|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
On July 01 2018 08:21 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 07:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 06:51 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 06:34 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 06:17 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
If the it's being used to convey strictly that the people wanted him to have more power (though far from absolute or "dictatorial" imo) without tyrannical connotations then I suppose I wouldn't have to make a big deal over it. All dictators claim the people want them to have more power... how naive are you buddy? And to respond to your edit. No I think the people initially wanted him and then think he pulled the age old dictator playbook of neutering his opposition, propaganda, into absolute power all while robbing his people to make him, his family and his friends wealthy. But you know all I have to back that up is what happened the mountain of evidence. What is currently happening, but of course it's all fake news right Green "Left Trump" Horizons? I know you don't like actually substantiating your arguments but google exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election,_1998 He won by 16 points. Given it wasn't a landslide, it was a substantial win in what was a more legitimate election than we've probably ever had in the US.
Mr prove it. Google exists please prove this completely retarded, clearly inflammatory statement. GO! Bu..ya... re...I mean... The 1998 elections were the first to be carried out with a non-partisan National Electoral Council.[4] Traditionally poll workers had been provided by the parties, but in this election "a lottery was set up to draft 300,000 registered voters as poll workers".[4] The elections also saw "the world's first automated voting system, which featured a single integrated electronic network that was supposed to transmit the results from the polling stations to central headquarters within minutes."[4] Whilst Venezuela had traditionally provided election observers to other Latin American countries, the uncertainty of the new system and the possibility of handover to a non-traditional party raised the stakes in terms of demonstrating that the elections would be fair, and Venezuela invited international election observers for the first time.[4] The Organization of American States, European Union, Carter Center and International Republican Institute all sent delegations.[4]
The automated vote system enabled the Electoral Council to announce the results within 2.5 hours of the polls closing.[4] After corroborating the results with the Carter Center, the losing candidate conceded several hours later.[4] Wait are you still talking about the firs time he was elected. This is one of the few things we have continually agreed about that it was fair. Hell, as I mentioned King of evil Hitler also won a fair election and also was popular. But regardless none of what you posted makes that election better then EVERY election EVER in the history of the USA. And where the issues come is not the first election it is the future ones and it is how he governed with absolute power and lack of transparency. You're all over the place at this point and not making a coherent argument. What issues do you have with which elections? When do you think the people of Venezuela didn't want Chavez in charge? That has never been my point. It is the point you are arguing because for some reason you think that him being popular at times makes him not a dictator or somehow good at governing. And you basically dodge everything else. I'm also still looking forward to why all USA elections ever haa not been fair or democratic. You said "all dictators claim the people want them to have more power" as if the people didn't want him to have more power. So I was demonstrating that the people did in fact want him to have more power. So it wasn't so much a claim, as it was a fact. You guys are right that being elected doesn't preclude someone from being a dictator, but the elections are legitimate and don't carry even the caveats that exist in reports on Russian elections. So I'm not sure it should have the negative connotations you guys seem to be implying with the word. As to the US elections, perhaps you could help me in this regard. Could you point me toward some reports from international election observing organizations on past US elections. Then we could compare. I mean from long lines, to hanging chads, black voter disenfranchisement (do we even consider any before women and Black people could vote?), everything Democrats say happened in 2016, and so on. Pick the most legitimate US election you'd like and we can compare it to the least legitimate Chavez one. The post I posted a while ago explains in great detail why they are not fair, your ignorance is amazing TBH. I've done enough homework at your request. You don't do any, at least do the minimum and read that. Because he is popular does not mean they wanted him to have more power and more than that that it is good. As I pointed Hitler was popular especially after he invaded France, but do to his power he could do a lot the people never knew about... OH WAIT....!
You're back to making a completely incoherent argument where the facts don't align with your rhetoric where I've challenged you. You keep mentioning Hitler as if the situation is comparable despite being shown multiple times they are not analogous in the ways you're attempting to force them to be by sheer will and repetition.
You say you "do your homework" but seem to be incapable or unwilling to accept facts that contradict your argument or recognize when you lack facts to support your own.
Typically there would be a dogpile on you about how terrible your argument is both structurally and substantively but because there's a general ignorance on the specifics and your argument aligns with established western propaganda they aren't chiming in about how your failure to prove or even really make a salient argument is illuminating.
I'm sure some people are reading this exchange and having long thought Chavez a ruthless dictator are surprised to find out that he was repeatedly elected in what several international organizations observed and deemed legitimate elections (which is more than we can say about US elections). I do have to appreciate that aspect of all this.
|
|
|
On July 01 2018 08:34 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 08:21 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 07:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 06:51 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 06:34 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] I know you don't like actually substantiating your arguments but google exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election,_1998 He won by 16 points. Given it wasn't a landslide, it was a substantial win in what was a more legitimate election than we've probably ever had in the US.
Mr prove it. Google exists please prove this completely retarded, clearly inflammatory statement. GO! Bu..ya... re...I mean... The 1998 elections were the first to be carried out with a non-partisan National Electoral Council.[4] Traditionally poll workers had been provided by the parties, but in this election "a lottery was set up to draft 300,000 registered voters as poll workers".[4] The elections also saw "the world's first automated voting system, which featured a single integrated electronic network that was supposed to transmit the results from the polling stations to central headquarters within minutes."[4] Whilst Venezuela had traditionally provided election observers to other Latin American countries, the uncertainty of the new system and the possibility of handover to a non-traditional party raised the stakes in terms of demonstrating that the elections would be fair, and Venezuela invited international election observers for the first time.[4] The Organization of American States, European Union, Carter Center and International Republican Institute all sent delegations.[4]
The automated vote system enabled the Electoral Council to announce the results within 2.5 hours of the polls closing.[4] After corroborating the results with the Carter Center, the losing candidate conceded several hours later.[4] Wait are you still talking about the firs time he was elected. This is one of the few things we have continually agreed about that it was fair. Hell, as I mentioned King of evil Hitler also won a fair election and also was popular. But regardless none of what you posted makes that election better then EVERY election EVER in the history of the USA. And where the issues come is not the first election it is the future ones and it is how he governed with absolute power and lack of transparency. You're all over the place at this point and not making a coherent argument. What issues do you have with which elections? When do you think the people of Venezuela didn't want Chavez in charge? That has never been my point. It is the point you are arguing because for some reason you think that him being popular at times makes him not a dictator or somehow good at governing. And you basically dodge everything else. I'm also still looking forward to why all USA elections ever haa not been fair or democratic. You said "all dictators claim the people want them to have more power" as if the people didn't want him to have more power. So I was demonstrating that the people did in fact want him to have more power. So it wasn't so much a claim, as it was a fact. You guys are right that being elected doesn't preclude someone from being a dictator, but the elections are legitimate and don't carry even the caveats that exist in reports on Russian elections. So I'm not sure it should have the negative connotations you guys seem to be implying with the word. As to the US elections, perhaps you could help me in this regard. Could you point me toward some reports from international election observing organizations on past US elections. Then we could compare. I mean from long lines, to hanging chads, black voter disenfranchisement (do we even consider any before women and Black people could vote?), everything Democrats say happened in 2016, and so on. Pick the most legitimate US election you'd like and we can compare it to the least legitimate Chavez one. The post I posted a while ago explains in great detail why they are not fair, your ignorance is amazing TBH. I've done enough homework at your request. You don't do any, at least do the minimum and read that. Because he is popular does not mean they wanted him to have more power and more than that that it is good. As I pointed Hitler was popular especially after he invaded France, but do to his power he could do a lot the people never knew about... OH WAIT....! You're back to making a completely incoherent argument where the facts don't align with your rhetoric where I've challenged you. You keep mentioning Hitler as if the situation is comparable despite being shown multiple times they are not analogous in the ways you're attempting to force them to be by sheer will and repetition. You say you "do your homework" but seem to be incapable or unwilling to accept facts that contradict your argument or recognize when you lack facts to support your own. Typically there would be a dogpile on you about how terrible your argument is both structurally and substantively but because there's a general ignorance on the specifics and your argument aligns with established western propaganda they aren't chiming in about how your failure to prove or even really make a salient argument is illuminating. I'm sure some people are reading this exchange and having long thought Chavez a ruthless dictator are surprised to find out that he was repeatedly elected in what several international organizations observed and deemed legitimate. I do have to appreciate that aspect of all this. Actually what is happening is because you have been here a long time people are not dog piling on you, which is kind of them. But a few people are chiming in with points against yours politely and you are not taking the hint. I never said he was ruthless, though he likely was. But He was a dictator, the world says so not me. Madura is taking it even further. Venezuela is also in economic disarray and people are fleeing the country and unprecedented rates. All these are facts you some how argue. + Show Spoiler +I was not saying he was like Hitler, I was trying to use Hitler as a counter argument to your whole he's not a dictator because he was popular argument. Since you wouldn't listen to sensible arguements made by me and also DanHH and Plansix. And I mean if other people here think Venezuela is in a great spot, well run, and not a dictatorship. Please chime in if you exist it will not hurt my feelings.
