What are we to make of this? Is there hope for this place or not? http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SLIA982&show_article=1
Of course there's hope for Venezuela. But you're back again with a thread title spinning like a disco-ball, either by your own design, or from the momentum of your sources so far. Try and understand that if protesters in Washington did what these Venezuelan students did, they would get the very same treatment- Possibly rougher, in the present American Zeitgeist. This is no Tiananmen Square in Caracas. Nobody is being shot, and let's hope it stays that way. I'm not in support of violent protest any more than I am in support of Chavez consolidating his personal power. Before things got a little nasty, the students had been granted a meeting with Electoral Counsel President Tibisay Lucena, and seem to have been getting their message out without undue harassment. Maybe if you try reading about how it went down from some more sources, and do some more thinking, you'll come away a little less alarmist. Relax, Chavez is not the Socialist Mehdi. He may have already peaked, and he's certainly not coming to gitcha. Take a look at Venezuelan Analysis to balance your viewpoint a little from the other side of the issue.
Orleander, Hugo Chavez only got 62.84% in the 2006 Venezuela elections. There will always be dissenters (about 37.16%) and you have to be aware that majority of Chavez's voters were poor (majority of the country) whereas these protesters are students and most likely anti-socialists. I also doubt he stated he was going to run indefinitely or change the Venezuela constitution during his campaigning. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! [Renrue]
I think we could do better without re-election limits and also abolishing the Electoral College. We should have run-off popular elections between the two leading candidates if they near a tie. With free and fair popular elections, Dubya wouldn't be a serious contender today. He would never have won a second term even.
He won a second term, with a majority of the popular vote, so I am somewhat confused by your assertion "He would have never won a second term."
In that post, I was exploring what free and fair elections might mean, and included the concept of a runoff election in the case of a close and contentious vote. In 2004, the spread was miniscule, and the count in serious question, especially in the key State of Ohio, where a large miscount in Bush's favor was later proven. Exit polls called into doubt the assumption that Bush defeated Kerry in popular votes. A runoff election would have settled the matter. But you're right, I should avoid saying "never" about things we'll never know.
Can you back any of that up, or is this more liberal ranting of the sort that refuses to acknowledge the fact that Bush won TWO elections. I find it amusing that Democrats, like you, never seemed to have a problem with elections or want the manner of elections changed until this man was elected, TWICE. It really betrays your bias, if you ask me.
countezero: "I find it amusing that Democrats, like you, never seemed to have a problem with elections or want the manner of elections changed until this man was elected, TWICE. It really betrays your bias, if you ask me." If my bias is so prominent, it's odd that you can't identify my political affiliation. I'm not a Democrat, and I don't vote like one. I'm registered as Independent. If you truly believe that GWB's Presidential elections were not controversial, and called into question by more people than Democrats, you really should take a look back at the record and catch up with contemporary US history. While I'm not prepared to go so far as Gustav, those were some unusually close and even shady elections that got Dubya in the White House and kept him there a second term.
the issue is being spinned by US media as an evil Chavez controlling poor Venezuela citizens...meanwhile all that is really happening is Chavez is against US control.
That is his most unforgiveable crime before the major US media, it seems- Chavez is off the reservation, and consorts with other deviants. That frightens many of our controlling institutions and their fans.
I'll ask you again to provide some examples for your wild assertions. The 2000 election, for example, was discussed recently in another thread. As I pointed out there, if a person looks at Wikipedia's excellent entry on the subject, they will see that Bush won the election by most counts. The Ohio accusations you've made are just that, accusations. What proof is there? You can't run around lobbing accusations and then whenever your questioned about them essentially tell a person they are ignorant and uninformed. It's your job to defend your claims. I never said the elections weren't controversial, I questioned your subjective remarks about them...
