• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chavez seeks indefinite re-election, again

Who do you expect Chavez will attack?

I expect that we will attack those weaker than he is. I do not expect that he will begin full scale invasions anytime soon.

This doesn not take away from the fact that the path he is on is more than very similar to that which led Adloph Hitler to power in the early 1930s.

Chavez needs to be prevented from becoming emporer of Venezueala.
 
I expect that we will attack those weaker than he is. I do not expect that he will begin full scale invasions anytime soon.

This doesn not take away from the fact that the path he is on is more than very similar to that which led Adloph Hitler to power in the early 1930s.

Chavez needs to be prevented from becoming emporer of Venezueala.

I dont see any evidence for that. He,s certainly no precendence. I think the only real threat he poses he that the threat of south americans running there own countrys and economys. Something that washington policy makers have historically found absolutely terrifying. As Jacobo Arbenz found to his peril.
 
I dont see any evidence for that. He,s certainly no precendence. I think the only real threat he poses he that the threat of south americans running there own countrys and economys. Something that washington policy makers have historically found absolutely terrifying. As Jacobo Arbenz found to his peril.

I'm sorry you cannot see it. The far left is infamous for their stunning lack of vision.

Chavez is doing EXACTLY what Hitler did. Hitler sought and achieved ABSOLUTE power. Now, Chavez is doing EXACTLY the same.

If history has taught us anything. it's that no man, no single person, should have absolute power. No human being is capable of withstanding the corrupting forces of this kind of power.

Good god man! Open your eyes.

Look at Zimbaebwe, Mugabe is a rutheless despot, he was ruined that country. His people are starving to death on a massive scale. He has people killed at will.

This is a constant amoung dicators. Pol Pot, Hitler, Caesar, Kim Jong Ill, Idi Amin, Stalin, Kohmenie, ect ... ALL OF THEM ... ever last one is or was completely corrupted by absolute power.

Chavez will suffer the same fate. He must be stopped NOW; BEFORE we becomes the world's next Hitler.

Don't be blinded by bad judgement. See Chavez for the ****bag he is.
 
I'm sorry you cannot see it. The far left is infamous for their stunning lack of vision.

Chavez is doing EXACTLY what Hitler did. Hitler sought and achieved ABSOLUTE power. Now, Chavez is doing EXACTLY the same.

If history has taught us anything. it's that no man, no single person, should have absolute power. No human being is capable of withstanding the corrupting forces of this kind of power.

Good god man! Open your eyes.

Look at Zimbaebwe, Mugabe is a rutheless despot, he was ruined that country. His people are starving to death on a massive scale. He has people killed at will.

This is a constant amoung dicators. Pol Pot, Hitler, Caesar, Kim Jong Ill, Idi Amin, Stalin, Kohmenie, ect ... ALL OF THEM ... ever last one is or was completely corrupted by absolute power.

Chavez will suffer the same fate. He must be stopped NOW; BEFORE we becomes the world's next Hitler.

Don't be blinded by bad judgement. See Chavez for the ****bag he is.

Surprisingly enough im not particually keen on totalitarianism myself. I guess the main thing missing from your argument is any evidence that Chavez has or is seeking absolute power. If terms of any actual threat to the rest of the world I,ld be more worried about Kim il jong or Mugabe.
 
Last edited:
Surprisingly enough im not particually keen on totalitarianism myself. I guess the main thing missing from your argument is any evidence that Chavez has or is seeking absolute power. If terms of any actual threat to the rest of the world I,ld be more worried about Kim il jong or Mugabe.

Dave,

The evidence is in the title of the thread. Chavez seeks INDEFINATE RE-ELECTION again.

He doesn't want to give up power. Guess what? Neither did Hitler.

Hitler made sure he could not be removed from power and then he drove Germany to some of the greatest atrocities mankind has ever seen.

People who seek indefinate power are not planning on doing anything good while in power.
 
So you are against the basic principle of democracy as we know it today?

no, I am a proponent of democracy, which is why I value the limitation of power manifested in things like term limits. the will of the majority is important, as are the rights of all citizens, which come into question when the majority puts a dictator into office. I am merely suggesting that democracy in its most direct form can lead to a very unstable political atmosphere.

