# If Guaido is recognized as a legitimate president of Venezuela, why not Hillary for America?



## Saiyan Lusitano (Feb 3, 2019)

The EU and America recognize Juan Guaidó as the President of Venezuela so who's to say Hillary, Nancy Penosi or Chuck Schummer aren't the President of America?

Maduro remains to be the genuine President of Venezuela. Whether people from outside Venezuela like it or not, outsiders should not interfere nor try to claim who's the president. But what's happening? Countries are trying to cause even more chaos, without naming names.


----------



## b17bomber (Feb 3, 2019)

IT WAS HER TURN


----------



## VinsCool (Feb 3, 2019)

That's not how it works.


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 3, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> The EU and America recognize Juan Guaidó as the President of Venezuela so who's to say Hillary, Nancy Penosi or Chuck Schummer aren't the President of America?
> 
> Maduro remains to be the genuine President of Venezuela. Whether people from outside Venezuela like it or not, outsiders should not interfere nor try to claim who's the president. But what's happening? Countries are trying to cause even more chaos, without naming names.


Do you understand why there might be contention about him being considered President? And how that's different than the US election results and process?


----------



## Xzi (Feb 3, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> The EU and America recognize Juan Guaidó as the President of Venezuela so who's to say Hillary, Nancy Penosi or Chuck Schummer aren't the President of America?


I dunno, maybe ask Trump.  He's the one recognizing the opposition in Venezuela.  He wants to send troops down there too.  The only purpose seems to be using it as another distraction from his problems at home.


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 3, 2019)

To bring everyone up to speed:



> "Maduro—who assumed power in 2013 following the death of his predecessor, Hugo Chávez—put himself forward in 2018 for reelection to a second term. He officially won by an overwhelming margin, but the elections themselves were marred by violence and manipulation, leading most of the international community to reject the results. This created an opening for the National Assembly. In conversation with the United States and other interested parties, it began to explore the possibility of invoking Article 223 of Venezuela’s 1999 constitution, which addresses vacancies in the office of the president by appointing the head of the National Assembly, currently Guaidó, as interim president until elections can be held. The National Assembly invoked this provision shortly thereafter and Guaidó officially accepted on Jan. 23, in front of a mass anti-government demonstration. The Trump administration’s statement of recognition came just hours later, leaving little doubt that the effort was coordinated."



source: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-does-it-mean-united-states-recognize-juan-guaidó-venezuelas-president


----------



## Captain_N (Feb 3, 2019)

does this question really have to be asked. Hillary ran a shit campaign. She and her media thought it was gonna be handed to her on a silver plate. Trumps presidency is legit. As for Venezuela, the current leader made bad decisions that all but destroyed the country. They have so much oil but the leader had to be a bloody socialist and screw the people. It is no wonder why the people dont want that jack ass.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 3, 2019)

Captain_N said:


> Trumps presidency is legit.


I wouldn't go that far.  From an outside perspective, the 2016 US election was just as questionable and potentially rigged as Venezuela's election.  Almost even worse in a way since Clinton won the popular vote.  Rigging the electoral college in a couple states is potentially far easier than rigging the election on a national level.

On the bright side, states representing 32% of electoral college votes have passed legislation to eliminate the electoral college altogether.  If that number reaches 50%, electoral college goes bye bye and people's votes can start mattering again.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 3, 2019)

thing is the electoral college is a flawed system that let a biggot into one of the highest positions in the USA i'd say after trump leaves the american people should do massive pressure to lawmakers to undo the EC and make our system popular vote


----------



## Joe88 (Feb 3, 2019)




----------



## Xzi (Feb 3, 2019)

Joe88 said:


>


The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine.  Right now Mueller has Stone dead to rights on seven charges, word is Trump Jr is next.  We might not see a Clinton presidency, but we might see a Pence, McConnell, or Pelosi presidency depending on how many people had their hands in the Russian honeypot.  Worst case scenario, Trump's a lame duck for the next two years and he starts another unnecessary war as a last desperate attempt to try to drum up support for re-election.  I think, rather I hope that Americans learned _something_ from GWB in that regard and don't fall into the same trap again.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 3, 2019)

Captain_N said:


> They have so much oil but the leader had to be a bloody socialist and screw the people.


