While your point is also valid, it is worth addressing why Chavez nationalized the oil industry in the first place, just like Mossadegh in Iran before the CIA overthrew him - those royalties were a joke, borderline symbolic theft. Venezuela’s move wasn’t just about control but it was about reclaiming profits that many felt were disproportionately benefiting foreign corporations. Saying “Venezuela got their cut” glosses over decades of resource extraction with limited reinvestment in Venezuelan infrastructure or social programs enabled by past pro-Washington leadership. There's historical context all over the place to support this trend of US and other foreign oil companies securing favorable terms in developing countries paying the lowest royalties possible, maximizing tax breaks with minimal oversight - often under duress. Venezuela’s oil wealth was immense, yet poverty and inequality persisted, fueling resentment and calls for reform. The fact is that Chavez’s nationalization was part of a broader Latin American trend of resource nationalism, not an isolated power grab. The US has a long and bloody history of intervening in Latin America to protect corporate interests from Guatemala to Chile to Venezuela at local government's and citizens expense. Suggesting the US was simply a neutral business partner ignores the geopolitical leverage and economic pressure it disproportionately used and abused, hence the current movement for dedollarization gaining traction in the Global South - Africa progressively kicking the French out is another good example.
That raises an interesting question... what is to stop congress being permanently 'on holiday'? I'm guessing there must be some rules about these things.
rules =/= legality The initial comment was about breaking rules, not breaking the law. Rules can be spoken or unspoken, written or not written, but they are not synonymous with being legal or illegal.
Ehhhh. That's not really true, particularly at the time Chavez kicked out the foreign oil companies. Did it start out initially that way? Absolutely, but by the time Chavez took office, Venezuela was actually a model of how a country can work with foreign oil companies. Back in the 70's, Venezuela nationalized their oil industry and created a government entity to manage their oil reserves (PDVSA), they then turned right around and worked with foreign companies to run their oil fields, but on the condition that Venezuela owned 60% of the joint venture that was created. Under that regime, Venezuela became one of the wealthiest countries in South America. I also wouldn't mention Africa kicking out France as a good example. LOL. They just replaced France's yoke with an even more exploitative yoke of Russia.
The Venezuela oil industry was nationalized in 1976 under Perez and PDVSA has been the state owned oil company that ran the industry. You may be referring to a few remaining energy holdings of foreign operators which were nationalized starting in 2007.
Some folk from Fox seem to have developed a conscience. “Over time that is” 'Sold my soul to the devil’: Fox News staffers blast network in explosive court filing “Partial” Among the problems employees had with the company were ethics, fair treatment, and their efforts to fact-check and report things fairly and accurately, Fox’s own filing says. Smartmatic is highlighting the commentary as part of an ongoing lawsuit against the company, alleging that the network and news personalities defamed the company. The most notable comments come from pages 550-554, in which HR took commentary from some of those employees. “The racial rhetoric spewed on air. It’s everything but [Fair] and Balanced,” another employee said, referring to the slogan the network used until it was retired in 2017. “I sometimes go home fighting back tears. This network made me question my morals. Have I sold my soul to the devil?” “I wish we would get out of Trump’s pocket and realize people like Tucker [Carlson], Laura [Ingraham], [Sean] Hannity, [Mark] Levin, etc. are a total embarrassment, peddling BS and conspiracy theories. Many days I feel like I am part of the problem and FNC is contributing to hatred in this country,” said one staffer. More here. https://www.rawstory.com/fox-news-2674206251/
Legislative bodies mostly set their own rules of operation - so as usual you get an edge case where in bad faith, the majority party decides to fail to execute it's role as a co-equal branch of government.
That definitely a possibility, and would probably be more likely in the DC case. The other three I mentioned at all looking at vindictive prosecution at some stage or other. Saying that, I'm sure it is likely we will hear of others, particularly in DC (Judge Wine Glass) and VA (Prosecutor Real Estate). Chicago will be interesting also as there are a lot of videos being uploaded.
The above is definitely true, but Chavez kicked out the foreign oil companies that operated their oil fields. So PDVSA went from 60% ownership of the joint ventures to 100% ownership of the join ventures. Of course, he then kicked out all of the people that ran PDVSA and installed his cronies that didn't know how to operate an oil company.
Huh? No one is talking about Johnson being thrown into jail if he doesn't seat the AZ Representative. He can, on the other hand, be forced to seat her by the legal system and the fact that he seated the 2 Republicans while the House was in Recess is going to be evidence #1.
This is the wrong lens For instance, what if the Supreme Court simply announced from now on it was finding in favour of all MAGA plaintiffs and against all Dem plaintiffs. As it is the highest court, what would 'illegal' even mean? The point is this stuff makes a laughing stock of the constitution if a co-equal branch of government just decides to not do its job anymore.
I've been trying to answer this on and off over the past week or so. Here is what I've found: The House must break on Aug 1 for 30 days (at least) if not otherwise having taken recess. Outside of those 30 days, there must be some kind of formal designation of the house being in session every 3 days (I think). That could mean a simple motion to go back on recess for another 3 days, and so on. Thus, this could be endless. The House must reconvene on Jan 3, unless otherwise voted on (which would mean the entire house must be in session). Somebody with more knowledge please correct me.
Well, that kind of depends on your view point. Is the Constitution failing democracy? Or is the Republican Party failing the Constitution? I'd argue the latter more than the prior, as any written document made 200+ years ago will have some holes which develop over time. And most of those holes will be based on norms. Will rewriting the Constitution solve the problem? For today, sure. But in 200 years, probably not. For example, what if some President down the line banned investing in the stock market unless you had over $100m to invest? That's a norm, but could it be seen through the lens of "pursuit of happiness"? And is the Pursuit of Happiness constitutional?
Mitch McConnell used different standards on Supremes in 2016 compared to 2020. It’s the same thing here. Nobody is breaking any rules.
Well, that's my point as well. Put simply, ARE there any rules about what should happen if, say, the congress just decides it's gonna chill and do nothing?
Yes. Yes. More broadly speaking, democracy works better in theory, than it does in practice. When a system of government places harsher punishments and burdens on its citizenry than it does on its ruling class, that system is failing. And if the rulers within that system represent money over the populace, that system is failing. At least, IMO.
Are you really this dense? LOL. We aren't talking about a 4 year difference here. We are talking about in the same Congress.
The woman that was found Not Guilty in the trial and her lawyer released statements after the verdict. She does not hold back.