Coup Possibly Happening in Venezuela

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1213887550013747202

worst coup ever

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1213887550013747202

worst coup ever

THIS SEEMS LEGIT YO

Telesur (stylised as teleSUR) is a Latin American terrestrial and satellite television network headquartered in Caracas, Venezuela and sponsored primarily by the government of Venezuela,[1] with additional funding from the governments of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Uruguay.[2] It was launched in 2005, under the government of Hugo Chávez, with the aim of being "a Latin socialist answer to CNN"

Christ you folks get your news media from the exact same koolaid you slurp. And you call Infowars readers morons. You're at the same level broceritops.

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1213901694146404354

seems legit to me, looks like he's a Trump protege with the amount of winning he's doing

 

[fskimospy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1213901694146404354

seems legit to me

Uhmm, no. That's actually a further coup attempt by Maduro to destroy the last remaining democratic institution in Venezuela. Maduro had the police/army block the majority opposition from the national assembly and then had his loyalists proclaim a new president of the assembly while nobody else could get in.

Venezuela’s Maduro Claims Control of National Assembly, Tightening Grip on Power (Published 2020)

It was the last political institution in opposition hands. Now President Nicolás Maduro’s has moved closer to total control of the state.

www.nytimes.com

To maintain his claim the interim presidency, Mr. Guaidó needed to be re-elected as head of the Assembly on Sunday, according to analysts inside and outside the country. His victory was expected, since the opposition controls the legislative body.

But at the last minute, members of the National Guard prevented Mr. Guaidó and other supporters from entering the Assembly’s building. Video footage showed Mr. Guaidó attempting to climb over the spiked metal fence to gain entry to the building where the vote would be held.

Inside, Mr. Maduro’s party swore in as head of the Assembly a legislator named Luis Parra, a former member of the opposition who turned against Mr. Guaidó after the Assembly leader opened a corruption claim against him. There was no vote count.

So yeah, at this point Maduro has become a full on dictator.

 

[KMFJD]

Uhmm, no. That's actually a further coup attempt by Maduro to destroy the last remaining democratic institution in Venezuela. Maduro had the police/army block the majority opposition from the national assembly and then had his loyalists proclaim a new president of the assembly while nobody else could get in.

Venezuela’s Maduro Claims Control of National Assembly, Tightening Grip on Power (Published 2020)

It was the last political institution in opposition hands. Now President Nicolás Maduro’s has moved closer to total control of the state.

www.nytimes.com

So yeah, at this point Maduro has become a full on dictator.

Maduro or Guaido neither were elected so what's the diff? I mean the us could work with the opposition down there but they icky social democrats....

 

[fskimospy]

Maduro or Guaido neither were elected so what's the diff?

If Maduro wasn't elected then Guaido is the president according to the Venezuelan constitution so I guess there's that.

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1213929098369798151

Marco's upset about this though

https://twitter.com/x/status/1213898755474411521

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1214002333752934400

https://twitter.com/x/status/1214018808609984514

Worst coup leader ever?

 

[fskimospy]

Guaido's coalition had a majority in the national assembly, how would he not have the votes?

Also, that reporter whose tweets you are citing works for RT, which is Russian state propaganda.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Guaido's coalition had a majority in the national assembly, how would he not have the votes?

Also, that reporter whose tweets you are citing works for RT, which is Russian state propaganda.

Shhhhhhhhhh let the batshit crazy lady continue being the village idiot for us to all laugh at.

 

[KMFJD]

I know RT is russian propaganda....i'm just posting the absurdity of this whole thing , there are no good sides in this issue, just different levels of shit.

 

[Blackjack200]

I know RT is russian propaganda....i'm just posting the absurdity of this whole thing , there are no good sides in this issue, just different levels of shit.

RT is no worse than the BBC, MSNBC, Fox News, or the New York Times. It's perfectly fine to use it as a source. It has a point of view and is prone to biases, same as the others.

 

[fskimospy]

RT is no worse than the BBC, MSNBC, Fox News, or the New York Times. It's perfectly fine to use it as a source. It has a point of view and is prone to biases, same as the others.

It's kind of amazing that any rational thinking person would look at the current incarnation of Pravda and the New York Times and say they are equally credible. I mean for christ's sake the editor in chief of RT explicitly described the network as a tool to wage information warfare against the western world, lol.

 

[Blackjack200]

It's kind of amazing that any rational thinking person would look at the current incarnation of Pravda and the New York Times and say they are equally credible. I mean for christ's sake the editor in chief of RT explicitly described the network as a tool to wage information warfare against the western world, lol.

Which news sources that are critical of American foreign policy do you think are credible?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Which news sources that are critical of American foreign policy do you think are credible?

Al Jazeera, BBC, NPR?

EDIT: Bear in mind that 'critical' may be a relative term. Truth has had a liberal/democratic bias for a long while now, so if you're reading something that's just stating facts, it probably is going to sound critical of Trump, his administration, or the US in general (around now anyhow).

 

[Brainonska511]

Which news sources that are critical of American foreign policy do you think are credible?

Why do you think RT is remotely credible?

 

[fskimospy]

Which news sources that are critical of American foreign policy do you think are credible?

This is a deflection, you've made the claim that literal Russian propaganda outfits, designed for the express purpose of information warfare, are as credible as internationally acclaimed independent media, which is frankly bonkers.

Regardless, while I think US papers often give excessive credence to US government policies and that is a form of institutionalist bias, they are not in the business of purposefully spreading disinformation like RT is. As an example of a few news sources that are critical of US foreign policy but are generally credible we have, Al Jazeera, Le Monde, and Der Spiegel. Al Jazeera is the one that's the most suspect on that list considering the Qatari government appears to exert at least moderate influence on their coverage but it is still nothing like RT.

 

[Blackjack200]

Why do you think RT is remotely credible?

Here's a starting point: https://fair.org/home/backlash-against-russian-fake-news-is-shutting-down-debate-for-real/

 

[zinfamous]

RT is no worse than the BBC, MSNBC, Fox News, or the New York Times. It's perfectly fine to use it as a source. It has a point of view and is prone to biases, same as the others.

Are you OK?

 

[Brainonska511]

Here's a starting point: https://fair.org/home/backlash-against-russian-fake-news-is-shutting-down-debate-for-real/

Use your words. I'm not going to follow some rabbit hole of links.

 

[Blackjack200]

This is a deflection, you've made the claim that literal Russian propaganda outfits, designed for the express purpose of information warfare, are as credible as internationally acclaimed independent media, which is frankly bonkers.

No, it was a deflection when you turned the debate onto RT itself. Pointing out that you don't consider a news source credible unless it is broadly aligned with American interests is a perfectly fair point.

Regardless, while I think US papers often give excessive credence to US government policies and that is a form of institutionalist bias, they are not in the business of purposefully spreading disinformation like RT is. As an example of a few news sources that are critical of US foreign policy but are generally credible we have, Al Jazeera, Le Monde, and Der Spiegel. Al Jazeera is the one that's the most suspect on that list considering the Qatari government appears to exert at least moderate influence on their coverage but it is still nothing like RT.

Al Jazeera, Le Monde, and Der Spiegel are more likely to be critical of the US foreign policy than the New York Times, but I would not say they are broadly critical.

 

[Blackjack200]

US state propaganda

https://twitter.com/x/status/1214348646159978497

 

[fskimospy]

No, it was a deflection when you turned the debate onto RT itself.

No. Evaluating whether or not a source is credible is a bedrock foundation of any reasoned debate. I'm sad that you don't know that.

Pointing out that you don't consider a news source credible unless it is broadly aligned with American interests is a perfectly fair point.

This is of course a lie and you know it. You should be ashamed of yourself for this sort of nonsensical diversion. I do not consider RT credible for the same reason I do not consider Fox News credible despite their strong alignment with US foreign policy. They are not credible because reporting news accurately is not their primary goal.

Al Jazeera, Le Monde, and Der Spiegel are more likely to be critical of the US foreign policy than the New York Times, but I would not say they are broadly critical.

Oh okay.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

US state propaganda

https://twitter.com/x/status/1214348646159978497

Ironic considering that Fox News was the one that interviewed her. NYT and CNN quoted her words. Is it on them for failing to fully identify someone they quoted? Or on Fox News for not divulging the information in the first place? Shall we start railing against all news organizations who don't fully investigate the backgrounds of every single person they quote, regardless if they were the one that interviewed them or not?

For the record, Fox News is widely considered to be as bad as RT wrt ties to a political party.

Fox News for example presented Alinejad – who appeared on the network on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday – as an “Iranian journalist” or “Iranian journalist and activist,” missing a key detail about her biography: she’s paid by the U.S. government. CNN, and New York Times columnist Bret Stephens also quoted her without acknowledging her government funding.

EDIT: Further reading, she did show up on some CNN talking head show:

Fox News wasn’t the only network to give Alinejad a platform. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria had Alinejad on his show, GPS, on December 22 to discuss the month-long protests and introduced her only as “an Iranian Activist in exile” without disclosing that she is paid by the U.S. government.

That was a fail on that interviewer, or CNN if she was told to not mention it. It hardly makes CNN a mouthpiece of the US govt though. Fox had her for what, 3 or 4 interviews and didn't bring it up? That sounds like more than an oversight.

 

[Blackjack200]

No. Evaluating whether or not a source is credible is a bedrock foundation of any reasoned debate. I'm sad that you don't know that.

And I'm challenging your evaluation. This isn't difficult to follow.

This is of course a lie and you know it. You should be ashamed of yourself for this sort of nonsensical diversion. I do not consider RT credible for the same reason I do not consider Fox News credible despite their strong alignment with US foreign policy. They are not credible because reporting news accurately is not their primary goal.

"Reporting news accurately is not their primary goal" is a childish, reductive way to evaluate a news source. NYT has corporate interests and is subject to biases just like the RT is.

Oh okay.

I mean, you're welcome to support your contention. I don't pretend to be a regular reader of either publication, but I rarely see their stories cited or linked in stories about American interference in, say, Latin America. I imagine both are more focused on European concerns.