Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Kung Fu Cantona ππΌ π΅πΈ (U18082)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 12 minutes ago
She was talking about the system but the references to the 'bad guy' is clearly Trump, she's right about campaign finance but also playing to the idea that Trump is a corrupt president. Not sure where you got the numbers from but according to these Trump self funded $66m, 13% was funded by special interest donors (82m to Clinton's 217m) and raised 564m from individual donors a little more than half of what Clinton raised.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/12/08/donald-trumps-campaign-investment-hit-66-million/95178392/
He self funded the majority until he won the nomination and then relied on donations after, she's right to highlight the amount of money needed to run for president which is crazy, and it's good that she did but Trump is the least corruptible president from special interests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's the least corruptible President, why is he in the process of launching an illegal coup in Venezuela for their oil?
He's a slightly thicker version of every other US President.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe and almost all of South America support the opposition leader while Russia and China support Maduro so we are probably on the right side but f he does get involved with the military then it goes against what he campaigned on.
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 55 minutes ago
How is he the least corruptable? That makes no sense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He self funded more and relied less on corporate donors than other presidents in recent history. He's also doing most of the things he campaigned on so I don't think he's influenced that much and does things more on instincts and political calculations. From a campaign finance point of view it's actually good that he won, normally the candidate who raises the most money wins but he won by spending around half of what Clinton did.
Dave I was wrong to say he self funded most of his campaign whereas your entire post is based on facts that aren't even close to being right. So don't know what you're being so snide and childish about What's relevant is the donations from Super PAC's. Individual donations are mostly small donations from normal people for nothing in return. Saying he took out loans that 'may' have been used for the campaign is pointless if there's no evidence, just like if there's no evidence he's using the presidency to enrich himself then it's a false accusation.
Of course it's better if he didn't get any donations from special interests and the whole election process there taking about a year and the amount of money it costs is stupid so I don't disagree with her on that but the cryptic trying to be clever way of attacking Trump is what I wasn't a fan of.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 55 minutes ago
How is he the least corruptable? That makes no sense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He self funded more and relied less on corporate donors than other presidents in recent history. He's also doing most of the things he campaigned on so I don't think he's influenced that much and does things more on instincts and political calculations. From a campaign finance point of view it's actually good that he won, normally the candidate who raises the most money wins but he won by spending around half of what Clinton did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And collusion? Be very interesting to what mauler finds. Given most of his support staff have been arrested.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona ππΌ π΅πΈ (U18082)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 12 minutes ago
She was talking about the system but the references to the 'bad guy' is clearly Trump, she's right about campaign finance but also playing to the idea that Trump is a corrupt president. Not sure where you got the numbers from but according to these Trump self funded $66m, 13% was funded by special interest donors (82m to Clinton's 217m) and raised 564m from individual donors a little more than half of what Clinton raised.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/12/08/donald-trumps-campaign-investment-hit-66-million/95178392/
He self funded the majority until he won the nomination and then relied on donations after, she's right to highlight the amount of money needed to run for president which is crazy, and it's good that she did but Trump is the least corruptible president from special interests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's the least corruptible President, why is he in the process of launching an illegal coup in Venezuela for their oil?
He's a slightly thicker version of every other US President.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe and almost all of South America support the opposition leader while Russia and China support Maduro so we are probably on the right side but f he does get involved with the military then it goes against what he campaigned on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions. The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship" Trump addressing the UN Sept 2018
We're absolutely not on the right side!
Maduro is the democratically elected leader with over 70% of the electorate voting for him. He isn't a dictator, people want him there and mass demonstrations have been taking place in support of him.
https://twitter.com/AbbyMartin/status/1091836605847851008
Even if only 51% of the electorate voted for him and no demonstrations took place, America would be violating the sovereignty of an independent nation.
Britain has gone nuts over Brexit and having independence from the EU and now Brexiters and those who apparently love democracy are supporting another ILLEGAL endeavour by the USA.
The United States has gone so far as to elect their own leader, Juan Guaidó, after the coup is done and dusted.
Which Venezuelan elected him?
What's happening out there is disgusting and the lack of media coverage is even worse.
US weapons shipments being smuggled into Venezuela for the opposition have already been found.
https://www.rt.com/news/450751-trump-venezuela-weapons-freedom/
“I’m only interested in Libya if we take the oil. If we don't take the oil, I have no interest in Libya,” TRUMP
That's how much he cares about people when the illegal invasions take place.
