This article is making it seem like maduro actually won the elections with democracy, and that’s not what happened at all. Yes, the CNE “confirmed the victory of Maduro”, but they’re controlled by the same people in this corrupt government, so that doesn’t prove a thing. People from the votong polls collected the papers that provide information about the votes per political party, and it shows a clear win for the opposition. Both sources provided in this article about the election in venezuela come from the same website, which isn’t exactly clear of bias.
Not exactly free of bias? Lmao. The BBC was seen last week decrying their loss of funding from USAID and y’all still cite it as a reliable source. It’s a propaganda rag filled to the brim with tory mouthpieces.
It was the most widely observed election in the world, and multiple parties not currently trying to colonize Venezuela declared their election perfectly legitimate. What’s more, US observers outside the State Dept deny any fraudulence. As per usual, gringos gladly apply the Trump playbook (or rather, he took it from US foreign policy), lie lie lie, and if you lose anyway, say it was stolen.
That’s literally a BBC cable reposted on three different sites lmao. Didn’t you think it was weird that three sites from different countries had the same headline and content?
I stg you libs don’t even fucking read. The content of the article is also just the opposition swearing they won. No shit, that’s what every US puppet says, the fact of the matter is international observers not aligned with the US ratified the election. Fabricated claims aren’t true until proven false. Cope.
The article you sent talks about an advanced voting system, which is very safe, and better than the one in the US, which is true. However, the article also says you can audit it, and doesn’t specify how.
The way to verify results by both sides is comparing a QR code that comes with every ballot paper, which should contain a the number of ballot table, and the votes per candidate that matches the one the government has on their system, as well as a hash about the whole results. If the information was altered in any way, then the hash and digital signature would change.
This is all explained in the second article I sent, that I assume you didn’t bother to read.
So, there is a public way of showing the whole opposition party that the government was right: showing the ballot papers with the correct hashes, digital signatures, and results. The government hasn’t provided such public truth, and as such, they’re assumed to have commited fraud, as ballot papers shown by the opposition show a clear win against the government.
In this website you can see the ballot papers obtained by the opposition:
I did read the article, even though it was just another rehashed BBC cable reposted by several suspiciously pro US sources without a single change, almost like they’re trying to launder it. It also doesn’t mention that Gonzalez refused to cooperate with the investigation because he’s not actually interested in the results, he’s interested in a media circus that could lend credence to a color revolution, this is NED 101 shit and everyone even mildly interested in Latin American history knows the playbook front to back.
Allegations aren’t the same as proof, unfortunately, and the word of the US and the journalists it funds ain’t good enough to wipe your ass with. The NYT and all them rags haven’t seen a US casus belli they didn’t corroborate even if history shows all of them to be fraudulent.
This one isn’t different. It’s easy finding journalists to claim fraud when you’re paying their salary and it’s easy to find ballots when you can fabricate them knowing libs think everyone is guilty until proven innocent if Uncle Sam says so.
You’ll notice that article doesn’t just wave in the direction of nebulous claims and inscrutable databases that they know you can’t be fucking bothered to scrutinize (I don’t think you even read the entire article to begin with) but actually has clear examples, provides ample background and doesn’t just take claims at face value.
Both sources provided in this article about the election in venezuela come from the same website, which isn’t exactly clear of bias.
The “isn’t exactly clear of bias” nonsense was already addressed (and I would add “not unlike CNN and the BBC”), and the point is moot because the article presents multiple great reasons why it doesn’t matter (wrt US action, and this is what the article is about) if the election was internally rigged, but wrt the sources themselves, there is a bigger problem in sourcing where initial reporting of events is confused with analysis, analysis by sites/papers with “agendas” being dismissed out of hand because it doesn’t conform to the standards required for initial reporting. Whether Venezuelanalysis is biased (towards supporting the Venezuelan govt.) should be noted but isn’t enough to dismiss their articles, which rely heavily on other sources, leading to a web of direct sourcing for everything.
People from the votong polls collected the papers that provide information about the votes per political party, and it shows a clear win for the opposition.
Please take into account maduro forbid Maria Corina Machado from taking part in the election process.
We never learn, from the article you gave, exactly why she was forbidden from holding office (and therefore the election process) (not unilaterally by Maduro anyways), only that it was due to a “legal trick.” Reutersstates, on the other hand: “A previous ban placed on her [due to corruption, which she denies] has been expanded because Machado supported sanctions by the United States on the Maduro government and backed former opposition leader Juan Guaido, the letter said.”
It’s a verifiable fact that she supported sanctions “on the Maduro government” (90% of sanctions stop right before they’re about to hurt the government and not the people!!), you can just scroll through her Twitter for proof of this (Ex.). Wrt the allegations of supporting Guaido, she has done this as well, blatantly and repeatedly, as her Twitter shows (Ex.), where the intricacies of any material support that opposition media has latched oto are irrelevant. Supporting coup attempts and supporting US economic terror against Venezuela, these are both justifiable reasons for preventing her from holding a govt. position.
Are you using one sided propaganda rags as reference to uphold your ideation of legitimate elections, when all international watch credited them as legitimate? Where is the anti-capitalist party in the US or most EU countries who have legitimate elections?
So your problem with Maduro’s government is that is corrupt, and which Venezuelan or any other government hasn’t been corrupt?
Chavez and Maduro 's crimes are summarized by taking back the stolen resources (oil) that was handed to US/EU oil cos. Whether the people saw a benefit from this or not you must be in Venezuela now and before Chavez to realize the difference. Hardly anyone disputed that for the bottom third of the population Chavez was a saint that treated them like humans instead of slaves. And that is what the US/EU governing officials and the oil company media are jumping up and down about. They want their oil back.
Isolating them from markets to sell oil, to purchase equipment for drilling and refining oil, has had its economic effects. They have too much oil and nowhere to sell it to, and when they do they can’t buy anything from international markets as they are blocked by US/EU. BRICS has been the only alternative but half of BRICS don’t even need oil.
99% of the most vicious military dictatorships in Americas were sponsored, supported, and held up by the US as part of their anti-communist activity. Suddenly they are all concerned about Venezuela’s quality of democracy.
The largest Spanish speaking media outfits in the Americas are owned subsidiaries of US media corporations, do you really expect people to have an educated views of who to vote for?
My problem with Maduro’s government is exactly that they’re corrupt, and haven’t benefited venexuelans at all. Chavez government was, at the beginning, beneficial, then it defaulted to corruption. The only difference is who’s stealing the money.
I’m a venezuelan and have lived there most of my life. I remember watching Chavez reprehend Diosdado Cabello for being corrupt, but as of now he’s one of the people with most power in Venezuela.
A lot of the times people don’t have an educated view because they din’t have resources to know the impact each candidate could have, as venezuelans are very poor, and in many cases don’t have even internet connection, or let alone a phone.
So yes, I’m concerned about democracy in Venezuela, because regardless of the influence the US may have, we’re still in a corrupt dictatorship.
Democracy has not existed ever, it is a pseudo name for a facade of industrialists and bankers by controlling all media to pretend to allow people to choose “cheap” representatives. The US is so perverse it legalized corruption, called lobbying. Washington DC quadrupled in population in a couple of decades due to lobbying. They decide, you are just convinced your representatives decided.
And it is only called democracy as long as there is 0% chance of capitalism being overthrown. 100% capitalist democracy with high percentage of tax-base going into anti-communism subversion and war.
Either you are naive or you are a propaganda bot spilling doubt on a non-issue.
If Maduro had given 90% control of oil extraction and sales to US oil companies he would have been granted the Nobel/Oscar price for democracy.
Now that is corruption! Everywhere else but Venezuela
The quantities of oil Venezuelans sleep on top is what makes oil an issue, not the US economy. The US economy is heavily developed and influenced by oil interests.
You have anti-capitalist parties running in elections in Venezuela, do you know of one in the US?
