|
I just don't get why these politicians in latin america keep getting into a pattern where they gotta keep personally running for reelection and not only is it no good for another party to take control, there's nobody from their own party that can be trusted to hold office. Like even before getting into the specifics of each election, just personally holding power for over ten years feels like putting stress on the base concept of democracy, as the specific flaws of the one man in charge get more embedded in the absence of other perspectives and influences.
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
So far as I know, parliamentary democracies work a lot differently from presidential democracies, and it seems like it's a lot harder to consolidate power away from democratic bodies in those. Other than that, wartime America was somewhat less than democratic, and it's anyone's guess how things would've gone if FDR was still alive and running after the war was over. Maybe MacArthur would've been even more of an rear end in a top hat. Aside from the issues involved with basing your government off of a single individual's charisma, reliance on one single charismatic person, that leaves less fertile ground for other charismatic people with the same political leaning to grow, since if there isn't a regular rotation of leaders, the only avenue for upward political mobility is challenging the establishment. That's a big part of the foundation of democracy, the fact that in theory anyone can work their way up to the top. If people can direct their efforts into the political system, they'll be less likely to try to find other ways around it. And if everything's balanced on one person, well that can't be sustained indefinitely. Not just because people die, but they just wear out over time, they get old, they get stuck in their ways, they get less able to handle the same workload. If your system is calcified around one dude, then bad things will happen when that one dude is no longer up to spec, so there's no avoiding the need for a replacement. uninterrupted posted:term limits are fascist policy that constrain democracy. What I find weirdest is the idea of jumping to calling it fascist to want a regular, institutionalized, changing of leaders. Like actual fascists don't go through the same rigmarole of eliminating potential limits to their power, and like there aren't a whole array of ways that somebody in power could distort the mechanisms of democracy to maintain their power, charisma or not. At the very least regular transfers of power are the most easily recognizable sign of some kind of democratic process from an outsider perspective, and if aspersions are already being cast about the process, then it's just another question mark. I'm pretty certain Putin's 20-year run at the head of Russia seems like a sign that something's not democratic there.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
Maduro ran the country into the ground, and while scooting along on the ground without landing gear, rotors chopping everything up in his way, he used illegitimate means to prevent opposition from removing him from office through proper democratic process. It's doubtful whether the guy who has for the better part of a decade caused the crisis has the capability to bring the country out of it, and there's no nice way to deal with the problems with him at the root of them all. The US government jumped on Venezuela like a wounded animal, but since he's spent so long building bad relations with the rest of the world, it's not like anybody's going to stand up for his regime. It just feels like half of Venezuela's problems center on Maduro and there's not much that Maduro has to justify staying in place to keep failing at solving the other half. Theoretically if he stepped down that could open things up to chaos or imperialism or the far right taking hold, but there's still not much worse things can get.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2020 02:10
|
|
|
Pumping money into the whole system could work, but unless there's some kind of assurance that it will be invested into making the whole thing sustainable instead of mismanaged like everything else, then all the trouble will come right back the moment aid starts to dwindle. That's also entirely contingent on not just America letting up, but the international community taking it upon themselves to charitably prop up the regime that many of them have refused to recognize. It just seems like most deals that the international community would offer them would involve sacrificing some amount of sovereignty or Maduro stepping down. They're in a bad position for either bargaining or begging, and I don't think Maduro ever presented the image of being a good negotiator in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
I don't know about normalization, over the last 200 years there's been a lot of bankers hovering around broke totalitarian regimes pushing for some kind of constitutional reform if for no other reason that popular support and rule of law makes loans a more secure investment. It's not particularly new for countries to use whatever leverage they have over other countries on the world stage, and in this crisis, since it's a worldwide crisis, probably will reduce the amount of charitable feeling floating around for Maduro to work with. I wouldn't call that justice, but it's how these things work. Maduro is largely responsible for leading his country into a position where it's much more vulnerable and he's on the outs with a big chunk of the international community. Nobody's said that the sanctions aren't immoral and imposed by a monster, but they're not going anywhere anytime soon unless something changes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2020 04:43
