Venezuela: Democracy in danger?

Dictator Cheney said:
in a Direct/Participatory democracy, the people have more influence than in a representative democracy, when the system is working properly.
Click to expand...

Possibly. But Venezuela isn't working properly (or, if you insist, it's only your opinion that it is working properly). So again, you stated an opinion, not a fact.
 
Ziggurat said:
Possibly. But Venezuela isn't working properly (or, if you insist, it's only your opinion that it is working properly). So again, you stated an opinion, not a fact.
Click to expand...

according to the Organisations that watched the elections in the past years, it is working properly.

So in case you want to claim it is not working properly, you should bring some evidence.

you stated your oppinion that it is not working.
 
http://english.eluniversal.com/2008/11/12/en_pol_esp_about-130-foreign-ob_12A2124325.shtml

Over the past 10 years, Venezuelans have participated in 10 electoral processes. These votes have been certified as free and fair by organizations including the European Union, the Carter Center and the Organization of American States. The government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has taken steps to ensure that the November 23rd elections are free, fair, transparent and offer ample opportunity for participation.

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_28844.shtml
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
according to the Organisations that watched the elections in the past years, it is working properly.
Click to expand...

According to various monitoring organizations, the elections themselves were OK. Elections, however, are not the be-all and end-all of democracy. You need other things as well, or the elections won't do much.

you stated your oppinion that it is not working.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did. Unlike you, I understand when something I say is my opinion.
 
Ziggurat said:
According to various monitoring organizations, the elections themselves were OK. Elections, however, are not the be-all and end-all of democracy. You need other things as well, or the elections won't do much.



Yes, I did. Unlike you, I understand when something I say is my opinion.
Click to expand...

why dont you try to backup your conspiracy theory about Chavez?
 
the msot undemocratic thing that happened during the Chavez era was the coup against him in 2002. The Whitehosue supported it and the new undemocratic government for one day..
Also knew the CIA in advence of the coup and didnt warn the democratic elected government......
 
i will backup my Conspiracy Theory about CIA foreknowledge of the 2002 Coup against the democratic elected president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.

here one of the many CIA documents that was optained by Eva Golinger using the FOIA to collect the Evidence against the US government / CIA etc.

http://venezuelafoia.info/seib0602preripen.pdf
 
wagnerbl said:
Collaboration, like with Colombia to hunt the FARC or Israel to kill Palestinians.
Click to expand...
in all fairnes
i guess you ment, ... or Israel to kill Palestinian Terrorists.

When the USA wants to overtrow the Elected government of Venezuela, i cannot imagen that the CIA was able to get an agreement with Venezuela.
only a small minority of Venezuelans and the Venezuelan Army wanted to remove Chavez, alot of those did actualy want to use the democratic way. (Recallreferendum, which failed to remove him, because the majority of people confirmed him as elected president)

So i am sure there was no agreement with Venezuela, maybe with a few Venezuelan Bussinesman.
 
Last edited:
About the Palestinians i really meant the people, this "American way" of bombing and invading cities trying to kill terrorists to "win" the war is not helping, and probably never will.

I actually don't see your point on this conspiracy, so CIA wants the government to be overthrown, knows that some portions of the Venezuelan society want to make a not-so-democratic removal of Chavez and... does not give him a call saying it? While this can be wrong is hardly something to be worried about, now if you prove that the CIA had direct influence in that event we have something to talk about.
 
Last edited:
wagnerbl said:
About the Palestinians i really meant the people, this "American way" of bombing and invading cities trying to kill terrorists to "win" the war is not helping, and probably never will.

I actually don't see your point on this conspiracy, so CIA wants the government to be overthrown, knows that some portions of the Venezuelan society want to make a not-so-democratic removal of Chavez and... does not give him a call saying it? While this can be wrong is hardly something to be worried about, now if you prove that the CIA had direct influence in that event we have something to talk about.
Click to expand...

Would the US government really care about Democracy like they claim they do, then they should warn the Government that is in danger of a coup.

And about direct influence, yes i think they had. evidence?
not so much, indication. On the Radio conversation that was recorded on that day, you can hear the Snipers (those that killed the innocent people) talking, they say that Americans want to be kept up to date.

Also had the US ambassador direct contact with the coup plotters, the Venezuelan Government has evidence for that, thats why he had to leave the country.

Also other Documents that was obtained by Eva golinger indicates direct influence on the coup.

http://www.venezuelafoia.info/english.html
 
WildCat said:
What does that have to do with the subject at hand?

If 50% +1 of Switzerland's voters decided that those under 1.7 meters tall couldn't vote it would be law, yes?
Click to expand...

no because that would violate the "Völkerrecht" aka International Law ,this is the part in our Constitution that prevents such things like opressing minoritys etc.


btw, to make a change to the constitution or a new law, we need double majority, majority of the voting people and also the majority of the "Kantone" aka "States"
if 66%+1 of the Senators and Representants in the USA decide that people above 1.7 m are not allowed to vote anymore, what will prevent that from happening? The Presidents Veto isnt.

More details about the swiss constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_2_of_the_Swiss_Federal_Constitution
 
Last edited:
The bill of rights begins in article 7 by stating that "human dignity shall be respected and protected". This is a fundamental principle of the state that should inform all of its acts, a guideline to the interpretation of all law, and under certain circumstances a directly applicable fundamental right.[12] As such, it prohibits inhuman treatment and guarantees the right of people to be treated as a subject, not an object.[13]
Click to expand...

this part, among others, cannot be removed from the constitution
 
Dictator Cheney said:
no because that would violate the "Völkerrecht" aka International Law ,this is the part in our Constitution that prevents such things like opressing minoritys etc.
Click to expand...
That sentence makes no sense. Your Constitution isn't "international law".


btw, to make a change to the constitution or a new law, we need double majority, majority of the voting people and also the majority of the "Kantone" aka "States"
if 66%+1 of the Senators and Representants in the USA decide that people above 1.7 m are not allowed to vote anymore, what will prevent that from happening? The Presidents Veto isnt.
Click to expand...
The Congress cannot pass a Constitutional amendment. 3/4 of the State's legislatures must approve it. All Congress can do is propose an amendment.
 
WildCat said:
That sentence makes no sense. Your Constitution isn't "international law".



The Congress cannot pass a Constitutional amendment. 3/4 of the State's legislatures must approve it. All Congress can do is propose an amendment.
Click to expand...

Our constitution does not allow us to violate Human rights and International laws, this is pretty clearly defined in our constitution.
that makes perfect sence.


afaik in the US for a new law, both, the Senate and the House of representatives needs a simple majority. when the President is not using the veto, then the Law is law.
if he dose use the veto. then the Senate and the house of representatives need each 66,666% majority to get the law passed anyway.

how is that protecting the 1.7`m tall people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom