Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela

[Heathen Hammer]

Does this one liner have any context? Can't understand what you are even responding to.

You can't really compare Bush/Obama's imperialist adventures in Middle East with preserving national parks.

Not everything is supposed to.

It is supposed to, otherwise their money are being wasted and the government is not legitimate.

It was the GOP who pressed Trump to recognize Guaido in the first place.

Recognizing some opposition figure isn't exactly same as invading a country.

[Vanoi]

You can't really compare Bush/Obama's imperialist adventures in Middle East with preserving national parks.

Oh yes you can. Protecting National Parks does not benefit me financially. Getting taxed for social security and Medicare doesn't benefit me financially. Not being allowed grow marijuana doesn't benefit financially. I can go on all day about this.

It is supposed to, otherwise their money are being wasted and the government is not legitimate.

That assumes government legitimacy derivies from some kind of financial mandate. They don't.
By your logic no government in the world is legitimate.

Recognizing some opposition figure isn't exactly same as invading a country.

It was the Trump administration who brought up the prospect of intervention in the first place.

[Heathen Hammer]

Oh yes you can. Protecting National Parks does not benefit me financially. Getting taxed for social security and Medicare doesn't benefit me financially. Not being allowed grow marijuana doesn't benefit financially. I can go on all day about this.

These things can arguably have other benefits (whether they do or do not is not hte point). Invading Middle East doesn't have any benefits for an average American Joe.

That assumes government legitimacy derivies from some kind of financial mandate. They don't.
By your logic no government in the world is legitimate.

No government in the world LARPs as some "world policeman" causing global instability like US did in the last few decades.

It was the Trump administration who brought up the prospect of intervention in the first place.

Like I said, recognizing someone isn't expensive. Apples and oranges (in this case very expensive oranges of Bush/Obama crusade for defending petrodollar in Middle East).

[Vanoi]

These things can arguably have other benefits (whether they do or do not is not hte point). Invading Middle East doesn't have any benefits for an average American Joe.

Venezuela is in South America.

No government in the world LARPs as some "world policeman" causing global instability like US did in the last few decades.

That's completely irrelevant to what I said. No government in the world is legitimate in your eyes.

Like I said, recognizing someone isn't expensive. Apples and oranges (in this case very expensive oranges of Bush/Obama crusade for defending petrodollar in Middle East).

Trump himself said that intervention was an option on the table.

https://www.defenseone.com/politics/...ezuela/154383/

[Heathen Hammer]

Venezuela is in South America.

And we are talking about US citizens that pay taxes.

That's completely irrelevant to what I said. No government in the world is legitimate in your eyes.

No, governments at least pretend to represent taxpayers, American adventures in Middle East clearly can't be represented as such in any shape or form.

Trump himself said that intervention was an option on the table.

https://www.defenseone.com/politics/...ezuela/154383/

Yeah, he should be criticized for considering that, given how there is no benefit from it to his constituents. He did the wise choice by leaving Syria and Afghanistan, so hopefully its just sabre-rattling.

[Vanoi]

And we are talking about US citizens that pay taxes.

Cool they pay taxes. If they oppose any intervention in Venezuela American taxpayers have the full right to make it known they disagree. If their representatives don't listen the taxpayers can vote them out. Welcome to democracy.

No, governments at least pretend to represent taxpayers, American adventures in Middle East clearly can't be represented as such in any shape or form.

Representation of taxpayers isn't based off financial gain so governments are doing fine on that. Are you claiming Americans opposed both the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Heathen Hammer]

Cool they pay taxes. If they oppose any intervention in Venezuela American taxpayers have the full right to make it known they disagree. If their representatives don't listen the taxpayers can vote them out. Welcome to democracy.

You do realize that US is a republic, right?

Representation of taxpayers isn't based off financial gain so governments are doing fine on that. Are you claiming Americans opposed both the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Do you have any evidence of them supporting Iraq or Afghanistan invasion?

[Vanoi]

You do realize that US is a republic, right?

Yep and Republics can be democracies. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Do you have any evidence of them supporting Iraq or Afghanistan invasion?

Stop trying to weasle out of the claim you made. It was you who said the invasions did not represent what Americans wanted. So what did they want?

[Heathen Hammer]

Yep and Republics can be democracies. They aren't mutually exclusive.

So what you said above is incorrect. Hence taxation without representation is something that you are trying to argue for.

Stop trying to weasle out of the claim you made. It was you who said the invasions did not represent what Americans wanted. So what did they want?

US government didn't ask them when they invaded those countries. Which is my point.

[Vanoi]

So what you said above is incorrect.

Well no. The US is a representative democracy by definition.

Hence taxation without representation is something that you are trying to argue for.

I haven't argued once people should be taxed without any kind of representation. I simply argued that policy and law isn't based on financial gain for the American taxpayer. Americans elect people to represent their interests in Congresd. By that definition their can't be any taxation without representation. They are represented. By the people they voted in.

[US government didn't ask them when they invaded those countries. Which is my point.

Why should they? This isn't a direct democracy. That's also a claim you made again.

[Heathen Hammer]

I haven't argued once people should be taxed without any kind of representation. I simply argued that policy and law isn't based on financial gain for the American taxpayer. Americans elect people to represent their interests in Congresd. By that definition their can't be any taxation without representation. They are represented. By the people they voted in.

So by extension, policies and law must reflect interests of taxpayer. US LARPing as world policeman doesn't really imply any benefits for taxpayer, which is my point.

Why should they? This isn't a direct democracy. That's also a claim you made again.

To determine whether it is something that Americans really want?

[Vanoi]

So by extension, policies and law must reflect interests of taxpayer.

Yes you want to represent the interests of your constituents. That only goes so far though. It seems like you are advocating for populism.

US LARPing as world policeman doesn't really imply any benefits for taxpayer, which is my point.

Yes but that goes back to the point that laws and policies aren't based simply on benefits to the taxpayers. And let me remind you that its American taxpayers who keep voting back in the same Senators and representatives who support foreign interventions.

To determine whether it is something that Americans really want?

Polls and petitions do that job fine. This isn't a direct democracy.

[Aexodus]

So essentially, Guaido is the constitutionally legitimate interim President, as the leader of the legislative. I don’t see how recognising him is out of order in any shape or form.

[Pontifex Maximus]

This is an easy debate. Are citizens in Venezuela starving and eating cats as a result of critical government failures?

If yes (yes) then their policies are .\

But I suppose humanitarian crises are permitted so long as they are promulgated by well wishing leftist ideologues and morons who since the time of Stalin have done nothing but lead their nations into famine and fatigue?

I honestly don't understand it. You've got to be some sort of brainwashed ideologue to accept any of this socialist philosophy and willing to sacrifice half of your nation's population to see it come to fruition. I'll go ahead and label any such people as mass murdering, genocidal lunatics. VOTE DEMOCRAT. Jesus...

[Heathen Hammer]

Yes you want to represent the interests of your constituents. That only goes so far though. It seems like you are advocating for populism.

If representing electorate's interest is populism, then what's wrong with populism? Seems like populism is a good thing then.

Yes but that goes back to the point that laws and policies aren't based simply on benefits to the taxpayers. And let me remind you that its American taxpayers who keep voting back in the same Senators and representatives who support foreign interventions.

Because they only get to chose between two parties, both of which support those?

Polls and petitions do that job fine. This isn't a direct democracy.

Direct democracy is a better model then representative democracy then.

[Cyclops]

So essentially, Guaido is the constitutionally legitimate interim President, as the leader of the legislative. I don’t see how recognising him is out of order in any shape or form.

I am not sure but I think the constitutional interpretation "the president-elect is absent because he's usurped his own office" is contentious.

That said the constitution and operation of government is compromised by elements such as apparent bribery at the elections and the formation of alternate assemblies.

This is an easy debate. Are citizens in Venezuela starving and eating cats as a result of critical government failures?

If yes (yes) then their policies are .\

That's a better case for throwing this guy out. However humanitarian kindness is not a high priority of the Monroe Doctrine as applied...ever.

There's also a history of the US worsening famines with blockades to punish states for (for example) throwing out the actual Mafia. I saw Godfather II.

But I suppose humanitarian crises are permitted so long as they are promulgated by well wishing leftist ideologues and morons who since the time of Stalin have done nothing but lead their nations into famine and fatigue?

I honestly don't understand it. You've got to be some sort of brainwashed ideologue to accept any of this socialist philosophy and willing to sacrifice half of your nation's population to see it come to fruition. I'll go ahead and label any such people as mass murdering, genocidal lunatics. VOTE DEMOCRAT. Jesus...

Mass murdering genocidal lunatics are allowed so long as the US Oil guys (Kochs etc) get their cut, The proof of this pudding is in Riyadh. If Chavez or the current guy bent the knee Venezuela would be getting aid instead of embargoed.

The voters in the US chose the Orange Idiot on the basis that he wasn't a slave of the real Billionaires. Previously they voted for a hard nosed Chicago politician on the basis that he was nice, and a halfwit Texan on the basis that he knew best. Your voters aren't showing any brains at all, either "right" or "left".

[Derpy Hooves]

Venezuela is in South America.


That's completely irrelevant to what I said. No government in the world is legitimate in your eyes.


Trump himself said that intervention was an option on the table.

https://www.defenseone.com/politics/...ezuela/154383/

And I think Trumps tweet about it gotthe most likes out of any other post he’s made

[Vanoi]

If representing electorate's interest is populism, then what's wrong with populism? Seems like populism is a good thing then.

You are just appealing that's all. Just because your constinents support a particular policy or position doesn't mean you should have to follow it. No reason to support bad policies or illegal ones.

Nevermind the fact there's no such thing as a perfect candidate. It's likely you agree with most of his or her positions, not all. Like supporting someone for their tough stance of immigration and non-interventionist foreign policy, but disagreeing with their stance on abortion.

Representing every single persons beliefs is impossible.

Because they only get to chose between two parties, both of which support those?

Thirds parties do exist and independents do run for office. Nevermind there are Republicans and Democrats and don't support foreign intervention.

Direct democracy is a better model then representative democracy then.

That's also just tyranny of the majority.

[tgoodenow]

US should stay out of Venezuela and also should not take in refugees from there even if something major happens there.

Well, you're the only sane one atleast. The US shouldn't do business with them and allow them to fall apart but if anyone wants to do some sort of military intervention it should be one of the surrounding countries that have to deal with the refugees. Let the Chinese seize Venezuelan assets for unpaid loans for all I care. These people voted for this dumbass, so they must deal with the consequences.

[Heathen Hammer]

You are just appealing that's all. Just because your constinents support a particular policy or position doesn't mean you should have to follow it. No reason to support bad policies or illegal ones.

Nevermind the fact there's no such thing as a perfect candidate. It's likely you agree with most of his or her positions, not all. Like supporting someone for their tough stance of immigration and non-interventionist foreign policy, but disagreeing with their stance on abortion.

Representing every single persons beliefs is impossible.

You can at least represent interests of majority, which neither Republican nor Democratic establishment really does, Trump is the first one who at least pretends to do so.

Thirds parties do exist and independents do run for office. Nevermind there are Republicans and Democrats and don't support foreign intervention.

Which doesn't mean anything because at the end of the day financial elites have their way, being beiggest obstacle and direct threat to democracy.

That's also just tyranny of the majority.

What US has no is tyranny of rich elites, which is much worse.