Military Coup underway in Venezuela

a reply to: Jobeycool

It is nothing new. Price controls under socialism and communism ALWAYS destroys the economy of the nations with a socialist economy.

Here is what another survivor of socialism has to say about " the price controls of socialism" and in specific about Venezuela's socialist price controls.

Venezuelan Price Controls Lead to Predictable Shortages
Venezuelan grocery stores have products shoppers don't want.

Marian Tupy | 9.19.2017 10:00 AM

Yesterday, Bloomberg had an interesting article about food shortages in Venezuela. Contrary to popular perception, the Venezuelan shops are not empty. Bakeries, for example, offer "a wide variety of freshly-made breads," including, "a fat, dense loaf called the gallego, or a soft sobado." Conversely, "the canilla, a soft, buttery take on the baguette that's been the beloved bread of choice in this South American country for decades," is missing from the shelves. Why?

The canilla has disappeared because its price is set by the state. The price of the bread is "set at such a low level—1,500 bolivars versus the 4,500 to 7,500 a gallego commands—that bakers complain it doesn't come close to covering their costs. So they use new-found supplies of wheat in the country to bake every other kind of bread imaginable."

Say what you will about socialism, it always follows a predictable pattern. In an attempt to make something available to everyone, the socialists ensure that it is not available to anyone (except for the politically well-connected). As a child growing up behind the Iron Curtain, I recall constant shortages of basic foodstuffs. The price of meat, for instance, was kept artificially low due to political considerations. Low prices created an impression of affordability. On their trips abroad, communists would often boast that workers in the Soviet empire could buy and produce more meat than their Western counterparts. In reality, shops were often empty.
...

reason.com...

Apart from destroying the economy of the "socialist/communist nation," then there is the suppression of free speech, and in general the suppression of human rights "for the good of the collective/the socialist/communist revolution/the Earth/the environment/blah blahblah..."

1. The hoards of anti-maduro people in here keep pointing to the election... Which I don't understand.. Maduro won the election. Thats usually what happens when you get more votes than the other person. It makes sense though.. I've noticed that those who are anti-maduro are pro Trump.. who also didn't get as many votes as his opponent.

2. I've seen 6 different people use the phrase "liberal anti-american." They used it in a way that insinuated liberalism IS anti-american. This bothers me, because it's well documented the majority of the American population identifies as liberal.

3. Maduro has been dealt a # hand. The sanctions against Venezuela are what has caused the chaos there. NOT socialism.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
1. The hoards of anti-maduro people in here keep pointing to the election... Which I don't understand.. Maduro won the election. Thats usually what happens when you get more votes than the other person. It makes sense though.. I've noticed that those who are anti-maduro are pro Trump.. who also didn't get as many votes as his opponent.

The hordes of ignorant leftists, who despite facts debunking their claims want to continue claiming "socialism is not at fault," want to once again shift the blame away from socialism. Simply because such people don't want to admit socialism/communism are failures that oppress the people and destroys the economy of nations...

I have noticed that those who are pro-Maduro and "Liberal" are in favor of imposing in the U.S. at least some of the same draconian laws that Chavez and Maduro imposed on Venezuela...

Chavez shut down all news channels, including radio, that were "right-wing" and were critical of Chavez... Obama tried to do the same in the U.S., and to this day "Liberals/the left" want to suppress independent or right-wing news in the U.S...

Chavez/Maduro have deemed political opponents as "threats to the nation that need to be incarcerated over LIES... Trump/Russia collusion anyone?...

Chavez/Maduro oppressed and attacked students in Universities in Venezuela who were/are critical of the socialist dictatorship. Just like "liberals/SJW/the left in general" are okay with leftist groups censoring the free expression of "right-wingers and independents" who dare defy left-wing rationale...

Etc, etc...

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
3. Maduro has been dealt a # hand. The sanctions against Venezuela are what has caused the chaos there. NOT socialism.

Deny ignorance please...

...
They also stressed that the sanctions were not against the country of Venezuela but only against individuals deemed responsible for human rights or other violations.
...

Obama Hands Venezuelan Leader a Cause to Stir Support

The sanctions are on INDIVIDUALS and their corrupt companies... The sanctions were not on the country. Price controls under socialism is what caused the destruction of Venezuela's economy, and the lack of necessary goods which has caused hunger in Venezuela...

Venezuelan Sanctions

Scroll back a page and you will find links to news reporting exactly what caused the "woes" of Venezuela...

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
...
I've noticed that those who are anti-maduro are pro Trump.. who also didn't get as many votes as his opponent.
...

Sigh...the historical revisionism of "left-wingers" never ends...

BTW, there are no free elections once socialists/communists take complete control of a nation... Although at first Chavez did get the vote of the people, eventually Chavez himself stated that even when there were enough votes for a referendum to oust Chavez, he would not be taken out of power... Chavez gave himself power to be President for life by changing the Constitution. Like Liberals/the left want to do in the U.S.

Call for revolution

Chávez came to power, after unsuccessfully attempting a coup, by winning an election in 1998. He won by selling the idea of giving power to the people, and ending the corruption of the traditional political parties that had governed Venezuela for the last quarter-century.

He won the election by a convincing margin. He started his presidency with the support of the people and a barrel of oil going for more than US$100. His original popularity and success permitted him to accomplish many of his goals that in other circumstances would have been very difficult.
...
But, Lameda claimed, Chávez’s plan to accomplish this involved taking control of all branches of power – the executive, legislative, judicial and military.

Consolidating power

Once in power, Chávez replaced the existing Congress by creating a new National Assembly, which he controlled. He used his new National Assembly to rewrite the constitution to perpetuate himself in power. The presidential periods were originally five-year terms without the possibility of immediate reelection. Former presidents could run again only after two terms had passed. The National Assembly changed it to six-year terms, with unlimited reelections, and extended these new parameters to governors and other elected officials.

Chavez served as president for 14 years, until his death in 2013.
...

theconversation.com...

Socialist/communist dictators ALWAYS claim "the people voted for us" when in reality the socialist/communist dictators name themselves "Presidents for life." Similar to what Chavez did and Maduro is doing...

originally posted by: vinifalou
Mhmm, I wonder how many of CIA’s fingers are in this...

A keen observation, and one that one must consider.

Look at Kissinger, he pretty much started violent revolutions so certain South American nations would work closer with the US, and the deaths caused earned him the completely bogus Nobel peace prize.

American alphabet agencies need to learn to butt out. Look what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, they almost single handedly created ISIS.

I'll leave this just here....

Just in case somebody wants to get some more background on the forces and ideologies clashing here,

It seems to me Guaido is the agent of global capitalism and that is the so often talked about NWO.

And no, that does not mean I support Maduro, or any dictator no matter what ideological colours.
I do value human rights, freedom and I believe in people organizing their own society. I just don't see any of the two options presented in this struggle to be good for the people of Venezuela.
There is a third option.
Glocal (Global trade local politics) anarchy.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You actually did do that. But in fact who has a "vested interest in Venezuela" are other groups...

Someone posted conditions of the sanctions. I posted what appears to be reasons as to why they were structured that way.

You certainly did not do that. You implied "Trump has monetary vested interests in Venezuela," which sorry to say is not true...

No, I didn't. Campaign contributions don't imply pocket lining, it means one group/person pays for some of the costly campaign efforts, and historically this has shown to be a way into good graces.

It's possible to read information without either orange man good, or orange man bad filters.... It can come from a place of indifference seeking the truth.

What you're trying to do is seeking ways to conform the truth to benefit your world view.

a reply to: CriticalStinker:
BRAVO

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
BTW, I just watched an interview of the Venezuelan ambassador to the U.S. and he also said the majority of the Venezuelan army, including officers, are ready for a change in regime. They do not support Maduro.

Then why their inaction?

Back in primitive times, (and you prob have to go really far back, like cavemen era) wars were straight forward. Nowadays, who the heck knows whats going on. Its deception and propaganda on top of deception and propaganda.

My Venezuelan friend says current regime is corrupt, so even if it were the case that this is a Western takeover, I don't know how to feel about it. Whether it be the case current regime caused drop in oil prices and hyperinflation and thus starvation/suffering for its people, or whether it was outside forces that caused it, hopefully this will be the end of it (suffering of the people), if a regime change took place.

a reply to: ArMaP

Hedging those bets, they want change, they want to be on the winning side more perhaps.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ArMaP

Hedging those bets, they want change, they want to be on the winning side more perhaps.

So we're to read between the lines and assume we know what's best for the people of that country, and trust with our track record we can leave things better than they were before?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Please don't go in. Not openly. Let Blackwater get in. As police force to oversee the elections Guiado surely would be delighted to organise. To ensure everybody who has a vision for how to get out of this mess can run for president for 4 years. Period. Who loses and wants to get out will be brought to Cuba, or where ever he likes.
Send Blackwater to ensure that that promise is kept.
Let the people decide.

a reply to: Peeple

Personally, I don't think America should be the decision maker for other sovereign nation only to have its citizens pay for the concequences.

The international community as a whole can organize efforts and help with the cost and manpower.

America has plenty it needs to focus on at home without governing other nations.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

It's your backyard. Priorities.
I am not sure who but you could and would have a reason.

originally posted by: Peeple
As police force to oversee the elections Guiado surely would be delighted to organise.

That's one test I am waiting to see happen, as I don't know if he can be a candidate at the same time he is organising the elections.

To ensure everybody who has a vision for how to get out of this mess can run for president for 4 years.

6 years.

a reply to: ArMaP

Deal.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ArMaP

Hedging those bets, they want change, they want to be on the winning side more perhaps.

So we're to read between the lines and assume we know what's best for the people of that country, and trust with our track record we can leave things better than they were before?

Why would we. Let the people decide, why would we decide?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ArMaP

Hedging those bets, they want change, they want to be on the winning side more perhaps.

So we're to read between the lines and assume we know what's best for the people of that country, and trust with our track record we can leave things better than they were before?

Why would we. Let the people decide, why would we decide?

Muardo isn't going to let the people decide. They will have to revolt. I don't think they'll see another election.