And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[JBS]

 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10715.pdf

The sanctions are fairly minimal. They are less than those imposed on Cuba or Iran, which are for some reason not in a state of total collapse despite those sanctions.
Venezuala is what it us because Chavez, Maduro, and cronies have, in the name of the People and the Bolivarian Revolution, looted the country of most its important assets.

As I just said, anyone who claims Venezuela is what it is now is either lying or a fool.

[JBS]

China is pretty much the same if you substitute Black/Latino/Native American for Uighur/Tibetan (although the oppression is less all-pervasive; I have not seen any evidence of e.g. Tibetans facing systematic discrimination in hospitals) and Washington/Jefferson/Madison for Xi Jinping (although I don't think his face has been carved into any mountains yet). But if you don't think this is an accurate description of the USA, you lead a quite sheltered life.

Well, I work with a lot of black colleagues, and never heard any of them express the fear of being shot you claim. And they are pretty vocal about any perceived racism.

Actually you are cherry picking data points and mixing them with leftist dogma to pretend it is an accurate picture. And some of them, like claim of armed cops on every corner of ghetto neighborhoods, are not even close to reality.  You too live in an echo chamber.

[amw]

The sanctions are fairly minimal.

https://www.dw.com/en/the-human-cost-of-the-us-sanctions-on-venezuela/a-50647399
https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14446

Well, I work with a lot of black colleagues, and never heard any of them express the fear you claim.

Consider that your workplace may not be particularly representative of black/latino/native american communities throughout USA, and also that you can't rely exclusively on anecdotal evidence. Cherry pick some of your own data points, maybe. Mine come from a pretty broad variety of sources—the UN, supranational organisations, national governments both socialist and anti-socialist, newspapers, socialist historians, non-socialist historians, activist organisations, NGOs. I don't watch youtube videos.

I could argue with equal accuracy that Florestan's list of the problems of socialist Romania is a mix of cherry picked data points with rightist dogma. (And I do live in an echo chamber of pro-american propaganda, but so do you, & most other people who live in the USA/UK/Australia/New Zealand, really.)

[JBS]

https://www.dw.com/en/the-human-cost-of-the-us-sanctions-on-venezuela/a-50647399
https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14446
Consider that your workplace may not be particularly representative of black/latino/native american communities throughout USA, and also that you can't rely exclusively on anecdotal evidence. Cherry pick some of your own data points, maybe. Mine come from a pretty broad variety of sources—the UN, supranational organisations, national governments both socialist and anti-socialist, newspapers, socialist historians, non-socialist historians, activist organisations, NGOs. I don't watch youtube videos.

I could argue with equal accuracy that Florestan's list of the problems of socialist Romania is a mix of cherry picked data points with rightist dogma. (And I do live in an echo chamber of pro-american propaganda, but so do you, & most other people who live in the USA/UK/Australia/New Zealand, really.)

The point is that you are simply channeling leftist propaganda. The DW is completely misleading because it ignores the years of looting by the regime and its cronies. As I said, anyone who blames the current state of Venezuela on sanctions is either lying or a fool.   Decide for yourself which one fits yourself.

[71 dB]

The sanctions are fairly minimal. They are less than those imposed on Cuba or Iran, which are for some reason not in a state of total collapse despite those sanctions.
Venezuala is what it us because Chavez, Maduro, and cronies have, in the name of the People and the Bolivarian Revolution, looted the country of most its important assets.

As I just said, anyone who claims Venezuela is what it is now is either lying or a fool.

You are something, aren't you? The sanctions are fairly minimal? Oh, good! I believe the people of Venezuela might disagree, but maybe they understand as little as I do? I didn't say the problems in Venezuela are 100 % caused by US sanctions, but the sanctions defenitely make things even worse and what the US wants from Venezuela is cheap oil. John Bolton even said it out loud.

