Venezuelian Aggressor Only Changes 10% Of The Constitution!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Who cares if you laugh. You aren't a Venezuelan.

Who cares if people laughed at Pinochet. They weren't Chilean!

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious

With the exception of JFK they were very unpopular presidents. Why question whether or not they should have extended term limits.

And JFK was hated by many. His rep is better than it would've been, most likely, had he not been assassinated.

We're talking theoretically here. The only post-FDR (term limits) US presidents I can think of who was still popular in their 2nd terms would be...

Reagan and Clinton? And even then, by the end I think we were getting sick of them.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Yeah, I doubt Chavez's opponents IN Venezuala are laughing.

They should be crying. And that's a very good thing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious


With the exception of JFK they were very unpopular presidents. Why question whether or not they should have extended term limits.

Richard Nixon won reelection with 60% of the vote, carrying every state but Massachusetts (and DC which isnt a state). Absent watergate, he likely would still have been popular in 1976. Not popular enough to overcome the American publics aversion to third terms, and even otherwise not a shoe-in (given the recession of 1975) but definitely not impossible.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

It's a step down a road that seems undemocratic to me.

I can't see how this is so. Chavez has his own program for improving Venezuelan society. So far, the Venezuelan public is going for it, since they keep electing him. I think he's realized that it is going to take a lot longer than he thought, so he wants to be able to stay in power for longer. Therefore, he's asking the Venezuelan people to vote on whether they think that is acceptable.

It would be on the road to being undemocratic, if he was proposing a referendum that would make him dictator for life. So far he hasn't done that.

In fact, the key to understanding Chavez is that, in the end, he has always put democracy above his personal ambitions. He didn't want to allow the recall referendum, but he did. When he stops doing that, then it becomes somewhat more objectionable. But things were so much worse before Chavez, and the opposition by and large wants to return to that lamentable state of affairs.

The best thing that could happen to Venezuela is that he continues to be elected until a democratic opposition replaces the current oligarchic opposition. That's the key difference between Venezuela and countries like Britain. While all parties in Britain have different views, they all agree on basic civil rights and democracy. In Venezuela, the anti-Chavez crowd have already demonstrated what they think of civil rights and democracy and it isn't nice. When there is no democratic opposition, the same party staying in power is for the best.

But I'm not calling this undemocratic. I think it's a bad idea, even if it's democratic.

Fair enough, but it's not really our place to decide for the Venezuelans, particularly since nothing that Chavez has done has unjustifiably violated Mill's principle when it comes to international affairs.

The same would hold if you Americans elected Shrub and he left the rest of the world alone and devoted himself solely to ****ing up your country. It would be your business, not ours.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


And JFK was hated by many. His rep is better than it would've been, most likely, had he not been assassinated.

We're talking theoretically here. The only post-FDR (term limits) US presidents I can think of who was still popular in their 2nd terms would be...

Reagan and Clinton? And even then, by the end I think we were getting sick of them.

-Arrian

Neither one of them were popular enough to even think about 3rd terms. FDR was. That's about the bottom line here.

[aneeshm]

* Bringing in a maximum six-hour working day

* Increasing presidential control over the central bank

* Strengthening state economic powers, allowing the government to control assets of private companies before a court grants an expropriation order.

Goodbye, Venezuelan economy!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Reagan and Clinton? And even then, by the end I think we were getting sick of them.

-Arrian

Some folks were.

QOTM said at the time shed have voted for a third term for Clinton, and she hasnt retracted that since. At least in our house the notion that Hillary would be equivalent to a third term for Bill is a selling point

I cant speak to Reagan, as I voted against him twice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Neither one of them were popular enough to even think about 3rd terms. FDR was. That's about the bottom line here.

Reagan was easily popular enough for a 3rd team. Easily.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by aneeshm

Goodbye, Venezuelan economy!

It's up to them what they want to do with their economy. If they want to vote to allow Chavez to do this, then let them.

Frankly, having their economic policy dictated by the IMF and other gangs of international *******s didn't work out for Latin Americans, so I won't be surprised if they go for this.

[LordShiva]

* Bringing in a maximum six-hour working day

[MarkG]

six-hour working day

i want one of those!
without going broke though....

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon
Whle all parties in Britain have different views, they all agree on basic civil rights and democracy. In Venezuela, the anti-Chavez crowd have already demonstrated what they think of civil rights and democracy and it isn't nice.[/q]

They wanted to pull off a coup, to prevent Chavez from suppressing the press, and gradually suppressing individual freedom, while using oil revenues to buy off support and keep winning referendums? Well yeah, using a coup to do that WAS undemocratic. Supporting a coup disqualifies you as a democratic opposition? But Chavez tried to take power in a coup.


[q]Fair enough, but it's not really our place to decide for the Venezuelans, particularly since nothing that Chavez has done has unjustifiably violated Mill's principle when it comes to international affairs.

Neither I, nor AFAICT, anyone else here has advocated US intervention in Venezualan affairs based on anything that has happened to date. Yes, if they become an authoritarian state, thats too bad for them. Until such time as they do something like ship arms to rebels in a neighboring country that is friendly to us, or something like that.

Note well - I do NOT think support for voter registration or other basic pro-democratic support constitutes "intervention" for the above purposes.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Reagan was easily popular enough for a 3rd team. Easily.

What the hell for?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Agathon
The same would hold if you Americans elected Shrub and he left the rest of the world alone and devoted himself solely to ****ing up your country. It would be your business, not ours.

Not entirely true. Plenty of criticism overseas prior to the WoT and all that claptrap. I think it's justified because of the effects his decision could have on the world economic climate.