Venezuela right-wing opposition wins control of National Assembly by a landslide

597 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

You should go back to your brotherly love fest with RDP. You guys are well suited to each other.  

I have received your message loud and clear, socialism is evil and we don't discuss countries like Haiti or Honduras because it only muddies the waters over how good control by the North has been for those idiots who run the countries in South America.

Continue on after all this is a site for bashing lefties around the world.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You should go back to your brotherly love fest with RDP

You haven't noticed us disagreeing?

Quote:
I have received your message loud and clear, socialism is evil

I'm pretty much saying that's NOT the case.

Quote:
Continue on after all this is a site for bashing lefties around the world.

I probably will, thanks.  It's also a site for discussing other countries and their governments, particularly in the "international news and politics" forum.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Venezuela sets recall referendum timetable

Quote:
Venezuelan officials have set out the timetable for a recall referendum on whether President Nicolas Maduro should remain in power.

The Venezuelan opposition reacted angrily when they heard they would only be allowed to collect more petition signatures in late October.

Of course what's at stake here is whether the recall referendum would be an open election (if it takes place before Jan. 10, 2017) or whether Maduro's hand-picked successor takes over (if it happens after).

So what better way to ensure that "there's simply not enough time now" than to insist that everyone sit on their hands for two and a half months for no reason?

Quote:
Mr Maduro has launched legal challenges against the referendum drive and has vowed there will be no referendum this year.

We can hardly blame Ms. Lucena, or the National Electoral Council for granting Maduro's wish.  We still don't know which lucky workers will get to hoe yams in the hot sun.

 

 

 

RDP

All you defenders of Maduro (and I would say defenders of Chavez), defend this!

They got the gold and 4 cities in the top 11!  They are bringing home the metal (intrabody).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate

 

When do you give up?

swallow swallow's picture

Not that I'd imagine Venezuelan citiies are especially safe, but the wikipedia article linked is a cut-and-paste from a single source (as it says at the very top of the article) and that source is questionable - eg it surveyed only some citiies, excludes conflict zones and cities without sufficient data, measures stats for different things in different cities, etc. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-50-most-violent-cities-in-the-world-2...

Source tracked back to original Mexican group - which has not posted its own 2015 numbers: http://www.seguridadjusticiaypaz.org.mx/biblioteca/analisis-estadistico/...

Unionist

Swallow, here's your link in a form which works:

http://www.seguridadjusticiaypaz.org.mx/biblioteca/prensa/summary/5-pren...

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Looks like a good, balanced piece summarizing the current situation. The article is also useful for giving well deserved "boots to the head" of the pathological anti-socialist critics, most of whom would support neo-liberal atrocities in full force, etc.

It's noteworthy that the opposition figures who agreed to an interview about their aims, hid their plans for the future. Most think this is due to the above-noted neo-liberal brutality that they have such giddy enthusiasm for. But read for yourself.

Why is Venezuela in crisis?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Venezuela public workers face sack over referendum

Quote:
On Monday, Socialist Party (PSUV) spokesman Jorge Rodriguez said that those in senior public positions who had signed the petition would have to leave their posts.

"Today, by order of the [governing Socialist] party president Nicolas Maduro, five ministries ... cannot have people that are against the Revolution and the president in management positions".

...

The announcement follows reports by pressure groups and opposition parties that public sector workers who had signed the petition were pressured and sometimes sacked.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

That's interesting. I have been trying to think how an analogous case might work in Canada. We don't have any sort of recall law, but what if senior civil servants made a bunch of video ads stating that the Trudeau government was destroying the country, and should be defeated at the earliest opportunity? And then the Cons started buying air time to play them often. I think Trudeau might just fire the officials involved.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Civil servants don't owe a fealty to Trudeau, nor to Harper before him.

If you want a better analogy, imagine that Harper won in October, and then fired any civil servants who put a Liberal, NDP or Green Party sign on their lawn.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

But putting a campaign sign on your lawn during an election campaign is hardly the same thing as signing a petition demanding that the government be terminated for misbehaviour before the normal end of its term. I think my analogy is much closer to the situation in Venezuela.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But putting a campaign sign on your lawn during an election campaign is hardly the same thing as signing a petition demanding that the government be terminated for misbehaviour before the normal end of its term.

The right to a recall vote is written right into Venezuela's constitution.

If the recall election ends up happening, do you feel that a civil servant should have the right to vote in that election?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Unless the constitution forbids them from voting, then yes, they should be able to. I think I see your point about the petition, but it seems to me that such a public act is somewhat different than voting by secret ballot.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
but it seems to me that such a public act is somewhat different than voting by secret ballot.

My orignal analogy above was Harper firing "any civil servants who didn't vote for him" but then I changed it to displaying the other guy's lawn sign for precisely that reason.

Civil servants simply aren't required to show loyalty to the government of the day.  They're allowed to prefer a different government just like anyone else.

Anyway, at least we know why it took the government so long to process that first petition.  They weren't just validating signatures, they were making a list of quislings and traitors.

I think it's also worth noting that the government felt the need to announce these firings, and even made it clear that they were solely for signing the first petition.  Next up is the second petition, and the people need to know that if they sign it then there'll be payback.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

If its analogies you want then I guess the Harperman song is a good start. Civil servants have a certain duty of loyalty to their departments like all workers but their department is not the ruling party.  Its way more straightforward if you work in the private sector. If you slag your company you get fired. 

Quote:

The Environment Canada scientist whose anti-Stephen Harper folk song "Harperman" got him suspended from his job is retiring rather than waiting out an investigation into his behaviour.

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, the union that represents Tony Turner, said Turner's retirement took effect this week.

He was suspended with pay this summer for allegedly breaching the government of Canada's values and ethics code for public servants by recording and posting a song on YouTube that takes the prime minister's policies to task and concludes that "Harperman, it's time for you to go."

In a release, Turner said he was assured of a quick investigation, but as the weeks have dragged on he decided it was better to retire from the civil service.

Turner said he continues to believe he acted within his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and says he did not act contrary to Environment Canada's values and ethics code.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/harperman-retires-1.3254757

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Seems to be plenty about the Harperman song and Turner on rabble and babble (and rabble again, and again) and it looks to be unanimously supportive of Turners right to prefer a new government -- and even publicly say so.

Quote:
Do we need any more confirmation that Harper is a dictator?

Definitely sounds like dictator shit.

RDP
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

RDP wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-gangs-idUSKCN1162AJ

Why would gangs exist in paradise?

Because here on earth we are not all angels. I think everyone being an angel is a pre-condition to most people's beliefs about paradise. Could you please tell us the countries that have no gangs? You find gangs in other South American countries like Columbia and Brazil that have never flirted with socialism but have merely let the oligarchies rule, just as you propose for Venezuela.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

That there's a crime problem in Venezuela is hardly news.

And while I'm sure many still have a soft spot for "the Bolivarian Revolution", I really don't think anyone's making the claim that Venezuela is a "paradise".

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

And while I'm sure many still have a soft spot for "the Bolivarian Revolution",

It appears that a few people in Caracas still have a soft spot for the government.

 

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/multimedia/Massive-Turnout-in-Defense-o...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

[IMG]http://i67.tinypic.com/2s835mt.jpg[/IMG]

Unfortunately, I think their support is for the guy on the right.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

[IMG]http://i67.tinypic.com/2s835mt.jpg[/IMG]

Unfortunately, I think their support is for the guy on the right.

I think their support is for the legacy of Chavez. As for the guy on the left, it is a tough job following a legend. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
it is a tough job following a legend.

I'm sure Tom Mulcair could take us both to school about that.

RDP

“Because here on earth we are not all angels. I think everyone being an angel is a pre-condition to most people's beliefs about paradise. Could you please tell us the countries that have no gangs? You find gangs in other South American countries like Columbia and Brazil that have never flirted with socialism but have merely let the oligarchies rule, just as you propose for Venezuela.”