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:What sacrifices did i demand from just now? The issue is that this attitude: Kurnugia posted:You do not overthrow a ruling hierarchy without violence. Heavily favors people who would overturn one authority in favor of another military dictatorship. It's also the same basis on which people are handwaving the flaws in Columbia's new government as just necessary growing pains, since there was some large sentiment against reelection that the current regime uses as their basis for legitimacy. And with regard to Venezuela, it voices a hope that the starving, economically destroyed citizens of the country take up arms to solve their situation, which isn't exactly feasible or very desirable, because the one thing Maduro has kept together is the army. The prospect of a bloody civil war or a bloody american invasion and having to suck up to new warlords to be more benevolent (or at least more competent) than the old one isn't great, so it's better to seize upon the hope for a peaceful solution. And while massive aid programs could solve a lot, you're not going to get that from the current xenophobic and sometimes genocidal US government, so it's not worth pivoting to that right now either.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2020 20:06
|
|
|
Might as well post this here. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-53262767BBC posted:The UK High Court has ruled against Venezuela's government in a legal battle over access to $1bn (£820m) of gold stored in the Bank of England. Which, obviously it's not good for a country in a crisis and mired in debt to lose access to its gold reserve. Functionally, this isn't an active decision by the UK government, it's a consequence from them already having declared Maduro's presidency illegitimate. I don't see them changing their minds on that without some kind of move on Maduro's part. Even assuming the best of Maduro (which is a whole lot), I really don't see any way of him maneuvering Venezuela out of the situation it's in without somehow stepping down, although it'd be better if they could hold new elections instead of handing things to an unelected Guaido.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
So what the poll also presents is that either the party itself was popular enough or there was an individual in the party waiting in the wings popular enough to win the election, so there was no point in Evo Morales outflanking the constitution to get himself another term; that was an entirely self-serving move. Screwing around to buy himself a fourth term out of the two that the constitution allowed was a large part of why there was a significant amount of people willing to believe that he pulled a fraud. Because there were large crowds of people protesting, regardless of the veracity of what they were protesting, and feet in the streets are not in themselves democracy, but it sure can provide the look of a popular movement for any group that uses the mess to provide cover for seizing power.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:The only reason there was term limits in the Bolivian constitution was because the opposition threatened secession of the provinces they controlled. It was not in the text approved by the constituent assembly. Weird that these "uphold the constitution" folks never care about this part. So you're saying that they felt so strongly about term limits that they threatened to break the country if they weren't part of the constitution, and then after the term limits were nullified, they broke the country. Who could have foreseen this turn of events. uninterrupted posted:A different candidate would have been a. worse at governing due to a lack of experience, b. less popular, c. have unknown personal baggage that could damage their election chances, and/or d. secretly be bought out by the wealthy like Moreno in Equador. The core concept of democracy is that many people have the capacity to govern, as opposed to resting everything on one man who was trained from birth for the purpose. If the most popular movement in the country can't find a second person to run for office (which they clearly could, according to that poll) something has gone horribly wrong. Even if one person is uniquely talented, modern governments are heavily distributed anyways and they could serve in some other part of government other than the very top and use their ability from there.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2020 17:07
|
|
|
I guess the question that first springs to mind is how does the government of Bolivia declaring opposition candidates ineligible differ from the government of Venezuela declaring opposition candidates ineligible.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2020 19:56
|
|
|
The English had a lot of religious dissidents that they dumped onto the 13 colonies, and they even beefed up those numbers by exporting a lot of criminals and various undesirables, which they would later do the same with Canada and Australia (Notably not the British empire's big moneymaking colonies, where they maintained more dictatorial colonial control). Britain went through a whole population explosion and had a lot of people to just dump wherever (even after the US went independent, British people would keep immigrating to the US), and those people wound up having ideas about self-organizing into legislative bodies like parliament. Spain didn't have the same policy of dumping off its citizenry, and they had already done a pretty thorough job of making sure that there weren't religious dissidents to put on boats. A whole lot of the population of their empire was just the people they conquered and the people they sent over to keep those people in line, so the Spaniards more effectively could suppress the area. At least until the whole empire was decapitated (metaphorically) by Napoleon and all bets were off. And then by the time most of Latin America emerged into independence, the US had a head start and was older and bigger than most of them. Definitely it was in a better condition than Mexico right after Mexico had fought a couple regional rebellions, and after the war, the US had basically no regional challengers to inhibit its growth and only one major internal disruption, so it had an easier time building up and venturing into international relations to climb its way up to becoming a great power.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2020 04:29
|
|
|
Canada benefited from being not being a big moneymaking colony so that it wasn't strictly controlled by its parent nation and having fairly amiable and peaceful relations with its only neighbor that was busy becoming one of the top economies in the world. And then by coincidence, their oil industry took off right after the parent nation negotiated to give them more autonomy in exchange for military manpower. That probably helped things along.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
So far as I know, Obama only ever sanctioned individuals, while the Trump administration introduced wave after wave of sanctions against the state as a whole, its industries, and corporations that associated with the state on top of an economic embargo and musing about invading to take their oil. At the time, it seemed very possible that Trump could've launched an invasion just to distract the American public from domestic failures, and just because it didn't end up happening doesn't mean that it couldn't have.i say swears online posted:i didn't realize obama lifted the blockades during his term There was never a blockade. Anyhow, Maduro got his Facebook account frozen for spreading false information about a miracle cure for Coronavirus.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2021 20:10
|
|
|
So is this thread trying to say that all of Trump's sanctions were good for Venezuela now? Or was Venezuela just taking one for the team to spare the world from normalized relations between the US and Iran?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2021 16:21
|
|
|
In the US, the ground was laid by people constantly alleging voter fraud as an excuse to pass laws to make voting more difficult before Trump pulled the trigger. Were there similar movements in other countries?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
You don't march around shirtless with a ridiculous hat and covered in body paint if you don't wanna show off your body.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
Yeah, some technologies that the old world developed, they just didn't, and there were a couple technologies that the new world did that the old world just didn't. I guess the one that people cite most is the Aztec calendar, but the Incans had freeze-drying. There's also nixtamalization, but that wasn't really relevant in Europe until they brought corn over and started dying of pellagra. Knapping was also a lost technology in Europe, but still widely used in the new world to make wicked sharp rocks. There's sort of a classical way that people used to view new world societies as being in like some kind of more "primitive state of development" like there's a bunch of preset types of societies that you can only go linearly from one to another, but that's an archaic way of thinking. I think the biggest difference is just that the old world had more people who were more connected across more land and had access to more things across Europe, Africa, and Asia than the new world did. Gripweed posted:I bet that a big factor is that the North American midwest is no fun without horses. So if you come in through Alaska and head south down the Pacific Coast, there's good land there on the coast but you can't go for east before you hit the Great American Desert. So you keep going south until you hit Mexico and then the desert finally lets up and hot drat, you've got great places to live from sea to sea The midwest is less fun, but also can't really host that much in the way of agriculture without some fairly advanced agricultural techniques. Most human societies throughout history really like sticking around coasts and rivers. I think there's also an aspect of European settlement being harder around the tropics with all sorts of tropical diseases that locals would be resistant to, but colonists wouldn't be, and for whatever reason, England's population exploded at a way higher rate than Spain and much of the rest of Europe, so the English were colonizing a smaller amount of land with a larger amount of people. There was a map in the maps thread recently that might also be relevant.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2021 01:37
|
|
|
There are people like that though. They pop up on SA every so often. And considering how there have been a number of authoritarian states justifying their authoritarianism with nominal leftism, it's not really a surprise for there to be people out there who take the same philosophy to heart. Possibly there are even some people in various corners of the internet who are somehow paid to white knight for their respective authoritarian governments. I'm not really sure how that's supposed to work, but I've heard rumors. And then the other common angle is people who with their own sense of American exceptionalism that the US as the greatest possible evil in this world, therefore anyone or anything in opposition to it is fully justified in whatever bad that happens. I guess there's also people who get real stuck into the idea of a revolution and all the people who need to be murdered and get real excessive about the need for lots of murder, which dovetails into authoritarianism, but that's kind of a separate conceptual thing from people shilling for already extant governments.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
I think it's just Russia threatening to redo the Cuban Missile Crisis to get countries off of its back for its preparation to invade Ukraine again. I don't imagine stationing troops would do Cuba or Venezuela any favors. Might do Ukraine some favors to have some lesser amount of Russian troops on its borders ready to invade.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2022 23:42
|
|
|
I mean, in context this isn't Venezuela or the Venezuelan government asking for any help, it's Russia using the idea of deploying troops as some kind of threat against NATO. You don't have to jump to defend it as some kind of possibly necessary move for Latin America. It's even kind of a non-news story because it's just some comments dropped during talks over Ukraine and Crimea rather than an actual new initiative.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2022 23:33
|
|
|
I think the main thing is that the cold war is over and has been over for decades at this point. Countries haven't been trying to align themselves into mutually exclusive power blocs, that hasn't been the way the world works for a while. The old first/second/third world designations are archaic by this point. Without the cold war framework, what's happening is that countries are more free to take events in a vacuum and respond to them accordingly. Also worth noting that while Mexico is playing it safe economically by not issuing sanctions, it's still thrown in with the bulk of countries around the world by politically condemning Russia at the UN. https://news.yahoo.com/141-countries-vote-condemn-russia-171706406.html No latin american countries voted no, and of the 3 abstainers, I understand Cuba and Nicaragua, but I'm not sure of Bolivia's deal. The only thing I could find was something apparently saying that Evo Morales buys into the idea that Ukraine seeking to join NATO was an act of aggression on NATO's part worthy of invading? Weird. https://en.mercopress.com/2022/03/03/bolivian-gov-t-and-evo-do-not-see-ukraine-crisis-the-same-way
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:The Castro regime was less authoritarian than the Batista regime preceding it? Do tell more. Batista was bad enough that a lot of people who would later go on to be fervently anti-communist supported Castro against him. The US took a lot of refugees from Batista before Castro came along. Although I guess how those people turned against Castro may reflect more on him personally than their feelings on the ideology.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
There isn't actually a foreign policy goal by this point, there's just a vague impression that the embargo is still popular with refugees and children of refugees, who are still somehow considered a crucial political block in national politics for whatever reason, despite Floridian politics having been hosed for decades. And since the US economy is so big and strong, it can just leave the embargo there through political inertia. I don't know if there's much that could even really be done on Cuba's side to normalize relations, although since the embargo affects Cuba way more than it affects the US, it seems like Cuba would have to be the one to initiate negotiations for them to get anywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
I feel like this needs to be posted here. https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1500230617404956678?t=y1BAsUoAQjO_6AxpQMCqtA&s=19 https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1500635803797843970 Where could this lead? Will it even go anywhere? Who knows.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2022 18:29
|
|
|
So uh...what's going on in Peru right now? Sounds like a big mess.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2022 20:37
|
|
|
I dunno, from the things I've been reading, there may have been the political drama, but otherwise a lot of administrative business was still done regardless of all the posturing. Really questionable by what you mean by "the USA's political power". https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/highlights-from-the-summit-of-the-americas/ https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/10/politics/biden-summit-of-the-americas-takeaways-trump-bolsonaro/index.html I've also read that there's a lot of reasons to suspect that the president of Mexico is coming from a disingenuous place with his sudden hardline stance on the US, especially in light of his refusal to condemn Russia when more than half the drat globe was doing it, and his apparent disinterest in foreign policy earlier in his term. So a policy apparently established back in 2001 about not inviting non-democracies is now suddenly a non-starter. Also allegations that he may just want to damage Biden because he wants Trump back. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/orde...f-the-americas/ Not really sure why it should be so crucial to recognize and support dictatorships and autocracies in order to demonstrate support for democracies. I guess if the claim is that the US is acting in bad faith, we'll see what happens when Bolsonaro pulls the trigger on trying to fix Brazil's election.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2022 07:21
|
|
|
It's just extremely weird for people (like the president of Mexico) to declare themselves "anti-imperialist" but shrug and refuse to see wrongdoing with more obvious imperialist conquest. It highlights a lot of hyperbole when there's literal examples hanging around in the news and being ignored. Like it seems common to call the US embargo of Cuba a "blockade", when Russia is doing a very literal blockade by blocking Ukraine's ports with warships and seamines. It's even weirder in the context that this isn't like during the Cold War when the world was organizing into power blocs, Russia hasn't put time or money into cultivating its international relations beyond business purposes like they did as the Soviet Union. There's no pragmatic side to throwing in with Russia. https://twitter.com/AJEnglish/status/1536403155067539457 There are neo-nazis in the Ukrainian national guard, there are also literal neo-nazis in the invading Russian army that for SOME reason people who use neonazis as adequate justification for the war never mention, despite the fact that since the war is in Ukraine, it's only Ukrainian civilians at risk. If Ukraine survives the war, I can imagine a lot of long-term issues with internal ethnic strife, but the current issue of Russia trying to eliminate the state of Ukraine and killing a lot of people in the process is much, much larger in magnitude. And since the war has already started and Russia has shown no sign of stepping back, the only way to the end of the war is for it to be fought.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
I feel that often people trying to push back against perceived American bias end up overcorrecting and sometimes even haphazardly inventing new US crimes to create equivalency or make the US responsible for all the world's ills. Or at least, they'll shrug and say america's just as bad or worse without providing much of an argument as to why, or why that's even relevance. I know that Ukraine wasn't a healthy democracy before the current war. There was the other war, the Russian puppet that was overthrown, and there's a whole lot of videos on youtube of literal fights breaking out in Ukraine's parliament, but Russia didn't even bother trying to justify their invasion beyond Putin stating that Ukraine has no right to independence, so there's no pretense to anything about the war being Ukraine's fault, and that generated a huge wave of sympathy across the world that some people have rightly pointed out outweighs the usual sympathy the US and Europe have for "brown-er" places with polical unrest, but it also outweighs the amount of sympathy people had for Ukraine during its 2014 war that Russia had the fig leaf of just supporting secessionists. I think that's mostly because of the sheer clarity of this just being a war of conquest rather than a thorny civil war or coup. I'm actually hopeful that the current sanctions that are ferreting out a lot of Russian oligarch money will lead to more firm international financial scrutiny on other criminals, businessmen, and autocrats hiding away money from taxes and the people they stole it from, and I think other countries would benefit from criminals having less hiding spots. VitalSigns posted:Did the bolded even happen? The impression I got was that Mexico's government ended up condemning Russia in spite of AMLO, seeing as how he was the top guy in Mexico having the country drag its heels, and continues to speak out apparently against measures to help Ukraine and punish the Russian government. Brookings Institute posted:
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
Normally when the concept of East vs. West is brought up, it's about some kind of cultural separation, but the US and latin America both have similar cultural traditions that spring from Europe. There's a new term doing the rounds now "global south" to specifically refer to "underdeveloped" nations, which is both probably often inaccurate as well as being derogative. It's supposed to replace "third world" now that most people know what that was being used to mean. And I guess by the classic definition of that term, Venezuela would probably count as second world anyways. VitalSigns posted:Serious question: if Maduro actually is some kind of neoliberal thatcherite in socialist clothing who wants nothing more than to massacre local tribes, privatize energy, destroy social programs, and shower the elite with gold, why wasn't he invited to the Summit of the Americas to hang out with Biden and his good buddy Bolso who is doing all that to Brazil. Well first off, not all bad things are directly aligned with the US. I feel like that should be pretty simple to get. But also, since the reason for not inviting Venezuela was because they're not considered a democracy anymore, and the US isn't recognizing their government as legitimate, but Bolsonaro so far as I know won his election legitimately. And even though he's been strongly implying that he's going to try rigging or rejecting his next election, he hasn't done it yet. I guess it remains to be seen whether Brazil's political system can withstand whatever he's going to try or whether he'll poop himself to death by the time the election rolls around. I saw a few news stories about Bolsonaro trying to secure Biden's support only for Biden to talk past him and talk about the importance of democracy for Brazil, so there's that at least.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 00:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I mean I don't really see how that's a problem. Well, it's only not a problem if you don't believe democracy is real in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 21:54
|
|
|
