- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@sh.itjust.works
…
His intervention comes as the presidents of Brazil, Mexico and Colombia all called on Venezuela to release the full details of last Sunday’s election.
…
It has also attracted global criticism, with many governments around the world demanding the Venezuelan government release proof of the result.
The result has been recognised by Venezuelan allies China, Russia and Iran.
But, the US, European Union and other G7 countries have called on Mr Maduro’s government to release detailed voting data.
What if…the US said Maduro won? Would that add any credibility to the claim that the election was tampered with? Is Lula any less legitimate just because his victory was recognized by the US? Or would you just dismiss it and look at other opinions, mainly in SA stakeholders who suffered under US-backed dictatorships?
Yanno that’s a good question, I do think if the USA says something about the internal politics of a South American country I tend to believe the opposite is closer to the truth.
That’s the point 😁 it’s just as silly to decide to believe the US at face value as to believe the opposite just because they said it.
Of course you can formulate this as having a hypothesis based on a prior history. But then you have to look at the evidence too to decide whether to accept or reject your original hypothesis in the face of new data. Some people need stronger evidence based on how strongly they believe their original stance.
I personally was skeptical of the opposition’s 66% claim, but so far the mess of the election and not publishing results is too strong for me to ignore. But some people are so entrenched in their position that it would literally take seeing Maduro personally stuffing ballot boxes in front of them to change their mind.
What annoys me in all this is people who just take their hypothesis as all the evidence they need to convict.