NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7131993.stm

"Mr Chavez has said the country voted no because it was blackmailed by violence threats and on Wednesday said he would try again to push through his reforms."

Dipshit. Why can't he just accept that he lost, fair and square, and stop acting like a spoiled brat for once in his life? :rolleyes:

Says he will step down in 2013...I would rather he step down now. How much you bet he does something stupid before then?

That man is such a crybaby.

Waaaaaahhh! I want my way! I want my way! I want my waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, it was a very close vote, he stands a chance of it getting through next time. Possibly.

You morons will use any excuse to bash Chavez.


racists.

I'm racist against near-dictators. I hate them all.

You morons will use any excuse to bash Chavez.


racists.What the heck was racist about any of the above 3 posts? :confused:

You morons will use any excuse to bash Chavez.


racists.

How exactly is condemning someones actions and beliefs racism ?

to be fair,he didn't have to put these changes to referendum, he coulda just taken them. instead, he showed that despite his authoritarian tendencies, he still believes in democracy (and direct democracy at that). This vote and subsequent loss has made me gain a healthy respect for Mr. Chavez. I don't think we can realistically say he's trying to be a dictator anymore.

What the heck was racist about any of the above 3 posts? :confused:

You're not claiming that Chavez is some kind of superhero, thus you're a racist. Duh.

You're not claiming that Chavez is some kind of superhero, thus you're a racist. Duh. Oh right, I forgot not claiming God status = racism.

to be fair,he didn't have to put these changes to referendum, he coulda just taken them. instead, he showed that despite his authoritarian tendencies, he still believes in democracy (and direct democracy at that). This vote and subsequent loss has made me gain a healthy respect for Mr. Chavez. I don't think we can realistically say he's trying to be a dictator anymore.

Must I remind you that a certain Austrian became dictator by referendum?

You're not claiming that Chavez is some kind of superhero, thus you're a racist. Duh.
I reckon that Marvel or DC could have a go though.

Must I remind you that a certain Austrian became dictator by referendum?
Not a referendum, no.

Must I remind you that a certain Austrian became dictator by referendum?

Fair enough. It didn't really seem to be an attempt at a coup though as the proposal was pretty mild--abolishing term limits. That's not anti-democratic in any way, really. Just kind of a regulation to make the playing field a little more even.

If he was planning on using this to launch full on dictatorship however, then it would appear he has now abandoned those ambitions. He's said that he won't challenge the vote, even though it was close enough that uncounted ballots could change the outcome. He's whined a little, but the characteristic 'Chavez style' of getting his goal accomplished regardless of what's in his way has died out.

I reckon that Marvel or DC could have a go though.

Hugo Bossman ?

¿Por qué no te callas?

That man is such a crybaby.

Waaaaaahhh! I want my way! I want my way! I want my waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!

A fucking dangerous cry baby. If he can actually orchestrate his staying in power, he and Amhedinjad (however his name's spelled) can wreak a lot of damage via OPEC if they so desired. Like withdrawing from using the dollar and switching to the Euro. That alone could tank the economy.

Not that that's likely, anyway. What a giant pussy :rolleyes:

Like withdrawing from using the dollar and switching to the Euro.

You mean do the sensible thing ?
Seems like a win-win for them to me.

The pink cucaracha should heed the advice of el Rey, before someone sees to it that his tenure as presidente que seria dictador is indeed for life.

I like the proposition of reducing the duration of Presidential terms to 4 years from 6.

Not a referendum, no.

That was Bonaparte. He got his spot through referendum.

Hitler got his through Constitutional means.

Must I remind you that a certain Austrian became dictator by referendum?please do remind us.. who is this Austrian?

to be fair,he didn't have to put these changes to referendum, he coulda just taken them. instead, he showed that despite his authoritarian tendencies, he still believes in democracy (and direct democracy at that). This vote and subsequent loss has made me gain a healthy respect for Mr. Chavez. I don't think we can realistically say he's trying to be a dictator anymore.

Wrong. He allowed the vote because he is egotistic enough to believe the voters would be intimidated into voting for what he wanted. That would allow him to claim that "the people" believed in him and (just as importantly) hated the USA. He failed.

HA!