Picture running for student body president. You get 60 out of 100 votes, and yet the teachers choose the good looking girl with big boobs, who's father happens to donate big money to the school. Is that fair? That is in principle how Bush got elected in 2000. Is that fair or democratic?

we are a nation of states. the states cast their electoral votes for bush in 2000.

imagine you are running for student body president. you easily win all of the female votes in the school, but you've failed to realize that each grade has slightly more males than females. you watch as the 7th grade vote goes to your opponent, followed by the 8th and the 9th, by small margins. ouch.

you run again in high school. now your school is 55% female, but only because all of the men in the senior class have been drafted into the military. the senior class votes unanimously in your favor, giving you the popular vote, but the overwhelmingly male junior and sophomore class votes go to your opponent, an underclassman who has pledged to make cheerleaders cheer at JV games. the seniors send their class president and VP to student body meetings to ensure that the interests of the female senior class are still addressed even though they did not get the ASB president they wanted.

/analogy.

Because it is the most fair way? Or do you want to go back to the good old days, where only people of certain stature (aka wealth) have a vote.. or white males over 35? Do you want only people of certain education and wealth to be able to vote?

no.

"Scummy" people and abuse of power happens everywhere, regardless if the person in question is elected directly or by a group of non elected people.

true. but we're talking about taking legal, democratic measures to amend the constitution of venezuela to allow chavez to be "president for life."

Getting rid of corruption is damn hard, when there is no democracy. You cant get rid of corrupt politicians if the same politicians prevent any plausible competition in running, either by intimidation or by legalities.

wouldn't you say that abolishing term limits is a step in the wrong direction? that it might in fact one day prevent plausible competition? how would abolishing term limits lead to less corruption?

Does it mean that directly elected governments are bad then? Of course not.. your own Congress is directly elected... does that mean it is bad?

people vote within their states, and states send representatives to protect their interests in congress. in the same way, people vote for electors to protect their interests in the presidential election.

Sounds like she has a fear of the "dirty, stupid unwashed masses" that's been prevalent in capitalism since its birth in England and France. Perhaps she would be happier if we went back to the old system, where only people that owned land could vote?:roll:

It's pretty funny that she mentions this, and then goes on to laud the American electoral system as if it's any different. Does she not read the news? Blajegovich? Nixon? Tonkin? Iraq? I mean, do I really have to list every single scandal that US politicians and the US government has been involved in?

are you afraid to reply directly to me or are you just trying to intimidate me?

I would love to debate with you but I'm not going to send all of my arguments through PeteEU, and I certainly don't think he's qualified at this point to answer for me.
 
no, I am a proponent of democracy, which is why I value the limitation of power manifested in things like term limits. the will of the majority is important, as are the rights of all citizens, which come into question when the majority puts a dictator into office. I am merely suggesting that democracy in its most direct form can lead to a very unstable political atmosphere.

Well no on uses direct forms per say of Democracy. All nations use a representative form of Democracy. Some elect directly their leader, others use a representative system to elect a legislative group that in turn choose the leader. But the common thread on all (except the US) is that everyone is elected by MAJORITY vote.

we are a nation of states. the states cast their electoral votes for bush in 2000.

Yea and against the majority vote of the people. And you dont find that odd? That someone who more people voted against gets the top job? As for the "state" comment.. just an excuse. IMO the US needs to figure out if it is a country or 50 mini states and take the consequence. As it stands now, the political parties can use the "split" to their political favour, may it be getting elected, or getting through legislation over the head of the majority of people. And no I am not against local democracy and as much as possible locally with in reason.

imagine you are running for student body president. you easily win all of the female votes in the school, but you've failed to realize that each grade has slightly more males than females. you watch as the 7th grade vote goes to your opponent, followed by the 8th and the 9th, by small margins. ouch.

you run again in high school. now your school is 55% female, but only because all of the men in the senior class have been drafted into the military. the senior class votes unanimously in your favor, giving you the popular vote, but the overwhelmingly male junior and sophomore class votes go to your opponent, an underclassman who has pledged to make cheerleaders cheer at JV games. the seniors send their class president and VP to student body meetings to ensure that the interests of the female senior class are still addressed even though they did not get the ASB president they wanted.

