one can not write comprehensively in a few paragraphs on a blog about topics so large. So, in this context you should understand that when I speak of the problems and concerns associated with US intervention ism in Latin America, I'm never speaking of ONE cause."
SO, when you only write about "ONE cause", you secretly mean more than "ONE cause', but we just need to assume that you mean something other than what you write. But it's a good excuse. For someone who's written volumes about the stupidest shit imaginable to use the "It's too much to write about" excuse is pathetic.
"When I say the Reagan administration was charged with war crimes in Nica, I am speaking of that reality."
So? When you blame US actions in the distant past for the actions of Nicaraguans today, you just don't mention 20+ years of socialism that's destroyed a vibrant economy.
"I've never said otherwise."
No, you've just never written about any of those causes other then blaming the US.
"when you only write about "ONE cause"
If and when I ever use that kind of language, you can certainly ask, Dan did you mean that there was only one cause, and it was Reagan...?"
But since I never use that language about large-scale, complex topics, you won't have to ask. You'll know, No, of course he's not saying there is ONE cause.
Dan
"today, you just don't mention 20+ years of socialism that's destroyed a vibrant economy."
From the scholars I read, the authoritarian and/or criminal leadership along with graft is largely responsible for that moreso than socialism. There are, after all, democratic socialist nations that don't have that outcome. But then, those also largely didn't have centuries of colonial oppression/exploitation.
Are you familiar with the concept of generational wealth? Those with generations of wealth and privilege have obvious, measurable benefits that their contemporaries don't enjoy. The same thing is true for nations.
It's costly to be poor, whether we're talking about individuals or states.
You're familiar with the research about how expensive it is to be poor?
Dan
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2015/09/03/its-expensive-to-be-poor
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-cost-of-being-poor-is-rising-and-its-worse-for-poor-families-of-color/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thebautistaprojectinc.org/amp/being-poor-is-expensive
Dan
They're trying to indict Netanyahu for war crimes. They sought to indict Bush 43 for war crimes. Reagan was no more legitimately guilty because left-wing International courts said so.
"If and when I ever use that kind of language, you can certainly ask, Dan did you mean that there was only one cause, and it was Reagan...?""
Again with the moving goal posts. It's not that you "use that language", it's that you only mention one thing.
"But since I never use that language about large-scale, complex topics, you won't have to ask. You'll know, No, of course he's not saying there is ONE cause."
So when you only talk about "ONE cause" over and over again, without "using that language", we're just supposed to assume that you mean something other than what you say.
"From the scholars I read, the authoritarian and/or criminal leadership along with graft is largely responsible for that moreso than socialism. There are, after all, democratic socialist nations that don't have that outcome. But then, those also largely didn't have centuries of colonial oppression/exploitation."
Since we don't know who these mystery "authors" are, what their biases are, and how they reached their conclusions, this claim literally means nothing. The fact that you choose to exclude socialism as a cause, doesn't mean that it's not. Likewise with the "colonial oppression/exploitation" bullshit. To use that to excuse the decisions that 21st century Venezuelans make is just to make excuses and attempt to blame others for their choices.
"Are you familiar with the concept of generational wealth? Those with generations of wealth and privilege have obvious, measurable benefits that their contemporaries don't enjoy. The same thing is true for nations."
More excuses. It's almost like you want to deprive the citizens of Venezuela of the agency to make decisions and the responsibility for the decisions they made. Blaming others is always easier.
"It's costly to be poor, whether we're talking about individuals or states."
Your on fire with meaningless catchphrases.
"You're familiar with the research about how expensive it is to be poor?"
Who cares. Venezuela was well of as a nation, they made choices that have resulted in them now being poor. There is a cost to making bad choices, the Venezuelans are paying it.
Art,
The whole "war crimes" thing seems a bit arbitrary and capricious. There doesn't seem to be a consistent and systematic way to indict people for "war crimes" through a jurisdiction that has the ability to do anything. Dan whines about Regan or Bush being "indicted", while we see Hamas and Hezbollah (read Iran) engaging in actions that are clearly "war crimes" yet they are not "indicted". I do agree that there are actions which should be labeled as "war crimes", but I don't see a consistent or logical way to do so in a way that isn't biased.
Post a Comment