Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Too lazy to do my own research
1. How popular is he?
2. How is he a THREAT to democracy in Venezuela?
*all hope abandon you who enter here*
1. Very, but also unpopular to some degree both in Venezuela and US
2. He isn't
the millions in the slums of venezuela.
the middle classes despise him.
venezeula has a relatively small middle class compared to our own country ... so he is overwhelmingly supported by the majority of venezeulans, right?
But I was under the impression that he's hugely popular in Venezuela
1. but he is of unprecedent popularity within Venezeula, right? 75% approval ratings, that sort of thing?
2. he made some constitutional change removing the two term limit for presidents but i think he still has to be elected every 5 years. Is there anything else he has done?
re 2. I don't think he's done that yet. I might be wrong. He definitely said that he wants to though so he can run again
and re 1. Wikipaedo has his approval rating at 55% (as of August). I thought it was higher than that
he has introduced healthcare and education to millions who never had it before. he has used the country's huge oil resources to help the people rather than to line the pockets of us companies. e.g he offers cuba cheap oil in exchange for doctors for the slums.
i'm arguing against somebody who says he is a 'threat to democracy' and i don't see how someone who is near-universally popular and has no plans to abolish elections can be described in such a way.
i'm fairly pro-chavez ... or at least anti-anti-chavez
give you a wealth of information.
i don't see how he can be a threat to democracy when he is overwhelmingly supported by his population.
the us don't like him because he has stuck 2 fingers up to them and regularly calls bush satan. at the un when he said he should sprinkle holy water on the spot bush had been standing=brilliant.
control over the media a la Vladimir Putin?
There's no substantial opposition in Venezuela is therE?
my hazy recollection of an Independent article from yesterday, Venezuela has a pretty 'unfettered' media.
in a proper newspaper? that might be more helpful.
yeah, sorry, I realise it wasn't the most reliable source.
"Most of Venezuela's mass media are privately operated and derive most of their revenues from advertising, subscriptions, and sale or distribution of copyrighted materials. A small proportion of the Venezuelan television, newspaper, and radio markets is controlled by state-owned outlets."
Venezuela are 115th out of 168 on the Reporters without Borders freedom of press list thing. Russia are 147.
I'm fairly unhelpful.
that's a good source. have you seen how low the US is on that thing?!
& he's socialist. that's why the u.s. hate him. he represents a threat to american 'interests' in s. america. fucking oliver fuckhead north even went down there to try to rally against him.
it's generally because they don't believe him when he says he has no plans to abolish elections.
Once, having been elected to office, he was kidnapped in an attempted right-wing coup, thought to be supported (ideologically if not logistically/financially) by the US. Anyone who wants to tell me HE'S the threat to democracy can eat my clagnuts.
but.. most of the repsonses on here have been telling me why chavez is great... but i wanted to know about any specific ACTIONS he has taken which may appear to threaten democracy in venezuela.
as far as i can see, there is sod all ... i still prefer Morales though.
No freedom of press
numerous allegations of electoral fraud
and he had generally not improved Venezuela at all.
I am still open on Morales
venezuela's elections aren't sufficiently widely monitored because they aren't members of the OSCE or the Helsinki Federation but in 2004, he was ruled in favour of by an independent judiciary and i'm not really sure how plausible or widespread allegations of fraud are.
whether or not he has improved or will improve venezuela is open to debate but it's not really an issue for me ... i'm constantly told that he governs venezuela because he's an anti-democratic dictator and it just strikes me as nonsense. He's popular because he gives that continent's poorest people hope ... he probably is functionally crap but I can see why people vote for him and why they're not really interested in being dragged into the neoliberal nightmare that has engulfed almost every other country in latin america.
I hope it doesn't prove to be false hope....also it sounds remarkably similar to what Robert Mugabe was beleived to be doing.
the fundamental difference is the Chavez has a lot of money to spend on social programmes. It could be disastrous if the oil price plummets though.
Few countries ever really manage oil well, though. Devil's excrement n all that.
I think you'll find that the press in Venezuela is remarkably free, watch any clip of private Venezuelan TV and you will find numerous calls for Chavez to be assasinated and debates questioning his sanity. The private media colluded in the attempted coup and yet after Chavez's restoration no one was arrested.
I beleive the Carter institute has verified several (of the NINE or so) elections.
Would you not call eliminating illiteracy improving Venezuela?
isn't really an independent monitor, though. in fact, there aren't really any proper election monitors in latin america
have you seen HOW far down Venezuela is in the press freedom ratings?
and it isn't bush et al accysing him of violating Human Rights, it is Amnesty International.
Would you say having corruption massively increase and a soaring crime rate, was evidence of him improving venezuela?
fullerov, seriously. you have no idea what you're talking about. at all.
what kind of a response is that?
but i've been involved with the hands off venezuela campaign for over a year now, spent almost three months in bolivia last year, and really, chavez, morales et al are the best thing to have happened to latin america in a long time. seriously. anyone who says otherwise just hasn't done their research.
that's the most irrational attempt at an argument ever. 'trust me, if you'd been to latin america you'd understand why chavez is great'
what the fuck?
There is a survey that mointors (roughly) how much freedom press have in various countries.
Venezuela has a very poor rating.
I would suggest that YOU don't know what you are talking about.
My typing has gone to hell.
I have stated why I don't think Chavez is a good president.
Your argument's very well formulated - I'd replied to since-last-summer's unhelpful "you have no idea what you're talking about. at all."
for the soaring crime rate and massive increase in corruption.
The elimination of illeteracy on the other hand has been verified the UN.
has soared since he took power.
I don't have time to look for the stats. now, because I am going to work
the economist! it must be true!!! omg yr so impartial
you're incapable of rational debate...
is this not the biggest load of tendentious shit you've seen ever?
seems like a prize prick to me.
that's the way of the right though, isn't it? they all want to take take take.
in the comments
"You are a deluded, dishonest maniac"
i think traynor writes that blog
but surely JDT would be in favour of a new soviet union.
didn't the two of you ever discuss it at your DiS commie club? :~)
the idea he's a threat to democracy is insane. he's won more democratic elections than any other leader on the planet. jimmy carter verified the last election results himself. he's introduced a people's constitution of indiginous rights for the 1st time. and so on.
none of his elections have been monitored by the OAS so i would be very cautious before declaring that all his victories have been fairly won.
what are you talking about. political arguments on the internet are so easy. anyone can just make some vague comment and not have to back it up or reply. this is a pointless argument. if you want to know how much of a threat to democracy chavez is why don't you go to venezuela and ask one of the vast majoraty of the populus who have re-elected him time and time again. or one of the thousants of people who overthrew the CIA backed coup in 2002. a coup incidentally backed by the media chavez to this day leaves in private hands. he's not even that left wing really. but he's still made a huge impact, and is a living example of how politics can resonate with ordianry people when policies are tailored to their needs, and not those of big business.
i said the elections hadn't been independently monitored. you gave me a load of emotive and meaningless bullshit. can you be arsed with addressing what i said at all?
whether the elections were legitemate. i said further up the thread that i'm pretty supportive of chavez.
seriously, what is your fucking problem?
we can be sure the elections were fair, he said 'yeah, but chavez is the best thing to happen to venezuela ever'
it's just irrelevant to what i said. where have i been WRONG on this thread, then?
seriously, something which began as being inquisitive you had to make personal. i don't see why you do this all the time.
"none of his elections have been monitored by the OAS so i would be very cautious before declaring that all his victories have been fairly won."
"if you want to know how much of a threat to democracy chavez is why don't you go to venezuela and ask one of the vast majoraty of the populus who have re-elected him time and time again."
SLS's response assumes i'd said that Chavez's rule is a bad thing, surely? and i've said 3 or 4 times in this thread that i FUCKING DON'T
'chavez is shit. he steals elections'
when i actually said 'we can't really be sure how legitimate the elections are'
i think as a former president of the united states he's pretty right wing. so the fact that his organisation verified the results says something.
"i think as a former president of the united states he's pretty right wing."
Have you ever seen the stuff Carter did in office? Or after he left?
He was the only US president in the 20th century to not order troops into military action!
