Chavez wins big in Venezuela!

[Sava]

Do you have any legitimate proof that Venezuelan elections are corrupt?

BTW, this is not "democrat fearmongering" about what happened in 2000. The mainstream media reports of what happened in 2000 are proof enough. We're not talking about left-wing tinfoil hat sources here. Every major media outlet that conducted an investigation into the recount found that Gore won and that there was major corruption involved in Florida during the 2000 election.

I thought you were a moderate snoopy? I shouldn't have to remind you of this?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I actually read the article. Noticing statements disagreeing with my points doesn't make them any less valid.

I'm not necessarily sure there's anything directly wrong with the vote; honestly I'm not that interested to directly investigate it. (That plane ticket would cost some serious $$$ )

My second quote, actually, was the more damning one. Any time the 'main item' on the party's agenda is changing the rules so that their charismatic leader can stay in power longer ... you have to take a long, hard look at that party and that leader.

I think term limits are stupid anyway.

[snoopy369]

I don't think that the US elections are as corrupt as Venezuela. Democratic fearmongering is that the US elections are hopelessly corrupt.

Most real factual sources indicated that more votes were lost by Bush by any mistakes than were lost by Gore. Thousands of votes were lost from absentee ballots cast overseas by the military ... who overwhelmingly vote Republican, year in and year out. The mistakes were mistakes, not intentional - and thus not corruption, simply ... mistaken.

Chavez is a charismatic leader of a nation well known to be fairly corrupt. Not as bad as some - perhaps not as bad as most in that area - but not good, either. He is intending to circumvent laws preventing him from holding high office for life, and is attempting to put his country into a far greater position of international prominence than it would normally belong, by being highly aggressive towards the leading nations of the time. Further, he and his supporters will soon (as in whenever these people get inaugurated) hold a supermajority of his government ... meaning he can do literally whatever he wants.

I've seen this before. 1933, Germany ... for example...

[joncha]

Silly snoopy. Hitler didn't have a parrot.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I have to doubt that, Sava. He may have been elected legitimately, but their elections are not less corrupt than ours, democrat fearmongering aside.

He's an ex-army general, who wants to be president for life. Please tell me you remember hearing this before ...

Unlike Musharraf he didn't receive 98% support in the last "election", and didn't seize power in a coup (his coup attempt failed 15 years ago).

Plus we've got international observers saying that he won this guy fair and square. Just because you don't like him, he's a loon and he likes power doesn't make him a dictator.

[snoopy369]

http://www.usaidcar.info/act/docs/venezuelaandcorruption.pdf

An excellent (though I have no idea how biased; I skipped the Cato Institute survey, but i don't know who usaidcar is) example of the corruption of Venezuela. Although it may well be biased, there are certainly some pretty damning facts contained therein ...

President Chavez was supposed to have been elected to reduce the corruption of big business in Venezuela. He hasn't even accomplished that ... and he's turned it from a corrupt-business-state into a corrupt-state. Removing the middleman I suppose ... but not any better of a country rto live in. At least the companies had economic reasons for wanting their workers to *survive* ...

[Sava]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Unlike Musharraf he didn't receive 98% support in the last "election", and didn't seize power in a coup (his coup attempt failed 15 years ago).

Plus we've got international observers saying that he won this guy fair and square. Just because you don't like him, he's a loon and he likes power doesn't make him a dictator.

[snoopy369]

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html

The rankings directly (newer info too, and a lower rating for Venezuela )

2.3 on the scale, where 0 is 'totally corrupt' and 10 is 'clean'. Other nations include Cambodia and The Republic of Congo with a similar rating of 2.3 ...

[KrazyHorse]

Venezuela's long been known as one of the most corrupt countries in the hemisphere, dude.

There's a reason people there are still poor as **** despite it being a huge oil exporter.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Unlike Musharraf he didn't receive 98% support in the last "election", and didn't seize power in a coup (his coup attempt failed 15 years ago).

Plus we've got international observers saying that he won this guy fair and square. Just because you don't like him, he's a loon and he likes power doesn't make him a dictator.

I'm not necessarily claiming he won cheatily. As I said above, I don't have the resources to investigate this. It's not even that important to my point ...

My point was that it's not a good thing that this guy won. Hitler won his first election fair and square, also ... and up until probably 1943 could have continued winning them completely fairly. Chavez is a charismatic loon that not only likes power (as any decent leader does, at least to some extent) but is willing to use tactics that in the past have been indicative of a *dangerous* loon. He's been sounding very Saddam like lately ... and regardless of the US's poorly thought out attack on that country, Saddam was a danger if left unchecked (as proven in 1989). Chavez could become a dangerous leader in an area of the world that we should care a lot more about than we do ... and is in a position to place his country in direct opposition to the US and to the sane world powers, if he chooses to - which it looks like he may.

Further, he's not good for his country, as illustrated in my points above, and by any reasonable amount of research into the country. Google venezuela and corruption ... He's encouraging a culture of corruption and extortion, and basically destroying his country.

Oh, and Musharraf isn't a lick better (Assuming you're talking about Pakistan's president here?). Pakistan gets a 2.1 on the corruption rating system And he's certainly in power thanks to his own might, not due to votes. (Though there are ways of rigging an election that don't require actual ballot stuffing ... just discouraging voting, or controlling, directly or indirectly, the press, is enough. Didn't the CBC indicate only a 25% voter turnout??? That's pathetic, for a supposed party that is elected by 'the people' ... yet only elected by a majority of 25% of the people. Let me guess, the poorest 25% voted ...

[joncha]

Saddam didn't have a parrot either.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Unlike Musharraf he didn't receive 98% support in the last "election", and didn't seize power in a coup (his coup attempt failed 15 years ago).

98%? Piff, Dear Leader Kim informs us he always gets 100% of the vote come election time. Musharraf has gone soft.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Venezuela's long been known as one of the most corrupt countries in the hemisphere, dude.

There's a reason people there are still poor as **** despite it being a huge oil exporter.

Exactly.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by joncha
Saddam didn't have a parrot either.

I know ... I think had he had a parrot, Geo Bush (Sr) would not have attacked him, but instead would have bought him a matching eye patch.

What's truly scary ... the guy who spoke at my graduation years ago, not the invited guest but the high professor speaker, was not so dissimilar to Chavez in appearance ... indeed from some south or central american country (never clarified which precisely), he wore a bright yellow outfit that was sort of the canary yellow version of Chavez' outfit in that pic, and indeed needed only a yellow tropical bird to make it complete. He even had feathers in his cap ...

[snoopy369]

Cruddy pic of the guy i'm talking about (who apparently wasn't quite as canary yellow as i recall, and/or this was too shady of a pic)



He's the guy on the right.