 

Ha ha.  Conservatism promotes decentralization of power.  Centralized power can lead to evil.  The primary reason for decentralizing power is that man is not an angel.  You say we are not angels and yet you are willing to give a centralized government and leader (almost supreme I would say) massive power.  Neither the dear, great, supreme leader, nor Chavez, nor those who wield power in their regimes are  angels.  Death typically is the end game.  This has been proven again and again.  I point to the approximately 75 million deaths from a people’s own great, supreme leader in the 21st century in the Soviet Union and China alone.

Gangs exist everywhere.  The claim of socialism is that all will be shared fairly.  And because of this, crime will be rendered close to obsolete.  Seems the claim is false.

 

RDP

P.S.  I am as much anti-oligarchy as you.  

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

RDP wrote:

Ha ha.  Conservatism promotes decentralization of power.  

You have some very strange beliefs. Could you please cite the articles that you rely on to make this claim.

RDP
RDP

What political and economic systems do you hear the phrase "central planning" attributed to?  Central planners are in China, Cuba, North Korea et al.

Do you dispute this?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

RDP wrote:

What political and economic systems do you hear the phrase "central planning" attributed to?  Central planners are in China, Cuba, North Korea et al.

Do you dispute this?

So the answe to my question is that you have no basis for your inane views and when asked to engage in dialogue over your ideas you deflect. LMAOROF

RDP

The post at 9:25 does not completely answer your question?  I think "So the answe to my question is that you have no basis for your inane views and when asked to engage in dialogue over your ideas you deflect. LMAOROF" was going to be your answer no matter what I responded with.

RDP

If that isn't enough, let me quote from Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, page 2 & 3.

"How can we benefit from the promise of government while avoiding the threat to freedom?"

"The second broad principle is that government power must be dispersed.  If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in the state, better in the state than in Washington.  If I do not like what my local community does, be it in sewage disposal, or zoning, or schools, I can move to another local community, and though few may take this step, the mere possibility acts as a check.  If I do not like what my state does, I can move to another.  If I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in this world of jealous nations."

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Milton's economics are the problem not the answer, even so your quote from him says nothing about how conservatism promotes decentralization. 

RDP

Milton Friedman is one of the fathers of modern economic conservatism.  You mocked my assertion that capitalism advocates decentralization. I show you Milton Friedmans second broad principle is decentralization of government power and you think this says nothing about how conservatism advocates for decentralization?  I am beginning to think you are in grade school; and not one of the later grades.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

It's certainly true that conservatives advocate for the decentralization of things that THEY personally find coercive, but if the federal government announced their plans to:

- abolish equal marriage at a federal level

- ban guns, at a federal level

- recriminalize abortion at a federal level

... how may conservatives in the U.S. do you really think would say "Wait, NO.  That should all be decided at the MUNICIPAL level!!"?

RDP

Good, tell Kropotkin that.  Not true about "the things that THEY personally find coercive,..."

Gun rights is a state issue.  Texas has open carry laws.  California doesn't.  Conservatives are ok with this (except for the conservatives in California).  

Gay marriage is in dispute now.  States claim it is a state right and the federal government claims it is a federal right.  Conservatives want it to remain a state right.

Abortion was a state issue until Roe vs. Wade.  Bad law.  This should've been decided by the people, not the supreme court.

Anyway, for the 3 issues you list, conservatives want the issue decided at the state level, not at the federal level.  Again, it is the left wingers who want the issue decided at the federal level either by executive action or through the supreme court.  Would you be ok with issues decided by 13 supreme court elites or would you rather have a voice?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Anyway, for the 3 issues you list, conservatives want the issue decided at the state level, not at the federal level.

OK, but why not the municipal level?  Why go half way?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Maybe if you stopped looking at everything through your Exceptional American lens you would understand that what you call a conservative is actually nothing of the kind. Milton is a neo-conservative whose acolytes believe in corporate rights not democratic rights. As for state rights versus federal rights being determinative of anything again that is through the lens of your constitution. Most countries do not have the same make up of states versus federal responsibilities. For instance the Canadian constitution makes criminal law a federal matter, as it is in almost every other Western democracy in the world. 