I assume you say "likely" because you have no evidence. As you had of him being a billionaire + Show Spoiler +(seriously though, does the article cited in your quote back there in the thread actually exist?)
I am not even trying to argue the current situation in Venezuela with you since you don't seem to have a rudimentary understanding of how they got here.
|
United States42014 Posts
On June 30 2018 04:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2018 04:18 Jockmcplop wrote:
I disagree. Capitalism has a home, and all its proceeds find their way to that home eventually, it sucks countries dry.
I'm not saying that socialism is better, and yes when countries are run badly it is worse than capitalism. See my point above. No country succeeds economically without having minimal capitalist institutions in place -- namely the protection of property rights and the rule of law.
These are not capitalist institutions. You’re conflating the question of the allocation of the proceeds from labour (those who provided the capital vs those who performed the labour) with the political and legal institutions in place. Capitalism is not intrinsically legalistic, quite the opposite, the law is very often a constraint on capitalism.
Venezuela is obviously a tragedy but it is false to claim that everything bad there is socialist and therefore because capitalism is the opposite of socialism (within your argument) everything good must logically be capitalism. These are separate issues.
The lack of legal protection for property in Venezuela does not show that legalism is a capitalist tradition.
|
Republicans have a 50-49 majority in the Senate (McCain is undergoing brain surgery). The Democrats are targeting Sens Murkowski and Collins, two moderate Republicans that have bolted from the party line frequently in the past. The Republicans are targeting the Democratic senators that are from red states like Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, and Heidi Heitkamp. They face tough re-election fights in states that voted for Trump.
Trump’s list of judges was the strong selling point for conservatives; he’s advantaged picking another from the list. I expect this to happen.
|
|
|
On July 01 2018 08:34 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 08:21 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 07:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 06:51 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 06:34 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] I know you don't like actually substantiating your arguments but google exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election,_1998 He won by 16 points. Given it wasn't a landslide, it was a substantial win in what was a more legitimate election than we've probably ever had in the US.
Mr prove it. Google exists please prove this completely retarded, clearly inflammatory statement. GO! Bu..ya... re...I mean... The 1998 elections were the first to be carried out with a non-partisan National Electoral Council.[4] Traditionally poll workers had been provided by the parties, but in this election "a lottery was set up to draft 300,000 registered voters as poll workers".[4] The elections also saw "the world's first automated voting system, which featured a single integrated electronic network that was supposed to transmit the results from the polling stations to central headquarters within minutes."[4] Whilst Venezuela had traditionally provided election observers to other Latin American countries, the uncertainty of the new system and the possibility of handover to a non-traditional party raised the stakes in terms of demonstrating that the elections would be fair, and Venezuela invited international election observers for the first time.[4] The Organization of American States, European Union, Carter Center and International Republican Institute all sent delegations.[4]
The automated vote system enabled the Electoral Council to announce the results within 2.5 hours of the polls closing.[4] After corroborating the results with the Carter Center, the losing candidate conceded several hours later.[4] Wait are you still talking about the firs time he was elected. This is one of the few things we have continually agreed about that it was fair. Hell, as I mentioned King of evil Hitler also won a fair election and also was popular. But regardless none of what you posted makes that election better then EVERY election EVER in the history of the USA. And where the issues come is not the first election it is the future ones and it is how he governed with absolute power and lack of transparency. You're all over the place at this point and not making a coherent argument. What issues do you have with which elections? When do you think the people of Venezuela didn't want Chavez in charge? That has never been my point. It is the point you are arguing because for some reason you think that him being popular at times makes him not a dictator or somehow good at governing. And you basically dodge everything else. I'm also still looking forward to why all USA elections ever haa not been fair or democratic. You said "all dictators claim the people want them to have more power" as if the people didn't want him to have more power. So I was demonstrating that the people did in fact want him to have more power. So it wasn't so much a claim, as it was a fact. You guys are right that being elected doesn't preclude someone from being a dictator, but the elections are legitimate and don't carry even the caveats that exist in reports on Russian elections. So I'm not sure it should have the negative connotations you guys seem to be implying with the word. As to the US elections, perhaps you could help me in this regard. Could you point me toward some reports from international election observing organizations on past US elections. Then we could compare. I mean from long lines, to hanging chads, black voter disenfranchisement (do we even consider any before women and Black people could vote?), everything Democrats say happened in 2016, and so on. Pick the most legitimate US election you'd like and we can compare it to the least legitimate Chavez one. The post I posted a while ago explains in great detail why they are not fair, your ignorance is amazing TBH. I've done enough homework at your request. You don't do any, at least do the minimum and read that. Because he is popular does not mean they wanted him to have more power and more than that that it is good. As I pointed Hitler was popular especially after he invaded France, but do to his power he could do a lot the people never knew about... OH WAIT....! You're back to making a completely incoherent argument where the facts don't align with your rhetoric where I've challenged you. You keep mentioning Hitler as if the situation is comparable despite being shown multiple times they are not analogous in the ways you're attempting to force them to be by sheer will and repetition. You say you "do your homework" but seem to be incapable or unwilling to accept facts that contradict your argument or recognize when you lack facts to support your own. Typically there would be a dogpile on you about how terrible your argument is both structurally and substantively but because there's a general ignorance on the specifics and your argument aligns with established western propaganda they aren't chiming in about how your failure to prove or even really make a salient argument is illuminating. I'm sure some people are reading this exchange and having long thought Chavez a ruthless dictator are surprised to find out that he was repeatedly elected in what several international organizations observed and deemed legitimate. I do have to appreciate that aspect of all this. Actually what is happening is because you have been here a long time people are not dog piling on you, which is kind of them. But a few people are chiming in with points against yours politely and you are not taking the hint. I never said he was ruthless, though he likely was. But He was a dictator, the world says so not me. Madura is taking it even further. Venezuela is also in economic disarray and people are fleeing the country and unprecedented rates. All these are facts you some how argue. + Show Spoiler +I was not saying he was like Hitler, I was trying to use Hitler as a counter argument to your whole he's not a dictator because he was popular argument. Since you wouldn't listen to sensible arguements made by me and also DanHH and Plansix.