The opposition boycotted the election and there was claims of vote rigging, the opposition is asking America for humanitarian aid. I don't know much detail but only one country in South America supports maduro so it's not just America.
Maduro is the democratically elected leader with over 70% of the electorate voting for him. He isn't a dictator, people want him there and mass demonstrations have been taking place in support of him.
----------------
While I agree with your sentiments about US involvement, the claim above has to be taken with a very large pinch of salt in light of Maduro's clampdowns on opposition leaders and tightening grip on power.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
The opposition boycotted the election and there was claims of vote rigging, the opposition is asking America for humanitarian aid. I don't know much detail but only one country in South America supports maduro so it's not just America.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They boycotted it, tough then. Maduro has done nothing wrong.
Claims of rigging? There are claims that Russia helped rig the elections in the USA which Trumo won. Do claims justify an illegal coup and invasion?
I don’t care if every single country in the world supports the overthrow of Maduro, Venezuela sovereignty is being violated. This isn’t even about other countries this is about Trump and how he isn’t corruptable.... he seems very corruptable considering he’s doing the exact same thing previous Presidents have done.
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Maduro is the democratically elected leader with over 70% of the electorate voting for him. He isn't a dictator, people want him there and mass demonstrations have been taking place in support of him.
----------------
While I agree with your sentiments about US involvement, the claim above has to be taken with a very large pinch of salt in light of Maduro's clampdowns on opposition leaders and tightening grip on power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He’s an unsavoury character but the level of support he has on the streets is quite something.
Search on YouTube and you’ll see mass demonstrations in support for him and some western journalists (search abbey Martin) have conducted interviews with ordinary people on the streets. These all paint a different picture to the one our media portray.
I’d prefer a different leader in Venezuela my self but then it’s not up to me or anybody else but the Venezuelans, which I’m sure you already understand.
I just can’t believe we’re watching another coup unfold and nobody in our country or in the states gives a schit. The masses are totally blind to the corruption in their own systems of government, either that or they don’t give a schit.
Like I said I don't know much about the situation but if so many countries oppose him then he must have done something wrong. I don't agree with America getting involved but lets see if it happens first before criticising him. He campaigned on not intervening so if he does then I'm not sure what his supporters will make of it.
What you don’t understand is, whatever he did wrong nobody has the right to intervene unless the guy breaks international law and starts killing his own people, WHICH ISN’T happening.
The only people wrong in this equation are the countries supporting Juan Guaidó, who is unelected.
Most of these countries are supporting the States because they’ll stop receiving aid. It’s the same as Iraq, 35 countries supported that illegal invasion, was it the right thing to do? Why do you think Costa Rica supported the Iraq war, do you think they have a schit or is it because they receive schit loads of aid from America?
You say let’s see what happens but it’s already happened, American weapons smuggled in have been found.
Juan Guaidó has already been backed.
Tanks are assembling on the Colombian border.
Negotiations for Venezuelan oil with American firms have already begun.
Trumo has gone back on his word not to interfere at all in the affairs and business of other countries.
Admit it, he’s as corrupt as everybody else.
comment by Kung Fu Cantona ππΌ π΅πΈ (U18082)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Maduro is the democratically elected leader with over 70% of the electorate voting for him. He isn't a dictator, people want him there and mass demonstrations have been taking place in support of him.
----------------
While I agree with your sentiments about US involvement, the claim above has to be taken with a very large pinch of salt in light of Maduro's clampdowns on opposition leaders and tightening grip on power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He’s an unsavoury character but the level of support he has on the streets is quite something.
---------------
Based on what, videos? I've seen lots of videos purporting to show pro- and anti-Maduro rallies and what they all have in common is how small scale they all are. A few thousand people looks very impressive from a close-up wide angle drone shot but is an absolutely insignificant number as a measure of popular support.
Maduro's government has rigged the system in his favour through the creation of a new legislative Assembly (a move which the vast majority of Venezuelans disagreed with according to polling) packed full of loyalists, banning of opposition parties and jailing of opposition leaders. He won an "election" where voter turnout was some 36% lower than the past 2 elections. That should give you an idea of how many people stopped believing in the democratic process.
The idea that he is a legitimately democratically-elected leader is weak at best.
The only people wrong in this equation are the countries supporting Juan Guaidó, who is unelected.