/analogy.

What you are talking about is protecting the minority from abuse by the majority. The question is where you should do that. You seem to believe that it is okay to slant the election system to favour the minority? You do know that is what they do in Iran right? What Saddam did.. and Hitler? If you want to protect the minorities in any country then have laws doing that, not slant your whole political system to favour one party.

true. but we're talking about taking legal, democratic measures to amend the constitution of venezuela to allow chavez to be "president for life."

No, he wants to be able to stand for the job more than the term limit. That is NOT president for life. Are term limits great? Sure they are and I support them in any society and am against what Chavez is trying to change, but he is not rewriting the constitution to name him and his children as the only legal President. The amount of US anti Chavez propoganda is so funny and clouding the facts.

wouldn't you say that abolishing term limits is a step in the wrong direction? that it might in fact one day prevent plausible competition? how would abolishing term limits lead to less corruption?

As I said, term limits are great and should be part of any political system (even my own that dont have it). Corruption does come when there is lack of accountability and transparency and term limits can help. However it can also be bad frankly depending on the situation.

people vote within their states, and states send representatives to protect their interests in congress. in the same way, people vote for electors to protect their interests in the presidential election.

And? Yes the people vote within the states, just as I vote with in my local county and large political entity and send my representative to our parliament. No difference. Now the electoral system is very different because it is not a direct vote and it does not represent the "voice of the people" as the one with least votes can win. Plus the electors are not elected in most cases by the people.

I would love to debate with you but I'm not going to send all of my arguments through PeteEU, and I certainly don't think he's qualified at this point to answer for me.

Not qualified? So how involved in democracy have you been? Ever been an election official? Part of a political party? part of a political campaign? Have you voted? I have.. in 2 countries with very different political systems. I am not saying that this makes me all knowing, but it does qualify me at least a bit to discuss political electoral systems around the world, which includes the American.

He brings up a very valid point. Your favourite system brought us Bush, the guy who more people voted against than for, and look what his dictatorial leadership has brought us?! A war that should never have happened, an economy in the tanks, curbed individual freedoms, massive waste and corruption and so on.

It is what I have been trying to tell you.... Does not matter what the system of democracy and how you do it, if there is no accountability, transparency and checks and balances then there will be corruption and waste. And this is especially true in instances where one party or group are favoured over the others in a political system, because they know that it will take extra ordinary effort to kick them out. Chicago case in point. Many congressional seats case in point.. takes a guy getting busted for paedophile to change political colour of a district.... but even getting busted for corruption or accused of it, can get you re-elected.
 
No, because he's trying to tyranize by becomming emporer of his country.

This is unacceptable. He needs to be stopped. Period.

Firstly he isn't doing much that the British gov't has not done, we don't have term limits.

Secondly it is not Britain's job to police the world and remove those that we don't like, this is dangerous to domestic liberty and external security.
 
Yea and against the majority vote of the people. And you dont find that odd? That someone who more people voted against gets the top job? As for the "state" comment.. just an excuse. IMO the US needs to figure out if it is a country or 50 mini states and take the consequence. As it stands now, the political parties can use the "split" to their political favour, may it be getting elected, or getting through legislation over the head of the majority of people. And no I am not against local democracy and as much as possible locally with in reason.
.

The US is a federal system, it is meant to represent people within the states they live in not as an abstract mass. Now you may be a centralist who despises this but that is neither here not there to what the US is according to the constitution.

Personally I'd say what it needs to do is actually have a stronger federalism and role back the usurpation of power the feds have taken in the last 200 years.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry you cannot see it. The far left is infamous for their stunning lack of vision.

Chavez is doing EXACTLY what Hitler did. Hitler sought and achieved ABSOLUTE power. Now, Chavez is doing EXACTLY the same.

