She wants to privatize huge swathes of the Venezuelan government and wants a Milei style capitalist "shock therapy". She's on record not only stating that helping poor people is bad, but defends the statement. She'd make a bad situation for the Venezuelan people far, far worse. Of fucking course she should be barred from running. The US should stop intervening in South America.
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
116 points (93.9% liked)
World News
38563 readers
2454 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Barring people from running because you dislike their platform is as fascist as it gets.
What definition of fascism is it that prevents fascists from running for president?
There is no need to be tolerant of the intolerant. They don’t abide by the social contract and don’t reap the benefits of it.
Should Trump be barred from running?
Yes, because he violated his oath of office
And that includes upholding the constitution. Not helping poor people kind of violates that in spirit right?
I have no idea what you mean by this, sorry
Yes, because he's a traitor, fraud, and criminal. Your question is not quite the gotcha you think it is.
It wasn't intended as a gotcha. I wanted a baseline to know whether the conversation was worth continuing.
You literally just proved it is exactly the gotcha you think it is lol
Well not only does he have shitty policies, he did also attempt a coup. Which is why he should be barred from running.
Stop attempting the false equivalence, it's not working.
Her party tried to rob a military arsenal, she was charged with a conspiracy and corruption, and so she can't run. It went through their courts. It all seems legal, considering people in the US can't run for similar reasons. It might be corrupt, idk, but the US doesn't have a leg to stand on with corrupt courts. Why sanction other countries, which always affects the regular citizens, for this stuff we can't even figure out ourselves?
Yes, because he has been impeached and indicted multiple times for charges related to violations of the oath of office of the presidency.
What are Machado's crimes that she should be barred?
From what I can tell, conspiracy (against the government), inciting violent protests, and corruption. It's weird they don't say it in the article. But she says the protests were supposed to be peaceful and some of the conspiracy evidence was faked, which it might be, idk, I wasn't in the court room.
But considering the US is still doing shit like this, I could see why they have to be paranoid.
I don't think a democratic process should be limited to only banning people that broke the law. Someone that intentionally wants to harm people through excessive austerity like Machado and Milei shouldn't be able to run.
Remember, Hitler was elected. If a democratic process can't stop a person like that from running, then the democratic process is failed.
This all sounds nice until you realize that a system like this would be easily abused. “I’m sorry, but the one candidate that actually stands a chance against me is banned because the courts full of judges I appointed has determined that their policies are harmful.”
Who gets to be the arbiter of what policies are acceptable and what are not? Let the voters decide for themselves.
The system can be made robust though. Implementation is also important, and I'm just one person so I'm not going create that framework for an Internet discussion. The question that the framework should rely on power: is the candidate advocating for a distribution of power, or a centralization of power? Privatization seeks to centralize power, for example.
State capitalism also centralizes power. It’s just centralized with the government instead of a monied class. I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem if there is a robust electoral system and a low level of corruption but I feel based upon everything I’ve read about Venezuela that they’re lacking in both.
The conversation drifted to theory rather than current conditions, so I chose to go in the direction of my idealized version of what this framework would look like. You're right, as an ML nation there is still a centralization of power in Venezuela. I don't have the answers for Venezuela, only the people of Venezuela do. However, I think the court made the right decision on behalf of the people, even if I disagree with the undemocratic nature of their courts.
Okay, so you don't believe in democracy.
I can make reductionist arguments too:
Okay, so you believe it was a good thing that Hitler was elected.
Oh yeah more sanctions for trouble areas. Surely this will help our immigration problem
What immigration problem?
Oh, you're a victim of a government we deem undemocratic? We'll further suffocate you economically then!
Sanctions should be recognized as a crime against humanity.
I don't think they should have barred Machado from running, but I also don't think the US should sanction them over it. American meddling never improves this sort of situation, especially when in the form of hurting a country's economy.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Venezuela’s Vice President Delcy Rodríguez described the move as “blackmail” on Tuesday, warning that Caracas would stop cooperating in repatriation flights for Venezuelan migrants from the US if Washington’s “economic aggression” intensifies.
In October, the Biden administration lifted general economic sanctions targeting Venezuela’s mining and oil industries, in support of an agreement struck in Barbados between Maduro and the opposition to hold free and fair elections in 2024.
Earlier on Monday, White House’s spokesperson John Kirby had said Maduro had until April to return to the negotiating table and commit to what was agreed last year, including holding free elections where all candidates are allowed to run, or sanctions could be reimposed.
It also has the potential to impact the US domestic gas market because several US companies, including Chevron, operate in Venezuela and Venezuelan crude is regularly exported to refineries in the US Gulf Coast, data from the US Energy Information Administration show.
In an interview with CNN’s Isa Soares on Tuesday, Machado warned millions more Venezuelans could flee the country if Maduro doesn’t comply with commitments to hold free elections.
Machado also commented on Rodríguez’s warning that Venezuela could stop cooperating on repatriation flights, saying, “You can imagine that it breaks my heart to see our people being used in such a hard and unlawful way.
The original article contains 555 words, the summary contains 218 words. Saved 61%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
How long can Maduro continue to starve his people and threaten his neighbors before the world steps in and does something?
Ah, the good ol "spreading of democracy" in an oil rich country. A true classic.
This is in very poor taste as a comment on an article about the US increasing sanctions that really will make Venezuelans go hungry.
How many times must the US interfere with countries and elections in the global south before people realize that these types of articles suggesting war, coups, and sanctions are just puppeting US State propaganda?
What kind of election is it when anyone with a chance of beating Maduro is conveniently banned from running? The US has an abysmal record in south and Central America but that doesn’t change the fact that Maduro is an autocrat.
Perhaps he is an autocrat, but let the Venezuelans sort it out and stop intervening by coups or starving the whole country.
They are being sanction because they haven't sorted it out.
I would like them to be able to sort it out themselves by allowing them to vote for whomever they want which is the issue with barring a candidate that hasn’t done anything wrong other than having the wrong policy platform as determined by those that already hold power.
On the subject of US sanctions, they don’t apply to food, agricultural commodities, and medicine. Nations have a right to decide whom they allow trade with; it’s certainly preferable to coups which never seem to pan out well for anyone.
I spend a lot of time in Colombia and see the years-long stream of refugees from Venezuela who are starving and are suffering. Don't ask me to look into their eyes and tell them it's just propaganda.
In this case, the South American leader is the one doing the warmongering.
You realize they've been sanctioned to shit for decades by the US, right? That makes them extremely vulnerable to price changes to oil, their basically only economic export. They probably should be diversifying more, though.
Starvation and suffering is terrible. This is the result of sanctioning from the US and its western allies. None of this is happening in a vacuum.