• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Chavez Says He May Seek 'Indefinite' Re-election (1 Viewer)

Re: Hugo Chavez: "Indefinite re-election"

alphamale said:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194519,00.html

Libs - what do you think of your hero now? :roll:
Click to expand...

I certainly do not think unlimited tenure is a good idea, even if approved by popular referendum.

Cons -- how is your hero King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia doing :roll:
 
Re: Hugo Chavez: "Indefinite re-election"

Iriemon said:
I certainly do not think unlimited tenure is a good idea, even if approved by popular referendum.
Click to expand...

One has periodic elections at least because (1) people change their minds, and (2) due to people entering and exiting the election register, the electorate is always changing - hence there is no such thing as a popularly-approved permanent leader.

Cons -- how is your hero King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia doing
Click to expand...

Cons deal with Abdullah solely because he's sitting on an ocean of oil, out of pure necessity, but libs actually viscerally love Chavez.
 
Re: Hugo Chavez: "Indefinite re-election"

alphamale said:
One has periodic elections at least because (1) people change their minds, and (2) due to people entering and exiting the election register, the electorate is always changing - hence there is no such thing as a popularly-approved permanent leader.

Cons deal with Abdullah solely because he's sitting on an ocean of oil, out of pure necessity, but libs actually viscerally love Chavez.
Click to expand...

No, Libs support Chavez's reforms to bring some degree of equality to a nation were a few control the money and power and the many live in abject poverty.

The cons viscerally love Abdullah. I've seen pictures of them kissing him.
 
Moderator's Warning:
2. The title of every post must be identical to the title of the news story headline. This is important as it helps to avoid multiple topics about an issue, while starting discussions out on a more neutral basis.
 
RightatNYU said:
Moderator's Warning:
2. The title of every post must be identical to the title of the news story headline. This is important as it helps to avoid multiple topics about an issue, while starting discussions out on a more neutral basis.
Click to expand...

I think the title was changed after the posts were entered.
 
Iriemon said:
I think the title was changed after the posts were entered.
Click to expand...

I know, I was the one who changed it. I was just posting the rules to remind everyone how to format your posts when you set them up.
 
alphamale said:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194519,00.html

Libs - what do you think of your hero now? :roll:
Click to expand...

Who is the liberal hero?

Chavez must be a republican favorite since it is GOP policies that strengthen the position of dictatorships in oil producing countries - like Chavez.

Liberal and communist are not the same thing.
 
This lie has been debunked, but I cant blame you for posting this thread. After all, you got your story from a respected mediawhore, FOX News, who in turn got their information from another mediawhore known as AP.

The true story is that the opposition, unable to strengthen their position honestly, threatened to pull out of the democratic process in Venezuela unless Chavez made some concessions to them. Chavez made every concession asked for, and the opposition went back on their word and pulled out anyways.

Chavez did not say he wanted a 25 year term. He merely stated that, if the opposition were to pull out, he would end term limits. There still would be an election every 6 years for the next 25 years, and he would run each term. This was an inducement to get the opposition back into the process. But dishonestly knows no bounds. Since the opposition cannot win a majority honestly in government due to their unpopularity, they pulled out of the process, then attempt to brand Chavez as a dictator.

I will say the magic word once more - Mediawhores.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
This lie has been debunked, but I cant blame you for posting this thread. After all, you got your story from a respected mediawhore, FOX News, who in turn got their information from another mediawhore known as AP.

The true story is that the opposition, unable to strengthen their position honestly, threatened to pull out of the democratic process in Venezuela unless Chavez made some concessions to them. Chavez made every concession asked for, and the opposition went back on their word and pulled out anyways.

Chavez did not say he wanted a 25 year term. He merely stated that, if the opposition were to pull out, he would end term limits. There still would be an election every 6 years for the next 25 years, and he would run each term. This was an inducement to get the opposition back into the process. But dishonestly knows no bounds. Since the opposition cannot win a majority honestly in government due to their unpopularity, they pulled out of the process, then attempt to brand Chavez as a dictator.