------------
The role of interim president, as per article 233 of the Venezuelan consitution, is not one which requires election. It's an acting role granted to the President of the National Assembly in the event that there is an "absence" of a President-elect. Now of course, the legitimacy of this course of action is a HUGE sticking point here, but essentially under some circumstances the President of the National Assembly (i.e. Juan Guaido) may be declared Interim President.
Kung Fu
When I said least corrupt I'm talking about being in the pockets of corporate donors. On a personal level we all know he is dodgy from his character and things he's done in the past. Politically he's less corrupt than the majority of elected politicians. As a leader he's fulfilling (or trying to) what he said he would do which makes him more honest than most leaders. Just because people voted for him or support him doesn't mean they agree with everything he does. If he invades Venezuela and steals their oil then I'll criticise it.
comment by baz ta’rd (U19119)
posted 1 day, 2 hours ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 55 minutes ago
How is he the least corruptable? That makes no sense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He self funded more and relied less on corporate donors than other presidents in recent history. He's also doing most of the things he campaigned on so I don't think he's influenced that much and does things more on instincts and political calculations. From a campaign finance point of view it's actually good that he won, normally the candidate who raises the most money wins but he won by spending around half of what Clinton did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And collusion? Be very interesting to what mauler finds. Given most of his support staff have been arrested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are all really tired of this "Russian Collusion" narrative now. 2 years of nothingburger is all we got out of it so far.
We interfere in elections all the time. Why people are getting up and arms about it is beyond me.
Also the Venezuela stuff. I'd like the US to leave it alone but the oil contracts there are lucrative af. Ain't nobody going to sit idly on the sidelines.
comment by Freedom FC πΊπΈ (U7214)
posted 1 hour, 57 minutes ago
comment by baz ta’rd (U19119)
posted 1 day, 2 hours ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 55 minutes ago
How is he the least corruptable? That makes no sense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He self funded more and relied less on corporate donors than other presidents in recent history. He's also doing most of the things he campaigned on so I don't think he's influenced that much and does things more on instincts and political calculations. From a campaign finance point of view it's actually good that he won, normally the candidate who raises the most money wins but he won by spending around half of what Clinton did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And collusion? Be very interesting to what mauler finds. Given most of his support staff have been arrested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are all really tired of this "Russian Collusion" narrative now. 2 years of nothingburger is all we got out of it so far.
We interfere in elections all the time. Why people are getting up and arms about it is beyond me.
Also the Venezuela stuff. I'd like the US to leave it alone but the oil contracts there are lucrative af. Ain't nobody going to sit idly on the sidelines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We haven’t had mueller’s report yet....
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 4 hours, 24 minutes ago
The only people wrong in this equation are the countries supporting Juan Guaidó, who is unelected.
------------
The role of interim president, as per article 233 of the Venezuelan consitution, is not one which requires election. It's an acting role granted to the President of the National Assembly in the event that there is an "absence" of a President-elect. Now of course, the legitimacy of this course of action is a HUGE sticking point here, but essentially under some circumstances the President of the National Assembly (i.e. Juan Guaido) may be declared Interim President.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe declared by who?
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 4 hours, 37 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona ππΌ π΅πΈ (U18082)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Maduro is the democratically elected leader with over 70% of the electorate voting for him. He isn't a dictator, people want him there and mass demonstrations have been taking place in support of him.
----------------
While I agree with your sentiments about US involvement, the claim above has to be taken with a very large pinch of salt in light of Maduro's clampdowns on opposition leaders and tightening grip on power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He’s an unsavoury character but the level of support he has on the streets is quite something.
---------------
Based on what, videos? I've seen lots of videos purporting to show pro- and anti-Maduro rallies and what they all have in common is how small scale they all are. A few thousand people looks very impressive from a close-up wide angle drone shot but is an absolutely insignificant number as a measure of popular support.
Maduro's government has rigged the system in his favour through the creation of a new legislative Assembly (a move which the vast majority of Venezuelans disagreed with according to polling) packed full of loyalists, banning of opposition parties and jailing of opposition leaders. He won an "election" where voter turnout was some 36% lower than the past 2 elections. That should give you an idea of how many people stopped believing in the democratic process.
The idea that he is a legitimately democratically-elected leader is weak at best.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I worked as a cameraman for news channels I absolutely know what a lens can do to a crowd. A drone hovering over the top of a gigantic crowd is absolutely different, the drone is also mounted with a wide lens so if anything it should make a crowd look smaller.
If only a few people are there you use a long lens and shoot from a distance so the people in the back look closer to the front making the crowd look more compact and full. You also shoot from low.
The video I supplied isn’t the only proof out there, have a look.
Would think they say something by now if they found something.
Been waiting for 3 years for Trump to get the boot. Ironically Trump was whinging on about Russia collusion on the democrats end before the election only for him to be accused of this for 3 years lmfao
comment by Freedom FC πΊπΈ (U7214)
posted 44 minutes ago
Would think they say something by now if they found something.
Been waiting for 3 years for Trump to get the boot. Ironically Trump was whinging on about Russia collusion on the democrats end before the election only for him to be accused of this for 3 years lmfao
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to forget ‘crooked hillary’ only for his daughter to do the same thing
The complex web of deceit of Trump is being narrated through the drip drip of Muellers indictments, guilty pleas and jail time.
comment by Freedom FC πΊπΈ (U7214)
posted 56 minutes ago
Would think they say something by now if they found something.
Been waiting for 3 years for Trump to get the boot. Ironically Trump was whinging on about Russia collusion on the democrats end before the election only for him to be accused of this for 3 years lmfao
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From my understanding the investigation is one of the largest ever undertaken. Mueller has brought in specialist investigators from the IRS for example who are investigating money laundering (which is also tied in to the wider Russian GRU involvement).
This is a decent read on the investigation:
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/12/08/much-of-the-mueller-report-is-already-public-what-does-it-say
If they do find proof of trump colluding (and I bet there is to some degree), I’m not sure they’d actually release it fully. If trump was impeached, the wacko’s and fundimental nutcases would rise up. Would the risk the potential anarchy?
I’m not so sure.
Sign in if you want to comment
Anything Goes Politics Edition
Page 258 of 274
259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263
posted on 10/2/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/19
comment by Kung Fu Cantona ππΌ π΅πΈ (U18082)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 12 minutes ago
She was talking about the system but the references to the 'bad guy' is clearly Trump, she's right about campaign finance but also playing to the idea that Trump is a corrupt president. Not sure where you got the numbers from but according to these Trump self funded $66m, 13% was funded by special interest donors (82m to Clinton's 217m) and raised 564m from individual donors a little more than half of what Clinton raised.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/12/08/donald-trumps-campaign-investment-hit-66-million/95178392/
He self funded the majority until he won the nomination and then relied on donations after, she's right to highlight the amount of money needed to run for president which is crazy, and it's good that she did but Trump is the least corruptible president from special interests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's the least corruptible President, why is he in the process of launching an illegal coup in Venezuela for their oil?
He's a slightly thicker version of every other US President.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe and almost all of South America support the opposition leader while Russia and China support Maduro so we are probably on the right side but f he does get involved with the military then it goes against what he campaigned on.
posted on 10/2/19
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 55 minutes ago
How is he the least corruptable? That makes no sense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He self funded more and relied less on corporate donors than other presidents in recent history. He's also doing most of the things he campaigned on so I don't think he's influenced that much and does things more on instincts and political calculations. From a campaign finance point of view it's actually good that he won, normally the candidate who raises the most money wins but he won by spending around half of what Clinton did.
posted on 10/2/19
Dave I was wrong to say he self funded most of his campaign whereas your entire post is based on facts that aren't even close to being right. So don't know what you're being so snide and childish about What's relevant is the donations from Super PAC's. Individual donations are mostly small donations from normal people for nothing in return. Saying he took out loans that 'may' have been used for the campaign is pointless if there's no evidence, just like if there's no evidence he's using the presidency to enrich himself then it's a false accusation.