[Mirror Image]

Scarpia has me blocked (with good reason) and I can't send him a private message, so I'll do it on this thread with hopes he'll read it:

Hey Scarpia,

I just wanted to apologize for my ad hominem attack on you last night. It was completely uncalled for and, yes, you were being respectful with your response to my post. I hope this doesn't tarnish things between us. I'm sorry.

Take care,



John

[amw]

The DW is completely misleading because it ignores the years of looting by the regime and its cronies.

For which you don't seem to be supplying a source because the top Google results claiming that widespread corruption was harming Venezeula's economy before 2015 are the Cato Institute and Freedom House? Or is this not something you've bothered to look up yourself, and are just repeating what you heard on CNN?

(For the record, a Google Scholar search on the terms "venezuela corruption" mostly turns up either articles from before 1998, when Chávez took power, or from after 2015, when the US's current economic and political war on Venezuela began. The exceptions are articles that come directly from people who held leadership positions in Venezuela's government and economy prior to Chávez's election, and therefore are hard to take at face value.)

[JBS]

For which you don't seem to be supplying a source because the top Google results claiming that widespread corruption was harming Venezeula's economy before 2017 are the Cato Institute and Freedom House? Or is this not something you've bothered to look up yourself, and are just repeating what you heard on CNN?

I'm assuming you have no real knowledge of Venezuela if you think Chavez was not tanking hus country's economy for over a decade in the name of the People.

Anyway, here' a Wikipedia article that stretches its narrative all the way back to Bolivar.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Venezuela

[amw]

Anyway, here' a Wikipedia article that stretches its narrative all the way back to Bolivar.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Venezuela

I note that this article doesn't show any evidence that corruption caused the economic collapse the country has gone thru since 2015, and also that sources like the US Department of the Treasury & Department of Homeland Security, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post have built-in biases that must be accounted for. Some of the claims in the article come from inherently unreliable sources (e.g. Gustavo Coronel, Stratfor). Other claims depend on one's political affiliation (i.e. whether one thinks the FARC and Hezbollah are legitimate political organisations or terrorist groups). Finally there are claims that are sufficiently widely sourced as to probably be accurate.

This is not to say whether and to what extent corruption was a factor in its economic decline after the US imposed sanctions in 2015—to answer that question, I would likely have to learn Spanish, travel to Venezuela and do a good deal of on-the-ground research. I'm just commenting on how sites like Wikipedia use sources that present unreliable or untrue information (eg Cato Institute, US Treasury Dept), alongside sources that present likely-true information in a biased way (eg Washington Post, Foreign Policy), alongside mostly accurate sources (eg Reuters), to build up the false impression of an overwhelming consensus around a certain political view—namely that Chavez and Maduro were "looting the country's wealth" in sufficient quantities as to cause economic collapse. The fact that that economic collapse happened to coincide with US economic warfare is written out of the article altogether. (I note that the Wikipedia article does not contain a single mention of US sanctions against Venezuela.)

So if you're accusing me of media illiteracy while you take Wikipedia articles completely at face value, consider........ not doing that.

[JBS]

Meantime, I went poking about the Web a bit. Since Denmark is cited as Bernie's ideal, I checked on the Danish approach to affordable housing and housing for the poor. It seems to be close to what we already have here in the US, with public housing and subsidized rents. The main innovation seems to be social housing. If I understand it correctly,  private entities using public subsidies can build an apartment building that functions like public housing, with limits on rent, etc.  But it's not much different from the US now.

Bernie's proposal would be aimed at private housing stock, both houses and apartments, using federal regulations to mandate prices and rents, and to whom, in the name of ethnic diversity, units could be sold or rented to, and mandating size and environmental factors. Some but not all of this is already done at the state and local levels, but not at the federal level. It thus is much more intrusive and controlling than Danish programs.

So in this aspect at least Bernie is not following the Danish model.

