Why would you support the removal of term limits in Venezuela

When you know good and damn well you would never want that here, in this country. Hell, our elections are not perfect--in fact, most of us believe there was foul play in the last 4 or so---So why do you think Venezuela's elections are 100% perfect?

All a radical right wing conservative would have to do is assassinate Chavez, and then take office for life. I'm trying to get to the bottom of why a liberal DEMOCRAT would support something like this? :shrug:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/world/americas/15venez.html?ref=world

I just wish he'd keep his big mouth shut.

He's done a lot for the poor in that country. And it seems that the only ones who dislike him, are the ones who have too much money anyway.

So the Constitution should never be amended to suit one guy, because what happens when an asshole takes his place?

I do not see this as necessarily problematic. Even in this country. If Bush were to run again next year, this would be a benefit to us, not a hindrance.

Chavez will have to continue doing. Eliminating term limits does not mean creating unlimited terms.

that will identify local needs and get federal funding to meet them but the NYTs doesn't headline that.

I can't really concentrate on anything like that.

So this whole business with . . . what was it? Term limits? Something like that? Whatever. So long as Chavez keeps attacking Bush I think we should give him whatever he wants.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

If I wasn't blinded, presumably I'd think just like you.

Bryant

No,I can be blinded too,but my like for Chavez has nothing to do with his attacks on Bush.You need to grasp the concept that people can think a little deeper than you seem to ever give anyone credit for.

Just snark.

But possibly I've missed your thoughtful posts.

At any rate, I am willing to admit that some who support Chavez are genuine socialists who want socialism here in the US as well. Others, however, seem enamored of him directly in proportion to their disdain for President Bush.

Bryant

Chavez attacks on Bush are amusing,and may have drawn many to look at Chavez further.Many of those people seem to like what he's doing.And most importantly,so do many of the people who,you know,actually LIVE there.

Why don't you rail against Uribe? He's far worse than Chavez,but I have yet to see a poll about him from you,or a thread about him from a single anti-Chavez person.When I see that I'll start to believe that the concerns from these people about Chavez should be taken a little more seriously.Otherwise they're just blowing right wing smoke out of their ass,and playing the same Red baiting tactics used in the past,only now it's socialist baiting.

But while I'm not sure about him being far worse than Chavez, certainly he seems at least as questionable.

Bryant

And you'll see there is quite the difference between the two.Your last comment is speculation based on ignorance,not on knowledge.

"At least as questionable"? Yikes.

  That's hard to swallow for most Americans who have been raised to think that they have the God-given right to stick their nose in other countries' politics and that their opinions should be taken as some sort of "high council" by those countries.

PB

Why are Dems continually obessing over Chavez? I get it from repukes... that makes sense... he's their natural enemy.

But why Dems? Why do progressives buy and regurgitate the spew?

  Chavez's relationship with Ahmadinejad and Castro taint him in the eyes of some with the sins of his friends. If you read the Chavez threads carefully, there will almost always be a point where one of these two points comes up after much arguing about other, peripheral, issues.

  I mean, if users here have such an issue with Chavez being given these powers willingly by the legislative branch and with the popular support of the people behind him what must they think of places like Saudi Arabia, for instance?

PB

Just saying.

Bryant

despite the clear path he is headed in.

I see no indications that Chavez has done anything but completely adhere to the democratic, legal norms of his country. That is a tall order, too, considering the treasonous intrigues of his opponents. I do not see him as any more prone to violations of democracy than FDR; in fact, he's probably considerably less prone.

I think many Americans are not willing to accept that a constitutionally socialist state can be a democratic one. Venezuela will democratically enshrine a socialist order. There will always be a legal means to reverse this provided the people wish to do so. Somehow I suspect though that if it is to be reversed, it will not be through democratic means at all, but rather through the coup or extra-constitutional means.

Conflict of interest and all that. So of course I oppose the dropping of term limits in this or any other such case.

Why? They have transparent and fair elections.

The people there want an FDR, like we had? Fair play to them.


Until our democratic leaders get off their asses and clean up the electoral process (cause you know goddamned well repukes won't), then I can't support the removal of term limits here. Too many of our democrats are whored out.

I support letting Venezuelans decide their own laws, instead of deciding I know what's best for those poor foreigners who need my intervention.

The oligarchs are ever ready to roll back the gains he's made in education, jobs and health care for Venezuelans. Greedy bastards.

I just can't bring myself to back Chavez on this one. I'm scared for the Venezuelans in the future. But something holds me back from supporting removal of term limits. The bad guys could benefit from it in the future.

In his or her last term, a politician can do just about anything.

Or just a special case for Chavez alone? Will you still support removing it if or when a rightwing nut takes his place?

a negative characteristic. There are undoubtedly many more negative and positive aspects, e.g., increased tendency towards a leader for life, decreased tendency towards a leader for life.

I would perhaps prefer consecutive limits. A person would have no limit to the number of times s/he could be elected but never more than 2 or 3 consecutive terms. A break of perhaps the same number of years as s/he was in office would be required.

