In a dictatorship, the dictator does not lose elections.

[Warren Stupidity]

The constitutional reform referendum has been defeated in Venezuela. Chavez is not a dictator. Dictators do not lose elections. Venezuela is a democracy and the people have decided to not move forward with these changes.

[malaise]

1. Shhhhhhhhh

however democrats like Mushie do remove judges who call them on dictatorship.

[RC]

2. Oh boy, This is not gonna sit well with the Hugo haters.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. What do you mean by "Hugo Haters"?

Is everything black and white with you? What about the "Hugo Yawners"?

I don't give a shit about him one way or another. I am baffled by the adulation he gets around here.

[High Plains]

40. "Hugo Haters"

You aren't aware of the posters in every thread--the same bunch--who've been screaming that he's a dictator, a fat pig, a crazy man, a communist, the devil? It's like the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party returned from the dead.

I think he is admired by some because he is trying to bring socialism to Venezuela. One may not agree with that, but it shouldn't be baffling.

Maybe you should just go back to not giving a shit about him. We probably won't be getting all Chavez all the time now for awhile anyway, now that this hubbub is over.

[Stinky The Clown]

47. I'm just waiting until we get back to worrying about REPUBLICANS

If we're not adoring or hating someone like Chavez, then we're beating the shit out of other Democrats.

Me ........ I'll stick to worrying about REPUBLICANS ...... the REAL bad guys.

[EFerrari]

51. The thing is, what we watched this weekend (or longer)

was Republicans going after the natural resources and their control in Venezuela. So, it becomes relevant because it gives us a window into how these guys will come after our candidate in the media and etc. So, even if you're not interested in Latin America, it's still worth watching because those bastards use the same tactics on us as they do on Chavez.

[Stinky The Clown]

52. What they do domestically is get us to eat our own

The hatred among Democrats against other Democrats is AMAZING.

[EFerrari]

53. But that's not the more important part. We have pie fights all the time.

What may be much more important is how and when and where they went after their target.

They'll use the same methods on our candidate. :shrug:

[tritsofme]

59. As someone who supported Scoop Jackson for president in 1976

Maybe his wing of the party could use some resuscitation.

[goddess40]

3. I wonder if the US had any input on that election? nt

[mmonk]

4. Unless there is a party dictatorship.

Chavez is going to get bashed because he is bucking the US in its demands to dominate south of the border politics with its corporate model.

[MADem]

5. There was no dictator on the ballot. It was a referendum for or against dictatorship.

The people voted against dictatorship.

People who think that "a dictator" was on the ballot weren't paying attention. No person was running for any office here.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. That is an add statement from one of the major screamers of 'dictator'.

[MADem]

10. And that's a typical remark from a non reader.

My concern was that this referendum, which everyone insisted would pass, would MAKE him a dictator.

I have said that I do not want the guy overthrown, I just want the referendum to fail.

But thanks for skewing my meaning. You're a pro at that.

[malaise]

11. How

Was John Howard a dictator? Was Margaret Thatcher? Tony Blair? Neither of those systems has term limits.

[MADem]

12. HOW

Were they elected by the people?

Answer: They weren't.

It isn't the same system of government there, Jefferson.

You don't check the block next to Thatcher or Howard in a UK election.

The QUEEN appoints the PM. She appoints someone who can lead the majority that won the most seats in Parliament. It's usually the leader of the particular party. There actually was, in recent history, a tiff over who she would pick.

Sheesh. Way to show that 'superior knowledge,' there! You're acting like a know it all, and you don't even know the basics of how leaders are selected in other systems.

Go study up on "NO CONFIDENCE" why doncha?

:rofl:

[malaise]

19. I dare the Queen or her Governor General to

not appoint the leader of the party who wins the majority. I was born and have grown up in the parliamentary system and people vote for the party and party leader. Once the party wins the majority, he/she is the leader for as many terms as citizens vote for him/her or until the party chooses to remove the leader.

By the way I know an awful lot about political systems. Should be fun having you teach me about no confidence votes - :rofl:

Add.