Just because you believe that governments should be shrunk to a size where they can be drowned in a bathtub doesn't mean that is a good thing. I think that governments should shrink enough to stop them from protecting rich people's limited liability corporations. Individual capitalists should be personally responsible for the actions of their corporations and they should not be shielded by the corporate veil. If you can agree with that kind of government decentralization then maybe we agree on something. 

swallow swallow's picture

Anarchism advoates decentralization as a principle. 

Modern-day "conservativism," on the other hand, advocates what is conveneint for conservatives - so states are allowed to trampel on cities that wants to do things conervatives don't like. 

But modern-day "conservatism" has little to do with classical conservatism.

Classical conservatism sought a strong state able to intervene where needed, and was opposed by liberals who wanted the state weakened relative to the market. Neo-liberals (calling themselves conservatives) have shifted to seeking a weaker state and more powerful corporations, who seek to centralize wealth to themselves. 

 

RDP

At the municipal level?  Now you are being silly.  What do you do with all the towns?  You can't have every wee grouping of people setting their own laws.

RDP

"

Maybe if you stopped looking at everything through your Exceptional American lens you would understand that what you call a conservative is actually nothing of the kind. Milton is a neo-conservative whose acolytes believe in corporate rights not democratic rights. As for state rights versus federal rights being determinative of anything again that is through the lens of your constitution. Most countries do not have the same make up of states versus federal responsibilities. For instance the Canadian constitution makes criminal law a federal matter, as it is in almost every other Western democracy in the world. 

Just because you believe that governments should be shrunk to a size where they can be drowned in a bathtub doesn't mean that is a good thing. I think that governments should shrink enough to stop them from protecting rich people's limited liability corporations. Individual capitalists should be personally responsible for the actions of their corporations and they should not be shielded by the corporate veil. If you can agree with that kind of government decentralization then maybe we agree on something. "

 

Let's say you are the owner and/or the CEO of a business.  You are off on a business trip to China to solicit business for a month.  Someone walks into your business and slips on a little puddle of water.  The janitor missed the puddle.  Who does the person sue?  At the moment, because companies are considered somewhat like individuals and have limited liability, the person sues the company.  The person can't sue the floor or the puddle.  Is this not good?  Should the CEO or owner be sued?  Should the janitor be sued?  Would you start a business if you knew that if something went wrong you are responsible and will be personally sued?  Would you delegate anything?  Many things can happen in a place of business that aren't the fault of the owner or CEO but I guess you don't see it that way.  Should the CEO of Royal Bank be personally responsible for a rogue employee?  It is pretty hard to not have a few rogue employees when you employ 80,000 people.  Should the shareholders be responsible?  It isn't just corporations with limited liability and rights.  Universities, charities, non-profit organizations, and many more also enjoy these laws.

RDP

Anarchism advocates for no government.  No sane individual wants this.  Let me quote Kropotkin: "Man is not an angel"  Kropotkin is right.  We need rules, and mechanisms for enforcement.  Government is the most efficient means of achieving this.

swallow swallow's picture

Those are your beliefs, RDP, but they demonstrate that conservatives - if you are one - do not always favour decentralization. You support decentralization to US states, but not to base-level communities. 

This is bizarre logic. North Carolina stomped on a municapal non-discrtimination law passed by Chalrlotte, which by your logic is too small to self-govern. But it has more people than Wyoming, which by your logic is a state and therefore deserves decentralization. 

That's not a call for decentrlziation of power - it is states-rights fetishism. 

Some socialists, on the other hand, want more decentralization than you and many other conservatives do. In this thread, for instance, you are seeking more Big Government than some on the left. 

 

RDP

How am I seeking big government?

6079_Smith_W

 

RDP wrote:

Abortion was a state issue until Roe vs. Wade.  Bad law.  This should've been decided by the people, not the supreme court.