Like withdrawing from using the dollar and switching to the Euro. That alone could tank the economy.


What economy?

How?

You morons will use any excuse to bash Chavez.


racists.

If denouncing a budding dictator is racist, then just call me Strom Thurmond...

...


Seriously dude...Think before you post.

Fair enough. It didn't really seem to be an attempt at a coup though as the proposal was pretty mild--abolishing term limits.
No, that was the public face of it. It also meant that students didn't get to pick what they liked if the government said no, and gave massive powers to him in any 'emergency situation', as well as writing socialism into the constitution.

..near-dictator..If denouncing a budding dictator is..Damn, it is tougher and tougher for me to debate against the Chavez-Haters @ NSG

Once upon a time they would call him Dictator and Hitler.. that was easy kill for me.

Now they tag him with intangible/undebatable names like "near-dictator" or "budding-dictator"

Whoever said people at NSG dont learn.. well.. he was wrong. :D :D ;) :D

Looks like I won that bet much sooner than I thought. All the people talking about Chavez taking the defeat with class, yeah right.

He'll try again, be sure of that.

Damn, it is tougher and tougher for me to debate against the Chavez-Haters @ NSG

Once upon a time they would call him Dictator and Hitler.. that was easy kill for me.

Now they tag him with intangible/undebatable names near-dictator or budding-dictator

Whoever said people at NSG dont learn.. well.. he was wrong. :D :D ;) :D

Hmm...

You have piqued my interest. What do you find favorable about Hugo Chavez?

...

And really I don't hate anyone. I just don't think ANYONE should rule indefinitely...and wanted to address a little bit of misuse of the word "racist".

You have piqued my interest. What do you find favorable about Hugo Chavez?for one thing, his respect of the electorate. (the will of the people)

to be fair,he didn't have to put these changes to referendum, he coulda just taken them. instead, he showed that despite his authoritarian tendencies, he still believes in democracy (and direct democracy at that). This vote and subsequent loss has made me gain a healthy respect for Mr. Chavez. I don't think we can realistically say he's trying to be a dictator anymore.

I'm not so sure I'd interpret it that way. Considering his level of surprise this may have been a gambit on his part to improve his image on the world stage. People were calling him dictator and he needed to prove his legitimacy and a popular vote is the best way to do it. He was probably pretty sure he'd win and the fact that he didn't would go a long way toward explaining this outburst.

Wrong. He allowed the vote because he is egotistic enough to believe the voters would be intimidated into voting for what he wanted. That would allow him to claim that "the people" believed in him and (just as importantly) hated the USA. He failed.

HA!


I'll stick with the simplest explanation, thanks. This is a man who doesn't take chances very often, a possible exception maybe his willingness to insult the US, and Bush in particular. But for the most part, he relies on his safe bets, mainly his strong alliances large natural resources, and populous support. Maybe he thought the vote was a safe bet, but that doesn't really matter. He took the honest route here, and stuck to it when the people told him no.

The only thing that's kept me off the Chavez-bashing-bandwagon has been his clean democracy record. Every time he's been elected independent groups came in and reported that Venezuelan elections were completely transparent and honest. He showed the same respect for his nation's democratic machinery this time around, true to form.

for one thing, his respect of the electorate. (the will of the people)

Fair enough. I suppose a lesser many would have gone "Fuck it! Who's up for a little coup d'eat?". And he has done a great deal of positive things for his country's infrastructure.

Regardless of how liked or how much good he has done for the country, this recent referendum was clear power grabbing on his part, and tacking on otherwise positive reforms on to an amendment that would allow him to serve indefinitely is probably why the margin was so thin.

I do wonder though why the voter turnout was so low in comparison to other votes.

No, that was the public face of it. It also meant that students didn't get to pick what they liked if the government said no, and gave massive powers to him in any 'emergency situation', as well as writing socialism into the constitution.
(bold added)

Dude he already did that. Renamed the country, restructured the military for his own uses and everything.

I don't think there's any doubt this was about additional power, but the biggest gain in power for him would be more time in office (i believe he declared that he would be president until 2025 a couple of years ago). It sucks that he would take political freedoms from students, but don't forget his prime motivation has always been ,'how do i stay here longer.' Adding time is his power play. But taking away term limits isn't malevolent in any way.

