[shadowprofile76]

Here you're arguing nonsense. Venezuela does not have a functional democracy under the Maduro government and the declaration of Guaido as interim president was absolutely an internal constitutional matter. The National Assembly (the equivalent of the U.S House of representatives basically) of the country, which is the only legislative body in the government where anything like a legitimate political opposition exists, declared Guaido interim president under Article 233 of the country's legal constitution, until a fully supervised and open election could be held due to the grossly rigged nature of the most recent Maduro victory, which had itself been approved by Maduro's own party-loyal replacement to the National Assembly, this replacement being called the "National Constituent Assembly". Maduro had originally disavowed the National Assembly in 2017 in favor of his specially created Constituent National Assembly because the legitimate National Assembly wouldn't allow him to replace the standing constitution of Venezuela with a new one that allowed him to stay in power indefinitely.

And you call this shit show an advanced election system?

Imagine if Trump tried to replace the U.S constitution, had this blocked by the House, then disavowed and replaced the House with his own special congress of purely loyal republicans, then had a rigged election to make himself president a third time, with the majority of the original, real U.S House declaring him illegitimate as a result, causing him to then declare them liberal-sponsored meddlers and further try to marginalize them.. Well, sort of the same thing in effect, but because the Maduro government is leftist, somehow this is considered perfectly alright and democratic by far too many people...

[throw2016]

You clearly haven't read the links from the UN itself that comprehensively debunk these kind of uninformed propaganda.

Over 150 observers from 30 countries [1] observed the elections and declared it free and fair so you are spreading uninformed propaganda.

For those interested in the truth please watch the in depth interview with the UN rapporteur [2] to understand what is happening on the ground. Normal people will take the word of the UN rapporteur and multiple independent observers. For those merely interested in abusing the lives of millions of innocent people, 'democracy' and 'human rights' to further greed filled agendas the truth does not matter.

[1] https://fair.org/home/media-delegitimize-venezuelan-election...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii5MlQgGXyk

[falcrist]

> You clearly haven't read the links from the UN itself that comprehensively debunk these kind of uninformed propaganda.

I've been all over un.org. I can't find any of these links. I don't think the UN has even investigated the elections yet, and they never actually sent observers. Proposals to start an investigation seem to be stuck in the security council.

I have to comment on that first link you provided. This appears to be the most biased article I've come across with regards to the elections.

There is no mention of candidates that were banned from running (including, but not limited to Henrique Capriles, Leopoldo López, Antonio Ledezma, Freddy Guevara, David Smolansky, María Corina Machado, and Miguel Rodríguez Torres);

No mention of unconstitutional spending of public funds on maduro's campaign;

No mention of parties being disqualified and forced to re-register weeks before the election;

No mention of the fact that some political parties refused to run because of all of this;

No mention of the limitations placed on international observers, OR the fact that no international observers were reported to be present

No mention of protests rejecting the election;

No mention that Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Saint Lucia, stated prior to the elections that they would not recognize the results;

etc.

Instead, the article focuses on accusing the "western media" of being propaganda... because English-speaking news outlets use the word "amid" (why this is bad is never established). Yet it's not just the media that cast doubt on the election. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, refused to recognize the election results and called for new, democratic elections.

I also love how MacLeod made a claim about an unnamed originator of a story about how expensive condoms were... and then linked to a reddit AMA featuring none other than MacLeod himself. In the AMA he makes the same claim with the same wording. He actually makes a few of the same claims as he answers questions that were never asked.

This whole article seems to be nonsense. I haven't previously heard of "Fair", but they seem to be named ironically.

If you want a less biased view of the elections, I'd start with the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Venezuelan_presidential_e...

[throw2016]

There is no need to speculate about bias. There is a link to a full hour interview above with the UN rapporteur for Venezuela about the facts on the ground. What is a more credible source?

UN reports are routinely used by the US, Europe, the global media and many others as credible sources.

Given there is a history of illegal regime change and installing puppet regimes in South America that cause suffering to millions of people there is a clear need for anyone genuinely concerned about human rights and democracy to be wary of self serving interests using propaganda to further their own agendas.

[falcrist]

First and foremost. You mentioned "links from the UN itself that comprehensively debunk" what the other commenter was saying. After searching the UN site, I gave you an opportunity to produce them. Where are they?

> There is no need to speculate about bias.

I'm not really speculating as much as making an explicit assertion.

> What is a more credible source?

IMO, Anything at the bottom of the wikipedia article would qualify as more credible than a single person's opinion on a video blog channel. A video blog channel that has an obvious narrative. I mean... did you watch the video? Around half of it cuts away from the interview to present talking points and infographics.

It's also not enough to simply state that all of these media outlets and nations (along with millions of people inside Venezuela itself) are propagandists with an agenda. That's just FUD.

> UN reports are routinely used by the US, Europe, the global media and many others as credible sources.

The UN hasn't investigated the election, much less released a report on the topic.

> Given there is a history of illegal regime change

And given the overwhelming evidence of foul play in the Venezuelan election, those genuinely concerned about human rights and democracy should be extremely wary of those seeking to downplay the severity of the events.

[throw2016]

Here is a link to the UN press release already linked in the comment so there was no need to search.

[1] https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...

Here is the interview of the UN rapporteur, this is not 'some single person'. This is the official UN rapporteur for Venezuela who is on the ground and provides a lot of facts and details in the interview.

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii5MlQgGXyk

No one can take the position that they trust a Wikipedia page over the official UN representative in the region so it seems like you are not interested in the truth.

[falcrist]

> Here is a link... https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...

That link does not "comprehensively debunk" anything shadowprofile76 was saying. It doesn't address the validity of the elections (or the legal ramifications for maduro's later actions). Where is that link?

Also, what can this accomplish once I click the link and find out it's irrelevant to the immediate discussion? It's very likely that you and I are the only ones reading this, so who is going to be fooled?

> Here is the interview

That vlog was already linked. Do you have some response to what I said about it?

> No one can take the position that they trust a Wikipedia page

I never suggested I trust a wikipedia page. As per usual, I scroll to the bottom and start clicking on the references.

> the official UN representative in the region

He's not an official UN representative. He is independent of the UN.

> it seems like you are not interested in the truth

What exactly is the point of making this statement? Do you think I'll suddenly "see the light"? Do you think you'll demoralize me so I'll shut up? What do you hope to accomplish?