Funny, I didn't hear many republicans complaining about the Defense of Marriage Act, or defending the state of Massachussets when it legalized marriage equality, and couples found themselves cut off from federal benefits because of that law.

As for what "right wingers" and "left wingers" supposedly think, in  2012 it was not Obama, but Mitt Romney who was trying to federalize the issue and override state law,

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-robin-roberts-abc-news-intervi...

Actually, what conservatives yammer about most in the states is respecting the constitution, though many of them fail to actually read it for comprehension. And when there is something in there they don't like they forget that their states are signators to the constitution.

Roe v Wade was based on the constitution .

Marriage equality (which is the law, not in dispute... sorry) was decided based on the constitution.

Federal law trumps state law. That is based on the constitution.

And a supreme court decision based on the constitution is not the same as a federal executive action. Though curious that you don't mention congress, which is also federal. But since they seem to be devoting all their energy to stonewalling the executive branch and standing in the way of a working supreme court we should just ignore them?

Or they are presumably acting in the interests of the people? Or they are now, but they weren't when they signed the constitution and its amendments into law?

 

 

Unionist

I thought debates with right-wing trolls were supposed to be posted in "babble banter". My bad.

RDP

Roe vs Wade was based on an interpretation of the constitution.  Conservatives reject the interpretation.  This is judicial activism.  Please show me the word "abortion" in the constitution.    It was a 5 to 4 decision in favour of abortion.  Bad law.  The supreme court should've rejected the case and sent it back to elected representatives (ie the people have a voice) to determine what to do.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

I thought debates with right-wing trolls were supposed to be posted in "babble banter". My bad.

Look around you, at all the othe trending threads, Unionist. I think you might be complaining about the barn door after the horses are out.

RvW was decided based on the right to privacy under the 14th amendment. That is in the U.S. constitution. And it was not "an opinion" it was the ruling by the highest court in the land.

Not surprising that when these people paint themselves into a corner they decide there is no legal authority at all, and it's just them and the constitution in their sovereign citizenship closet.

swallow swallow's picture

The entire international forum is now about debate with right-wing trolls. Some of them call themselves leftists while peddling the propaganda of a right-wing authoritarian regime in Moscow, of course. 

RDP - you are seeking big government by backing the right of states to over-ride local governments. Even when those local govnerments have more people than some states. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

RDP wrote:

Anarchism advocates for no government.  No sane individual wants this.  Let me quote Kropotkin: "Man is not an angel"  Kropotkin is right.  We need rules, and mechanisms for enforcement.  Government is the most efficient means of achieving this.

Your definition of anarchism is as nuanced as your definition of conservatism. It didn't take long to plumb the depths of your actual knowledge about political ideas and movements. 

Decentralization can only be a good thing if it is done locally and democratically. You can't decentralize by reducing the rules on corporations and then allowing the oligarchs to amass fortunes that buy immense power.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

RDP wrote:

Roe vs Wade was based on an interpretation of the constitution.  Conservatives reject the interpretation.  This is judicial activism.  Please show me the word "abortion" in the constitution.    It was a 5 to 4 decision in favour of abortion.  Bad law.  The supreme court should've rejected the case and sent it back to elected representatives (ie the people have a voice) to determine what to do.

Your constitution is based on a balance of powers between the judiciary and the government. Should the Supreme Court only have independence when it agrees with your politics? Your constitution gives the judiciary the responsibility and job of interpreting the constitution not right wing dominated Congresses or even the POTUS.

The Canadian constitution however allows for parliament to pass a law notwithstanding the fact that the SCC thinks it is in breach of our Charter. The Parliament merely has to acknowledge the breach of the constitution when enacting it.

Maybe you and your "conservative" friends should advocate for an Amendment that would be similar to Section 33 and thus bring about a change to a parliamentary system like ours where parliament is always the final authority not the courts or the Prime Minister.

Section 33.

(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

 

Pages

Topic locked