I'm not so sure I'd interpret it that way. Considering his level of surprise this may have been a gambit on his part to improve his image on the world stage. People were calling him dictator and he needed to prove his legitimacy and a popular vote is the best way to do it. He was probably pretty sure he'd win and the fact that he didn't would go a long way toward explaining this outburst.

see my response to Orenia about his track record with open and honest elections. If he was really worried about his world image he wouldn't be having happy relations with Iran.

I'll stick with the simplest explanation, thanks. This is a man who doesn't take chances very often, a possible exception maybe his willingness to insult the US, and Bush in particular. But for the most part, he relies on his safe bets, mainly his strong alliances large natural resources, and populous support. Maybe he thought the vote was a safe bet, but that doesn't really matter. He took the honest route here, and stuck to it when the people told him no.

The only thing that's kept me off the Chavez-bashing-bandwagon has been his clean democracy record. Every time he's been elected independent groups came in and reported that Venezuelan elections were completely transparent and honest. He showed the same respect for his nation's democratic machinery this time around, true to form.

Erhm, you're right in a broad sense, although there are many, many grey areas there.

First, Chávez admitted he lost the referendum, that indeed reinforces his committment to democracy. I have to say that he has never been a dictator, but a democratically elected president, may anyone like that or not.

This time, there is a partial respect. First he says he lost, and that he respect the decision of the people. Good points to be earned there. Then, he says he could have rigged the elections a bit without anyone noticing it, but that he didn't, (not a nice thing to say, it throws suspicions about former electoral bouts), and add that the results were a bit off the mark, but that he respects the arbiter, and that he prefers to lose for that close margin than to win for said margin. So, he mainly said he won, but that for said little margin, he chose to lose.

Second, he decides to say that nevertheless, he is going to find a way to approve the constitutional changes, no matter what, not even after the elections. I don't care if he accepts the raw numbers of the result, I care about him accepting the fact that the venezuelan people as a whole doesn't want to change the constitution. And then, he chastise his own followers for being such a lazy bunch and not giving him the suport he needed for HIS rule. (Not "our" rule, the venezuelan rule, no, no, "MY" rule)

Finally, after the military announces that they support him, he comes out and calls their opposers "a load of shit", and that the results were "a shitty victory" out in public. Way to go.

He shows an intermitent commitment to democracy, it seems. He earns points, then he loses them, then he wins them again and so forth.

I do wonder though why the voter turnout was so low in comparison to other votes.

There are many interesting factors in venezuelan real politics. One is the emotional ties of the electorate with the president Chávez. He is a charismatic figure, and most of the people see him as "one of our own", a "man of the people that speaks like us", or even as the father they want to have to take the important decisions.

Most of the people, even his followers, were against the changes of the constitutional changes, for many, many reasons. Remember that according to classic marxist-leninist theories, the main class that impulses the revolutions are the proletariat. Venezuelan proletariat is small, poor petite bourgueoises (spelling? in spanish is "burgueses") forming the main block of the population. These people want Chávez because he is like them, but they do not want truly a Soviet-like state, they want private property, they want to own their things. They are against his ideology, but not against the man who pushes it.

Yet these same people who were against the changes, couldn't forgive themselves if they vote against their leader, as most people sometimes have problems raising a hand against their mother or father. They would feel like traitors. Some of them raised a slogan, "Chávez forever, communism never".

In the following moral dilemma, most of the people decided not to vote, to avoid taking the decision. Add the opposition followers who are talibans against Chávez's rule and that never vote because they think that every election is rigged since 1998, and you broadly line the causes of the low participation percentage (44,1% of abstention).

He lost his precious vote? Aww...poor baby! NOT!!!

Grow up Chavez. Face it...the people just did not like your proposals and Good bye to them.

There are many interesting factors in venezuelan real politics. One is the emotional ties of the electorate with the president Chávez. He is a charismatic figure, and most of the people see him as "one of our own", a "man of the people that speaks like us", or even as the father they want to have to take the important decisions.

