[stickfigure]

Venezuela was a functioning democracy until a short number of years ago, when Maduro stole the election through clear and blatant fraud.

Not every country is Iraq or Afghanistan. At least here it's fairly clear that removing Maduro reflects the popular will of Venezuelans.

[bborud]

One could easily ask the same question about the US. With congress having abdicated it raises the legitimate question of exactly what the US is now.

[pelorat]

Among my European friends, no one considers the USA to be a legitimate democracy any more. The USA has for us devolved into a bandit state.

[ericmay]

They should study political philosophy a bit more so they don’t say foolish things.

America is very clearly a legitimate democracy, even if who was voted in office and the actions of that democratically elected government don’t align with your expectations or world view.

I didn’t vote for the guy. But I did vote. And as a poll worker I can tell you first hand that we ran a free and fair election as we have for any year I can think of. Legitimate Democracy. Period.

[zestyping]

That's a legitimately run _election_, which is necessary for but not the same as a legitimate democracy. For a democracy to be legitimate you need an impartial judiciary, an enforced constitution, fundamental civil liberties, and an accountable government.

[ericmay]

Those are good points and the United States could do a better job, but those elements are all graded on a spectrum. I don’t think that having a few failures over some number of years means all of a sudden the entire thing is illegitimate.

[JohnBooty]

Thank you for serving as a poll worker. (Seriously: thank you)

We have a legitimate democracy in terms of vote-counting, and you personally contribute to that.

It looks a lot less legitimate to me when I think about factors like votes having vastly varying weights because of gerrymandering and the Electoral College.

It gets even less legitimate when I think about how severely restricted our choice of candidates are, and how they are more or less chosen by party leaders and the oligarchy via billions of dollars of lobbying etc.

[tracker1]

In this case, Trump won both the popular vote and the Electoral vote... that said, I believe in the idea of the Electoral College in that it's important to balance population and each State's rights. The one thing I would like to see are a larger congressional body as there are too few congressional representatives for the size of the electorate. We should probably have at least 3x the members of the House to at least be closer to the founding norms. Just my own take.

I'd also like to see a better runoff system than what we have in place, which could give a chance to more parties coming out. Right now, there are alignments into the two major parties and a lot of infighting because they are at least closer to what each group wants, but not really aligned and these create hard splits where there shouldn't be on a lot of issues.

[bborud]

Well, in the same vein I could tell you to re-take your primary school civics classes and write me an essay on the key components of a modern democracy.

The mechanism by which we choose leaders isn’t even in the top three most important prerequisites for a functioning democracy. If you didn’t pay attention in history and civics classes this may come as a surprise.

[rayiner]

Democracy is about voting. What you’re referring to is “modern government,” which is full of undemocratic institutions and run by unelected bureaucrats according to values that don’t reflect the public’s.

[mindslight]

As corporate lobbying succeeds with its lobotomization/capture of public institutions, it fundamentally raises the bar for what constitutes legitimate democracy - for example ranked choice voting rather than raced-to-the-bottom plurality. Or to the point you're responding to - as Congress continues to sit by and let this dictator run amok, how much can we say that this is really the democratic system working as laid out, rather than a mere husk of the old democratic structure going through the motions while something else is actually running the show?

This should be doubly apparent in this thread, where this specific invasion would likely still be happening even if the fascists had lost in 2024 - this has military industrial complex's manufacturing consent and nation building all over it, regardless of it benefiting Trump to distract from the childrape files and whatever other corruption/stealing he can wedge in.

[iknowstuff]

I certainly see the vitriol against the US on r/europe which seems like it has more news about the United States than Europe.

Can’t help but think it’s orchestrated by Russian bots.

You do realize the current government won the elections and the president won the popular vote right

[apparent]

> You do realize the current government won the elections and the president won the popular vote right

Technically he won a plurality of the popular vote, but he didn't win the popular vote. This is typically not a distinction that matters, but in this case it's what happened. The majority of people voted for someone else, but he got votes from more people than any other candidate did.

Of course, what really matters is the electoral college, but the popular vote is often seen as lending even more legitimacy to a victory.

[xp84]

The reason it doesn’t matter is that everyone who chooses to vote third party does so fully knowing who the two front runners are, as well as the likely margin of their state. Most third-party voters are in extremely uncompetitive states, making it quite safe to make a statement vote, even though it potentially dampens your “lesser of two evils” candidate’s apparent mandate.

For instance, I wrote an invalid write-in candidate since both major parties ran clowns in 2024, but Harris carried my state by a mile.

[tracker1]

This is very true... I used to vote Libertarian for all races where there was a Libertarian candidate... then my state shifted purple, and I'd rather see a Republican more often than not over a given Democrat candidate. While I don't agree with the actual far right fringe, I cannot vote for a party with prominent communists in it.

[apparent]

I agree that most people who vote for other candidates come from uncompetitive states. But this doesn't necessarily prove your point. If there were more other-candidate supporters who would have voted for Kamala (if they had to vote for one of the two main candidates) than Trump, then that would mean he wouldn't have won the popular vote if it was just between the two of them.

Regardless, I think it's important to be precise about claims like this, since there is actually a difference between winning the popular vote and winning a plurality of it. Imagine making the claim if 10% of the popular vote went to third-party candidates, or even 20%!

[JCattheATM]

> For instance, I wrote an invalid write-in candidate since both major parties ran clowns in 2024,

That makes you part of the problem. And no, only one party ran a clown, and that party won because of people like you.

[JCattheATM]

> Technically he won a plurality of the popular vote, but he didn't win the popular vote. This is typically not a distinction that matters, but in this case it's what happened.

Colloquially majority means 'greatest share', and he certainly had the greatest share of votes out of all candidates. I don't like it, but it's correct to say he won the popular vote.

[apparent]

I agree that some people use the phrase loosely. I would ask such people what they would say to distinguish between someone who actually won the majority of the popular vote versus someone who did not. It's not a "super-majority" situation, IMO. But surely it's worthwhile to have a different way of referring to the two cases, especially now that the less-common one has happened in recent history.

[jablongo]

Trump received 77.3M votes while Kamala received 75M. Since the total was 156.7M it was barely a plurality instead of a majority (just under 50%).

[elcritch]

All while Europe dabbles in outlawing and criminalizing opposition parties they’re deeming “far right”. Sure anyone who opposes unlimited unrestricted immigration is now “far right”. Regardless of opinion, democracy is about the people determining that conversation, not politburos.

Alternatively the UK violating the millennia old Magna Carta by halting jury trials for criminal offenses with less than 2 years of jail time.

[bborud]

It's actually a bit more complicated than that. And unlike the US during the 20th century, Europe has actually had to contend with the far right abolishing democracy and committing genocide on its own population before. It is understandable that Europe doesn't want to repeat that mistake.

As for your assertion that anyone who opposes unlimited unrestricted immigration is somehow far right: you are simply wrong.

If you want to find out how wrong you are I would encourage you to try moving to Norway. Then tell me if the process feels "unrestricted".

I would suggest knowing things before you express strong opinions.

[immibis]

If you're still treating Reddit, especially large subreddits, as a serious source of information rather than an extremely manipulated outlet of 90% propaganda bots, that is quite foolish.

Maybe I should make a website where example.com/e/Europe shows whatever I want people to think Europe thinks, and people will treat it as an authority for some reason? That's basically what you're doing with Reddit.

[bborud]

But people do treat sites such as reddit as a source of truth. That's part of the problem.

[array_key_first]

Yes, clearly the russian bots are running a campaign against Trump, the most explicitly pro-Russia president we've had in decades. Donald "Ukraine started the war" Trump.

[mindslight]

The goal isn't to help one coherent team win, but rather to foment division that undermines cohesive action. This is also an attractor for anybody interested in neutralizing democratic governments, be it Russia or simply corporations that don't want to be regulated as they gradually form more and more of their own government.

[vel0city]

It doesn't seem far fetched to me for Russia to further drive a wedge between the US and Europe.

I don't partake in that subreddit so I have no clue as to the content or if this claim is true or false but it doesn't seem like a crazy idea for Russia to do. Sure there's plenty of content Trump gives Russia to potentially amplify, but there could still be bots amplifying things and making some opinions or takes on a story be more popular than reality.

[iknowstuff]

I have no issue with critique of him and his admin, but r/europe is on a whole different “dismantle usa” level lol

[bborud]

Elected heads of state have moved towards totalitarian rule before.

Besides, elections isn’t what defines a functioning democracy.

Why do so many people fail to pay attention in history and civics class? And why do people get so upset when their ignorance is pointed out to them.