You have no idea what socialism means, right?


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 3, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I wouldn't go that far.  From an outside perspective, the 2016 US election was just as questionable and potentially rigged as Venezuela's election.  Almost even worse in a way since Clinton won the popular vote.  Rigging the electoral college in a couple states is potentially far easier than rigging the election on a national level.
> 
> On the bright side, states representing 32% of electoral college votes have passed legislation to eliminate the electoral college altogether.  If that number reaches 50%, electoral college goes bye bye and people's votes can start mattering again.


Here's hoping. Next is getting rid of first past the post, making voting registration automatic, making voting days holidays, fixing the campaign finance and nearly every other campaign related system, fixing the revolving-door, etc., etc., etc.


----------



## dAVID_ (Feb 4, 2019)

Trump is not (known to be) an illegitamate president.
On the other hand, Maduro set up dummy elections which were blatantly fake.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 4, 2019)

Oranges and apples...
Wait, at least oranges and apples are both kind of round. Not a good analogy.

PS: And in the end _(and avoiding the USA comparison that really has no place in this because it just doesn't have anything in common)_
no matter the "legitimacy" of the thing the "president" (in a quite de-facto way) is the one that holds the power, in this case and at least for the moment still Maduro, but it looks quite flimsy.

PS2: And the only reason he is there is due to external interest, influence and intervention. Venezuela is not a real democracy. If Guaidó gets to be president it will not be a real democracy either, all the democratic processes in the country are broken and adulterated; if this changes it will not be from one day to another, it would be a process requiring decades.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> I wouldn't go that far.  From an outside perspective, the 2016 US election was just as questionable and potentially rigged as Venezuela's election.  Almost even worse in a way since Clinton won the popular vote.  Rigging the electoral college in a couple states is potentially far easier than rigging the election on a national level.
> 
> On the bright side, states representing 32% of electoral college votes have passed legislation to eliminate the electoral college altogether.  If that number reaches 50%, electoral college goes bye bye and people's votes can start mattering again.


That's not true, it was questionable in some aspects, but it was nothing even similar to what is happening in Venezuela. I would suggest you to read some more about it, a lot, better if you read it in Spanish from South American sources.

This is not mainly an American problem. I know you all love to think of it that way, you say it's just "some circus that Trumps is using to redirect attention from other problems" (and sure it is partly, but it is not only that). The more affected countries in all of this are countries from South America (probably Colombia more than any other), it is a South American problem mainly... It also annoys the USA, Russia, China, the EU, etc., foreigners with assets or interests in the region.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 4, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> This is not mainly an American problem. I know you all love to think of it that way, you say it's just "some circus that Trumps is using to redirect attention from other problems" (and sure it is partly, but it is not only that). The more affected countries in all of this are countries from South America (probably Colombia more than any other), it is a South American problem mainly... It also annoys the USA, Russia, China, the EU, etc., foreigners with assets or interests in the region.


We're basically saying the same thing.  I meant that it's a foreign matter that Trump is getting involved in to distract from domestic issues.  Not that it was primarily an American problem or American-manufactured.


----------



## bodefuceta (Feb 4, 2019)

Yes! Good boy, you know orange man bad. Two extra food stamps deposited in your account


----------



## Xzi (Feb 4, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> Yes! Good boy, you know orange man bad. Two extra food stamps deposited in your account


Would be funny if blue states weren't footing the bill for all these do-nothing red states.  The economy is dependent on California and New York, not so much on Bumfuck Methtown in Kentucky or Wyoming.


----------



## bodefuceta (Feb 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Would be funny if blue states weren't footing the bill for all these do-nothing red states.  The economy is dependent on California and New York, not so much on Bumfuck Methtown in Kentucky or Wyoming.


Very tolerant and relevant as well! This is how we do it in our great democratic community. Next in line, please! Try not mentioning the state who least uses food stamps this time and keep attacking bad orange man


----------



## SagaP (Feb 4, 2019)

Maduro is not a legitimate president, he kick out the parliament and made one of his own, then he called elections with the permission of this fake parliament in which only those who he allow could participate, finally recently he was sworn for presidency on the supreme court, breaking constitutional ruling, because the Oath has to be made in the parliament.
Guaido didn't declare himself president, he is the president o the parliament we elected, and when no president is in charge is the duty of the president of the parliament to take the charge of intern president until fair and democratic elections are held.
This is not a fight of ideologies is a fight against a regime, and we need the external help.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> On the bright side, states representing 32% of electoral college votes have passed legislation to eliminate the electoral college altogether.  If that number reaches 50%, electoral college goes bye bye and people's votes can start mattering again.