If history has taught us anything. it's that no man, no single person, should have absolute power. No human being is capable of withstanding the corrupting forces of this kind of power.

Good god man! Open your eyes.

Look at Zimbaebwe, Mugabe is a rutheless despot, he was ruined that country. His people are starving to death on a massive scale. He has people killed at will.

This is a constant amoung dicators. Pol Pot, Hitler, Caesar, Kim Jong Ill, Idi Amin, Stalin, Kohmenie, ect ... ALL OF THEM ... ever last one is or was completely corrupted by absolute power.

Chavez will suffer the same fate. He must be stopped NOW; BEFORE we becomes the world's next Hitler.

Don't be blinded by bad judgement. See Chavez for the ****bag he is.

Everyone sees he is a scumbag, or almost. The point however you are making that we, and I can only speak of course as a Briton myself here, should invade him for that.

He is not the same as Hitler, Hitler was far more brutal and struck very quickly. You can't compare the fight over term limits with things like the enabling act. He is also unlikely to invade over countries, probably less likely than the US from where I'm sitting. Therefore it is certainly not our business to get involved in the affairs of his country and probably a bad thing for us and the world.
 
The US is a federal system, it is meant to represent people within the states they live in not as an abstract mass. Now you may be a centralist who despises this but that is neither here not there to what the US is according to the constitution.

me a centralist? Hardly. The more power to the locals the better, but only within reason and practicality. After all it aint exactly practical to have a military based on every town having a say on when and if their "troops" will go defend the town 10 miles down the road.

However that still does not mean that, this power is given to the minority over the majority of the people, which is what the US system can and has done several times on the presidential stage and even locally. Districts "designed" to give a certain result is so undemocratic that it is laughable.

You and others can slam Chavez for his actions (and for the record I would join you in condemning him for his actions) but you can not deny that he achieved power by majority vote and stays in power by majority vote.. a very democratic principle. Even the opposition accepts the election results as mostly fair.

Personally I'd say what it needs to do is actually have a stronger federalism and role back the usurpation of power the feds have taken in the last 200 years.

Not sure it is a good thing on some areas and with the acts and attitudes of some states legislative branches, then one must question if it is wise. After all, if some states had "more" power, then they would ban abortion in a heartbeat, ban homosexuality and so on. If it was not for the "feds" then the US would never have gotten rid of slavery. So yes, let locals run healthcare, taxes, police and so on, but when it comes to basic rights .. hell no.. you should not have different rights as an American just because you are in California and not in Montana. If you want such a system, dissolve the US and make 50 states.

I am a pragmatist. If something can be better run locally then do it. If something can be better run on a national or state level, then run it there. I dont stick to any ideology based government structure and I am a firm believer that if a government run organisation can be run better and cheaper by private people, then do it, but that does not mean private is better than government all the time.. hardly.

I am also a firm believer of being fair as possible. That means everyone is equal and given the same chance in life. If you take some legislative stuff to the local (state for example) instead of having the state (federal) write the law, then you risk having a country (provided you still think the US as a single country and not 50 small mini states) split along borders based on what states provide and allow. You can easily have in the US if the states got their way, half the country where being a homosexual is a crime. You can have places where the locals refuse to pay for education for hispanics, or blacks or other people. You can easily have states that think it is "good" to teach their children that the world is flat and god created it, and not teach the facts. Do you really want to live in a society that is that lopsided?
 
Everyone sees he is a scumbag, or almost. The point however you are making that we, and I can only speak of course as a Briton myself here, should invade him for that.

He is not the same as Hitler, Hitler was far more brutal and struck very quickly. You can't compare the fight over term limits with things like the enabling act. He is also unlikely to invade over countries, probably less likely than the US from where I'm sitting. Therefore it is certainly not our business to get involved in the affairs of his country and probably a bad thing for us and the world.

I'm not saying we need to invade as much as I am saying UN needs to sanction Venesueala harshly until Chavez is out of power and all Russian naval units are back in Russian sea ports.

Chavez is nothing more then Hitler in the making. We cannot allow the 3rd reich to rise again.
 