I don't know that this is a good argument against them.

duck" but that is not really true. A lame duck is an official who in incapable of taking any real action, who is in the last days of his term, and due to be replaced. Bush has another 18 months to cause damage. Damage for which he will not be held accountable, because he is not up for re-election. He could nuke Iran, and it wouldn't hurt him a bit.

If there were no term limits, he would never consider any such action because it would prevent his 3rd term.

Remove term limits and the term ends when the president is defeated, chooses not to run again, or dies in office. Just as it was in the first 160 of this country. Just because Washington chose to step down after 2 terms, there was never any requirement for him to do so. Practically speaking, two terms is so taxing that running a campaign for a 3rd or 4th term has always been more than most presidents cared to face.

OTOH, at this point I do not support removing presidential term limits in this country until we return to fully transparent, hand counted ballots.

1. Some system of representation that breaks the two-party monopoly in the House. Proportional representation is one of them. A mixed system is also acceptable, like Germany's MMP representation system. For the Senate, I prefer France's two round voting system. Vote for whomever you want in the first round; vote your conscience. In the second round, the top two candidates face a run-off, unless one of the candidates wins an outright majority in the first round.

2. An amendment that asserts the people have a right to publicly funded elections, and that candidates can exercise the option to run campaigns fully run on taxpayer dollars. If you agree to abide by spending rules, agree to forgo all private donations from individuals and non-human entities (corporations, NGOs, etc.), and agree not to spend your own money in your campaign, then you will get a lump sum amount for your race, and you will qualify for further amounts if outspent by your opponent by more than, say, ten percent. To qualify, you must collect X amount of, say, one dollar donations equal to, say, five percent of the total number of voters who voted in the previous election in your district to demonstrate viability.

3. A two round voting system for president, just like what I recommend for the Senate. Abolish the EC and run the vote on the popular vote. The two round system ensures whoever wins, wins the majority of the vote.

is required. Yes, everyone will die. However, I doubt many politicians run for a term with the idea that this will be their last because of death.

Let the Venezuelans sort out their own issues. We have far too many problems of our own to be spending our time obsessing over the internal affairs of Venezuela.

But if I am to answer, then I would say that I have no firm principle on this matter. I support whatever policy is going to bolster the political power of the left. If terms limits do this, I support them; if lifting them does, I support lifting them. I do not consider this a core matter of democracy. In a perfect democracy, though, I suppose I would oppose all term limits, since they hinder the ability of voters to select whomever they choose to represent them.

created by Republicans in response to FDR's 4 successive terms?

Also, eliminating term limits does not mean creating an unlimited term. There would still be elections, and the candidates need to win those elections. Just like FDR did. 4 times.

If not for that republican-created amendment, Bill would have gotten a 3rd term and would have been in office on 9/11 - and nothing would have happened that day because he was focused on terrorism.

We got along fine without presidential term limits for 160 years. I think they are a mistake.

what they do, or how they run their country, as long as they aren't threatening us...

Too many people spend too much time worrying about what everyone else is doing when we've our own problems in our own country to tend to..

Don't you think?

As I understand it, Hugo Chavez was democratically elected to his posistion by the people of his country. He was overthrown by a coup and the people revolted. They elected him again, in a near landslide victory, if I'm not mistaken ... which I very well could be...

Hugo Chavez seems to have the best interests of his country as a whole in his heart. We may not always agree with some of his tactics or ways, but he is doing what he feels is best to benefit *his* people. Though it may not be feasible here, what works in this country may not work in another country and vice versa..

Venezuelans weren't afraid to stand up to the regime that staged the coup on Chavez so I doubt they would be afraid to stand up against him either. Until a large majority of Venezuelans start making noise and protesting, I'm going to go under the assumption that he is doing the will of his people, and I will support that wholeheartedly. I wish we could get some representation doing *OUR* will...

Restricting the list of eligible candidates to people who haven't held the office more than X years is undemocratic.

Lots of countries don't have term limits. So what? As long as there are free elections who cares?

Let me know when you start having free elections in your country, will yu?

in this country, it seems to be as much or more likely more a conservative thing.

Regarding Venezuela, what business is it of ours?

Sid

Should I not be able to vote for Ted Kennedy anymore,even though he's been a fantastic Senator for my state? He has around 70% of the vote every time.You'd be denying that many people the right to vote for the person they want to vote for.

Term limits are born from frustration towards a party we/they don't like.There's nothing democratic about that.Just the opposite.

so far he has been able to fend off the attacks. Any lessor personality would crack under the pressure we are putting on that state.

To do everything Chavez needs to do to set systems firmly in place, he needs more time. His whole first term was spent fighting off US coups and recalls. He has only had this last term in which to rule and set up democratic systems for the common good.

and would support establishing them in the UK.

especially for Supreme Court Judges IMO.

But that's a different ballgame.Supreme Court judges aren't picked by the voters.

Let Venezuelans worry about term limits in Venezuela. If you're a Chavez-hater OR a Chavez-lover, then you're spending way too much time thinking about Chavez. If you're Venezuelan or live in Venezuela, I'll give you a pass - otherwise, worry about your own goddamn country.

Its their country, their decision. None of my business. In this country, I would change the Constitution to term limit representatives, senators, presidents and federal judges.