Of course it's better if he didn't get any donations from special interests and the whole election process there taking about a year and the amount of money it costs is stupid so I don't disagree with her on that but the cryptic trying to be clever way of attacking Trump is what I wasn't a fan of.
posted on 10/2/19
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 55 minutes ago
How is he the least corruptable? That makes no sense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He self funded more and relied less on corporate donors than other presidents in recent history. He's also doing most of the things he campaigned on so I don't think he's influenced that much and does things more on instincts and political calculations. From a campaign finance point of view it's actually good that he won, normally the candidate who raises the most money wins but he won by spending around half of what Clinton did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And collusion? Be very interesting to what mauler finds. Given most of his support staff have been arrested.
posted on 10/2/19
Mueller*
posted on 10/2/19
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona ππΌ π΅πΈ (U18082)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 12 minutes ago
She was talking about the system but the references to the 'bad guy' is clearly Trump, she's right about campaign finance but also playing to the idea that Trump is a corrupt president. Not sure where you got the numbers from but according to these Trump self funded $66m, 13% was funded by special interest donors (82m to Clinton's 217m) and raised 564m from individual donors a little more than half of what Clinton raised.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/12/08/donald-trumps-campaign-investment-hit-66-million/95178392/
He self funded the majority until he won the nomination and then relied on donations after, she's right to highlight the amount of money needed to run for president which is crazy, and it's good that she did but Trump is the least corruptible president from special interests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's the least corruptible President, why is he in the process of launching an illegal coup in Venezuela for their oil?
He's a slightly thicker version of every other US President.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe and almost all of South America support the opposition leader while Russia and China support Maduro so we are probably on the right side but f he does get involved with the military then it goes against what he campaigned on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions. The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship" Trump addressing the UN Sept 2018
We're absolutely not on the right side!
Maduro is the democratically elected leader with over 70% of the electorate voting for him. He isn't a dictator, people want him there and mass demonstrations have been taking place in support of him.
https://twitter.com/AbbyMartin/status/1091836605847851008
Even if only 51% of the electorate voted for him and no demonstrations took place, America would be violating the sovereignty of an independent nation.
Britain has gone nuts over Brexit and having independence from the EU and now Brexiters and those who apparently love democracy are supporting another ILLEGAL endeavour by the USA.
The United States has gone so far as to elect their own leader, Juan Guaidó, after the coup is done and dusted.
Which Venezuelan elected him?
What's happening out there is disgusting and the lack of media coverage is even worse.
US weapons shipments being smuggled into Venezuela for the opposition have already been found.
https://www.rt.com/news/450751-trump-venezuela-weapons-freedom/
“I’m only interested in Libya if we take the oil. If we don't take the oil, I have no interest in Libya,” TRUMP
That's how much he cares about people when the illegal invasions take place.
posted on 11/2/19
The opposition boycotted the election and there was claims of vote rigging, the opposition is asking America for humanitarian aid. I don't know much detail but only one country in South America supports maduro so it's not just America.
posted on 11/2/19
Maduro is the democratically elected leader with over 70% of the electorate voting for him. He isn't a dictator, people want him there and mass demonstrations have been taking place in support of him.
----------------
While I agree with your sentiments about US involvement, the claim above has to be taken with a very large pinch of salt in light of Maduro's clampdowns on opposition leaders and tightening grip on power.
posted on 11/2/19
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
The opposition boycotted the election and there was claims of vote rigging, the opposition is asking America for humanitarian aid. I don't know much detail but only one country in South America supports maduro so it's not just America.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They boycotted it, tough then. Maduro has done nothing wrong.
Claims of rigging? There are claims that Russia helped rig the elections in the USA which Trumo won. Do claims justify an illegal coup and invasion?
I don’t care if every single country in the world supports the overthrow of Maduro, Venezuela sovereignty is being violated. This isn’t even about other countries this is about Trump and how he isn’t corruptable.... he seems very corruptable considering he’s doing the exact same thing previous Presidents have done.
posted on 11/2/19
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Maduro is the democratically elected leader with over 70% of the electorate voting for him. He isn't a dictator, people want him there and mass demonstrations have been taking place in support of him.
----------------
While I agree with your sentiments about US involvement, the claim above has to be taken with a very large pinch of salt in light of Maduro's clampdowns on opposition leaders and tightening grip on power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He’s an unsavoury character but the level of support he has on the streets is quite something.
Search on YouTube and you’ll see mass demonstrations in support for him and some western journalists (search abbey Martin) have conducted interviews with ordinary people on the streets. These all paint a different picture to the one our media portray.
I’d prefer a different leader in Venezuela my self but then it’s not up to me or anybody else but the Venezuelans, which I’m sure you already understand.
