Venezuela: Conclusions on the Dialogue  · Global Voices
Juan Arellano

“The map we don't want to see.” Image by Juan Carlos Aristimuño on Flickr. Used under the license  Atribución-SinDerivadas 2.0 Genérica (CC BY-ND 2.0).
(Links in Spanish are signaled as [es])
Daniel Lara Farías, @DLaraF [es], writes [es] on Infociudadanos about the dialogue [es] between the government and the opposition. He launches criticism against the president of the National Assembly, Diosdado Cabello (links added).
Due to Diosdado's lack of credibility within the fraction of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela itself, parliament is unable to parley. Therefore, a dialogue must be set up in Miraflores Palace with international and ecclesiastical guarantors. This is because thanks to Diosdado's ways and means, nobody believes the conversations with a regime that in full debate, calls a female representative opponent a prostitute, splits the head open of a Democratic Action representative, and prohibits the rest from speaking. In other words, Diosdado prohibited the parley in parliament.
But he also criticizes opponent, Henrique Capriles:
But if Capriles is right when he says that the political crisis begun in April 2013 when he was robbed of the election, there is nothing left to do but to also make him responsible for it. He spent a year driving upwards in idle, without pressing the accelerator! A year later, violence is ignited by the citizen's frustration knowing that problems mount up and the government doesn't resolve them. We can't vote out the government because the elections are fixed. Who are the responsible ones? The ones on the street, risking the threat of jail, death, and persecution? Or the ones that robbed the election and the idiots that allow themselves to be robbed?