«He was elected» is not a justification. If it were then the rest of the world would take a dim view of Americans. Be glad that hasn’t become worse.

[singpolyma3]

> If it were then the rest of the world would take a dim view of Americans.

I have news for you...

[bborud]

If you sit people down and talk to them, I think you will find that most people around the world are actually able to distinguish between peoples and their governments. However when you look at what people say online, or when you ask groups of people, they do not always make the distinction.

The people who can not present a problem. Regardless of what pairing of nationalities.

[bborud]

What if it isn't? What if the sentiments expressed represent what Europeans think of the US?

[tracker1]

While there may be some truth to that (bots)... there are definitely a lot of quasi communists that are participating in these groups. They are active, involved and have an outsized influence in terms of being a squeaky wheel.

You just have to look at the protests in NYC over Venezuela to see it... they aren't actually for what the people of Venezuela seem to want (they're celebrating), the protestors are clearly pushing for and protecting at what represents communist values, even if Maduro isn't really much of a Communist.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

Never forget that the largest share of the 2024 US voting-eligible population went to "did not vote".

Harris received 97% of Trump's vote count.

There is not that strong a popular mandate for Trump, which shows in his approval ratings.

[Loudergood]

They made their choice. It's damning for the Democrats that they couldn't engage more of them.

[LanceH]

You could start with none of them voting for their presidential candidate to be nominated.

The Democratic Party is at odds with Democrats, in my opinion. They just don't want to let anyone but the party itself pick the candidate, then are surprised when their own voters don't feel the candidate is theirs.

Obama was nominated in spite of the party, and people showed up for him.

Trump is awful, but losing to him twice is unfathomably stupid.

[stodor89]

The US must end the bipartisan model before the bipartisan model ends the US.

There, I said it.

[rayiner]

Multiple polls have found that Trump would have won by an even larger margin if those people had voted.

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5447450/trump-2024-elec...

https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%2...

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

And yet, they did not vote. People often say things in polls that don't align to their actions.

[bborud]

Well, then I'd first have to ask how you define "communist" or "quasi-communist" to understand what you mean. The term "communist" means different things depending on the context of the person who uses that term.

[jibal]

> I certainly see the vitriol against the US on r/europe which seems like it has more news about the United States than Europe.

Nonsense.

> Can’t help but think it’s orchestrated by Russian bots.

Rational people can.

> the president won the popular vote

False.

[lp0_on_fire]

> False

Trump won the popular vote in 2024. He lost it in 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_elections

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_elections

[xp84]

Oh, so we’re just making up our reality now? Biden and Trump each won the popular vote and to suggest otherwise would require a belief in a colossal conspiracy theory.

[myko]

trump was ineligible due to his attempted insurrection on Jan 6th, end of story

[DaSHacka]

Evidently the country's people, and government, disagree with you.

[amarcheschi]

Maybe the president of the USA can do something about the president of the USA being authoritarian

[LanceH]

The problem is they elect a different president and their opinion of authoritarian changes.

[DaSHacka]

ding ding ding, we have a winner!

[ocdtrekkie]

Hi, here in America we also know this is true. :) Just riding it out til the regime of crazy falls over. When it happens, there will be much rejoicing.

[mensetmanusman]

That's the story many Europeans are hearing from their hand rectangles.

[oceanplexian]

> Among my European friends, no one considers the USA to be a legitimate democracy

Sure is a bold statement considering Spain was a dictatorship as recently as 1975.

[verzali]

Maybe they know what they're talking about then?

[jibal]

Whataboutism says a great deal about a person and the evaluation of their thought processes and the validity of their statements.

[weregiraffe]

Same friends who believe there is genocide in Gaza?

[vga42]

This one is probably also -- if not completely invented by -- at least seriously boosted by russotrolls. And weaponized for several pro-Russia talking points, such as campaigning against Kamala Harris ("she is not against Israel so don't vote for her") and driving global gaze out of Ukraine.

[ethbr1]

> With congress having abdicated

Historically in the American Republic, this has been true more often than not. There's a reason something taking "an act of Congress" is not a new expression for difficulty.

[ratamacue]

"Act of Congress" has always implied "something that is hard", but it has also implied "something that is fairly definitive". Today, congress can be largely ignored by the executive and congress seems to support it vocally. Is this also something that has been true more often than not in the American Republic?

[ethbr1]

> Today, congress can be largely ignored by the executive and congress seems to support it vocally.

I seem to remember the 116th and 118th Congresses pushing back against executive power, which were the last times the US had divided government. https://history.house.gov/Institution/Presidents-Coinciding/...

And I wouldn't exactly say that Congress is wholly supporting unrestricted presidential power currently either. E.g. Senator Thune continually shooting down Trump's more oddball pleas.

There are very vocal supporters of the president in both the House and Senate GOP caucuses, but they're not the majority.

I think the strongest version of your argument would be something like 'In recent US Congressional history, both parties when in power have used congressional power to tactically check opposition party presidents, but neither have sought to permanently expand and defend the bounds of congressional power.'

[bborud]

Wouldn’t a functioning congress have resisted the executive aborbing its powers? After all, congress was supposed to be the most powerful branch. For good reason.

[dmitrygr]

> congress was supposed to be the most powerful branch

Just re-read the USA constitution. Despite much effort, I did not find any "power rankings" of the three branches. Please point me in the right direction.

[bborud]

There are degrees. I don’t think congress has been this weak before in our lifetime. And most people seeming not to care scares me.

I have been looking at productivity numbers for congress over the past decades. And I don’t get why people aren’t furious over the current congress not doing their job.

[stickfigure]

That is rubbish. I loathe Trump more than most, but there's no serious claim that he wasn't freely elected in 2024. There appears to be a lot of buyer's remorse and we'll see what happens in the mid terms. But (sadly) Americans asked for this and they got it.

[chasil]

I would not say that we asked for it.

The opposition refused to address internal issues with the incumbent until they were painfully evident, then switched in a much weaker candidate in the final months who had never won a primary.

Had a stronger candidate been offered from the beginning, Trump well could have lost.

[XorNot]

Really doesn't matter. America had two choices and made the one it did. It's clear what the country is, and is not.

[locknitpicker]

> That is rubbish. I loathe Trump more than most, but there's no serious claim that he wasn't freely elected in 2024.

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

[comfysocks]

In a way, America didn’t ask for what it got. America voted for a guy who claimed to have never heard of Project 2025. It got Project 2025.

Also, Trump ran on a populist message. Yet if you look at what he has done materially since he got into office, it seems his true allegiance is with the billionaire elite.

[pyuser583]

History is filled with countries that wanted their leader gone, but rejected foreign influence.

I think most Venezuelans want freedom, prosperity, peace, and sovereignty.

I’m not sure in what order.

[jacquesm]

Time will tell if this move brought them any closer to those goals.

[goatlover]

It's still military interference in a soverign nation to effect regime change.

[stickfigure]

Nevertheless, if you genuinely believe in the principles of democracy, this is a win.

It would have been better if Maduro had respected the choice of Venezuelan voters. But that didn't happen, so here we are.

[johnbellone]

I don’t really care to get involved of the affairs of foreign governments. This isn’t about “narcoterrorism” or democracy. You’re a fool if you think that.

[stickfigure]

I don't really care what it's "about". I care that the Venezuelan people get their democracy back. Even if Trump is doing this because the voices in his head told him to do it, ending Maduro's rule is a step in the right direction.

[overfeed]

> I care that the Venezuelan people get their democracy back.

They are not.

[goatlover]

Well first the Venezuelan people will have to wait while the Trump administration runs their government (the remaining Maduro administration) and oil fields until a stabile transition can take place as determined by the US government. So they haven't gotten their democracy back yet.

And Trump has decided the Nobel peace prize winner doesn't have enough support of the people to take over. So whatever democracy there is to be had in the future seems to be up to a foreign government.

[tjpnz]

History says the US will just install another dictator.

[jacquesm]

> Nevertheless, if you genuinely believe in the principles of democracy, this is a win.

That is at best premature. Maybe wait for the outcome?

[egeozcan]

Yes, foreign intervention worked wonderfully in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world. We should also thank Russia for trying hard to extend its thriving democracy to Ukraine.

[insane_dreamer]

that's always the convenient excuse of the foreign attackers -- that they are "liberating the people"

we've seen this over and over again in foreign policy of large powerful countries

lets not pretend that this is about establishing democracy; it's about access to Venezuelan oil

it's the US showing it can do whatever it wants in its "backyard", just as it always has

No wonder Trump likes Putin

[calf]

That just shows that popular will is not a justification for something. If the popular will was self destructive would a powerful entity be justified in giving them what they desire?

[wussboy]

I agree. “Wisdom of the crowd” is the least useful aspect of democracy. “Broad support” and “bloodless regime change” are probably the most useful.

[estearum]

Eh, Saddam Hussein wasn't terribly popular. History is full of awful people being toppled and situations further degrading. Sometimes horrifically.

[stickfigure]

Iraq was never a democracy. It bounced from monarchy to military rule to one party rule to Hussein's personal dictatorship.

Venezuela had a... let's call it "respectable" democracy since the late 50s. Chavez did it no favors but it didn't completely collapse until Maduro.

If Venezuela recovers and improves, are you willing to fundamentally change your opinion about US interventions?

[estearum]

> If Venezuela recovers and improves, are you willing to fundamentally change your opinion about US interventions?

Uhh, no?

My opinion is that US interventions are incredibly risky. There have been numerous successes. There have also been numerous failures. Both have required immense resources and focus from us.

Some interventions are worth the risk, and others are not. I have not seen any compelling rationale for the risk-reward of this particular intervention, and have very low hopes for the follow through, which makes the risk-reward calculus even worse.

[JKCalhoun]

Agree.

If I wear a blindfold, cross a highway and am not hit by a car, am I willing to concede that crossing the highway blindfolded is safe?

[mupuff1234]

You don't think Venezuela having the largest oils reserves on the planet and it being a strong ally to Russia, Iran and China make the possible reward fairly significant from a US standpoint?

[estearum]

Sure it's conceivable. Can you go a level deeper on your analysis?

Are you suggesting that cutting off oil flow to those nations will be advantageous to us? Is this like... tomorrow? During a potential armed conflict? When?

By what specific mechanism does the US assert "control" over the oil? POTUS just now said it's via a ground occupation "until transition of power." What's the transition plan?

[mupuff1234]

Not cutting off, but it's enough that the US increases oil supply which lowers the prices to significantly hurt Russia and Iran. And then you have China which is the main consumer of Venezuelan oil so you get another point of leverage.

Also probably helps to ensure the petro dollar is here to stay for longer.

Obviously this is a very shallow analysis, and there's definitely significant risks, but I do think it's obvious that it has large potential upsides.

[qcnguy]

China is heavily dependent on oil imports and a big part of Germany's defeat in WW2 was due to difficulties obtaining oil. This move may - if successful - change the calculation over Taiwan

[JKCalhoun]

"…it being a strong ally to Russia, Iran and China…"

You're making a pretty good case for high risk.

[mupuff1234]

You could easily say the same thing about not doing anything.

But also remember that Russia is occupied in Ukraine and couldn't even help the Assad regime which was a much closer ally, and same with Iran.

[ElectricalUnion]

> strong ally to Russia, Iran and China

It's more like (similar to other sanctioned countries) "forcibly coerced by the USA into being a ally of Russia, Iran and China by sanctions".

[singpolyma3]

Since the purpose of the interventions is to get more access for US oil companies, they are always successes

[catlifeonmars]

> Iraq was never a democracy. It bounced from monarchy to military rule to one party rule to Hussein's personal dictatorship.

In reference to this, have you seen the footage of Saddam Hussein taking power? It’s chilling.

[jacquesm]

Ethics debates are not served by utilitarian arguments.

[andsoitis]

> Ethics debates are not served by utilitarian arguments.

There isn't just a single universally agreed upon moral framework that serves as the basis for ethics.

Depending on whether you adopt a Rawlsian, Utilitarian, Libertarian, or Communitarian moral framework, your actions would look different depending on the circumstances.

Specially, the Utilitarian moral framework optimizes for the greatest good for the greatest number. Willing to sacrifice the few of the many. It might not be your or my moral framework, but I don't know that we can rule it out as a valid way to approach ethics.

[jacquesm]

> Specially, the Utilitarian moral framework optimizes for the greatest good for the greatest number.

No, the proponents of the utilitarian moral framework try to justify illegal actions retrospectively if the outcome was good and refuse to take responsibility if it is bad.

Ethics should guide your decisions beforehand and require you to take responsibility for all possible outcomes.

[andsoitis]

Not sure I follow your line of thinking.

Are you arguing that Utilitarianism isn't a way to guide decisions? And are you saying it is an invalid moral framework?

FWIW, many ethicists suggest using multiple frameworks and would argue using Utilitarianism for policy.

For example, in the EU utilitarianism is rarely used as the sole moral foundation but serves as the primary tool for practical decision-making and public policy. Most visible in how the EU balances competing interests to achieve the "greatest good".

[stickfigure]

I have no idea what you're saying.

If your hand is on the track switch, you're just as responsible for the trolley no matter which way it goes. Walking away from the switch does not absolve you.

[jablongo]

Would the Rawlsian say this is unacceptable?

[Hikikomori]

Ah so US will allow Venezuela to profit from their own oil? This time surely

[jacquesm]

I can't wait for the Total Energies or Shell Oil announcement.

[Hikikomori]

With investments from Kushners Saudi fund.

[JKCalhoun]

You know there are boardroom meetings going on right now…

[qcnguy]

Yes it will. Iraqi government budget is ~88% funded by oil revenues.

[amanaplanacanal]

I'm not sure using examples from the bush administration are necessarily relevant to the actions of the trump administration.

[ethbr1]

The issue with regime change is whether there's enough political cohesion in a country's population after a despot / autocrat is removed.

"The opposition" is rarely a large and representative enough group to effect national power transition. (Btw, thanks for flagging that incorrectly as affect, Apple)

Especially in multi-ethnic states, most cohesive national identities are forged through extremely popular singular leaders.

Unfortunately, those are exactly the same leaders external regime-change initiators are wary of (too independent).

[delabay]

This year's winner of the nobel prize is highly organized and ran a parallel election campaign, which was obviously dismissed by the Maduro regime. There is a slim possibility of a peaceful transition given the democratic efforts underway in Venezuela for many years at this point.

[estearum]

POTUS just said she's not involved, won't be involved, doesn't have the support necessary to lead. Who does? Unclear. His plan appears to be: "oil companies come in, sell the oil" and I'm seriously not exaggerating.

[ethbr1]

> His plan appears to be: "oil companies come in, sell the oil"

In terms of nation-building, it's not the worst plan. See Carville's "It's the economy, stupid."

Popular support of any government is mostly (a) quality of life & (b) individual freedom. Quality of life is directly correlated to the economy and public finances.

If someone can quickly boost Venezuelan oil production, and therefore state revenue, then all sorts of social funding programs become feasible.

The issue with autocracies is that they selectively enrich key supporter groups (internal police, military) at the expense of others (wider population).

If you can substantially boost public revenue, then you don't have to make a tradeoff -- everyone gets more!

And there are certainly worse beginnings for new governments.

(All of this ignoring the flagrant violation of international law, international ramifications vis-a-vis Taiwan, climate change, etc.)

[estearum]

I’m not saying it’s a bad idea. I’m saying it appears to be the entire idea, which makes it a bad one.

He was asked “who will govern” and “when will there be elections” and “will there be boots on the ground” over and over.

His answers were “I don’t know”.

[pbhjpbhj]

>In terms of nation-building, it's not the worst plan.

Building which nation? The despotic dictatorship of USA one would have to assume you mean. The profits are no more likely to go to Venezuela's further development than they are to bring in universal health care in USA.

QoL is nothing if it is bought through the pain and suffering of others.

I don't know why you think this is a new beginning, it's just extension of USA's dictatorship to ensure even more people suffer and the USA oligarchy gets even more insanely wealthy.

[jacquesm]

> Especially in multi-ethnic states, most cohesive national identities are forged through extremely popular singular leaders.

And before you know it you have a genocide on your hands.

[ethbr1]

Sometimes, but it can go the other way too.

Napoleon Bonaparte, Toussaint Louverture, Simon Bolivar, Giuseppe Mazzini, Otto von Bismarck, Mustafa Atatürk, Gamal Nasser

[jacquesm]

A whole bunch of those are not the counterexamples you think they are.

[ethbr1]

Want to point out which / why?

[michaelmrose]

The popular will is the woman the majority voted for. Trump already said she will not be allowed to run the country, that the US will and that we will help them develop, read steal, their oil.

[stickfigure]

The majority voted for Edmundo González, and María Corina Machado has called for him to be recognized as the leader of the nation.

It's complicated because Maduro banned her from running in the last election (and still lost anyway). In a just world maybe she deserves the position. But if we want to restore democracy in Venezuela, González would be a natural place to start (along with new elections).