I don't think Chavez was a dictatorship, at least not for the vast majority of his time at the top.
Much of the problem comes from the fact that we hear about conditions in Venezuela from a certain kind of person, and they don't necessarily happen to represent the vast majority of the population.
Most of the people who weren't completely poor saw his rule as a dictatorship in the exact way your average American would see a tax rise to pay for free healthcare as a dictatorship. They would say it as hyperbole because they are losing out. Shit people have practically said the same thing in this very thread. People exaggerate when they are going to lose out due to circumstances beyond their control.
If the vast majority of visible sources are to be believed then it is absolutely in a terrible spot now. I would also say that the country has never been well run. Things seem to run better for big American businesses in Venezuela when they control the economics, but its clear to see that the country as a whole has been through the shit many times over and its probably not going to stop. Oil rich countries without enforced democracy tend to attract corrupt people who want to strip it of everything for their own benefit.
Most people over there probably don't care whether some corrupt politician is stripping the country of its resources or whether its a group of US businesses.
|
|
|
On July 01 2018 09:21 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 08:21 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 07:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 06:51 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 06:34 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Mr prove it. Google exists please prove this completely retarded, clearly inflammatory statement. GO!
Bu..ya... re...I mean... The 1998 elections were the first to be carried out with a non-partisan National Electoral Council.[4] Traditionally poll workers had been provided by the parties, but in this election "a lottery was set up to draft 300,000 registered voters as poll workers".[4] The elections also saw "the world's first automated voting system, which featured a single integrated electronic network that was supposed to transmit the results from the polling stations to central headquarters within minutes."[4] Whilst Venezuela had traditionally provided election observers to other Latin American countries, the uncertainty of the new system and the possibility of handover to a non-traditional party raised the stakes in terms of demonstrating that the elections would be fair, and Venezuela invited international election observers for the first time.[4] The Organization of American States, European Union, Carter Center and International Republican Institute all sent delegations.[4]
The automated vote system enabled the Electoral Council to announce the results within 2.5 hours of the polls closing.[4] After corroborating the results with the Carter Center, the losing candidate conceded several hours later.[4] Wait are you still talking about the firs time he was elected. This is one of the few things we have continually agreed about that it was fair. Hell, as I mentioned King of evil Hitler also won a fair election and also was popular. But regardless none of what you posted makes that election better then EVERY election EVER in the history of the USA. And where the issues come is not the first election it is the future ones and it is how he governed with absolute power and lack of transparency. You're all over the place at this point and not making a coherent argument. What issues do you have with which elections? When do you think the people of Venezuela didn't want Chavez in charge? That has never been my point. It is the point you are arguing because for some reason you think that him being popular at times makes him not a dictator or somehow good at governing. And you basically dodge everything else. I'm also still looking forward to why all USA elections ever haa not been fair or democratic. You said "all dictators claim the people want them to have more power" as if the people didn't want him to have more power. So I was demonstrating that the people did in fact want him to have more power. So it wasn't so much a claim, as it was a fact. You guys are right that being elected doesn't preclude someone from being a dictator, but the elections are legitimate and don't carry even the caveats that exist in reports on Russian elections. So I'm not sure it should have the negative connotations you guys seem to be implying with the word. As to the US elections, perhaps you could help me in this regard. Could you point me toward some reports from international election observing organizations on past US elections. Then we could compare. I mean from long lines, to hanging chads, black voter disenfranchisement (do we even consider any before women and Black people could vote?), everything Democrats say happened in 2016, and so on. Pick the most legitimate US election you'd like and we can compare it to the least legitimate Chavez one. The post I posted a while ago explains in great detail why they are not fair, your ignorance is amazing TBH. I've done enough homework at your request. You don't do any, at least do the minimum and read that. Because he is popular does not mean they wanted him to have more power and more than that that it is good. As I pointed Hitler was popular especially after he invaded France, but do to his power he could do a lot the people never knew about... OH WAIT....! You're back to making a completely incoherent argument where the facts don't align with your rhetoric where I've challenged you. You keep mentioning Hitler as if the situation is comparable despite being shown multiple times they are not analogous in the ways you're attempting to force them to be by sheer will and repetition. You say you "do your homework" but seem to be incapable or unwilling to accept facts that contradict your argument or recognize when you lack facts to support your own. Typically there would be a dogpile on you about how terrible your argument is both structurally and substantively but because there's a general ignorance on the specifics and your argument aligns with established western propaganda they aren't chiming in about how your failure to prove or even really make a salient argument is illuminating. I'm sure some people are reading this exchange and having long thought Chavez a ruthless dictator are surprised to find out that he was repeatedly elected in what several international organizations observed and deemed legitimate. I do have to appreciate that aspect of all this. Actually what is happening is because you have been here a long time people are not dog piling on you, which is kind of them. But a few people are chiming in with points against yours politely and you are not taking the hint. I never said he was ruthless, though he likely was. But He was a dictator, the world says so not me. Madura is taking it even further. Venezuela is also in economic disarray and people are fleeing the country and unprecedented rates. All these are facts you some how argue. + Show Spoiler +I was not saying he was like Hitler, I was trying to use Hitler as a counter argument to your whole he's not a dictator because he was popular argument. Since you wouldn't listen to sensible arguements made by me and also DanHH and Plansix. I don't think Chavez was a dictatorship, at least not for the vast majority of his time at the top. I think much of the problem comes from the fact that we hear about conditions in Venezuela from a certain kind of person, and they don't necessarily happen to represent the vast majority of the population. Most of the people who weren't completely poor saw his rule as a dictatorship in the exact way your average American would see a tax rise to pay for free healthcare as a dictatorship. They would say it as hyperbole because they are losing out. Shit people have practically said the same thing in this very thread. People exaggerate when they are going to lose out due to circumstances beyond their control. If the vast majority of visible sources are to be believed then it is absolutely in a terrible spot now. I would also say that the country has never been well run. Things seem to run better for big American businesses in Venezuela when they control the economics, but its clear to see that the country as a whole has been through the shit many times over and its probably not going to stop. Oil rich countries without enforced democracy tend to attract corrupt people who want to strip it of everything for their own benefit. I think most people over there probably don't care whether some corrupt politician is stripping the country of its resources or whether its a group of US businesses.
Do you really think a rise in taxes, to pay for government-run healthcare, would make the average American think we’re now a dictatorship? This sounds like pointless hyperbole from you. Or are American stereotypes in the UK really this idiotic? Tax bills don’t make dictators, even in lefty estimations of how more right-leaning the US is by comparison.
|
On July 01 2018 09:36 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 09:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 01 2018 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 08:21 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 07:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 06:51 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Bu..ya... re...I mean...
[quote] Wait are you still talking about the firs time he was elected. This is one of the few things we have continually agreed about that it was fair. Hell, as I mentioned King of evil Hitler also won a fair election and also was popular. But regardless none of what you posted makes that election better then EVERY election EVER in the history of the USA. And where the issues come is not the first election it is the future ones and it is how he governed with absolute power and lack of transparency. You're all over the place at this point and not making a coherent argument. What issues do you have with which elections? When do you think the people of Venezuela didn't want Chavez in charge? That has never been my point. It is the point you are arguing because for some reason you think that him being popular at times makes him not a dictator or somehow good at governing. And you basically dodge everything else. I'm also still looking forward to why all USA elections ever haa not been fair or democratic. You said "all dictators claim the people want them to have more power" as if the people didn't want him to have more power. So I was demonstrating that the people did in fact want him to have more power. So it wasn't so much a claim, as it was a fact. You guys are right that being elected doesn't preclude someone from being a dictator, but the elections are legitimate and don't carry even the caveats that exist in reports on Russian elections. So I'm not sure it should have the negative connotations you guys seem to be implying with the word. As to the US elections, perhaps you could help me in this regard. Could you point me toward some reports from international election observing organizations on past US elections. Then we could compare. I mean from long lines, to hanging chads, black voter disenfranchisement (do we even consider any before women and Black people could vote?), everything Democrats say happened in 2016, and so on. Pick the most legitimate US election you'd like and we can compare it to the least legitimate Chavez one. The post I posted a while ago explains in great detail why they are not fair, your ignorance is amazing TBH. I've done enough homework at your request. You don't do any, at least do the minimum and read that. Because he is popular does not mean they wanted him to have more power and more than that that it is good. As I pointed Hitler was popular especially after he invaded France, but do to his power he could do a lot the people never knew about... OH WAIT....! You're back to making a completely incoherent argument where the facts don't align with your rhetoric where I've challenged you. You keep mentioning Hitler as if the situation is comparable despite being shown multiple times they are not analogous in the ways you're attempting to force them to be by sheer will and repetition. You say you "do your homework" but seem to be incapable or unwilling to accept facts that contradict your argument or recognize when you lack facts to support your own. Typically there would be a dogpile on you about how terrible your argument is both structurally and substantively but because there's a general ignorance on the specifics and your argument aligns with established western propaganda they aren't chiming in about how your failure to prove or even really make a salient argument is illuminating. I'm sure some people are reading this exchange and having long thought Chavez a ruthless dictator are surprised to find out that he was repeatedly elected in what several international organizations observed and deemed legitimate. I do have to appreciate that aspect of all this. Actually what is happening is because you have been here a long time people are not dog piling on you, which is kind of them. But a few people are chiming in with points against yours politely and you are not taking the hint. I never said he was ruthless, though he likely was. But He was a dictator, the world says so not me. Madura is taking it even further. Venezuela is also in economic disarray and people are fleeing the country and unprecedented rates. All these are facts you some how argue. + Show Spoiler +I was not saying he was like Hitler, I was trying to use Hitler as a counter argument to your whole he's not a dictator because he was popular argument. Since you wouldn't listen to sensible arguements made by me and also DanHH and Plansix. I don't think Chavez was a dictatorship, at least not for the vast majority of his time at the top. Much of the problem comes from the fact that we hear about conditions in Venezuela from a certain kind of person, and they don't necessarily happen to represent the vast majority of the population. Most of the people who weren't completely poor saw his rule as a dictatorship in the exact way your average American would see a tax rise to pay for free healthcare as a dictatorship. They would say it as hyperbole because they are losing out. Shit people have practically said the same thing in this very thread. People exaggerate when they are going to lose out due to circumstances beyond their control. If the vast majority of visible sources are to be believed then it is absolutely in a terrible spot now. I would also say that the country has never been well run. Things seem to run better for big American businesses in Venezuela when they control the economics, but its clear to see that the country as a whole has been through the shit many times over and its probably not going to stop. Oil rich countries without enforced democracy tend to attract corrupt people who want to strip it of everything for their own benefit. Most people over there probably don't care whether some corrupt politician is stripping the country of its resources or whether its a group of US businesses. I don't disagree with much of what you say. Back when Chavez was running it, it fell under the the category of hybrid regime, where as now it is authoritarian. So there is no question that it has gotten worse. That being said Maduro was Chavez pick to follow him, it was progressively moving in this way with control of the media outlets and so on. Even at its best under Chavez it was far worse then anything we have seen. (As per the democracy index). As you mention now it is no question, there is a reason so many are fleeing way to many for it to be the past scape goat of the upper class. It is amazing that Chavez himself has some great quotes about bad rich people are but he himself got very wealthy. (like if forbes got his networth wrong by double he's still a billionaire rich) and he supported the billionaires who supported him. His predecessor is also rich and getting rich and his family is beyond rich. Again from credible sources but they themselves never admit it. Though they do travel with large amounts of staff, live high on the hog, none of that is cheap. At any rate, my point was never that Chavez is the worst dictator or anything like that, in fact he may be in the top 10 for best, partly because he died before he consolidated all the power. But that top list still puts behind a lot of shitty democracy's and he certainly did leave his country in a good situation or with good leadership.
All I've really seen about the guy before today are films talking about the attempted coup when the population of the country demanded he was reinstated- despite his opposition forcing the police to suppress them. I've done some research of the 2002 coup attempt today.This has influenced my position far more than some statistics that are thorough but don't tell the whole story.
A small section of the country declared war on him for the sake of big business and the rich. The fact that he had to keep fighting this war for the rest of his reign should surely factor in to any judgement of him.
The media there claimed openly that they were being censored while simultaneously running 24 hour anti-Chavez propaganda.
Again the statistics say nothing about this.
It sounds like I'm making excuses for him but I genuinely think people should maybe question their assumptions and try and see the situation from the other side.
I admit the economic situation worsened throughout his time in charge.
|
United States42014 Posts
On July 01 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 09:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 01 2018 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 08:21 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 07:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 06:51 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Bu..ya... re...I mean...
[quote] Wait are you still talking about the firs time he was elected. This is one of the few things we have continually agreed about that it was fair. Hell, as I mentioned King of evil Hitler also won a fair election and also was popular. But regardless none of what you posted makes that election better then EVERY election EVER in the history of the USA. And where the issues come is not the first election it is the future ones and it is how he governed with absolute power and lack of transparency. You're all over the place at this point and not making a coherent argument. What issues do you have with which elections? When do you think the people of Venezuela didn't want Chavez in charge? That has never been my point. It is the point you are arguing because for some reason you think that him being popular at times makes him not a dictator or somehow good at governing. And you basically dodge everything else. I'm also still looking forward to why all USA elections ever haa not been fair or democratic. You said "all dictators claim the people want them to have more power" as if the people didn't want him to have more power. So I was demonstrating that the people did in fact want him to have more power. So it wasn't so much a claim, as it was a fact. You guys are right that being elected doesn't preclude someone from being a dictator, but the elections are legitimate and don't carry even the caveats that exist in reports on Russian elections. So I'm not sure it should have the negative connotations you guys seem to be implying with the word. As to the US elections, perhaps you could help me in this regard. Could you point me toward some reports from international election observing organizations on past US elections. Then we could compare. I mean from long lines, to hanging chads, black voter disenfranchisement (do we even consider any before women and Black people could vote?), everything Democrats say happened in 2016, and so on. Pick the most legitimate US election you'd like and we can compare it to the least legitimate Chavez one. The post I posted a while ago explains in great detail why they are not fair, your ignorance is amazing TBH. I've done enough homework at your request. You don't do any, at least do the minimum and read that. Because he is popular does not mean they wanted him to have more power and more than that that it is good. As I pointed Hitler was popular especially after he invaded France, but do to his power he could do a lot the people never knew about... OH WAIT....! You're back to making a completely incoherent argument where the facts don't align with your rhetoric where I've challenged you. You keep mentioning Hitler as if the situation is comparable despite being shown multiple times they are not analogous in the ways you're attempting to force them to be by sheer will and repetition. You say you "do your homework" but seem to be incapable or unwilling to accept facts that contradict your argument or recognize when you lack facts to support your own. Typically there would be a dogpile on you about how terrible your argument is both structurally and substantively but because there's a general ignorance on the specifics and your argument aligns with established western propaganda they aren't chiming in about how your failure to prove or even really make a salient argument is illuminating. I'm sure some people are reading this exchange and having long thought Chavez a ruthless dictator are surprised to find out that he was repeatedly elected in what several international organizations observed and deemed legitimate. I do have to appreciate that aspect of all this. Actually what is happening is because you have been here a long time people are not dog piling on you, which is kind of them. But a few people are chiming in with points against yours politely and you are not taking the hint. I never said he was ruthless, though he likely was. But He was a dictator, the world says so not me. Madura is taking it even further. Venezuela is also in economic disarray and people are fleeing the country and unprecedented rates. All these are facts you some how argue. + Show Spoiler +I was not saying he was like Hitler, I was trying to use Hitler as a counter argument to your whole he's not a dictator because he was popular argument. Since you wouldn't listen to sensible arguements made by me and also DanHH and Plansix. I don't think Chavez was a dictatorship, at least not for the vast majority of his time at the top. I think much of the problem comes from the fact that we hear about conditions in Venezuela from a certain kind of person, and they don't necessarily happen to represent the vast majority of the population. Most of the people who weren't completely poor saw his rule as a dictatorship in the exact way your average American would see a tax rise to pay for free healthcare as a dictatorship. They would say it as hyperbole because they are losing out. Shit people have practically said the same thing in this very thread. People exaggerate when they are going to lose out due to circumstances beyond their control. If the vast majority of visible sources are to be believed then it is absolutely in a terrible spot now. I would also say that the country has never been well run. Things seem to run better for big American businesses in Venezuela when they control the economics, but its clear to see that the country as a whole has been through the shit many times over and its probably not going to stop. Oil rich countries without enforced democracy tend to attract corrupt people who want to strip it of everything for their own benefit. I think most people over there probably don't care whether some corrupt politician is stripping the country of its resources or whether its a group of US businesses. Do you really think a rise in taxes, to pay for government-run healthcare, would make the average American think we’re now a dictatorship? This sounds like pointless hyperbole from you. Or are American stereotypes in the UK really this idiotic? Tax bills don’t make dictators, even in lefty estimations of how more right-leaning the US is by comparison.
