You get your news exclusively from randos and shills on Twitter nowadays. You've lost all ability to vet sources.
Venezualan election 2024
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
What is there to respond to? You didn't write anything of substance.
You missed what my point was (which given that I engaged in vague-posting I don't blame you for). My point was that if the Egyptian authorities banned twitter when a rebellion was brewing maybe the Venezuelan authorities fear that the people might rebel? That could be true irrespective of any U.S. intervention.
That second link was interesting. (the first was behind a paywall)
That just means you listen to groups of liars who all vouch for each other.
Yes, much better to blindly believe any rando on twitter (as put in front of you by The Algorithm) that confirms your existing biases...
That is literally all media. You walk into the minefield of making your own judgment calls just as much if you read NYT.
I outlined why and gave you an example of how what you're saying about your approach to knowing things about current events is bullshit.
I am as critical of his approach to knowing things as anyone...
You are worse times 1000. Your method of vetting sources is "do I already agree with this?" And now you don't even have to go to your preferred communist news sources, cause you've trained the Twitter algorithm to feed you your preferred lies. Everyone else here at some point has proven themselves capable of finding information they dislike credible. Everybody but you.
None that you've heard of, or read, or noticed, or taken the time to engage in the first iota of due diligence. Including the links I've posted here in this very thread demonstrating how these opposition parties are in fact violent, the leader of the coalition of which they're part is literally a traitor who fled to a narco-state to plead for intervention before a known US hegemonic front, and that they are the receipient of mass US funding.
You've literally alleged in this very thread the recent Venezuelan election was illegitimate. Ain't my problem if you haven't been arsed to do basic due diligence on the ideology of the people you're claiming from which the election was wrongfully stolen.
Which has been quite the telling tendency on your part, across multiple ongoing regional conflicts.
I ain't moved shit, I've just pointed out CPSU derivative parties were likewise banned for that very reason.
So, you can't actually name a single Ukrainian political party that has been banned for another reason? That's really what this is about; you can't actually put your money where your mouth is, so you have to reframe and shift blame onto me to distract from the inadequacies of your own arguments.
Right, so "yeah I got nothin' and have to distract from how I got nothin'" it is.
Now, should I really go digging around in that Ukraine thread for examples of you changing the subject away from, or making excuses for, neo-Nazism in Ukraine and the Ukrainian government when primary source evidence was specifically cited to you?
I'm aware -- I'm just pointing out it was banned for a reason that extends beyond "the Morsi government was authoritarian and wanted to squash protest while restricting information outflow". Namely, that US-educated, US-funded, pro-US activists were using the platform as a virtual staging ground for anti-Mubarak and anti-Morsi protest in order to facilitate the installation of a US-friendly regime. It's the same playbook we've seen perennially since the Arab Spring, most notably in the Euromaidan protests and in Latin America, of which Venezuela is part.
Like it or not, this is the reality of contemporary information warfare. Social media is as much a vector for it -- if not the most effective in human history -- than any other. Look no further than the focus of Israeli "hasbara" on social media as proof of it. We here in the civilized and pluralist West, which supports the free market of ideas and electronic freedoms, certainly have had our share of trials and tribulations most recently with the flow of hostile government-funded disinformation through TikTok and WeChat, haven't we?
Oh, well, if you'd like to vet my sources instead, please by all means feel free. But I suspect it'll be significantly harder to disregard the likes of the actual fucking US government and its sponsored non-profits (which again are CIA fronts, and this is openly acknowledged by all relevant sources) openly admitting they engage in overt and covert regime change activity in Latin America.
I mean I could just start straight-up dumping declassified CIA documents in .PDF format here, but I suspect you'll find those little black censorship bars reason enough to just ignore them anyways.
I think Zelensky’s position is much more understandable since he’s essentially trying to curtail Fifth Columnists from actively aiding a clearly belligerent foreign nation actively and openly engaging in warfare against his country.
Kneejerk dismissal of any sources that say things you find uncomfortable is not real scepticism.
Thank you for your off-target assumption. You've already acknowledged that some parties were banned despite not being violent or right-wing, so we can move on from this. Everything else is bluster and insult-- you've already acknowledged my point.