I'm not saying we need to invade as much as I am saying UN needs to sanction Venesueala harshly until Chavez is out of power and all Russian naval units are back in Russian sea ports.

Chavez is nothing more then Hitler in the making. We cannot allow the 3rd reich to rise again.

U.N. sanctions for what? A Democratically decided event from his own country?

You're paranoid on this one. You have an assumption of what he MIGHT do and you don't like it. That is not a reason for sanctions.

If it were the U.S. would have had sanctions on it from countries that didn't like the things we have done.
 
Are you saying that Chavez is good for the country?
 
Are you saying that Chavez is good for the country?

I'm saying that if the majority of his country want to keep him in office and they democratically choose to do so, that is up to them to decide.

I don't think Bush was good for our country, yet I wouldn't support the U.N. putting sanctions on the U.S. just because someone didn't like Bush in charge.
 
I'm saying that if the majority of his country want to keep him in office and they democratically choose to do so, that is up to them to decide.

I don't think Bush was good for our country, yet I wouldn't support the U.N. putting sanctions on the U.S. just because someone didn't like Bush in charge.


I am saying that Chavez is trying to become a dictator. People had the same misconceptions about Hitler back in 1931-32. They were proven correct. I do not want Chavez to have the chance to prove me correct.

I do not want to see death camps all over Venezuela. I do not want to see the mistakes of WWII repeated because nobody bothered to learn anything from the many tragedies of WWII.
 
I am saying that Chavez is trying to become a dictator.

And that is your opinion, last I checked you don't know the future.

You are guessing and you are wanting to overthrow an entire government based on your opinion. Sorry, but like I said before that is no reason for sanctions, or whatever.

Simple fact is you don't know for sure and you don't know the future. Your hatred for Chavez is what is driving your opinion.

When you come up with evidence other than your opinion, maybe it will hold water.
 
I'm saying that if the majority of his country want to keep him in office and they democratically choose to do so, that is up to them to decide.

I don't think Bush was good for our country, yet I wouldn't support the U.N. putting sanctions on the U.S. just because someone didn't like Bush in charge.


Your comparison is incorrect.

Bush has never tried to be indefinately elected. Chavez has tried and failed once before and now he's trying again.

There is a difference between Chavez's attempt to become a dictator of Venezuela.

Guess what dude, Adolph Hitler was also elected .... RIGHT BEFORE HE BECAME A GENOCIDAL LUNATIC.

I suggest you learn from history ... or blindness like yours will be responsible for the election of the next great dictator.
 
And that is your opinion, last I checked you don't know the future.

You are guessing and you are wanting to overthrow an entire government based on your opinion. Sorry, but like I said before that is no reason for sanctions, or whatever.

Simple fact is you don't know for sure and you don't know the future. Your hatred for Chavez is what is driving your opinion.

When you come up with evidence other than your opinion, maybe it will hold water.

The fact that the scumbag wants to be PERMANENTLY ELECTED is good evidence of his intent.

Non-dictators have term limits and they readily accept that. Dictators do not want to give up power. They do whatever is necessary to stay in power. Even if that includes murdering their competition.

Wake up and smell the freaking roses.
 
The fact that the scumbag wants to be PERMANENTLY ELECTED is good evidence of his intent.

Sorry but that isn't proof he is the next Hitler, like you try and spread fear of.

And if his country wants that it is up to them, not you.

Again, you have nothing but your paranoia and hatred for Chavez.
 
Sorry but that isn't proof he is the next Hitler, like you try and spread fear of.

And if his country wants that it is up to them, not you.

Again, you have nothing but your paranoia and hatred for Chavez.

A typical liberal reaction to a serious threat.

It's GOOD EVIDENCE of his INTENT. Why can you not seem to get that threw your head.

He is almost an EXACT DUPLICATE of Hitler. Indefinate power is BAD.

It's rather ignorant of you to assume that allowing a dictator to get into power would have no effect on this country.

Clearly, you have NO CLUE what constitutes a threat. Clearly, you are not looking at the BIG picture.

You can make all the excuses you want for your side; however, there is no question at all that your side is WRONG.