I just can’t believe we’re watching another coup unfold and nobody in our country or in the states gives a schit. The masses are totally blind to the corruption in their own systems of government, either that or they don’t give a schit.
posted on 11/2/19
Like I said I don't know much about the situation but if so many countries oppose him then he must have done something wrong. I don't agree with America getting involved but lets see if it happens first before criticising him. He campaigned on not intervening so if he does then I'm not sure what his supporters will make of it.
posted on 11/2/19
What you don’t understand is, whatever he did wrong nobody has the right to intervene unless the guy breaks international law and starts killing his own people, WHICH ISN’T happening.
The only people wrong in this equation are the countries supporting Juan Guaidó, who is unelected.
Most of these countries are supporting the States because they’ll stop receiving aid. It’s the same as Iraq, 35 countries supported that illegal invasion, was it the right thing to do? Why do you think Costa Rica supported the Iraq war, do you think they have a schit or is it because they receive schit loads of aid from America?
You say let’s see what happens but it’s already happened, American weapons smuggled in have been found.
Juan Guaidó has already been backed.
Tanks are assembling on the Colombian border.
Negotiations for Venezuelan oil with American firms have already begun.
Trumo has gone back on his word not to interfere at all in the affairs and business of other countries.
Admit it, he’s as corrupt as everybody else.
posted on 11/2/19
comment by Kung Fu Cantona ππΌ π΅πΈ (U18082)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Maduro is the democratically elected leader with over 70% of the electorate voting for him. He isn't a dictator, people want him there and mass demonstrations have been taking place in support of him.
----------------
While I agree with your sentiments about US involvement, the claim above has to be taken with a very large pinch of salt in light of Maduro's clampdowns on opposition leaders and tightening grip on power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He’s an unsavoury character but the level of support he has on the streets is quite something.
---------------
Based on what, videos? I've seen lots of videos purporting to show pro- and anti-Maduro rallies and what they all have in common is how small scale they all are. A few thousand people looks very impressive from a close-up wide angle drone shot but is an absolutely insignificant number as a measure of popular support.
Maduro's government has rigged the system in his favour through the creation of a new legislative Assembly (a move which the vast majority of Venezuelans disagreed with according to polling) packed full of loyalists, banning of opposition parties and jailing of opposition leaders. He won an "election" where voter turnout was some 36% lower than the past 2 elections. That should give you an idea of how many people stopped believing in the democratic process.
The idea that he is a legitimately democratically-elected leader is weak at best.
posted on 11/2/19
The only people wrong in this equation are the countries supporting Juan Guaidó, who is unelected.
------------
The role of interim president, as per article 233 of the Venezuelan consitution, is not one which requires election. It's an acting role granted to the President of the National Assembly in the event that there is an "absence" of a President-elect. Now of course, the legitimacy of this course of action is a HUGE sticking point here, but essentially under some circumstances the President of the National Assembly (i.e. Juan Guaido) may be declared Interim President.
posted on 11/2/19
Kung Fu
When I said least corrupt I'm talking about being in the pockets of corporate donors. On a personal level we all know he is dodgy from his character and things he's done in the past. Politically he's less corrupt than the majority of elected politicians. As a leader he's fulfilling (or trying to) what he said he would do which makes him more honest than most leaders. Just because people voted for him or support him doesn't mean they agree with everything he does. If he invades Venezuela and steals their oil then I'll criticise it.
posted on 11/2/19
comment by baz ta’rd (U19119)
posted 1 day, 2 hours ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 55 minutes ago
How is he the least corruptable? That makes no sense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He self funded more and relied less on corporate donors than other presidents in recent history. He's also doing most of the things he campaigned on so I don't think he's influenced that much and does things more on instincts and political calculations. From a campaign finance point of view it's actually good that he won, normally the candidate who raises the most money wins but he won by spending around half of what Clinton did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And collusion? Be very interesting to what mauler finds. Given most of his support staff have been arrested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are all really tired of this "Russian Collusion" narrative now. 2 years of nothingburger is all we got out of it so far.
We interfere in elections all the time. Why people are getting up and arms about it is beyond me.
Also the Venezuela stuff. I'd like the US to leave it alone but the oil contracts there are lucrative af. Ain't nobody going to sit idly on the sidelines.
posted on 11/2/19
comment by Freedom FC πΊπΈ (U7214)
posted 1 hour, 57 minutes ago
comment by baz ta’rd (U19119)
posted 1 day, 2 hours ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 55 minutes ago
How is he the least corruptable? That makes no sense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He self funded more and relied less on corporate donors than other presidents in recent history. He's also doing most of the things he campaigned on so I don't think he's influenced that much and does things more on instincts and political calculations. From a campaign finance point of view it's actually good that he won, normally the candidate who raises the most money wins but he won by spending around half of what Clinton did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And collusion? Be very interesting to what mauler finds. Given most of his support staff have been arrested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are all really tired of this "Russian Collusion" narrative now. 2 years of nothingburger is all we got out of it so far.