I didn’t know that being naive in politics is an insult, many people discussing politics are. But if you think there can be a capitalist government without corruption then “naive” is the mildest characteristic one can throw at you. Was Bolivar naive for turning against the Spanish imperialists?
You said you are “from” Vz I never said a thing about the US as being associated with it. You can be Chilean and I can be from Nicaragua, and we would still be talking about the US when discussing politics.
I can be from Vietnam and you would be from Eritrea, still the US is something we would discuss.
I don’t think the elections were either “free” or “fair” and they probably did rig it, but that doesn’t justify invading a country, if you think it does you are just a warmonger. There are plenty of countries with similarly rigged elections that the US doesn’t consider invading and the main reason they are so interested in Venezuela is the massive oil resources American oil companies would be able to access if a government friendly to US companies would somehow get into power.
Both sources provided in this article about the election in Venezuela come from the same website, which isn’t exactly clear of bias.
No media is clear of bias, you are a child if you think like that. You just disagree with the bias which is fair, it’s your opinion.
massive oil resources American oil companies would be able to access
Most of them claim the oil was theirs and Chavez took it away from them and nationalized the oil industry. I am surprised they have survived as long as they did. Venezuela’s prime oil market had always been the US, who else could buy so much oil?
US Oil companies own right to explore all the deposits in gulf of “Mexico” for decades. Mexico gets a tiny rent for this and government officials burn it all up between them.
I never said it justified invading the country. I also don’t deny their interest is only economic. I’m only pointing out the article’s lack of coherence with reality, why are you calling me a child?
I don’t think you should expect any reporting to be clear of bias, they link dozens of sources throughout the article each with it’s own set of biases, do you really need to link a source from every perspective to not disparage them for not being “clear of bias”. And I think they quite clearly elaborate why they have included the two Venezuelanalysis articles in the following.
However, Washington’s blockade ensured that the elections would never be free and fair. As the main factor driving economic hardship and migration, US sanctions meant Venezuelans headed to the polls with a gun to their heads, not unlike Nicaraguans in 1990.
It is the height of hypocrisy for US officials and their corporate media stenographers to claim the right to arbitrate other sovereign nations’ democratic legitimacy, even as they advance fascism at home and genocidal war across the globe. That sectors of the Western “compatible left” echo Stephens and his ilk, caricaturing the Maduro government as a “corrupt” and “repressive” regime, is unfortunate but not surprising (Ebb, 10/3/24).
The core racial assumption, going back to the 19th century, is that Global South states that refuse to bow to Western imperialist diktat constitute “tropical despotisms” to be toppled in a never-ending “civilizing mission,” with its anti-Communist, “war on terror” and neo-Orientalist mutations.
especially with
It is the height of hypocrisy for US officials and their corporate media stenographers to claim the right to arbitrate other sovereign nations’ democratic legitimacy, even as they advance fascism at home and genocidal war across the globe
The author is rejecting the premise of the US and other countries like the UK to “claim the right to arbitrate other sovereign nations’ democratic legitimacy” So why would they link articles like the ones you linked when the author is clearly saying they don’t believe in the premise.
Sane idiots that defend democracy in Venezuela were very happy with the violent overthrow of a truly democratic government in Ukraine, killed, persecuted political opposition, forced elected officials into exile, banned half the political parties, and incorporated a neo-nazi brigade financed by the CIA as part of Ukraine’s military. Zelensky’s term had been up for a long while and refuses elections. But Maduro is the bad guy we should be concerned about. Ukraine’s largest oil/gas co. was run and mostly owned by Biden’s son. BBC and CNN said the majority of people were pro-NATO/EU, even though the majority had voted for the toppled government that opposed NATO and EU memberships.
No, these people are not naive, or childish, they are paid propaganda trolls just as the US blog https://venezuelanalysis.com/ is.
If election results haven’t been published how did this blog get its data?
Wild imagination?
This article is making it seem like maduro actually won the elections with democracy, and that’s not what happened at all. Yes, the CNE “confirmed the victory of Maduro”, but they’re controlled by the same people in this corrupt government, so that doesn’t prove a thing. People from the votong polls collected the papers that provide information about the votes per political party, and it shows a clear win for the opposition. Both sources provided in this article about the election in venezuela come from the same website, which isn’t exactly clear of bias.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/02/americas/venezuelas-tally-sheets-intl-latam/index.html
https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/cjl6j83zwklo
Please take into account maduro forbid Maria Corina Machado from taking part in the election process.
https://elpais.com/america/2024-01-26/el-supremo-de-venezuela-confirma-la-inhabilitacion-de-maria-corina-machado-para-concurrir-en-las-elecciones-presidenciales.html
Not exactly free of bias? Lmao. The BBC was seen last week decrying their loss of funding from USAID and y’all still cite it as a reliable source. It’s a propaganda rag filled to the brim with tory mouthpieces.
It was the most widely observed election in the world, and multiple parties not currently trying to colonize Venezuela declared their election perfectly legitimate. What’s more, US observers outside the State Dept deny any fraudulence. As per usual, gringos gladly apply the Trump playbook (or rather, he took it from US foreign policy), lie lie lie, and if you lose anyway, say it was stolen.
https://noticiaalminuto.com/como-funcionan-las-actas-electorales-y-como-verificar-su-autenticidad-en-venezuela/
https://www.laprensagrafica.com/internacional/Como-funcionan-las-actas-electorales-en-Venezuela-y-como-verificar-su-autenticidad-20240731-0083.html
https://ecuadorenvivo.com/blog/2024/08/01/como-funcionan-las-actas-electorales-en-venezuela-y-como-verificar-su-autenticidad/
Just in case you don’t like bbc
That’s literally a BBC cable reposted on three different sites lmao. Didn’t you think it was weird that three sites from different countries had the same headline and content?
I stg you libs don’t even fucking read. The content of the article is also just the opposition swearing they won. No shit, that’s what every US puppet says, the fact of the matter is international observers not aligned with the US ratified the election. Fabricated claims aren’t true until proven false. Cope.
Where are the real ballot papers then?
The article you sent talks about an advanced voting system, which is very safe, and better than the one in the US, which is true. However, the article also says you can audit it, and doesn’t specify how.
The way to verify results by both sides is comparing a QR code that comes with every ballot paper, which should contain a the number of ballot table, and the votes per candidate that matches the one the government has on their system, as well as a hash about the whole results. If the information was altered in any way, then the hash and digital signature would change.
This is all explained in the second article I sent, that I assume you didn’t bother to read.
So, there is a public way of showing the whole opposition party that the government was right: showing the ballot papers with the correct hashes, digital signatures, and results. The government hasn’t provided such public truth, and as such, they’re assumed to have commited fraud, as ballot papers shown by the opposition show a clear win against the government.
In this website you can see the ballot papers obtained by the opposition:
https://resultadosconvzla.com/
I did read the article, even though it was just another rehashed BBC cable reposted by several suspiciously pro US sources without a single change, almost like they’re trying to launder it. It also doesn’t mention that Gonzalez refused to cooperate with the investigation because he’s not actually interested in the results, he’s interested in a media circus that could lend credence to a color revolution, this is NED 101 shit and everyone even mildly interested in Latin American history knows the playbook front to back.
Allegations aren’t the same as proof, unfortunately, and the word of the US and the journalists it funds ain’t good enough to wipe your ass with. The NYT and all them rags haven’t seen a US casus belli they didn’t corroborate even if history shows all of them to be fraudulent.
https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2024/08/03/us-government-funds-electoral-fraud-venezuela/
This one isn’t different. It’s easy finding journalists to claim fraud when you’re paying their salary and it’s easy to find ballots when you can fabricate them knowing libs think everyone is guilty until proven innocent if Uncle Sam says so.
You’ll notice that article doesn’t just wave in the direction of nebulous claims and inscrutable databases that they know you can’t be fucking bothered to scrutinize (I don’t think you even read the entire article to begin with) but actually has clear examples, provides ample background and doesn’t just take claims at face value.
The “isn’t exactly clear of bias” nonsense was already addressed (and I would add “not unlike CNN and the BBC”), and the point is moot because the article presents multiple great reasons why it doesn’t matter (wrt US action, and this is what the article is about) if the election was internally rigged, but wrt the sources themselves, there is a bigger problem in sourcing where initial reporting of events is confused with analysis, analysis by sites/papers with “agendas” being dismissed out of hand because it doesn’t conform to the standards required for initial reporting. Whether Venezuelanalysis is biased (towards supporting the Venezuelan govt.) should be noted but isn’t enough to dismiss their articles, which rely heavily on other sources, leading to a web of direct sourcing for everything.
https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/cybersecurity-expert-on-fraud-claims-and-voting-safeguards-in-venezuelas-presidential-election/
We never learn, from the article you gave, exactly why she was forbidden from holding office (and therefore the election process) (not unilaterally by Maduro anyways), only that it was due to a “legal trick.” Reuters states, on the other hand: “A previous ban placed on her [due to corruption, which she denies] has been expanded because Machado supported sanctions by the United States on the Maduro government and backed former opposition leader Juan Guaido, the letter said.”
It’s a verifiable fact that she supported sanctions “on the Maduro government” (90% of sanctions stop right before they’re about to hurt the government and not the people!!), you can just scroll through her Twitter for proof of this (Ex.). Wrt the allegations of supporting Guaido, she has done this as well, blatantly and repeatedly, as her Twitter shows (Ex.), where the intricacies of any material support that opposition media has latched oto are irrelevant. Supporting coup attempts and supporting US economic terror against Venezuela, these are both justifiable reasons for preventing her from holding a govt. position.
Are you using one sided propaganda rags as reference to uphold your ideation of legitimate elections, when all international watch credited them as legitimate? Where is the anti-capitalist party in the US or most EU countries who have legitimate elections?
What international watch? The government didn’t allow any official international watch. Can you show sources?
So your problem with Maduro’s government is that is corrupt, and which Venezuelan or any other government hasn’t been corrupt? Chavez and Maduro 's crimes are summarized by taking back the stolen resources (oil) that was handed to US/EU oil cos. Whether the people saw a benefit from this or not you must be in Venezuela now and before Chavez to realize the difference. Hardly anyone disputed that for the bottom third of the population Chavez was a saint that treated them like humans instead of slaves. And that is what the US/EU governing officials and the oil company media are jumping up and down about. They want their oil back. Isolating them from markets to sell oil, to purchase equipment for drilling and refining oil, has had its economic effects. They have too much oil and nowhere to sell it to, and when they do they can’t buy anything from international markets as they are blocked by US/EU. BRICS has been the only alternative but half of BRICS don’t even need oil.
99% of the most vicious military dictatorships in Americas were sponsored, supported, and held up by the US as part of their anti-communist activity. Suddenly they are all concerned about Venezuela’s quality of democracy. The largest Spanish speaking media outfits in the Americas are owned subsidiaries of US media corporations, do you really expect people to have an educated views of who to vote for?
My problem with Maduro’s government is exactly that they’re corrupt, and haven’t benefited venexuelans at all. Chavez government was, at the beginning, beneficial, then it defaulted to corruption. The only difference is who’s stealing the money.
I’m a venezuelan and have lived there most of my life. I remember watching Chavez reprehend Diosdado Cabello for being corrupt, but as of now he’s one of the people with most power in Venezuela.
A lot of the times people don’t have an educated view because they din’t have resources to know the impact each candidate could have, as venezuelans are very poor, and in many cases don’t have even internet connection, or let alone a phone.
So yes, I’m concerned about democracy in Venezuela, because regardless of the influence the US may have, we’re still in a corrupt dictatorship.
There is no capitalism without corruption
Democracy has not existed ever, it is a pseudo name for a facade of industrialists and bankers by controlling all media to pretend to allow people to choose “cheap” representatives. The US is so perverse it legalized corruption, called lobbying. Washington DC quadrupled in population in a couple of decades due to lobbying. They decide, you are just convinced your representatives decided.
And it is only called democracy as long as there is 0% chance of capitalism being overthrown. 100% capitalist democracy with high percentage of tax-base going into anti-communism subversion and war.
Either you are naive or you are a propaganda bot spilling doubt on a non-issue. If Maduro had given 90% control of oil extraction and sales to US oil companies he would have been granted the Nobel/Oscar price for democracy.
Now that is corruption! Everywhere else but Venezuela
I get that you have anger issues or something, but I would really appreciate it if you stopped insulting me.
Maybe it’s a non-issue for you, but it isn’t for me, it’s my country.
Also the election system you have in the US isn’t the same there is in the rest of the world.
I’m not even talking about the oil, because there’s issues beyond the ones that affect the US economy.
The quantities of oil Venezuelans sleep on top is what makes oil an issue, not the US economy. The US economy is heavily developed and influenced by oil interests.
You have anti-capitalist parties running in elections in Venezuela, do you know of one in the US?
I didn’t know that being naive in politics is an insult, many people discussing politics are. But if you think there can be a capitalist government without corruption then “naive” is the mildest characteristic one can throw at you. Was Bolivar naive for turning against the Spanish imperialists?
You said you are “from” Vz I never said a thing about the US as being associated with it. You can be Chilean and I can be from Nicaragua, and we would still be talking about the US when discussing politics.
I can be from Vietnam and you would be from Eritrea, still the US is something we would discuss.
There can never be capitalism without corruption, it is the nature of the system, so get over it and find a valid rational argument
I don’t think the elections were either “free” or “fair” and they probably did rig it, but that doesn’t justify invading a country, if you think it does you are just a warmonger. There are plenty of countries with similarly rigged elections that the US doesn’t consider invading and the main reason they are so interested in Venezuela is the massive oil resources American oil companies would be able to access if a government friendly to US companies would somehow get into power.
No media is clear of bias, you are a child if you think like that. You just disagree with the bias which is fair, it’s your opinion.
Most of them claim the oil was theirs and Chavez took it away from them and nationalized the oil industry. I am surprised they have survived as long as they did. Venezuela’s prime oil market had always been the US, who else could buy so much oil?
US Oil companies own right to explore all the deposits in gulf of “Mexico” for decades. Mexico gets a tiny rent for this and government officials burn it all up between them.
I never said it justified invading the country. I also don’t deny their interest is only economic. I’m only pointing out the article’s lack of coherence with reality, why are you calling me a child?
that is why I said
I don’t think you should expect any reporting to be clear of bias, they link dozens of sources throughout the article each with it’s own set of biases, do you really need to link a source from every perspective to not disparage them for not being “clear of bias”. And I think they quite clearly elaborate why they have included the two Venezuelanalysis articles in the following.
especially with
The author is rejecting the premise of the US and other countries like the UK to “claim the right to arbitrate other sovereign nations’ democratic legitimacy” So why would they link articles like the ones you linked when the author is clearly saying they don’t believe in the premise.
Sane idiots that defend democracy in Venezuela were very happy with the violent overthrow of a truly democratic government in Ukraine, killed, persecuted political opposition, forced elected officials into exile, banned half the political parties, and incorporated a neo-nazi brigade financed by the CIA as part of Ukraine’s military. Zelensky’s term had been up for a long while and refuses elections. But Maduro is the bad guy we should be concerned about. Ukraine’s largest oil/gas co. was run and mostly owned by Biden’s son. BBC and CNN said the majority of people were pro-NATO/EU, even though the majority had voted for the toppled government that opposed NATO and EU memberships.
No, these people are not naive, or childish, they are paid propaganda trolls just as the US blog https://venezuelanalysis.com/ is. If election results haven’t been published how did this blog get its data? Wild imagination?
This comment has inflicted psychic damage on me, congrats.
Venzuelanalysis republished this artcle, what are you even talking about?
https://venezuelanalysis.com/opinion/nyt-advises-trump-to-kill-more-venezuelans/
Susan Singer can give you a clue https://mastodon.online/@slsinger/113959054222615036