Right wing isn't a word I'd use to describe Mr Carter
but as a US president he was obviously no socialist. yet he validated the elections.
you're embarassing yourself. the carter centre is not an apolitical organisation and its pronouncements re: legitemacy of elections need to be considered in that light. is that so difficult to grasp?
sorry, where the fuck did you get that from?
the carter centre. i'm just trying to recognise that really no agent is completely neutral. when it comes to the monitoring of elections, the likes of the OSCE, COE and OSA are the closest you get to impartial.
so i don't know how fair they were.
knowledge, he seems pretty unwilling to argue his case. further up the board, he did say 'trust me, i know this stuff better than you do and chavez rules' which, of course, is a very convincing argument.
but i don't expect much better from you.
in addition to that, he hasn't actually said anything ... i asked a very specific question, he answered by defending chavez from allegations which i hadn't made and wouldn't make. it suggests a fairly shallow knowledge, but i'm willing to be proven wrong.
against mine on the grounds that he has superior knowledge. i don't see where we have disagreed.
left in latin america is a good thing. i've been pretty open about that.
the media in venezuela is almost entirely privately owned. they make up lies about chavez. then right wing organisations like the economist spread those lies.
like, t'other day i was watching a program called 'don't watch that watch this', and it claimed chavez had said something antisemitic recently. what he'd actually done was compare the american empire to the roman empire, and the right wing press twisted this to make it seem anti semitic. and the british media don't even question it. because they're lazy. for more examples of the lies perpetrated by the venezuelan media watch the documentary 'the revolution will not be televised'.
chavez called israel 'the killers of christ' ? that was pretty low, wasn't it?
but seriously, the economist is not a 'right wing organisation'. you have discredited yourself with that one.
he says 'the descendants of those who crucified Christ' ?
'Jews have taken ownership of the riches of the world' doesn't offend you at all?
if 'the descendants of those who crucified christ' = 'jews'
'the descendents of those who crucified christ have taken ownership of the riches of the world'
'jews have taken ownership ...'
i daresay it doesn't matter, but if chavez IS a raging anti-semite i would feel uncomfortable celebrating him as a hero even though I am more or less a supporter of his.
isn't saying 'jews are cunts'
it's not anti-semitic, just so generalised as to be factually incorrect.
i like you too. trufact
you can say 'if he has said this, at all, i disagree with it' rather than this 'presence' stuff.
sorry. drinking wine </excuses>
he's completely changed venezuala for the good of the country.
they should make him president of the USA.
nobody can criticise israel because somebody accuses them of antisemitism..... but what does that have to do with Chavez's nakedly racist remark?
you just have israel on the brain.
conspiracy theory that Jews rule the world.
post that was in response to where SLS says there is a media invented myth that Chavez is an anti-semite
with regard to this thread as a whole, i still think it matters whether or not chavez steals elections. you don't. that is the divide.
"I care if Chavez steals elections, I just personally don't believe he is."
and i said i'd like to see independent monitoring of venezuelan elections just to be sure. that's when you started attacking me for some reason.
your last sentence i mean. if the government talks about democracy while abusing it at home, that's one thing. but if citizens of those countries talk about it, i don't believe you can call them hypocritical just because they happen to live in a country with a hypocritical government.
during the cold war was horrific. the current president doesn't seem to give a shit about latin america though, really.
have you read the trial of henry kissinger?
it's a good book, like
which, at least in the way that it's practiced in most Western countries at the moment, it sure as hell isn't.
if Chavez rigged some elections, that's a very bad thing, but I'm no longer prepared to accept the argument that anyone who thinks they're right and chances their arm at power is evil a la Hitler. as far as i know Chavez has not perpetrated a genocide. if he did, i'd be working out how best to get him shot.
that's a very short-sighted and foolish thing to do.
but what's your point?
burning oil needs to be illegal well before us guys are old
so great that i'd like to invite you to say it with me
that'd be a good start
needs to be a global movement for non-idiots everywhere. not Europe leading and then saying 'now guys, do what we did'... neocolonialist anyone? we need more collaboration and less separation. sweeping statements i know but that's my opinion. start with yourself; use as little power as possible, recycle, be nice to people and look after each other. </hippy>
How is utilising the resources availible to you nation to affect positive social change on scale never seen before in South America a foolish and short sighted thing to do?
i don't think he was right, but not rubbish either.
is the appropriate DiS response.