From living in the US I’ve seen the American stereotype pretty much be right. Or have you forgotten that Obamacare = death panels euthanizing grandma being argued by serious politicians?
Hell, you spend a lot of time decrying the hyperbole leveled at Trump, you can’t now deny the existence of that hyperbole. Either American political exaggeration is real and bad, or not real. It can’t be not real and bad.
|
On July 01 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 09:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 01 2018 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 08:21 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 07:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 06:51 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Bu..ya... re...I mean...
[quote] Wait are you still talking about the firs time he was elected. This is one of the few things we have continually agreed about that it was fair. Hell, as I mentioned King of evil Hitler also won a fair election and also was popular. But regardless none of what you posted makes that election better then EVERY election EVER in the history of the USA. And where the issues come is not the first election it is the future ones and it is how he governed with absolute power and lack of transparency. You're all over the place at this point and not making a coherent argument. What issues do you have with which elections? When do you think the people of Venezuela didn't want Chavez in charge? That has never been my point. It is the point you are arguing because for some reason you think that him being popular at times makes him not a dictator or somehow good at governing. And you basically dodge everything else. I'm also still looking forward to why all USA elections ever haa not been fair or democratic. You said "all dictators claim the people want them to have more power" as if the people didn't want him to have more power. So I was demonstrating that the people did in fact want him to have more power. So it wasn't so much a claim, as it was a fact. You guys are right that being elected doesn't preclude someone from being a dictator, but the elections are legitimate and don't carry even the caveats that exist in reports on Russian elections. So I'm not sure it should have the negative connotations you guys seem to be implying with the word. As to the US elections, perhaps you could help me in this regard. Could you point me toward some reports from international election observing organizations on past US elections. Then we could compare. I mean from long lines, to hanging chads, black voter disenfranchisement (do we even consider any before women and Black people could vote?), everything Democrats say happened in 2016, and so on. Pick the most legitimate US election you'd like and we can compare it to the least legitimate Chavez one. The post I posted a while ago explains in great detail why they are not fair, your ignorance is amazing TBH. I've done enough homework at your request. You don't do any, at least do the minimum and read that. Because he is popular does not mean they wanted him to have more power and more than that that it is good. As I pointed Hitler was popular especially after he invaded France, but do to his power he could do a lot the people never knew about... OH WAIT....! You're back to making a completely incoherent argument where the facts don't align with your rhetoric where I've challenged you. You keep mentioning Hitler as if the situation is comparable despite being shown multiple times they are not analogous in the ways you're attempting to force them to be by sheer will and repetition. You say you "do your homework" but seem to be incapable or unwilling to accept facts that contradict your argument or recognize when you lack facts to support your own. Typically there would be a dogpile on you about how terrible your argument is both structurally and substantively but because there's a general ignorance on the specifics and your argument aligns with established western propaganda they aren't chiming in about how your failure to prove or even really make a salient argument is illuminating. I'm sure some people are reading this exchange and having long thought Chavez a ruthless dictator are surprised to find out that he was repeatedly elected in what several international organizations observed and deemed legitimate. I do have to appreciate that aspect of all this. Actually what is happening is because you have been here a long time people are not dog piling on you, which is kind of them. But a few people are chiming in with points against yours politely and you are not taking the hint. I never said he was ruthless, though he likely was. But He was a dictator, the world says so not me. Madura is taking it even further. Venezuela is also in economic disarray and people are fleeing the country and unprecedented rates. All these are facts you some how argue. + Show Spoiler +I was not saying he was like Hitler, I was trying to use Hitler as a counter argument to your whole he's not a dictator because he was popular argument. Since you wouldn't listen to sensible arguements made by me and also DanHH and Plansix. I don't think Chavez was a dictatorship, at least not for the vast majority of his time at the top. I think much of the problem comes from the fact that we hear about conditions in Venezuela from a certain kind of person, and they don't necessarily happen to represent the vast majority of the population. Most of the people who weren't completely poor saw his rule as a dictatorship in the exact way your average American would see a tax rise to pay for free healthcare as a dictatorship. They would say it as hyperbole because they are losing out. Shit people have practically said the same thing in this very thread. People exaggerate when they are going to lose out due to circumstances beyond their control. If the vast majority of visible sources are to be believed then it is absolutely in a terrible spot now. I would also say that the country has never been well run. Things seem to run better for big American businesses in Venezuela when they control the economics, but its clear to see that the country as a whole has been through the shit many times over and its probably not going to stop. Oil rich countries without enforced democracy tend to attract corrupt people who want to strip it of everything for their own benefit. I think most people over there probably don't care whether some corrupt politician is stripping the country of its resources or whether its a group of US businesses. Do you really think a rise in taxes, to pay for government-run healthcare, would make the average American think we’re now a dictatorship? This sounds like pointless hyperbole from you. Or are American stereotypes in the UK really this idiotic? Tax bills don’t make dictators, even in lefty estimations of how more right-leaning the US is by comparison.
I've seen exactly this rhetoric. This is nothing about American stereotypes. Go to t_d and look around for a while and you'll see it. Maybe not the average american, but probably in some parts of the political spectrum that are particularly vocal.
EDIT:
Let's not start a conversation where you deny it though, I'll end it now by finding some good examples:
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/paul-lepage-donald-trump-obama-dictator/index.html
+ Show Spoiler +Maine Gov. Paul LePage
"Let me be very clear. I believe the President of the United States, Barack Obama, is a dictator," he said at a news conference. "I think he has failed the American people. He has not worked with the Congress."
"And what he has done is he has used the executive office to put regulations on our country that's going to take us decades to get out of," he said.
LePage, who is an avid supporter of Donald Trump, called the Republican presidential nominee "very powerful."
"Donald Trump on the other hand is a very powerful personality. And he has a very authoritative persona," he said.
http://humanevents.com/2013/11/20/obama-the-dictator/
An article titled Obama the Dictator:
(Betsy McCaughey is former Lt. Governor of New York State and author of "Beating Obamacare," published by Regnery -- a sister company of Human Events.)
+ Show Spoiler +President Barack Obama says he can “fix” the millions of canceled health insurance plans with an administrative change. He’s claiming more executive power — power for himself — than the Constitution allows and playing fast and loose with the truth.
The culprit behind the cancellations is not administrative regulation, as Obama asserts; it’s Section 2702 of the Affordable Care Act, which states that all plans sold in the individual market or small group market from Jan. 1, 2014 and onward must include the Essential Health Benefits package —- 10 categories of health coverage Washington “experts” deem essential, such as maternity care, even if you’re 50 years old. Plans are being canceled because they don’t fulfill all 10.
Only Congress can dispense with the deadline, so on Friday, the House made a legal attempt to halt the mass cancellations by passing a bill. But insurers and insurance commissioners in several states have said the “fix” is too late to retool by Jan. 1.
Should I continue?
|
|
|
On July 01 2018 09:21 Jockmcplop wrote:
Much of the problem comes from the fact that we hear about conditions in Venezuela from a certain kind of person, and they don't necessarily happen to represent the vast majority of the population.
Venezuela is not a closed off country like North Korea, we have instant access to new developments such as emergency legislation, we have access to economic data, we have access to surveys by reputable organizations such as Transparency International.
Things have gotten worse by many metrics, corruption perception, productivity, access to food, currency depreciation, unemployment, closures. You can find reliable data for each of these things within 1 minute. Our knowledge of what is going on in Venezuela is not based on expat stories.
|
On July 01 2018 09:51 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2018 09:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 01 2018 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 08:21 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 07:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 06:51 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Wait are you still talking about the firs time he was elected. This is one of the few things we have continually agreed about that it was fair. Hell, as I mentioned King of evil Hitler also won a fair election and also was popular.
But regardless none of what you posted makes that election better then EVERY election EVER in the history of the USA. And where the issues come is not the first election it is the future ones and it is how he governed with absolute power and lack of transparency. You're all over the place at this point and not making a coherent argument. What issues do you have with which elections? When do you think the people of Venezuela didn't want Chavez in charge? That has never been my point. It is the point you are arguing because for some reason you think that him being popular at times makes him not a dictator or somehow good at governing. And you basically dodge everything else. I'm also still looking forward to why all USA elections ever haa not been fair or democratic. You said "all dictators claim the people want them to have more power" as if the people didn't want him to have more power. So I was demonstrating that the people did in fact want him to have more power. So it wasn't so much a claim, as it was a fact. You guys are right that being elected doesn't preclude someone from being a dictator, but the elections are legitimate and don't carry even the caveats that exist in reports on Russian elections. So I'm not sure it should have the negative connotations you guys seem to be implying with the word. As to the US elections, perhaps you could help me in this regard. Could you point me toward some reports from international election observing organizations on past US elections. Then we could compare. I mean from long lines, to hanging chads, black voter disenfranchisement (do we even consider any before women and Black people could vote?), everything Democrats say happened in 2016, and so on. Pick the most legitimate US election you'd like and we can compare it to the least legitimate Chavez one. The post I posted a while ago explains in great detail why they are not fair, your ignorance is amazing TBH. I've done enough homework at your request. You don't do any, at least do the minimum and read that. Because he is popular does not mean they wanted him to have more power and more than that that it is good. As I pointed Hitler was popular especially after he invaded France, but do to his power he could do a lot the people never knew about... OH WAIT....! You're back to making a completely incoherent argument where the facts don't align with your rhetoric where I've challenged you. You keep mentioning Hitler as if the situation is comparable despite being shown multiple times they are not analogous in the ways you're attempting to force them to be by sheer will and repetition. You say you "do your homework" but seem to be incapable or unwilling to accept facts that contradict your argument or recognize when you lack facts to support your own. Typically there would be a dogpile on you about how terrible your argument is both structurally and substantively but because there's a general ignorance on the specifics and your argument aligns with established western propaganda they aren't chiming in about how your failure to prove or even really make a salient argument is illuminating. I'm sure some people are reading this exchange and having long thought Chavez a ruthless dictator are surprised to find out that he was repeatedly elected in what several international organizations observed and deemed legitimate. I do have to appreciate that aspect of all this. Actually what is happening is because you have been here a long time people are not dog piling on you, which is kind of them. But a few people are chiming in with points against yours politely and you are not taking the hint. I never said he was ruthless, though he likely was. But He was a dictator, the world says so not me. Madura is taking it even further. Venezuela is also in economic disarray and people are fleeing the country and unprecedented rates. All these are facts you some how argue. + Show Spoiler +I was not saying he was like Hitler, I was trying to use Hitler as a counter argument to your whole he's not a dictator because he was popular argument. Since you wouldn't listen to sensible arguements made by me and also DanHH and Plansix. I don't think Chavez was a dictatorship, at least not for the vast majority of his time at the top. I think much of the problem comes from the fact that we hear about conditions in Venezuela from a certain kind of person, and they don't necessarily happen to represent the vast majority of the population. Most of the people who weren't completely poor saw his rule as a dictatorship in the exact way your average American would see a tax rise to pay for free healthcare as a dictatorship. They would say it as hyperbole because they are losing out. Shit people have practically said the same thing in this very thread. People exaggerate when they are going to lose out due to circumstances beyond their control. If the vast majority of visible sources are to be believed then it is absolutely in a terrible spot now. I would also say that the country has never been well run. Things seem to run better for big American businesses in Venezuela when they control the economics, but its clear to see that the country as a whole has been through the shit many times over and its probably not going to stop. Oil rich countries without enforced democracy tend to attract corrupt people who want to strip it of everything for their own benefit. I think most people over there probably don't care whether some corrupt politician is stripping the country of its resources or whether its a group of US businesses. Do you really think a rise in taxes, to pay for government-run healthcare, would make the average American think we’re now a dictatorship? This sounds like pointless hyperbole from you. Or are American stereotypes in the UK really this idiotic? Tax bills don’t make dictators, even in lefty estimations of how more right-leaning the US is by comparison. I've seen exactly this rhetoric. This is nothing about American stereotypes. Go to t_d and look around for a while and you'll see it. Maybe not the average american, but probably in some parts of the political spectrum that are particularly vocal.
See, when you say the “average American” would call the taxes an act of a dictator, I had no idea you were in fact referring to the average redditor at r/the_Donald. I do not doubt that you’ve personally seen something of this attitude in a corner of the internet, but considering average Americans, it just feeds into the stereotype that Europeans are absolutely oblivious about the political situation in America and prefer ignorant insults to dialogue.
|
On July 01 2018 10:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 09:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 01 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2018 09:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 01 2018 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 08:21 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 07:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You're all over the place at this point and not making a coherent argument.
What issues do you have with which elections? When do you think the people of Venezuela didn't want Chavez in charge? That has never been my point. It is the point you are arguing because for some reason you think that him being popular at times makes him not a dictator or somehow good at governing. And you basically dodge everything else. I'm also still looking forward to why all USA elections ever haa not been fair or democratic. You said "all dictators claim the people want them to have more power" as if the people didn't want him to have more power. So I was demonstrating that the people did in fact want him to have more power. So it wasn't so much a claim, as it was a fact. You guys are right that being elected doesn't preclude someone from being a dictator, but the elections are legitimate and don't carry even the caveats that exist in reports on Russian elections. So I'm not sure it should have the negative connotations you guys seem to be implying with the word. As to the US elections, perhaps you could help me in this regard. Could you point me toward some reports from international election observing organizations on past US elections. Then we could compare. I mean from long lines, to hanging chads, black voter disenfranchisement (do we even consider any before women and Black people could vote?), everything Democrats say happened in 2016, and so on. Pick the most legitimate US election you'd like and we can compare it to the least legitimate Chavez one. The post I posted a while ago explains in great detail why they are not fair, your ignorance is amazing TBH. I've done enough homework at your request. You don't do any, at least do the minimum and read that. Because he is popular does not mean they wanted him to have more power and more than that that it is good. As I pointed Hitler was popular especially after he invaded France, but do to his power he could do a lot the people never knew about... OH WAIT....! You're back to making a completely incoherent argument where the facts don't align with your rhetoric where I've challenged you. You keep mentioning Hitler as if the situation is comparable despite being shown multiple times they are not analogous in the ways you're attempting to force them to be by sheer will and repetition. You say you "do your homework" but seem to be incapable or unwilling to accept facts that contradict your argument or recognize when you lack facts to support your own. Typically there would be a dogpile on you about how terrible your argument is both structurally and substantively but because there's a general ignorance on the specifics and your argument aligns with established western propaganda they aren't chiming in about how your failure to prove or even really make a salient argument is illuminating. I'm sure some people are reading this exchange and having long thought Chavez a ruthless dictator are surprised to find out that he was repeatedly elected in what several international organizations observed and deemed legitimate. I do have to appreciate that aspect of all this. Actually what is happening is because you have been here a long time people are not dog piling on you, which is kind of them. But a few people are chiming in with points against yours politely and you are not taking the hint. I never said he was ruthless, though he likely was. But He was a dictator, the world says so not me. Madura is taking it even further. Venezuela is also in economic disarray and people are fleeing the country and unprecedented rates. All these are facts you some how argue. + Show Spoiler +I was not saying he was like Hitler, I was trying to use Hitler as a counter argument to your whole he's not a dictator because he was popular argument. Since you wouldn't listen to sensible arguements made by me and also DanHH and Plansix. I don't think Chavez was a dictatorship, at least not for the vast majority of his time at the top. I think much of the problem comes from the fact that we hear about conditions in Venezuela from a certain kind of person, and they don't necessarily happen to represent the vast majority of the population. Most of the people who weren't completely poor saw his rule as a dictatorship in the exact way your average American would see a tax rise to pay for free healthcare as a dictatorship. They would say it as hyperbole because they are losing out. Shit people have practically said the same thing in this very thread. People exaggerate when they are going to lose out due to circumstances beyond their control. If the vast majority of visible sources are to be believed then it is absolutely in a terrible spot now. I would also say that the country has never been well run. Things seem to run better for big American businesses in Venezuela when they control the economics, but its clear to see that the country as a whole has been through the shit many times over and its probably not going to stop. Oil rich countries without enforced democracy tend to attract corrupt people who want to strip it of everything for their own benefit. I think most people over there probably don't care whether some corrupt politician is stripping the country of its resources or whether its a group of US businesses. Do you really think a rise in taxes, to pay for government-run healthcare, would make the average American think we’re now a dictatorship? This sounds like pointless hyperbole from you. Or are American stereotypes in the UK really this idiotic? Tax bills don’t make dictators, even in lefty estimations of how more right-leaning the US is by comparison. I've seen exactly this rhetoric. This is nothing about American stereotypes. Go to t_d and look around for a while and you'll see it. Maybe not the average american, but probably in some parts of the political spectrum that are particularly vocal. See, when you say the “average American” would call the taxes an act of a dictator, I had no idea you were in fact referring to the average redditor at r/the_Donald. I do not doubt that you’ve personally seen something of this attitude in a corner of the internet, but considering average Americans, it just feeds into the stereotype that Europeans are absolutely oblivious about the political situation in America and prefer ignorant insults to dialogue.
What about the governor of Maine?
|
On July 01 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 09:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 01 2018 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 08:21 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 07:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 06:51 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Bu..ya... re...I mean...
[quote] Wait are you still talking about the firs time he was elected. This is one of the few things we have continually agreed about that it was fair. Hell, as I mentioned King of evil Hitler also won a fair election and also was popular. But regardless none of what you posted makes that election better then EVERY election EVER in the history of the USA. And where the issues come is not the first election it is the future ones and it is how he governed with absolute power and lack of transparency. You're all over the place at this point and not making a coherent argument. What issues do you have with which elections? When do you think the people of Venezuela didn't want Chavez in charge? That has never been my point. It is the point you are arguing because for some reason you think that him being popular at times makes him not a dictator or somehow good at governing. And you basically dodge everything else. I'm also still looking forward to why all USA elections ever haa not been fair or democratic. You said "all dictators claim the people want them to have more power" as if the people didn't want him to have more power. So I was demonstrating that the people did in fact want him to have more power. So it wasn't so much a claim, as it was a fact. You guys are right that being elected doesn't preclude someone from being a dictator, but the elections are legitimate and don't carry even the caveats that exist in reports on Russian elections. So I'm not sure it should have the negative connotations you guys seem to be implying with the word. As to the US elections, perhaps you could help me in this regard. Could you point me toward some reports from international election observing organizations on past US elections. Then we could compare. I mean from long lines, to hanging chads, black voter disenfranchisement (do we even consider any before women and Black people could vote?), everything Democrats say happened in 2016, and so on. Pick the most legitimate US election you'd like and we can compare it to the least legitimate Chavez one. The post I posted a while ago explains in great detail why they are not fair, your ignorance is amazing TBH. I've done enough homework at your request. You don't do any, at least do the minimum and read that. Because he is popular does not mean they wanted him to have more power and more than that that it is good. As I pointed Hitler was popular especially after he invaded France, but do to his power he could do a lot the people never knew about... OH WAIT....! You're back to making a completely incoherent argument where the facts don't align with your rhetoric where I've challenged you. You keep mentioning Hitler as if the situation is comparable despite being shown multiple times they are not analogous in the ways you're attempting to force them to be by sheer will and repetition. You say you "do your homework" but seem to be incapable or unwilling to accept facts that contradict your argument or recognize when you lack facts to support your own. Typically there would be a dogpile on you about how terrible your argument is both structurally and substantively but because there's a general ignorance on the specifics and your argument aligns with established western propaganda they aren't chiming in about how your failure to prove or even really make a salient argument is illuminating. I'm sure some people are reading this exchange and having long thought Chavez a ruthless dictator are surprised to find out that he was repeatedly elected in what several international organizations observed and deemed legitimate. I do have to appreciate that aspect of all this. Actually what is happening is because you have been here a long time people are not dog piling on you, which is kind of them. But a few people are chiming in with points against yours politely and you are not taking the hint. I never said he was ruthless, though he likely was. But He was a dictator, the world says so not me. Madura is taking it even further. Venezuela is also in economic disarray and people are fleeing the country and unprecedented rates. All these are facts you some how argue. + Show Spoiler +I was not saying he was like Hitler, I was trying to use Hitler as a counter argument to your whole he's not a dictator because he was popular argument. Since you wouldn't listen to sensible arguements made by me and also DanHH and Plansix. I don't think Chavez was a dictatorship, at least not for the vast majority of his time at the top. I think much of the problem comes from the fact that we hear about conditions in Venezuela from a certain kind of person, and they don't necessarily happen to represent the vast majority of the population. Most of the people who weren't completely poor saw his rule as a dictatorship in the exact way your average American would see a tax rise to pay for free healthcare as a dictatorship. They would say it as hyperbole because they are losing out. Shit people have practically said the same thing in this very thread. People exaggerate when they are going to lose out due to circumstances beyond their control. If the vast majority of visible sources are to be believed then it is absolutely in a terrible spot now. I would also say that the country has never been well run. Things seem to run better for big American businesses in Venezuela when they control the economics, but its clear to see that the country as a whole has been through the shit many times over and its probably not going to stop. Oil rich countries without enforced democracy tend to attract corrupt people who want to strip it of everything for their own benefit. I think most people over there probably don't care whether some corrupt politician is stripping the country of its resources or whether its a group of US businesses. Do you really think a rise in taxes, to pay for government-run healthcare, would make the average American think we’re now a dictatorship? This sounds like pointless hyperbole from you. Or are American stereotypes in the UK really this idiotic? Tax bills don’t make dictators, even in lefty estimations of how more right-leaning the US is by comparison.
"The Center for Health Transformation is about to enter a report that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has 1,961 grants of power in the ObamaCare bill," Gingrich said in an interview with Human Events. "I mean, you talk about a centralized health dictatorship."
It was kind of the chairman to show such thoughtful concern for a law he wants repealed. And if Brady saw the delay as “alarming,” others were apoplectic. “Boy, I’ll tell you,” Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.) said, beginning his remarks. “I hate to see a dictatorship come into this country, but it sure looks like that’s what’s happening with health care.”
Nah. Why would we europeans think that americans equal healthcare to dictatorship?
Although, no. Not the average american. The average republican. Keep in mind, these are elected representatives.
|
On July 01 2018 10:07 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2018 09:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 01 2018 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 08:21 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 07:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 06:51 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Wait are you still talking about the firs time he was elected. This is one of the few things we have continually agreed about that it was fair. Hell, as I mentioned King of evil Hitler also won a fair election and also was popular.
But regardless none of what you posted makes that election better then EVERY election EVER in the history of the USA. And where the issues come is not the first election it is the future ones and it is how he governed with absolute power and lack of transparency. You're all over the place at this point and not making a coherent argument. What issues do you have with which elections? When do you think the people of Venezuela didn't want Chavez in charge? That has never been my point. It is the point you are arguing because for some reason you think that him being popular at times makes him not a dictator or somehow good at governing. And you basically dodge everything else. I'm also still looking forward to why all USA elections ever haa not been fair or democratic. You said "all dictators claim the people want them to have more power" as if the people didn't want him to have more power. So I was demonstrating that the people did in fact want him to have more power. So it wasn't so much a claim, as it was a fact. You guys are right that being elected doesn't preclude someone from being a dictator, but the elections are legitimate and don't carry even the caveats that exist in reports on Russian elections. So I'm not sure it should have the negative connotations you guys seem to be implying with the word. As to the US elections, perhaps you could help me in this regard. Could you point me toward some reports from international election observing organizations on past US elections. Then we could compare. I mean from long lines, to hanging chads, black voter disenfranchisement (do we even consider any before women and Black people could vote?), everything Democrats say happened in 2016, and so on. Pick the most legitimate US election you'd like and we can compare it to the least legitimate Chavez one. The post I posted a while ago explains in great detail why they are not fair, your ignorance is amazing TBH. I've done enough homework at your request. You don't do any, at least do the minimum and read that. Because he is popular does not mean they wanted him to have more power and more than that that it is good. As I pointed Hitler was popular especially after he invaded France, but do to his power he could do a lot the people never knew about... OH WAIT....! You're back to making a completely incoherent argument where the facts don't align with your rhetoric where I've challenged you. You keep mentioning Hitler as if the situation is comparable despite being shown multiple times they are not analogous in the ways you're attempting to force them to be by sheer will and repetition. You say you "do your homework" but seem to be incapable or unwilling to accept facts that contradict your argument or recognize when you lack facts to support your own. Typically there would be a dogpile on you about how terrible your argument is both structurally and substantively but because there's a general ignorance on the specifics and your argument aligns with established western propaganda they aren't chiming in about how your failure to prove or even really make a salient argument is illuminating. I'm sure some people are reading this exchange and having long thought Chavez a ruthless dictator are surprised to find out that he was repeatedly elected in what several international organizations observed and deemed legitimate. I do have to appreciate that aspect of all this. Actually what is happening is because you have been here a long time people are not dog piling on you, which is kind of them. But a few people are chiming in with points against yours politely and you are not taking the hint. I never said he was ruthless, though he likely was. But He was a dictator, the world says so not me. Madura is taking it even further. Venezuela is also in economic disarray and people are fleeing the country and unprecedented rates. All these are facts you some how argue. + Show Spoiler +I was not saying he was like Hitler, I was trying to use Hitler as a counter argument to your whole he's not a dictator because he was popular argument. Since you wouldn't listen to sensible arguements made by me and also DanHH and Plansix. I don't think Chavez was a dictatorship, at least not for the vast majority of his time at the top. I think much of the problem comes from the fact that we hear about conditions in Venezuela from a certain kind of person, and they don't necessarily happen to represent the vast majority of the population. Most of the people who weren't completely poor saw his rule as a dictatorship in the exact way your average American would see a tax rise to pay for free healthcare as a dictatorship. They would say it as hyperbole because they are losing out. Shit people have practically said the same thing in this very thread. People exaggerate when they are going to lose out due to circumstances beyond their control. If the vast majority of visible sources are to be believed then it is absolutely in a terrible spot now. I would also say that the country has never been well run. Things seem to run better for big American businesses in Venezuela when they control the economics, but its clear to see that the country as a whole has been through the shit many times over and its probably not going to stop. Oil rich countries without enforced democracy tend to attract corrupt people who want to strip it of everything for their own benefit. I think most people over there probably don't care whether some corrupt politician is stripping the country of its resources or whether its a group of US businesses. Do you really think a rise in taxes, to pay for government-run healthcare, would make the average American think we’re now a dictatorship? This sounds like pointless hyperbole from you. Or are American stereotypes in the UK really this idiotic? Tax bills don’t make dictators, even in lefty estimations of how more right-leaning the US is by comparison. Show nested quote +"The Center for Health Transformation is about to enter a report that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has 1,961 grants of power in the ObamaCare bill," Gingrich said in an interview with Human Events. "I mean, you talk about a centralized health dictatorship." Show nested quote +It was kind of the chairman to show such thoughtful concern for a law he wants repealed. And if Brady saw the delay as “alarming,” others were apoplectic. “Boy, I’ll tell you,” Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.) said, beginning his remarks. “I hate to see a dictatorship come into this country, but it sure looks like that’s what’s happening with health care.”
Nah. Why would we europeans think that americans equal healthcare to dictatorship? Although, no. Not the average american. The average republican. Keep in mind, these are elected representatives.
iirc someone in this very thread compared public healthcare with making doctors slave laborers.
|
Certainly not me, although i do think they could be paid better (NHS staff and german doctors/nurses, no idea about frech wages). They're underpaid for the hours they put in, and the NHS gets bled dry by (who would've thought) the UK equivalent to republicans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
