FM Chrystia Freeland Bans Venezuelans Voting in Canada: RESIGN NOW!!

Maduro easily wins second term in Venezuela Election

That's just the headline for now.  I'll link to the actual news story in 8 hours when one's available.

Quote:

If he does that, it's because there was no "opposition" figure that could ever possibly have been popular.

Not quite true.  Capriles could have been.  Lopez might have been too.  Pardon my cynicism, but I think that if their failure was guaranteed, they'd have been permitted to run just so they could lose.

Venezuela is not controlled by NATO's banksters so it is obviously evil. If the people are fortunate and NATO manages to make a regime change I think a theocratic monarchy would make a good fit with the rest of our allies.

Hoodeet wrote:

López and Capriles are pro-U.S. members of the bourgeoisie.  They supported and encouraged the street violence and attempted coups.  López's political movement is out and out fascist.    Henri Falcón was a viable candidate - the only opposition leader who had the courage to break ranks and run.  The fact that he favours dollarization and privatization of public services will not serve him well among informed voters, but he stands to get support.  The evangelical candidate who also advocates privatization as a way of placating the U.S. has run his strong campaign.   The media in Venezuela are largely in private hands and have been quite outspoken, plus Venezuelans receive daily doses of anti-Maduro propaganda from the hostile radio stations in neighbouring Colombia.    The international campaign against the PSUV has been extreme and Canada's role in it unconscionable.

Thanks for this reality check, Hoodeet. As for Canada... well, I don't blame Chrystia Bravehome for having a Nazi grandfather, except when she follows in his footsteps. Venezuela is one of the examples where she has sold herself to the enemy, just as grampa did. She should seriously be locked up and put on a rigid diet.

And the fact is, the "opposition" would have been trying to overthrow the PSUV no matter what it did.  They would have been fomenting violent protests no matter what.  They would have been hoarding toilet paper and other consumer goods no matter what.  The "opposition" wasn't going to accept ANY alternative, or even any respite from, perpetual austerity.

And had the "opposition" stayed in power rather than falling in the Nineties, it would have kept on doing what it had done, privatizing, slashing wages, slashing social benefits, raising food and electricity prices over and over and over, and slaughtering nonviolent trade union members in the street for protesting that austerity.   The Perez government that did those things called itself "social democratic".  It practiced what you'd call "sensible socialism".  It obeyed the empire to the north at every single moment.

I'd just like to thank everyone, in advance, for not engaging Mr. Magoo in his patented agent provocateur trolling antics™ on this issue.

The Empire and the Election

Today, Venezuelans will go to the polls to elect the country’s next president. In the United States, the election has been widely condemned as a sham. While there are good reasons to be highly critical of the election, calling it a sham is a dangerously misleading simplification of a complex and dynamic reality. Most importantly, this stance ignores the very real possibility that the opposition could have won the election, and the fact that this is unlikely to happen not because of government fraud, but due to the hardline opposition’s myopic decision to boycott the election. The sham election narrative is dangerous because it plays into the US government’s and hardline opposition’s longstanding pursuit of (violent) regime change, a ridiculous and illegal strategy that has contributed to Venezuela’s profound woes, as have highly inept government policies....

Quote:

While there are good reasons to be highly critical of the election, calling it a sham is a dangerously misleading simplification of a complex and dynamic reality. Most importantly, this stance ignores the very real possibility that the opposition could have won the election, and the fact that this is unlikely to happen not because of government fraud, but due to the hardline opposition’s myopic decision to boycott the election.

I would mostly agree.  One cannot hope to win a race that they choose not to run in.

But that's not, logically, exclusive of calling that race a sham, particularly if that's why you chose not to run.  It's kind of on the opposition if they chose to sit it out, but it's also on them to say how losing by default improves anything.  Notwithstanding, of course, those who were deemed ineligible to run because they might have won.

..more from post #24

quote:

If the government were truly committed to the revolutionary transformation of society, a claim that had credibility through 2013, such tactics could perhaps be seen as justified by a logic of “the ends justify the means,” a view that is of course subject to critique. It is nearly impossible, however, to see how the Maduro administration could be considered genuinely revolutionary, given that its maintenance of inept policies — most notably Venezuela’s disastrous currency policy — is widely viewed as the leading reason for the country’s current economic debacle, including by leftist economists like Mark Weisbrot who have been sympathetic to the government for years. Far from being revolutionary, Venezuela’s current government has repeatedly demonstrated its unwillingness and incapacity to even meet its citizens’ basic needs.

This, in fact, is why the current election cannot be considered a mere sham, notwithstanding the severe problems already noted. The profundity of Venezuela’s crisis, and the government’s continuing demonstration that it will not or cannot do what it takes to resolve the crisis, has made this election genuinely competitive. Repeated polls show that the main opposition candidate, Henri Falcón, has a strong chance to win the election. Polls taken in the last week put Falcón up by between 8.5 and 13 points.

quote:

The second reason that a Maduro victory is likely is that he retains significant popular support. This fact is difficult for people in the United States to fathom, but evidence shows that it is true. There are a few reasons that can explain this continuing popular support. For one, the Hugo Chávez administration’s policies enabled significant material gains for the popular sectors between 2004 and 2013. The memory of these gains is not easily erased. Relatedly, despite his disastrous handling of Venezuela’s economy, Maduro has maintained a symbolic, and to a lesser extent practical, link to this past. The government’s CLAP program, which distributed badly needed food, is not only a means for pressuring voters, but also a demonstration that the Maduro administration continues to care about the poor and working class in Venezuela.

Unionist wrote:

I'd just like to thank everyone, in advance, for not engaging Mr. Magoo in his patented agent provocateur trolling antics™ on this issue.

Thanks for the chuckle Unionist!

You know, when you try to be funny, you’re not. And sometimes when you’re comments are not meant to be humorous, they are. 

But really, you’re just being mean. 

In the CBC article I read it mentioned there are 5,000 Venezuelans in Canada, so clearly it wasn't about changing the election, and the government probably opened themselves up to more criticism than any benefit from doing this.

Don't know how those 5,000 people feel, but if it is anything like the one citizen I know, maybe they should have let them vote, assuming it would get past the embassy. These are people who left the country, after all, remember? Then there's this:

http://www.timescolonist.com/some-venezuelan-canadians-say-ottawa-right-...

I just don't understand the logic bechind banning the voting.  Most often expatriates vote against the political leanings of the country they come from. So if anything the voters in Canada would likely have a bone to pick with the current regime.

The reasons given appear to be missing a deadline and disapproval about the process. I hope they are consistent and deny polls opening in the US election.

Unionist wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I'd just like to thank everyone, in advance, for not engaging Mr. Magoo in his patented agent provocateur trolling antics™ on this issue.

Thanks for the chuckle Unionist!

You know, when you try to be funny, you’re not. And sometimes when you’re comments are not meant to be humorous, they are. 

But really, you’re just being mean. 

Magoo is special, and he came into this discussion as usual to give us a pro-U.S. take on Venezuela. The only reason he isn't banned from this site is because we love him.

But why did you comment about me? Have I ever said a mean word about you? I strongly advise you to give opinions about the content of other people's posts. If you make asinine and unfriendly statements like the one you've just made, you will be at best ignored, and at worst called names. Either way, we will miss the intelligent and constructive things you have to say.

I've done nothing to you. So consider retracting your personal insult. Thank you.

Indeed.  What possible reason could you have to attack Unionist?  

First off I apologize to brother Unionist. I think I unintentionally insulted your sense of humour. I can go into this deeper but to avoid thread drift, please just accept my apologies. 

As far as Mr Magoo goes, he is expressing his opinion or voicing an opinion/view/idea etc etc. And this shouldn’t be discouraged. 

Mr Magoo has made comments I don’t like and I have snapped back, so maybe I’m being a hypocrite?

I find it odd the you posters find this squabble more interesting than the subject of a cabinet minister potentially destroying Canada’s reputation????

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I don't want them to elect the government that you assume the U.S. wants.  I want them to elect the government that THEY want, and to not have to lose their government food rations if they do.

There you go with stupid biased comments. You will never accept a government that the people want because you will always buy the right wing bullshit that the elections are not good enough.

I wish the people of the US had the right to vote in a fair and free election but they don't. You never complain about their rigged elections because they always result in the NATO banksters controlling everything. Like most Western useful idiots you only ever denigrate left wing governments but the bizarre part is you seem to actually think your world view has something to do with democracy and freedom.

Quote:

I wish the people of the US had the right to vote in a fair and free election but they don't. You never complain about their rigged elections because they always result in the NATO banksters controlling everything.

So you're literally claiming:

1.  U.S. elections aren't free or fair.

2.  Venezuelan elections -- despite the government enjoying sole use of state media for electioneering, and despite the state declaring opposition candidates ineligible to run for office for a decade or more, and despite the disgusting use of so-called 'red points' -- are totally legit.

3. I'm stubbornly unwilling to admit to these awesome truths because I hope that NATO bankers had won the Venezuela election.

Why do I feel like if Justin Trudeau used the CBC to run ads for the Liberal Party, and solely the Liberal Party, you'd say there was something hinky about that?  

Why do I feel like people enjoy pointing at Jimmy Carter's proclamation, several years ago, that Venezuelan elections are the bestest in the whole wide world, even as they would never sit quiet if a Canadian government pulled that shit?

For the record, if the U.S. electorate really wants Jill Stein taking the wheel, I'm not going to complain.  It's any country's right to make a foolish choice at the ballot box. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Not just the United States, in fact most other countries in the hemisphere have gone further than them:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/ar...

Why is Canada a part of this Lima Group anyway.