Most of the people, even his followers, were against the changes of the constitutional changes, for many, many reasons. Remember that according to classic marxist-leninist theories, the main class that impulses the revolutions are the proletariat. Venezuelan proletariat is small, poor petite bourgueoises (spelling? in spanish is "burgueses") forming the main block of the population. These people want Chávez because he is like them, but they do not want truly a Soviet-like state, they want private property, they want to own their things. They are against his ideology, but not against the man who pushes it.

Yet these same people who were against the changes, couldn't forgive themselves if they vote against their leader, as most people sometimes have problems raising a hand against their mother or father. They would feel like traitors. Some of them raised a slogan, "Chávez forever, communism never".

In the following moral dilemma, most of the people decided not to vote, to avoid taking the decision. Add the opposition followers who are talibans against Chávez's rule and that never vote because they think that every election is rigged since 1998, and you broadly line the causes of the low participation percentage (44,1% of abstention).

Though I do understand somewhat where they are coming from (and your reasoning as to the low turnout is sound), I nevertheless find it somewhat strange.*

This may be just me, but the good of the nation comes first. I could like a politician well enough as a person and as a leader, but if I know he or she is leading the country down the wrong path, I will vote against their policies, and if they continue their downward spiral, I will seek to oust them from office come the next election.

Maybe I've just not seen a charismatic leader like Chavez in my country...and I hope I never do. I don't want to see the populace strung along by someone who just so happens to have a good speaking voice. Policy is the ultimate decider in my books: not whether or not he's "one of us" or "the kind of guy I could have a beer with" (fucking Bushites...).

*This is not meant as an insult, merely my feelings on the situation.

Must I remind you that a certain Austrian became dictator by referendum?

Arnold Swarchenegger?

Though I do understand somewhat where they are coming from (and your reasoning as to the low turnout is sound), I nevertheless find it somewhat strange.*

This may be just me, but the good of the nation comes first. I could like a politician well enough as a person and as a leader, but if I know he or she is leading the country down the wrong path, I will vote against their policies, and if they continue their downward spiral, I will seek to oust them from office come the next election.

Maybe I've just not seen a charismatic leader like Chavez in my country...and I hope I never do. I don't want to see the populace strung along by someone who just so happens to have a good speaking voice. Policy is the ultimate decider in my books: not whether or not he's "one of us" or "the kind of guy I could have a beer with" (fucking Bushites...).

*This is not meant as an insult, merely my feelings on the situation.

My point exactly.

I do not agree with my fellow countrymen criteria at the time of each and every voting for the last...40 years, but I have to accept it that way. Chávez is, with all the pros and cons of being so, nothing but what Socrates called a "sofist".

Emotional identification and self improvement are usually the causes behind the voting of most venezuelans. Some people, in both sides of the conflict right now, are the exception, but as a main rule of thumb, most people, in a romantic way if you want to see it like that, vote with their hearts and not with their heads. I think that is a general latino complex, trying to solve things through the use of our emotions.

Ok, so who wants to bet that Chavez will simply keep having the same (or marginally different) referendum as many times as it takes to get the "right" answer?

If he does this, then he isn't alone. Anyone on NSG who resides in Europe and follows the workings of the European Union should be familiar with this sort of political method.

A related point is that if one analyses all the reforms Chavez has achieved since he was first elected, the most similar policies can be found in Scandinavia. Do we consider the leaders of Sweden, Norway and Finland to be "fascist", "dictator" or "authoritarian"? Maybe. But I think not.

For all his bluster and excuses, Chavez did not mess with the voting, and has agreed to step down when his term expires. My respect for him has gone up.

Damn, it is tougher and tougher for me to debate against the Chavez-Haters @ NSG

Once upon a time they would call him Dictator and Hitler.. that was easy kill for me.

Now they tag him with intangible/undebatable names like "near-dictator" or "budding-dictator"

Whoever said people at NSG dont learn.. well.. he was wrong. :D :D ;) :D
You're right. Given the content of the proposed changes, how about "aspiring dictator"?

He's a wannabe dictator? Where would any of the world's autocrats be if they gave up after their first setback? Stalin would've still been a blacksmith in Tbilisi, Hitler would've still been a struggling artist, Pinochet a second lieutenant, Castro a lawyer...