Not sure how I feel about this. What problems could come up, if the electoral college goes away?


----------



## tatripp (Feb 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I dunno, maybe ask Trump.  He's the one recognizing the opposition in Venezuela.  He wants to send troops down there too.  The only purpose seems to be using it as another distraction from his problems at home.


Yeah, because overthrowing a dictator that drove a country that should be wealth into complete poverty isn't a good thing.
I haven't heard him say anything about sending troops. I thought it was all economic.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> Not sure how I feel about this. What problems could come up, if the electoral college goes away?


Don't worry about it. It is 100% unconstitutional and will be rightfully struck down by the supreme court.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 4, 2019)

tatripp said:


> Yeah, because overthrowing a dictator that drove a country that should be wealth into complete poverty isn't a good thing.
> I haven't heard him say anything about sending troops. I thought it was all economic.


There's a lot of oil interests in South America, and John Bolton (Trump's National Security adviser) had "5,000 troops to Columbia" written on a notepad recently.



tatripp said:


> Don't worry about it. It is 100% unconstitutional and will be rightfully struck down by the supreme court.


Amendments can, should, and have been made to the constitution.  If it's passed by states representing more than half of electoral college votes, then there's no choice but to take up the issue on a national level at that point.  I don't see how it's unconstitutional to begin with anyway, the constitution says nothing about eliminating the electoral college AFAIK.  It's literally just one step in making the entire process more democratic.



KingVamp said:


> Not sure how I feel about this. What problems could come up, if the electoral college goes away?


No issues that I can think of which aren't already inherent to the system.  It just equalizes the vote so that people in big cities don't count less than rural voters.


----------



## EmanueleBGN (Feb 4, 2019)

The "democratic" Countries don't love democracy and elections. They want governments pro-usa, "the goods".
Another question: why Maduro should go away because he's a "dictator" but no one say the same about Macron who has a revolution since December?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 4, 2019)

EmanueleBGN said:


> The "democratic" Countries don't love democracy and elections. They want governments pro-usa, "the goods".
> Another question: why Maduro should go away because he's a "dictator" but no one say the same about Macron who has a revolution since December?


Macron is not a dictator, he's a legitimate democratically elected president with a not so good public image that quite probably will go away when his mandate ends due to the people *being able* to vote him away. Unlike Maduro.
It's not a good analogy.

There are many examples of true dictatorships or human rights breaking regimes supported by the West if you want to pick one, e.g. just look at Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 4, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> Very tolerant and relevant as well! This is how we do it in our great democratic community. Next in line, please! Try not mentioning the state who least uses food stamps this time and keep attacking bad orange man


I didn't say anything about food stamps.  Those states are still a net drain on the economy because they don't produce jack shit, and they're a wasteland culturally.  Also, I don't see a good reason to be tolerant of people actively damaging the country with their ignorance.  We've got maybe ten years to right the ship, or this country won't last another fifty.  Certainly no time to be suffering fools.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 4, 2019)

Wont be allowed


----------



## Whole lotta love (Feb 4, 2019)

Venezuela has a more secure and transparent electoral system than we do, which is why the last election was certified fair by over 1500 election watchdogs.


This is very clearly about getting Venezuela's oil.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 4, 2019)

Whole lotta love said:


> Venezuela has a more secure and transparent electoral system than we do, which is why the last election was certified fair by over 1500 election watchdogs.


Bullshit.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Feb 4, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> Bullshit.


Forbes - Venezuelas Election System Holds Up As a Model for the World
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes...lds-up-as-a-model-for-the-world/#16fa9b5771e2

and source on the international observers declaring Maduro's most recent election fair:
http://journalcontent.mediatheoryjournal.org/index.php/mt/article/view/65/56


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 4, 2019)

Whole lotta love said:


> This is very clearly about getting Venezuela's oil.


 There are no angels in this world.  If foreigners get involved is because they have their own reasons, both those supporting the regime and those against it: Russia, China, the EU, South America (this one mainly an economical and refugee crisis).


----------



## barronwaffles (Feb 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I didn't say anything about food stamps.  Those states are still a net drain on the economy because they don't produce jack shit, and they're a wasteland culturally.  Also, I don't see a good reason to be tolerant of people actively damaging the country with their ignorance.  We've got maybe ten years to right the ship, or this country won't last another fifty.  Certainly no time to be suffering fools.



Woah, calm down Hitler.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 4, 2019)

barronwaffles said:


> Woah, calm down Hitler.


Exactly like Hitler, if Hitler wanted Medicare for all, tuition-free college, and much greater investment in green energy.  The lunacy of the right-wing is that they've somehow convinced themselves that these are bad things.  Probably because the right-wing is reduced to nothing but contrarianism at this point; they have no real ideas or policy platforms of their own.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Feb 4, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> There are no angels in this world.  If foreigners get involved is because they have their own reasons, both those supporting the regime and those against it: Russia, China, the EU, South America (this one mainly an economical and refugee crisis).



What a terrible justification for imperialism.


----------



## Demon27248 (Feb 4, 2019)

Captain_N said:


> does this question really have to be asked. Hillary ran a shit campaign. She and her media thought it was gonna be handed to her on a silver plate. Trumps presidency is legit. As for Venezuela, the current leader made bad decisions that all but destroyed the country. They have so much oil but the leader had to be a bloody socialist and screw the people. It is no wonder why the people dont want that jack ass.



Funny then how they overwhelmingly voted for him. If news reports of some rowdy protests from a minority of the population is evidence of popular discontent, then you've convinced me all Americans actually really hate Trump despite him also winning a majority of the vote.

Also, if a completely unelected, pro-West, 'democratic socialist' coup leader is more legitimate than any person that actually participated in the presidential election, then you might as well recognise Bernie as the interim president of the US. I'm pretty sure everyone on reddit really wants him to be. And that's a good representation of the rest of the country right? Right?


----------



## barronwaffles (Feb 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Exactly like Hitler, if Hitler wanted Medicare for all, tuition-free college, and much greater investment in green energy.  The lunacy of the right-wing is that they've somehow convinced themselves that these are bad things.  Probably because the right-wing is reduced to nothing but contrarianism at this point; they have no real ideas or policy platforms of their own.



You really, really don't know anything about how the Nazis rose to power - do you?


----------



## Xzi (Feb 4, 2019)

barronwaffles said:


> You really, really don't know anything about how the Nazis rose to power - do you?


I was describing myself there, not Hitler.  I thought I made that pretty obvious.


----------



## barronwaffles (Feb 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I was describing myself there, not Hitler.  I thought I made that pretty obvious.



Oh, cool - so exactly like Hitler then. 

When are we liquidating the 'cultural wasteland' ?


----------



## Xzi (Feb 4, 2019)

barronwaffles said:


> Oh, cool - so exactly like Hitler then.
> 
> When are we liquidating the 'cultural wasteland' ?


I also thought you were being sarcastic with that initial comment.  Kind of an outdated meme at this point to call anybody you disagree with Hitler, don't you think?

I said nothing about 'liquidation' or 'cleansing' or other such nonsense.  Red states are free to make bad decisions for themselves and continue wasting away as they always have, as long as they recognize that they are in the minority and the the rest of the country will continue to make progress whether they're on board or not.


----------



## barronwaffles (Feb 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I also thought you were being sarcastic with that initial comment.  Kind of an outdated meme at this point to call anybody you disagree with Hitler, don't you think?
> 
> I also said nothing about 'liquidation' or 'cleansing' or other such nonsense.  Red states are free to make bad decisions for themselves and continue wasting away as they always have, as long as they recognize that they are in the minority and the the rest of the country will continue to make progress whether they're on board or not.



Bro I'm not memeing on anyone - I'm actually in awe at how nonchalant you are when it comes to disenfranchising massive portions of society that you find undesirable. Mad props.