[MADem]

21. Well, it happened when MacMillian left because of his cancer

That wasn't very long ago, either, in the big scheme.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/UK_Constitution_and_Government:_Houses_of_Saxe-Coburg-Gotha_and_Windsor
During Elizabeth's reign, there have been several important constitutional developments. A notable one occurred in 1963, when Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan resigned. There was no clear leader of the Conservative Party, but many favoured Richard Austen Butler, the Deputy Prime Minister. Harold Macmillan advised the Queen, however, that senior politicians in the party preferred Alec Douglas-Home, 14th Earl of Home. Elizabeth accepted the advice and appointed the Earl of Home to the office of Prime Minister, marking the last time a member of the House of Lords would be so appointed. Home, taking advantage of the Peerage Act passed in 1963, "disclaimed" his peerage. A Conservative member of the House of Commons vacated his seat, allowing Home to contest the by-election for that constituency and become a member of the House of Commons.


And I seem to recall that Blair stepped in FRONT of Brown, with a promise that it would be "just for a bit."

So, you can :rofl: all you want, but you're not talking from detailed knowledge, apparently. And you're not the only person in the world who has lived under a parliamentary system of government, either. Just so ya know....

I have no intention of "teaching" anyone anything. Do your own research--you clearly think you know it all. You probably could do with a refresher.

[malaise]

22. Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

I don't have to go to Wiki for MacMillan. The point is that there was no clear leader of the party.

For the record I deliver lectures on this subject twice a week.

[MADem]

28. I didn't either. So what's that BWAAAAA childish bullshit about?

I only did it because there's always a whinger who stalls the discussion with a childish demand for

Cite??????

and I was looking to avoid that sort of thing.

I tend to back up what I say, out of habit.

[malaise]

29. The Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah was for the refresher

and I'm still laughing.

[MADem]

32. We're done here. You are acting like an immature ass.

It is what people do when they lose the bubble on their argument, I've noted.

Have the last word.

[DutchLiberal]

50. So is Nicholas Sarkozy a dictator? The people elect him, and he can run indefinitely.

[MADem]

60. Stop trying to compare a carrot to broccoli. It's a waste of everyone's time.

These are DIFFERENT systems of government. A system with a president is not the same as a system with a president/monarch or president/PM. You're trying to pretend they are to make a halfassed point.

And one more time, just because everyone seems to be quite IGNORANTLY (as in absence of knowledge, and not, necessarily, STUPID) focusing on one article out of sixty nine--term limits are not the most important issue.

READ THE ARTICLES that were not passed. All of them.

Let's pretend this referendum passed, and you go down to VZ to cheer the process. Hugo senses unrest and declares a state of Emergency. Why? Because he can. Who does he have to check with to declare this state? Why, NO ONE.

Next, Hugo arrests you because he thinks you are an insincere Asswipe Northern European Faux Revolutionary wearing a blue shirt. He drags you off, kicking, screaming, sobbing, and throws you in jail.

You want a phone call? NO. No phone call for you.

You want a lawyer? NO, you cannot have one.

You want to know what the charges are? NO, they aren't telling you.

You want to know how long you are going to be there? NO, you are there as long as they want to keep you.

You want to notify your family, the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch? NO, you can't.

You want someone in the VZ judiciary to know what is happening to you? Too bad.

You want your consulate notified. HAHAHAHAHA! They LAUGH at your wishes!

You've just......DISAPPEARED.

That's what those OTHER articles would have brought. But unthinking stooges focus JUST on the term limits lift. See, with these OTHER articles, Hugo could suspend elections under a national emergency FOREVER. He wouldn't even HAVE to run for reelection.

But hey, whatever. It's "all about term limits" and NOTHING else. :eyes:

[Odin2005]

25. Exactly. n/t.

[tanstaafl]

33. No it was not a vote for or against dictatorship

It was a vote to determine if the people wanted to remove term limits. In the US we did not have term limits on the President until the 1950's. So unless you are implying we had a dictatorship in the US from George Washington through Dwight Eisenhower, then you can't call it a vote for or against dictatorship.

[MADem]

38. There were sixty nine articles. Term limits was the least of their worries.

The power of the President to declare a state of emergency, permanently (which is what Franco did, FWIW), without any checks and balances, without having any limits on it, was a big problem. That would freeze the clock. The power to arrest and detain without charges, to not advise people of what they are accused of, to deny them legal advice, to hold them as long as the government wanted, without recourse, was a problem. The provision that allowed the President to appoint regional 'governors' and staffs, in order to administer the countryside (no votes for these people, all Chavezistas) and consolidate power, was problematic. The "We can take YOUR house and turn it into a Senior Citizen's Home" or a government office, or a daycare, or whatever the government needs, was problematic. The "We can take YOUR land whenever we want--not just eminent domain swathes for highways, but hectare after hectare of your farmland" was problematic.

Add all of these articles together, and a yes vote provides the President with dictatorial powers.

The term limits were just icing on the cake.

And not the biggest issue. Not by any stretch. That's why even the poor who owned a little plot or a tiny shack thought twice. That's why it didn't fly.

[High Plains]

41. "A referedum for or against dictatorship."

Nice spin.

[MADem]

58. Read all the articles.

I suppose Hugo throwing your revolutionary behind in jail forever, without charges, without any reason, without a lawyer to defend you, without your family knowing where you are, without anyone in the judiciary being informed of your detention...for as long as he wanted to KEEP YOU there, is just cool with you, eh?


That's what "SI" would have delivered.

But hey...Que Viva Chavezuela.

[Alexander]

48. Not really - FDR was a "president for life" and a dictator, according to you.

The referendum is like repealing the 22nd Amendment here. Keeping or repealing it does not instantly create dictators.

In fact, the wannabe-dictator here in the US seems to be doing just fine without it.

[MADem]

57. Yet another Constitutional Scholar who hasn't bothered to read the articles.

You focus on one, and ignore the other sixty-eight. Not so Great, there, Alexander.

Grow up. READ, learn.

Good thing the people of VZ are sharper than you.

[DutchLiberal]

49. It was a referendum for or against suspension of term limits.

But, by your logic, FDR was a dictator too, because he could run indefinitely?

[MADem]

56. Oh bullshit. That was just ONE article of SIXTY NINE in the referendum.

You clearly haven't read the referendum articles. Otherwise, you'd note the absence of checks and balances on the permanent declaration of martial law. You'd maybe think Hugo's ability to throw your revolutionary ass into jail forever, without a lawyer, without charges, without a right to see anyone or even let anyone know where you are, a bit problematic. You know, kinda like the shit they pulled down further south awhile ago.

I have read them. You show your level of knowledge with your snark over just ONE article, when it's the OTHER ones dealing with Presidential powers and perogatives that are the real problem.

Go read them. And be chagrined.

Or not, because of COURSE, you know it all.
And you know my "logic"....not.

[AlphaCentauri]

61. But , but they weren't trying to abolish Democracy

so what about if in the next election a Right winger succeeded in conquering the presidency and impose a similar constitution that benefit the wealthy elites....

[MADem]

62. All he would have to do is declare a state of emergency under these new laws.

And there would NEVER BE AN ELECTION AGAIN. They'd be SUSPENDED. Because it's an
"Emergency" see?

Franco did the exact same thing. Permanent state of Emergency.

[sabbat hunter]

6. I wonder when

Chavez will schedule a new referendum. He has already said

the reforms had failed "for now" but vowed to fight on.

"For now, we couldn't do it," he said, repeating words he spoke after his failed coup attempt in February 1992.

I would not be surprised if he puts up separate votes for various parts of the referendum that failed within the next couple of months.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. I hope he does just that.

There were many parts of this huge referendum that were truly progressive and had nothing to do with increasing the power of the office of the president.

[EFerrari]

17. The one that was most moving to me was social security for

day laborers. I wonder how many of our elected officials have ever even thought about day laborers.

[sabbat hunter]

43. many day laborers

are paid off the books, (which is against the law already). if they are on the books, the taxes, including FICA are taken out.

[EFerrari]

45. Yes, I realize that. But they have no continuity and are at the mercy

of their employers. That really isn't "social security".

[sabbat hunter]

54. it is the employers

that must be gone after. It is illegal to pay someone "off the books"

[Minstrel Boy]

9. okay....

and?