We interfere in elections all the time. Why people are getting up and arms about it is beyond me.
Also the Venezuela stuff. I'd like the US to leave it alone but the oil contracts there are lucrative af. Ain't nobody going to sit idly on the sidelines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We haven’t had mueller’s report yet....
posted on 11/2/19
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 4 hours, 24 minutes ago
The only people wrong in this equation are the countries supporting Juan Guaidó, who is unelected.
------------
The role of interim president, as per article 233 of the Venezuelan consitution, is not one which requires election. It's an acting role granted to the President of the National Assembly in the event that there is an "absence" of a President-elect. Now of course, the legitimacy of this course of action is a HUGE sticking point here, but essentially under some circumstances the President of the National Assembly (i.e. Juan Guaido) may be declared Interim President.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe declared by who?
posted on 11/2/19
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 4 hours, 37 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona ππΌ π΅πΈ (U18082)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
Maduro is the democratically elected leader with over 70% of the electorate voting for him. He isn't a dictator, people want him there and mass demonstrations have been taking place in support of him.
----------------
While I agree with your sentiments about US involvement, the claim above has to be taken with a very large pinch of salt in light of Maduro's clampdowns on opposition leaders and tightening grip on power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He’s an unsavoury character but the level of support he has on the streets is quite something.
---------------
Based on what, videos? I've seen lots of videos purporting to show pro- and anti-Maduro rallies and what they all have in common is how small scale they all are. A few thousand people looks very impressive from a close-up wide angle drone shot but is an absolutely insignificant number as a measure of popular support.
Maduro's government has rigged the system in his favour through the creation of a new legislative Assembly (a move which the vast majority of Venezuelans disagreed with according to polling) packed full of loyalists, banning of opposition parties and jailing of opposition leaders. He won an "election" where voter turnout was some 36% lower than the past 2 elections. That should give you an idea of how many people stopped believing in the democratic process.
The idea that he is a legitimately democratically-elected leader is weak at best.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I worked as a cameraman for news channels I absolutely know what a lens can do to a crowd. A drone hovering over the top of a gigantic crowd is absolutely different, the drone is also mounted with a wide lens so if anything it should make a crowd look smaller.
If only a few people are there you use a long lens and shoot from a distance so the people in the back look closer to the front making the crowd look more compact and full. You also shoot from low.
The video I supplied isn’t the only proof out there, have a look.
posted on 11/2/19
Would think they say something by now if they found something.
Been waiting for 3 years for Trump to get the boot. Ironically Trump was whinging on about Russia collusion on the democrats end before the election only for him to be accused of this for 3 years lmfao
posted on 11/2/19
comment by Freedom FC πΊπΈ (U7214)
posted 44 minutes ago
Would think they say something by now if they found something.
Been waiting for 3 years for Trump to get the boot. Ironically Trump was whinging on about Russia collusion on the democrats end before the election only for him to be accused of this for 3 years lmfao
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to forget ‘crooked hillary’ only for his daughter to do the same thing
posted on 11/2/19
The complex web of deceit of Trump is being narrated through the drip drip of Muellers indictments, guilty pleas and jail time.
posted on 11/2/19
comment by Freedom FC πΊπΈ (U7214)
posted 56 minutes ago
Would think they say something by now if they found something.
Been waiting for 3 years for Trump to get the boot. Ironically Trump was whinging on about Russia collusion on the democrats end before the election only for him to be accused of this for 3 years lmfao
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From my understanding the investigation is one of the largest ever undertaken. Mueller has brought in specialist investigators from the IRS for example who are investigating money laundering (which is also tied in to the wider Russian GRU involvement).
This is a decent read on the investigation:
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/12/08/much-of-the-mueller-report-is-already-public-what-does-it-say
posted on 11/2/19
If they do find proof of trump colluding (and I bet there is to some degree), I’m not sure they’d actually release it fully. If trump was impeached, the wacko’s and fundimental nutcases would rise up. Would the risk the potential anarchy?
I’m not so sure.
Page 258 of 274
259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263