----------



## Demon27248 (Feb 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I also thought you were being sarcastic with that initial comment.  Kind of an outdated meme at this point to call anybody you disagree with Hitler, don't you think?
> 
> I said nothing about 'liquidation' or 'cleansing' or other such nonsense.  Red states are free to make bad decisions for themselves and continue wasting away as they always have, as long as they recognize that they are in the minority and the the rest of the country will continue to make progress whether they're on board or not.



Sounds like you're advocating secession, or another civil war then.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 4, 2019)

barronwaffles said:


> Bro I'm not memeing on anyone - I'm actually in awe at how nonchalant you are when it comes to disenfranchising massive portions of society that you find undesirable. Mad props.


Again you're putting words in my mouth.  How did I suggest disenfranchising anyone?  Republicans are the minority based on voter registrations and that's a fact.



Demon27248 said:


> Sounds like you're advocating secession, or another civil war then.


No, all I'm saying is that the Republican party has used shady tactics to make themselves look bigger than they are for decades.  Those tactics, like gerrymandering and voter roll purges, are finally having a spotlight shined on them, and once those tactics are explicitly banned, the party will quickly fade into irrelevancy.  Either they'll have to completely overhaul their platform, or the Democrats will split in two.


----------



## barronwaffles (Feb 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Again you're putting words in my mouth.  How did I suggest disenfranchising anyone?  Republicans are the minority based on voter registrations and that's a fact.



I figure that if we can keep them hooked on meth and allow the family unit to fracture even further they won't even notice when their political agency vanishes overnight.

There's absolutely no way this can go wrong.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 4, 2019)

barronwaffles said:


> I figure that if we can keep them hooked on meth and allow the family unit to fracture even further they won't even notice when their political agency vanishes overnight.
> 
> There's absolutely no way this can go wrong.


They keep themselves hooked on meth, nobody's force-feeding them the shit.  It's their voting decisions on a local/state level which leave them in a perpetual state of hopelessness and drug addiction.  I definitely feel for them, but I can't break the cycle for them.


----------



## Demon27248 (Feb 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Again you're putting words in my mouth.  How did I suggest disenfranchising anyone?  Republicans are the minority based on voter registrations and that's a fact.
> 
> 
> No, all I'm saying is that the Republican party has used shady tactics to make themselves look bigger than they are for decades.  Those tactics, like gerrymandering and voter roll purges, are finally having a spotlight shined on them, and once those tactics are explicitly banned, the party will quickly fade into irrelevancy.  Either they'll have to completely overhaul their platform, or the Democrats will split in two.



And Democrats are innocent? Both parties will do whatever they can to maximise their seats in government. That's liberal democracy for you.


----------



## barronwaffles (Feb 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> They keep themselves hooked on meth, nobody's force-feeding them the shit.  It's their voting decisions on a local/state level which leave them in a perpetual state of hopelessness and drug addiction.  I definitely feel for them, but I can't break the cycle for them.



I really admire people who can turn on a dime from 'bumfuck methtown' / 'cultural wasteland' to 'I definitely feel for them'.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 4, 2019)

Whole lotta love said:


> What a terrible justification for imperialism.


Justification of imperialism has nothing to do with what I am telling you, just open your eyes, it's the way things are, wishing it didn't exist won't make it disappear. At least if you stop stubborn negation you could see the current state is imperialism mandated by Russia and China, it's not a "people's government".


----------



## Xzi (Feb 4, 2019)

Demon27248 said:


> And Democrats are innocent? Both parties will do whatever they can to maximise their seats in government. That's liberal democracy for you.


'Whatever they can' for Republicans is xenophobia and contrarianism.  'Whatever they can' for Democrats is national healthcare coverage and leaders that speak in complete sentences.  "Both parties are the same" is a nonsensical argument that couldn't be more untrue.  In large part, Trump is just an extreme overreaction in the completely opposite direction after keeping the first black president in office for eight years.



barronwaffles said:


> I really admire people who can turn on a dime from 'bumfuck methtown' / 'cultural wasteland' to 'I definitely feel for them'.


These things aren't mutually exclusive.  Like I said, they've turned their states into Bumfuck Methtowns and cultural wastelands through their own local/state decisions.  I still feel for them, but knowing that they've done this to themselves and continue to do this to themselves does make staying empathetic harder.


----------



## Demon27248 (Feb 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> 'Whatever they can' for Republicans is xenophobia and contrarianism.  'Whatever they can' for Democrats is national healthcare coverage and leaders that speak in complete sentences.  "Both parties are the same" is a nonsensical argument that couldn't be more untrue.  In large part, Trump is just an extreme overreaction in the completely opposite direction after keeping the first black president in office for eight years.
> 
> 
> These things aren't mutually exclusive.  Like I said, they've turned their states into Bumfuck Methtowns and cultural wastelands through their own local/state decisions.  I still feel for them, but knowing that they've done this to themselves and continue to do this to themselves does make staying empathetic harder.



The primary goal of any political party is to get the candidates they want into government. Gerrymandering is done extensively in the US by both parties. If they don't when they get the opportunity to, they're only shooting themselves in the foot. Stating that one party is simply more reprehensible than the other on moral grounds is simply not true.

Say what you will about his presidency, but Trump's campaign was largely rooted in economic revitalisation, which Obama also campaigned on. There is no change in direction, things are still running the same course.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 4, 2019)

Demon27248 said:


> Gerrymandering is done extensively in the US by both parties.


Democrats have literally been campaigning on eliminating gerrymandering and they've successfully done so in several states already.  Democrats want redistricting done by an independent mediator outside of both parties.



Demon27248 said:


> Stating that one party is simply more reprehensible than the other on moral grounds is simply not true.


Well we're definitely not going to agree on that.  Putting aside the insane amount of moral hypocrisy from the "party of god," there's no denying that corruption in the executive branch is always way worse under Republicans.  Trump's administration alone has likely had more indictments than the last ten Democrat presidents combined.



Demon27248 said:


> Say what you will about his presidency, but Trump's campaign was largely rooted in economic revitalisation, which Obama also campaigned on.


Trump promised everything during the campaign and delivered none of it.  His administration cut taxes on the rich and that was their only major priority.  Obama actually pulled the economy out of a recession caused by the last neoconservative, and now Trump is likely going to be the neocon to put us into the next recession.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 4, 2019)

Christ...I have to look up something, and suddenly there's three pages worth of opinion that doesn't address a blatant lie in the OP.  Still...better late than never:


Saiyan Lusitano said:


> The EU and America recognize Juan Guaidó as the President of Venezuela so...


Excuse me...about the EU...you're either pulling that shit out of your ass, or you've been listening to someone who pulled it from their ass. In either case: that statement is completely false.

In reality, the EU is (as of writing currently) still undecided. A large part of Western Europe has set an ultimatum for renewed elections to settle the dispute. The rest of the bunch (among which Belgium) wants to open negotiations without an ultimatum.
True...there's some remarkable "propaganda" going round saying how nice and decent Guaidó is. But as far as his political differences with Maduro's regime, things are pretty quiet. As for what grounds he claims the presidency...I don't know. What I do know (and probably most of you know) is that they both have strong backings from the population. *That *should be the reason why the country should or not change leaders. All other countries (including my own) shouldn't have a say in how they resolve it, provided they do it peacefully.

That said...if it wasn't for that, I would've thumbed you up for your analogy. It's a situation with seemingly similar ingredients:
-an election surrounded by shady practices
-the runner-up candidate having a good reason to contest the winner
-the current leader strongly accused (but not yet proven) corruption
-most of the rest of the world openly disproving said leader

Well...That settles...hmm...Wait a second... 

-Maduro won with a decent majority of votes; Guaidó wasn't even in the picture
-Hillary actually won the majority vote and thus has much higher claim on the presidency
-just...what exactly is Maduro accused of? On Trump entire books are filled with alleged crimes
-as stated earlier: the world is pretty divided on who should rule Venezuela. In the USA, every country but Russia and Israel disapproves of Trump and would rather have ANYONE ELSE leading the joint (note also that I already stated that for me personally, this shouldn't be an issue)

So...in a way, the analogy is just TOO GOOD to be usable. In other words: why the f*** are other countries faffing about forming an opinion on Venezuela? Attempting an outside coup - because really: that's what this is - should be done against the USA for all these reasons. Even without taking the economical situation into account (face it: USA's wealthfare has a much larger imprint on the world than Venezuela, as much as the poor residents of the country suffer from the mass inflation).


----------