I will say the magic word once more - Mediawhores.

Article is here.
Click to expand...


You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater here...no, Chavez isn't saying he's going to take over as a dictator, but he IS threatening to repeal term limits. Thats a pretty darn big story in and of itself right there....
 
Re: Hugo Chavez: "Indefinite re-election"

Iriemon said:
I certainly do not think unlimited tenure is a good idea, even if approved by popular referendum.

Cons -- how is your hero King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia doing :roll:
Click to expand...

Who is the first president to form an alliance with the House of Saud? Oh ya . . . FDR, next.
 
danarhea said:
This lie has been debunked, but I cant blame you for posting this thread. After all, you got your story from a respected mediawhore, FOX News, who in turn got their information from another mediawhore known as AP.

The true story is that the opposition, unable to strengthen their position honestly, threatened to pull out of the democratic process in Venezuela unless Chavez made some concessions to them. Chavez made every concession asked for, and the opposition went back on their word and pulled out anyways.

Chavez did not say he wanted a 25 year term. He merely stated that, if the opposition were to pull out, he would end term limits. There still would be an election every 6 years for the next 25 years, and he would run each term. This was an inducement to get the opposition back into the process. But dishonestly knows no bounds. Since the opposition cannot win a majority honestly in government due to their unpopularity, they pulled out of the process, then attempt to brand Chavez as a dictator.

I will say the magic word once more - Mediawhores.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Good to see that you're defending the next Castro. Let's see since Chavez took power he has rewritten the Constitution, done away with the bi-cameral legislature in favor of a unicameral legislature, nationalized all major industries, packed the courts, and destroyed the freedom of the press, formed a giant militia with an allegiance to only him that is used to intimidate dissenters, and according to freedomhouse.org Chavez has all around reduced Venezuela from a free to a not free nation. How can you defend Chavez and call yourself a Libertarian? He is a god damn dictator in the works he's Castro with oil.
 
RightatNYU said:
You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater here...no, Chavez isn't saying he's going to take over as a dictator, but he IS threatening to repeal term limits. Thats a pretty darn big story in and of itself right there....
Click to expand...

With all due respect, Chavez did not make himself dictator. It is his opposition which pulled out and whined because they could not win an election honestly, and were unable to maintain a successful coup to become dictators. All Chavez did was to threaten that, if they pull out of the political dialog, then he would remove term limits.

Also, even without term limits, the opposition can still run a candidate if they so choose. Thats more than the opposition were willing to do when they attempted their coup.

Fact is, like it or not, Chavez is a popular leader in Venezuela, and the opposition is not, but instead of taking on Chavez honestly, they attempt to overthrow the government, and now they whine because it didnt work, and now the majority in Venezuela see them for the Fascists they really are.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Moved to appropriate forum
 
Oh, I see, the conservatives still lost it, before it was moved her :smile:
 
danarhea said:
The true story is that the opposition, unable to strengthen their position honestly, threatened to pull out of the democratic process in Venezuela unless Chavez made some concessions to them. Chavez made every concession asked for, and the opposition went back on their word and pulled out anyways.

Chavez did not say he wanted a 25 year term. He merely stated that, if the opposition were to pull out, he would end term limits. There still would be an election every 6 years for the next 25 years, and he would run each term. This was an inducement to get the opposition back into the process. But dishonestly knows no bounds. Since the opposition cannot win a majority honestly in government due to their unpopularity, they pulled out of the process, then attempt to brand Chavez as a dictator.
Click to expand...
Well said

Chavez may not be an angel by any means, that said he is still a lot better than his opposition. Time and time again I here the media pouncing all over Chavez as some crazy, soon to be dictator, without anyone bothering to point out the contempt of his opposition for the democratic process.

Instead of plotting an ill conceived coup d'etat, the opposition should have taken their electoral defeat as a cue to reform their platform and do some house cleaning. For all his short comings, Chavez is a democratically elected leader and popular with the majority of the country's population.

As for the removal of term limits, so what? Here in Canada there are no term limits, yet are system still holds up fine.
 
Chris said:
Well said

Chavez may not be an angel by any means, that said he is still a lot better than his opposition. Time and time again I here the media pouncing all over Chavez as some crazy, soon to be dictator, without anyone bothering to point out the contempt of his opposition for the democratic process.

Instead of plotting an ill conceived coup d'etat, the opposition should have taken their electoral defeat as a cue to reform their platform and do some house cleaning. For all his short comings, Chavez is a democratically elected leader and popular with the majority of the country's population.

As for the removal of term limits, so what? Here in Canada there are no term limits, yet are system still holds up fine.
Click to expand...

Kettle meet pot prior to Chavez winning the elections he himself attempted a coup de'ta. While in office Chavez has done away with the bicameral legislature, rewritten the Constitution, used the new Constitution to pack the courts, eliminated the freedom of the press, and according to freedomhouse.org has reduced overall Venezuelan freedoms.
 
Re: Hugo Chavez: "Indefinite re-election"

Iriemon said:
I certainly do not think unlimited tenure is a good idea, even if approved by popular referendum.

Cons -- how is your hero King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia doing :roll:
Click to expand...


Chaves needs a dirt nap! :shock:
 
Anyone who does not seee this as the first step to a dictatorship, is ignorant of history, and is obviously blinded by this mans rhetoric. He is certainly saying that he does not believe anyone else could possibly do the job, and do it right, so he needs to end term limits. Just this arrogance is a clue to the mans agenda, and needs to be examined very carefully.


This is certainly no surprise to me, I knew this day would come.
 
Deegan said:
Anyone who does not seee this as the first step to a dictatorship, is ignorant of history, and is obviously blinded by this mans rhetoric. He is certainly saying that he does not believe anyone else could possibly do the job, and do it right, so he needs to end term limits. Just this arrogance is a clue to the mans agenda, and needs to be examined very carefully.


This is certainly no surprise to me, I knew this day would come.
Click to expand...

Our country was founded without term limits for the president.

Was the foundation of the republic the first step towards dictatorship?
 
zymurgy said:
Our country was founded without term limits for the president.

Was the foundation of the republic the first step towards dictatorship?
Click to expand...

I don't think they thought that through, but we have limits now, as it should be, and should be with Senators, and Congressmen IMO. I would hardly compare our elections to those in Venezuela, but some would have no problem doing so, I mean, Bush did steal his last two, but the elections there are corruption free right!:roll:

Of course I can only assume at this point, but this is certainly yet another step IMO, and I think we will see more signs in the future. If someone has a rational example for why they think otherwise, I would love to hear it.
 
Deegan said:
I don't think they thought that through, but we have limits now, as it should be, and should be with Senators, and Congressmen IMO. I would hardly compare our elections to those in Venezuela, but some would have no problem doing so, I mean, Bush did steal his last two, but the elections there are corruption free right!:roll:

Of course I can only assume at this point, but this is certainly yet another step IMO, and I think we will see more signs in the future. If someone has a rational example for why they think otherwise, I would love to hear it.
Click to expand...

I'm really ignorant of this, but I though term limits for presidents was because of health consequences?

But again, I'm really ignorant on this. I think this was what I learned in public schools and since then I have found that most of American history needed to be re-learned.
 
zymurgy said:
I'm really ignorant of this, but I though term limits for presidents was because of health consequences?

But again, I'm really ignorant on this. I think this was what I learned in public schools and since then I have found that most of American history needed to be re-learned.
Click to expand...

I think the most appropriate example can be found when Washington refused to seek a third term, and since then, 38 states have set term limits, and more are considering this everyday.

Some interesting things can be learned here about term limits, and why they are important..............

http://www.termlimits.org/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom