If you don't like the principle that a country's citizens-- even when refugees or living out of country for work-- have the vote, then just say that. You keep dressing it up in this fluff, belittling or minimising the impact of it. It's a quarter of the voterbase, who even by Venezuelan law are entitled to vote, but are blocked by financial/administrative barriers. Those are not quibbling numbers.
Do you understand the difference between comparing political situations/countries, and comparing our responses on the forum?and i did engage with it. you haven't engaged with my criticism of it as far from some kind of obvious bedrock principle at all. oh, i don't want to compare them, but it's super interesting how these comparable things that I'm definitely not comparing are treated differently by some people.
Nor is it yours, yet you're passing judgement on that question just as readily as I am. It's called criticism.
Yes, I recall-- and my point is that which way they may vote doesn't determine whether they should have that right, a concept you seem to have difficulty with. Now you also seem to be embracing the idea that the poor overseas would vote against the government, despite dismissing it beforehand.
Quite aware of what the previous Colombian government was involved in. Is this another case of considering subsequent unrelated administrations responsible for what their predecessors from different parties and ideologies have done?
Last edited: