Of course he's going to insist, he was seeking a second term. And yes, why would you donate money to a candidate after a historically disastrous debate like that. Donors decided he wasn't good enough, and they were right! I'm not saying NOT having primaries is a good thing (I personally think it should be mandatory), but this is all it was... NOT a coup.
Again… you live in a complete fantasy. There is not one liberal person in the world who supports Maduro or any fascist dictator. Hitler called himself a socialist. The vast majority of people who have 1/10 of a brain understand that dictators are not liberal or democratic socialists or even socialists in principled sense. This is a fantasy you way too online MAGA bros tell yourself so you feel like liberals are this evil entity out there you need to take drastic means to defeat. This is the kind of fantastical delusion that leads people to radicalization and prone to violence. Please seek help before you get someone hurt.
Authoritarian Orban standing up for dictator. Hungary blocks EU bid for unified statement on Venezuela election – POLITICO The EU failed to put on a united front on Venezuela’s contested election after Hungary vetoed a statement that expressed concern about alleged “flaws and irregularities” in the voting and called for greater transparency. EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell subsequently published the statement — which says “credible reports from domestic and international observers indicate that the elections were marred by numerous flaws and irregularities” — in his own name. Realizing that Hungary would likely remain intransigent, Borrell issued a follow-up statement in his name on Tuesday instead of seeking backing from the EU’s 27 member countries. “The data that the [Venezuelan] opposition has made available to the public offers a radically different result from the one announced” by the country’s authorities, Borrell’s second statement said. “Until voting records are made public and are verified, the election results as already declared cannot be recognised.” Hungary’s veto underlines a fundamental flaw in EU foreign policy whereby decisions — including potential future sanctions on Venezuela — must be unanimously agreed among the bloc’s 27 member countries. This has led several countries, such as Germany, to advocate taking foreign policy decisions by a qualified majority. The Hungarian government couldn’t be immediately reached for a comment on the motivation for its veto.
How many dictators are free market enthusiast? Socialist require higher authority to take care of problems because these people are too incompetent to take care of their own problem. When a group of people give the government complete control to take care of their problems (much like you advocate on most issues), this eventually evolves into a dictatorship.
There's a difference between government functioning processes and infrastructure, and philosophy/principles & outcomes for the citizens. The definition of being liberal is about the principles of individual rights, liberties, and yes... free enterprise. Often a government that defines itself as "Socialist" is the antithesis of being liberal in principle. Sometimes in the case of maybe a Denmark currently in principle it aligns. In the case of Nazi Germany in the 30's and 40's... no of course not. You guys on the right love to use the terminology and structure of government to try and gaslight Democrats here in America, and its all a crock of BS. Because we understand that there is a difference in terminology, and structural definition of government vs the principles that the country's behaviors, and behaviors towards it's people reflects. Maduro's Venezuela is NOT liberal. Therefore Western Democratic liberals understand that THEY ARE NOT ALIGNED with Maduro, and have no fondness for him, and his sham government. Nobody freaking cares that he calls himself a socialist or that they technically might have a sham "universal healthcare" offering to their citizens or whatever construct they have in place. We all know there are no liberal rights there in that country, and freedoms. People generally don't care about the mechanism to get there. They care about the results. I will not sit here and let way-too-online right wing activists like you gaslight me like this. People aren't as dumb as you wish they were.
The notion that dictatorships adhere to a single philosophy or political ideology is both historically inaccurate and overly simplistic. In reality, many modern authoritarian regimes and dictators embrace free market principles, recognizing the economic benefits these can bring to their rule. This pragmatic approach demonstrates that authoritarianism can coexist with various economic systems, challenging the misconception of a one-size-fits-all model for dictatorships. Examples: China under Deng Xiaoping and subsequent leaders: Since the late 1970s, China has implemented market reforms and opened up to foreign investment while maintaining strict political control. Chile under Augusto Pinochet: Despite being a military dictator, Pinochet implemented free-market policies and privatization. Vietnam: The Communist Party maintains political control while allowing significant economic liberalization. United Arab Emirates: While not a traditional dictatorship, it combines authoritarian rule with a free-market economy. Russia under Vladimir Putin: The regime has maintained some free-market principles while exerting strong central control.
People on the right also often love to conflate/misinform about checks and balances in government being the same thing as socialism/big government. For instance SpaceJoke over here asked the question about Dictators and Free Enterprise. The reality is Dictators happen when there are no checks, and balances to enforce anticorruption rules that keep leaders in government from breaking down those walls to lead to corruption. Dictatorships under any form of government definition happen when the leader controls the power of the purse. When Oligarchy's form, and there is a marriage with strongmen and big business. This happens in EVERY dictatorship, or autocratic government. In a liberal democracy or democratic socialist country the principles that would normally come into play would be more checks and balances to help represent the interests of the people, and create fairness. A Democracy like the United States though... even though it's still the greatest Democracy in the world... is still susceptible to erosion of its checks and balances like what we've seen with the Supreme Court. So principles and actions that come out of those standing principles is what matters. Russia has a freaking constitution, and call themselves a Democracy. But when the barriers of checks and balances come down or are eroded over time, even a structural democracy, or a Socialist Democracy can always fall into a dictatorship. This whole argument is one that is solely meant to gaslight western Liberals, and argue semantics rather than principles, and outcomes. Because when its about principles and outcomes they know they lose on the merits.... See Putin's Russia.
Yeah I mean they are just going to break their own brains in the process. Case in point them feeling like they need to be champions of Orban's Hungary, but then at the same time feeling like they need to preach the evils of Maduro because he uses the Socialist title, but then seeing that Orban supports Maduro, etc. etc. Liberals don't really care about titles like they do. It's about actions, and outcomes. Kamala could change the name of Medicare to Hellicare, and as long as it's the same thing nobody would care as long as they still had the benefits of Medicare. Authoritarianism is an outcome that people care about. They don't care about the title that was given to their political party as much as they care about the actions that were taken along the way that got them to either authoritarianism or liberal democracy.
We can agree that labels do not apply across the board and that everyone misuses labels even in their own camps. For example, I do not consider myself a right wing activist. I am way too passive and lazy to be an activist. I am sure where we should agree but don't is that as an entity/force/whatever gains more power, the more it becomes corrupt, regardless of intentions. Oh, an incompetence and dumb are not the same thing. For example, Harris would make an incompetent president. I don't necessarily think she is dumb. Incompetence leads to bad/stupid/dumb decisions.
So you admit then that it’s wrong to gaslight liberals on Maduro to try and make them feel like there’s some sort of principled connection?