[JBS]

I note that this article doesn't show any evidence that corruption caused the economic collapse the country has gone thru since 2015, and also that sources like the US Department of the Treasury & Department of Homeland Security, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post have built-in biases that must be accounted for. Some of the claims in the article come from inherently unreliable sources (e.g. Gustavo Coronel, Stratfor). Other claims depend on one's political affiliation (i.e. whether one thinks the FARC and Hezbollah are legitimate political organisations or terrorist groups). Finally there are claims that are sufficiently widely sourced as to probably be accurate.

This is not to say whether and to what extent corruption was a factor in its economic decline after the US imposed sanctions in 2015—to answer that question, I would likely have to learn Spanish, travel to Venezuela and do a good deal of on-the-ground research. I'm just commenting on how sites like Wikipedia use sources that present unreliable or untrue information (eg Cato Institute, US Treasury Dept), alongside sources that present likely-true information in a biased way (eg Washington Post, Foreign Policy), alongside mostly accurate sources (eg Reuters), to build up the false impression of an overwhelming consensus around a certain political view—namely that Chavez and Maduro were "looting the country's wealth" in sufficient quantities as to cause economic collapse. The fact that that economic collapse happened to coincide with US economic warfare is written out of the article altogether. (I note that the Wikipedia article does not contain a single mention of US sanctions against Venezuela.)

So if you're accusing me of media illiteracy while you take Wikipedia articles completely at face value, consider........ not doing that.

Your argument amounts to announcing that when facts conflict with your opinions, you'll decide they are not facts.

BTW, the economic collapse started about a decade ago. That's when middle class people started to realize they needed to emigrate.

[amw]

Your argument amounts to announcing that when facts conflict with your opinions, you'll decide they are not facts.

Seems like you're the one confusing facts with opinions here if you think everything written in the Wall Street Journal or reported in a Treasury Department press release is a "fact".

[JBS]

Seems like you're the one confusing facts with opinions here if you think everything written in the Wall Street Journal or reported in a Treasury Department press release is a "fact".

I don't make that mistake. You, however, seem to veer in the opposite direction.

[amw]

I don't make that mistake. You, however, seem to veer in the opposite direction.

Good talk. Let's do it again sometime.

[Ratliff]

Scarpia has me blocked (with good reason) and I can't send him a private message, so I'll do it on this thread with hopes he'll read it:

Apology accepted, I also overreacted.

[Mirror Image]

Apology accepted, I also overreacted.

Thank you, Scarpia. You're a good friend.

[Mirror Image]

I also wanted to apologize to everyone here who I acted like a jerk to and this includes the other political threads I have frequented recently. There are some views best left unexpressed and one of them is my own. I don't really have a reason to have any kind of anger or hostility towards anyone --- I've been fortunate in my life (so far). I really should continue to point the mirror on myself. I guess one reason I'm so frustrated (and this really shouldn't be the case) is I haven't found the right woman yet and it just feels like each time I may have met someone, the whole thing explodes right before me. I say this with gratitude to everyone here. I should just stick with music --- this has been the only happiness I've been able to find so far in this life.

[SimonNZ]

In my opinion: it's completely fine if you express an opinion completely opposed to my own. Please continue to do so.

[amw]

In my opinion: it's completely fine if you express an opinion completely opposed to my own. Please continue to do so.

I agree with this, & don't consider divergent political views something that should get in the way of friendship or comradeship in other areas. Whether you are reactionaries, revisionists, ultras, left-deviationists, or merely have a slight difference of opinion with me over the 1956 Hungarian uprising, you're all OK in my view as human beings (standard exception for the half a dozen or so accounts I have on ignore).

[Ratliff]

I agree with this, & don't consider divergent political views something that should get in the way of friendship or comradeship in other areas. Whether you are reactionaries, revisionists, ultras, left-deviationists, or merely have a slight difference of opinion with me over the 1956 Hungarian uprising, you're all OK in my view as human beings (standard exception for the half a dozen or so accounts I have on ignore).

Now you've got me wondering if that's me.