For all his bluster and excuses, Chavez did not mess with the voting, and has agreed to step down when his term expires. My respect for him has gone up.

You know for sure he didn't mess with the voting? Maybe he thought he had it in the bag with a bit of meddling. To his surprise he didn't do enough?

He's a wannabe dictator? Where would any of the world's autocrats be if they gave up after their first setback? Stalin would've still been a blacksmith in Tbilisi, Hitler would've still been a struggling artist, Pinochet a second lieutenant, Castro a lawyer...
Castro might have had a career as a baseball player...

Castro might have had a career as a baseball player...

http://www.snopes.com/sports/baseball/castro.asp

Sore loser, perhaps. But he'd hardly be the first politician, would he.

He can find excuses all he wants. He's just trying to minimise the damage from the "you're with me or against me"-type campaign he ran, which now apparently says that Venezuela is against him. Rather than un-say the things he said, it might just be easier to find reasons why people didn't vote on the issue at hand.

I will judge him by what he does for the rest of his term. Will he try to get the administrative parts of the referendum (central bank independence etc) through by using his rule by decree? Will he wait and then ask the question about his term limits at a later date? Will he begin and plan for the succession like Putin, using loopholes to stay in control? Will he just step down and live in a quiet house somewhere and let other people run the country?

We'll see.

Oh he's such a (completely democratically elected) "dictator", he's not letting foreign oil companies control Venezuela's oil (He did however, let oil companies do business in Venezuela as long as they don't control the oil, Venezuela does... pretty reasonable and not exactly what I'd call Communism) and he's actually giving the poor majority of Venezuela a voice.

I am surprised that no one has brought this up yet. This loss to Chavez bodes very badly for Venezeula. Why? The last time a dictator lost a referendum was back in 2000; and let us all be reminded where that was.

Zimbabwe.

That began the downward spiral as Mugabe wanted to punish the people of Zimbabwe for rejecting what he wanted. Chavez could very well do the same, the only difference this time is where Zimbabwe has copper, Venezeula has oil. However, not even oil can help a nation with idiotic leadership, and Chavez and Mugabe seem to share some interesting similarities.

I am surprised that no one has brought this up yet. This loss to Chavez bodes very badly for Venezeula. Why? The last time a dictator lost a referendum was back in 2000; and let us all be reminded where that was.

Zimbabwe.

That began the downward spiral as Mugabe wanted to punish the people of Zimbabwe for rejecting what he wanted. Chavez could very well do the same, the only difference this time is where Zimbabwe has copper, Venezeula has oil. However, not even oil can help a nation with idiotic leadership, and Chavez and Mugabe seem to share some interesting similarities.

I know a way that mugabe could have been prevented from doing what he did to Zimbabwe, a way that would also work to stop Chavez if he makes the wrong decisions.

I know a way that mugabe could have been prevented from doing what he did to Zimbabwe, a way that would also work to stop Chavez if he makes the wrong decisions.

I know how to dance in an exciting and socially-accepted manner. Isn't knowing stuff great?

He's probably right. Not like US hasn't messed with elections before.

You know for sure he didn't mess with the voting? Maybe he thought he had it in the bag with a bit of meddling. To his surprise he didn't do enough?

During past voting, international observers have agreed that Venezuala's voting system is always fair and transparent. For every serious allegation of ballot-rigging, there are many more reliable sources saying there was none.

Oh, and neither side here is making any claims to ballot-rigging or the like.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7134927.stm
Venezuela creates its own unique time zone on Sunday, putting the clock back half-an-hour on a permanent basis.

President Hugo Chavez says that an earlier dawn means the performance of the country will improve, as more people will wake up in daylight.

"I don't care if they call me crazy, the new time will go ahead," he said.

But critics say the move is unnecessary and the president simply wants to be in a different time zone from his arch-rival, the United States.

The new time puts Venezuela four-and-a-half hours behind Greenwich Mean Time, and out of step with all its neighbours.

And there we were, thinking Niyazov's death had brought the end of hilariously crazy government schemes. :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7134927.stm


And there we were, thinking Niyazov's death had brought the end of hilariously crazy government schemes. :D

Well talk about shedding new light on things.

You morons will use any excuse to bash Chavez.


racists.

Non-dictator power...?