Actually, I haven't made any claim about the rightful winner of the election, because I don't know who that would be. Is your position, then, that such abuses are impossible or perfectly acceptable if the opposition is shitty? Can we apply the same ridiculous standard to the US and elsewhere?
Not gonna get drawn into your bizarre attempt to make it into a competition, sorry.
If you want. Hey! While you're at it, you can bring up all the examples of you changing the subject away from, or making excuses for, the christofascist Russian government, it's imperialist project, & it's own heavy sponsorship of neo-Nazism in Russia, Ukraine, and around the globe!
I've been reading around some "independent" commentary on Venezuala, and unsurprisingly none of them usefully address the reliability of the result. They are mostly generic screeds about US imperialism and cheering how good the Venezualan elections were 10+ years ago. The nearest they get to assessing the quality of the 2024 election is saying that people could vote easily and conveniently and it was mostly peaceful, plus cherry-picking comments from individual election observers to that effect. (Bearing in mind Maduro already shut out a load of observers he thought might criticise the election). But the concern is that the Maduro regime basically made up results - hence repeated requests for them to release election data - and that is completely unaddressed. One might note also the inconsistency of talking up the sophistication and quality of Venezualan election systems with the failure to then release appropriate election data as expected, but these left journalists do not. Nor, given the opposition claim to have acquired election tallies and have made them publicly available, is there any comment on or apparent attempt to assess the accuracy of these tallies. The slightly awkward fact that many left-wing governments who are no lovers of the USA/West have also thus far declined to confirm the results goes unmentioned.
What this is about is creating a media counter-narrative to the dominant mainstream media. That's the only ideological intent. There's no genuine interest in truth there, and no facts worth a damn for anyone who really wants to know whether Maduro's election result claim was accurate.
There's certainly little consideration for the human cost inflicted on the Venezualan people by a dictator who has managed to drive a third of his people out of his country and impoverish many of those who stayed. In a way, it's just the left-wing equivalent of capitalism. The ideology and system are paramount, and the people themselves just so much chaff to be used, abused and discarded for the greater glory of that ideology. We saw enough of that from the Cold War Communist bloc, and that lesson evidently wasn't learnt or subsequently forgotten.
Meanwhile, in the same post...
Strange you've decided to snip that while trying to declare yourself victor of the thread or whatever.Me said:
Let's start seeing sources for your claims. Any of them. Because all I'm seeing is a lot of deflection and unsubstantiated claims.
Bush league rhetorical nonsense. "You don't know" who that might be, despite having denounced the Maduro regime at every opportunity and continually doubling down on the supposed dubious nature of the election. You simply lack the courage to just make your biases known, because you know I'll call it out and you'll just have to move goalposts instead.
Funny enough, that's actually what I'm saying we should do. Because if we're to hold anywhere else to the electoral standards to which Venezuela is held in bad faith, Western liberal democracies suddenly appear as if they're the most despotic regimes on the planet.
Coming from the person who just said "can we apply the same ridiculous standard to the US and elsewhere?", that's rich. Just more of your usual distraction and deflection from the fact you're once again on the prowl engaging in imperialist apologia on behalf of bad actors with a seventy-year documented history of interfering with Latin American politics.
Strange how that shoe suddenly finds itself on the other foot when I suggest we hold Western liberal democracies to the same standard being forced from outside on Venezuela, or that we compare democracy in Venezuela now to that of "legitimate" Latin American states which Western liberal democracies find acceptable.
Is Alinsky-styled projection literally the only rhetorical tactic of which you're capable any more?
On one hand, we have parties with clear biases and vested fiscal and political interests, with a decades-long documented history of outright lies and fabrication to justify economic warfare and regime change in Latin America. As I've repeatedly pointed out, all one needs to uncover biases is simply to follow the money.
It's little wonder those parties get ejected -- their goal isn't to monitor elections and impartially report on either process or outcome. It's rather to spread disinformation about Venezuelan elections to manufacture consent for regime change. And likewise, it's not "cherry picking" to disregard unsubstantiated claims from proven liars; it's the only rational course of action, the burden of proof is on those parties to prove they are not lying.
