No - we know Maduro lost the election. That's knowledge, not opinion. And he stayed in power, while crushing the opposition.
Maduro is a garden variety dictator. Spectacularly corrupt, jails his political opponents, having taken over the media and so on.
How do you know? The official election council certified that he won. A bunch of foreign governments and US-aligned media claimed it was rigged. But the US has been trying to regime change them since they nationalized their oil.
You're trying to paint a picture that it's just the US and it's lackeys that claim the election was rigged.
In truth, we know that the election was neither free nor fair, with the government prosecuting and oppressing the opposition.
The Venezuelan opposition made a point of providing evidence that they won, most notably official tally sheets which collaborate that they won. The government did not produce evidence or even care to refute the opposition's claims.
You'd think Machado winning the Nobel peace prize would be enough for people to not question the popularity of Maduro, but here we are, random keyboard warriors defending dictators nonstop.
Your comment doesn't make any sense. The Nobel Peace Prize isn't decided by Venezuelan people, it's decided by a council appointed by the Norwegian government.
No, people can't just kick out an authoritarian dictator. Such rulers don't need democratic support to stay in power. Strong men only leave their palaces due to two reasons - death from old age or an even stronger power forcing them.
> No, people can't just kick out an authoritarian dictator.
If that was the case, the US wouldn't exist. Might want to brush up on american history.
> Such rulers don't need democratic support to stay in power.
They most certainly do. Once they lose it, they collapse internally. Read up on some history.
As I said, if maduro had lost the popular support, the US wouldn't have had to invade and kidnap maduro. The venezuelan people would have done so. The only time foreign intervention is required is when a significant portion of the populace supports the leader.
This is fundamentally incorrect. A dictator can oppress 90% of the people by just treating 10% of the population well, provided the 90% isn't allowed to heavily arm themselves anyway.
You jump from "some revolutions have happened" to "revolutions always happens and always succeed"...
By your logic why are there any tyrannies at all in the world? Do you really believe all governments are supported by their people and that oppression does not exist?
No - we know Maduro lost the election. That's knowledge, not opinion. And he stayed in power, while crushing the opposition. Maduro is a garden variety dictator. Spectacularly corrupt, jails his political opponents, having taken over the media and so on.
How do you know? The official election council certified that he won. A bunch of foreign governments and US-aligned media claimed it was rigged. But the US has been trying to regime change them since they nationalized their oil.
You're trying to paint a picture that it's just the US and it's lackeys that claim the election was rigged.
In truth, we know that the election was neither free nor fair, with the government prosecuting and oppressing the opposition.
The Venezuelan opposition made a point of providing evidence that they won, most notably official tally sheets which collaborate that they won. The government did not produce evidence or even care to refute the opposition's claims.
A lot of my friends in Venezuela told me.
You should go talk to some venezuelans.
You'd think Machado winning the Nobel peace prize would be enough for people to not question the popularity of Maduro, but here we are, random keyboard warriors defending dictators nonstop.
> You'd think Machado winning the Nobel peace prize would be enough for people to not question the popularity of Maduro
You mean the woman advocating for the US to invade venezuela got the nobel prize? How shocking. It's almost as if the nobel prize is a political tool.
> but here we are, random keyboard warriors defending dictators nonstop.
"dictator". Sure. Everyone is a dictator and authoritarian.
Your comment doesn't make any sense. The Nobel Peace Prize isn't decided by Venezuelan people, it's decided by a council appointed by the Norwegian government.
Reminder that Kissinger won the Nobel Prize in his time. Winning the Nobel Prize means you align with US geopolitical interests, nothing more.
No, people can't just kick out an authoritarian dictator. Such rulers don't need democratic support to stay in power. Strong men only leave their palaces due to two reasons - death from old age or an even stronger power forcing them.
> No, people can't just kick out an authoritarian dictator.
If that was the case, the US wouldn't exist. Might want to brush up on american history.
> Such rulers don't need democratic support to stay in power.
They most certainly do. Once they lose it, they collapse internally. Read up on some history.
As I said, if maduro had lost the popular support, the US wouldn't have had to invade and kidnap maduro. The venezuelan people would have done so. The only time foreign intervention is required is when a significant portion of the populace supports the leader.
This is fundamentally incorrect. A dictator can oppress 90% of the people by just treating 10% of the population well, provided the 90% isn't allowed to heavily arm themselves anyway.
You jump from "some revolutions have happened" to "revolutions always happens and always succeed"...
By your logic why are there any tyrannies at all in the world? Do you really believe all governments are supported by their people and that oppression does not exist?
You people aren't serious