When they're in power, Quebec Separatists hold referendums on independence when they think they can win them. They haven't won, but they honour the results. It's like, y'know, democracy.

We also don't have term limits, but we don't call leaders who win re-election "dictators-for-life."

[Prophet 451]

35. Why would that be a problem?

The people might have voted "no" to the reforms as a full package but there might well be stuff in there they like. So long as it goes to the people, where's the problem?

[eridani]

55. Probably should have done that in the first place

In a big, complex package that you have to vote up or down on, people that dislike only one of the propositions will vote no.

[kevinmc]

13. Right-Wingnuts proved Wrong Again ...

So much for the BS that Chavez is a dictator and that he rigged the elections ...


Chavez defeated over reform vote

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has narrowly lost a referendum on controversial constitutional changes.

Voters rejected the raft of reforms by a margin of 51% to 49%, the chief of the National Electoral Council said.

Mr Chavez described the defeat as a "photo finish", and urged followers not to turn it into a point of conflict. ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7124313.stm

[Warren Stupidity]

15. "urged followers not to turn it into a point of conflict"

Odd that a power mad asshole dictator wannabee would say that.

[Mass]

14. That was my first reaction when I heard the results this morning.

Somehow, people have started to call everybody they disagree with dictator, whether they have been elected or not.

Sorry, Iran is more of a Democracy than many countries in the world. Same thing for Venezuela. Does not mean we have to agree with them.

[Hosnon]

16. I agree. Although, to be fair, many of the "Bush steals elections" crowd theorize that a dictator

has to let one or two slip by occasionally for the sake of credibility.

[EFerrari]

18. If Hugo Chavez threw this election, I'll never speak to him again.

:)

[Hosnon]

20. I don't think he did. He lost, probably fair and square. Just like the Republicans in 2006 and us

in 2004 (I'm not touching 2000).

I'm encouraged by two things from this: 1) Chavez will not rig elections to always get his way and 2) the people of his country saw the dangers of the road he wanted to take them down.

Also, the anti-Chavez crowd can tone down the rhetoric about him being a dictator and the pro-Chavez crowd can tone down the rhetoric about the people validating his agenda.

[raccoon]

23. Well said, Warren. Regardless of what one may think of Chavez,

the title of your thread is quite quotable. Ought to go up there with
Lord Acton's quote about absolute power.

[Odin2005]

24. Saying someone is a demagogue with dictatorial tendencies is not saying he is a dictator.

The Venezuelan people are basically saying with this no vote that they might like Chavez's economic policies they don't like his centralizing, dictatorial tendencies.

[EFerrari]

27. There go the goal posts!

[hunter]

39. Nah, no, we never said he was a dictator...

... only that he had dictatorial tendencies...

Oh my goodness. If I was posting that it would be to make people laugh.

Tune it up a bit, and we could make some very fine satire.

It'd be a funny thing to say about George W. Bush too:

"We don't like Bush's centralizing, dictatorial tendencies.

[tom_paine]

30. I have to agree with that. K & R.

[robcon]

31. Dictators DO lose elections.

Pinochet of Chile, like Chavez, was so sure of his popularity he ran a referendum (in Chile it was a plebiscite: yes or no for Pinochet) on his rule after 16 years of dictatorship.

Pinochet, like Chavez, lost the plebiscite although, unlike Chavez, he did not call those who voted against him traitors to his country. Pinochet used his control of the military to demand extraordinary powers for a military leader in the new government, but the plebiscite led to a free election of a prime minister in less than 6 months.

[robbedvoter]

34. Yup. Just ask Bush. he's been "reelected"

[Prophet 451]

36. I don't see a problem

Chavez lost this one fair and square. He's said he might well present the measures to the people individually and that's fine. So long as he puts his reforms to the people, I don't see a problem.

[L. Coyote]

37. Take the USA for example, n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. Pinochet wasn't a dictator?

He lost a referendum in 1988.

[endarkenment]

46. Pinochet was compelled to run a fair election.

And as a consequence he was voted out. This does appear to be the exception.

[Beerboy]

44. That's mis-translation, right? n/t.