Especially when the closest thing to is the Carter Center's observation and reporting, and their basis for the claims made thus far amounts to "just trust me, bro". If they had footage of the behaviors committed over the course of their observation, by themselves or affiliated opposition on the ground, they'd have produced it by now. And, again if we follow the money, we discover USAID (once again, and for all the dubious reasons I already discussed and cited)...and a whole bunch of Gulf petrostates and their front organizations, the interest of which is limiting the participation of a competitor on the global oil market.
On the other, we do have independent observers with no financial ties and no vested ideological interest -- like those of NLG International -- who have reported Venezuelan elections were executed properly and faithfully, and have produced footage and data substantiating the claims.
I can already hear the cries of "of course the Maduro government cleaned up its act when the observers were around, to hide fraud from observers!". Which is still a suspect claim, given it's one we've heard before and from the same proven liars whose interest is manufacturing consent for regime change and the rhetorical intent is clear: to shift the burden of proof from claimants onto the Maduro government to prove a negative.
Maduro also isn't stupid. We've seen this scenario play out multiple times over the past seven decades across Latin America and the Middle East, and frankly Maduro nor anyone in his government has good reason to legitimize the kayfabe by playing along.
Whatever data the Venezuelan government releases, will simply be called falsified or manufactured. The same way the Iraqi government's evidence it ended its chemical weapons program was cited as falsified or manufactured, even though it turned out to be true and the only parties that had falsified evidence was the US and UK. Because the goal isn't to verify an election result, it's to manufacture consent for regime change.
One might note also the inconsistency of talking up the sophistication and quality of Venezualan election systems with the failure to then release appropriate election data as expected, but these left journalists do not. Nor, given the opposition claim to have acquired election tallies and have made them publicly available, is there any comment on or apparent attempt to assess the accuracy of these tallies. The slightly awkward fact that many left-wing governments who are no lovers of the USA/West have also thus far declined to confirm the results goes unmentioned.
lmao
Not mentioned: the damage inflicted on Venezuela by way of US-led sanctions.
Unfortunately this is a conversation about Latin America where the overwhelming majority of economic damage and loss of life was executed in the name of "anti-Communism", and not eastern Europe.
I gave you an example of you being credulous about claims made by pro-Israel media because they suited your biases. That isn't any kind of scepticism, 'real' or otherwise.
Anyway, hopefully Venezuela can resist the various attempts at foreign election interference. Which includes the unwarranted sanctions against it.
....links and claims regarding other banned parties, yes. How do all these characterisations ("violent right-wing extremists" etc) apply to, for instance, Hugo Chavez' erstwhile allies in the MAS?
"You criticised the government, so you must support the opposition". That's literally all this is, wrapped up with the same hyper-aggressive sophistry. The premise is deflective nonsense from the off.
Really! OK, so we can assume any time you criticise anti-democratic measures in the US, we should take that as explicit support for the Republican Party, then?
I'm sorry you find exactly the same rhetorical tactic you used yourself to be so objectionable. Maybe don't use it, then?
I would be inclined to ask, very simply, if the election result was genuine, why not exercise transparency and publish the disaggregated data and tally sheets as so many groups are asking for (and in some cases required by Venezualan law)? They claim hacking, but whilst this would (if it happened) affect the ability to generate the disaggregated data, the tally sheets would still be available. The opposition appear to have ~80% of the tally sheets, obtained when the stations closed. Is anyone checking whether they appear genuine? Every minute that passes without this data Maduro's regime looks less and less credible, and even if it does eventually publish the data more and more likely it was fabricated.
If the election was genuine, exercising transparency should be nothing but a win for Maduro. Sure, the USA and all sort of other parties that want to undermine Maduro could bluster and moan, pretend something is wrong, simply ignore it. But it would take one hell of a lot of wind out of their sails.
As for a lot of Maduro's supporters, if the argument here comes down to "better a left-wing dictator than the centre/right", just say so without all the spurious bullshit and deflection.