If Chavez goes unchecked, he WILL become a dictator. This has MANY international implications.

I challenge you to CAREFULLY study Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Ho Chi Min, and the government of China.

Look at the ways they came to power --- then look at what they did while in power. Then take a total count of all the deaths involved in the time they spent in power.

DO NOT try to tell me that a dictatorship in that region is NOT a problem for the world.
 
DO NOT try to tell me that a dictatorship in that region is NOT a problem for the world.

No I'm saying you have no idea that there would be one, you just hate Chavez that much. It's clear what your intent is and I am THANKFUL that you are in no position to make these decisions. cheers.
 
I'm not saying we need to invade as much as I am saying UN needs to sanction Venesueala harshly until Chavez is out of power and all Russian naval units are back in Russian sea ports.

Chavez is nothing more then Hitler in the making. We cannot allow the 3rd reich to rise again.

Firstly he is not Hitler in the making, that is extremely hyperbolic. He sucks certainly but let's not be completely blinded by ideology and get into absurdities.

Secondly I'm weary of going down the UN or any interventionist road. I wouldn't completely rule it out but I don't think Chavez warrants the risks of a lot of even non-military interventionism.
 
However that still does not mean that, this power is given to the minority over the majority of the people, which is what the US system can and has done several times on the presidential stage and even locally. Districts "designed" to give a certain result is so undemocratic that it is laughable.
I don't know about the local stuff but the US is federal system. The president is not meant to be elected by a majority of the abstract mass of the nation but from the states as they are. To go around this risks weakening the federal system further by circumventing it.





Not sure it is a good thing on some areas and with the acts and attitudes of some states legislative branches, then one must question if it is wise. After all, if some states had "more" power, then they would ban abortion in a heartbeat, ban homosexuality and so on. If it was not for the "feds" then the US would never have gotten rid of slavery. So yes, let locals run healthcare, taxes, police and so on, but when it comes to basic rights .. hell no.. you should not have different rights as an American just because you are in California and not in Montana. If you want such a system, dissolve the US and make 50 states.
Firstly slavery would have likely been removed anyway, secondly the civil war was about the union not slavery as Lincoln tried to have Southern slavery written into the constitution.

Secondly I'm no universalist liberal, I would not destroy federalism because the state's might do something not amazingly important, like ban abortion, that I don't like. It is very hard to be anything but a centralist and believe in a set universalist and strictly rationalist code for all states to live by.

I am a pragmatist. If something can be better run locally then do it. If something can be better run on a national or state level, then run it there. I dont stick to any ideology based government structure and I am a firm believer that if a government run organisation can be run better and cheaper by private people, then do it, but that does not mean private is better than government all the time.. hardly.
The problem is that you let ideology run riot over your commitment to decentralism. Now few of us would really condone localised or regional slavery, although the merits of centralised solutions is another matter. But to have set strict univeralist and rationalist model that you want all gov'ts to follow, and if they don't you'd favour using centralised coercion against them is not going to lead anywhere but centralism.
I am also a firm believer of being fair as possible. That means everyone is equal and given the same chance in life. If you take some legislative stuff to the local (state for example) instead of having the state (federal) write the law, then you risk having a country (provided you still think the US as a single country and not 50 small mini states) split along borders based on what states provide and allow. You can easily have in the US if the states got their way, half the country where being a homosexual is a crime. You can have places where the locals refuse to pay for education for hispanics, or blacks or other people. You can easily have states that think it is "good" to teach their children that the world is flat and god created it, and not teach the facts. Do you really want to live in a society that is that lopsided?
Indeed you can have this, as long as it isn't too bad though I'm willing to put up with it. If they had segregation or pograms then maybe but I wouldn't weaken the federal system over lack of gay marriage or bans on abortion.

This is one reason I fear the EU so much. How would the monarchy and CoE fair in its extremely rationalist and universalist grip.
 
No I'm saying you have no idea that there would be one, you just hate Chavez that much. It's clear what your intent is and I am THANKFUL that you are in no position to make these decisions. cheers.

You're just another horribly blind liberal.
 
Back
Top Bottom