The main difference is that it's personal bribes to specifically only the the people voting for him and attacking detractors. There's no working systems involved, it's not a policy, it's just randomly leaning on voters to sabotage the system. I don't think it's hard to get unless you're deliberately trying to ignore what democracy is.WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Why does anyone care if the PSUV is anti-democratic? The opposition are liberals plotting coups with the US. They should be crushed. Because living in an autocratic dictatorship sucks, even moreso when it's being run into the ground and there's nothing anyone can do. PT6A posted:Instead of looking at the visa policy of the United States -- a nation which is by all accounts pathologically paranoid about illegal immigration -- why not check the visa policy of Canada and the European Union, which certainly also constitute "The West" in the sense it's being used here? From everything I've heard of immigration policies in other parts of the world, the US seems to end up being one of the most open to immigrants even with the random paranoia and hostility. Europe ends up being even worse most of the time aside for special circumstances.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 04:32
|
|
|
Negostrike posted:
What's supposed to be wrong here? Color choice? WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I'm sure Pinochet would only have been a mild mannered milque-toast conservative if Allende hadn't been a ruthless tyrant himself. Oh wait, this isn't actually a game where everyone plays by fair rules. Seizing and maintaining political power through force to protect the working class from imperialist subversion is good. Maduro and the PSUV are extremely loving lenient, Guaido can still loving go about freely with the only danger to himself being opposition by the masses. If Allende ruled by force, wouldn't that leave the military in a more powerful position to to stage a coup from? If you create the tools for tyranny, it gets easier for them to be misused. If not by the guy up top, then by any of the people that they end up delegating their unaccountable power to.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 15:29
|
|
|
I've heard things in the news about Mexican gangs, but I guess often the word "cartel" takes precedence. Near as I can tell with Haiti, they might be calling them "gangs" just because they're not like united or directed at any particular cause. They're just a mess as part of an even larger mess. I'm still not sure how much of a government in general Haiti has to even rebel against right now. It would be nice if America could just normalize its relationship with Cuba, and that would probably help Cuba improve going forward, but I don't know if that's ever going to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/17/un-security-council-haiti-session Kinda weird that Mexico's jointly proposing it with the US. Just earlier this year, the president of Mexico was making a big show of denouncing the US over the Summit of the Americas. Also apparently the Bahamas are offering to send troops. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/bahamas-would-send-troops-haiti-if-asked-minister-says-2022-10-18/ I don't doubt that Haitians are suffering over the current state of things, but also propping up the current Haitian government by force is going to be a mess of its own since what little government they do have isn't exactly legitimate.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2022 16:25
|
|
|
I thought the point of the term Latin America was just to consolidate Spanish and Portuguese under one label, and also there's that French colony still on the continent that conveniently fit into the definition so that it'd be comprehensive. People are often split on the Caribbean, since it's geographically separate from the continent, but where else are you going to put Cuba when talking about its context with the rest of the world? I don't hear many people talking about the political context of the other islands at all, so whether or not they count (especially the English ones) never really comes up. And I don't really know anything about Guyana or Suriname.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2022 16:12
|
|
|
So uh, big day for Brazil? I hear it's not going well.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2022 19:32
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:lol that Trump was more unhinged and openly fascist than Jair Bolsonaro Maybe more that Bolsonaro is more savvy than Trump, and he just figures he doesn't have enough support for a coup. Edit: Although technically if he was going to try pull a 1/6 and try using some weird meaningless bit of constitutional procedure as an opportunity to pull a coup, he'd be quiet about it for now and wait for a bit, but if he doesn't have the military on his side enough for them to pull the coup for them, it'd probably really annoy the military if he summoned a bunch of civilian supporters to do it. SlothfulCobra fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Nov 1, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2022 21:39
|
|
|
Yeah, it'd be nice for Maduro to use the money to try helping Venezuela, but he's also the guy who led it into the trouble it's in now by pissing away and embezzling state funds.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
The context was Guaido going around trying to create a legitimacy crisis for Venezuela's farce of democracy, which is a common situation for other countries to decide which side they support. If Saudi Arabia had some pretender to the throne plausibly running around in opposition to their king/prince, we'd see similar shenanigans with them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2022 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Speaking of leaders financially ruining their nation, if you remember how El Salvador invested big into Bitcoin and tried to make it legal currency, they're not doing well with recent drops in bitcoin's value. https://english.elpais.com/international/2022-11-14/bitcoins-decline-in-value-is-deadly-blow-for-el-salvador.html
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2022 16:16
|
|