Senate Candidates say the darndest things

[The Duke]

I like Hugo Chavez!

Chavez is a president elected by the people venezuelan (not as Bush...) thus want to reverse by the violence is illegal. In venezuela, the media are free (and against chavez). No (illegal) repression by Chavez but freedom for all within the framework in the constitution. You can dislike Chavez and his project but you can not kill him. It's only the democracy... and democracy isn't it a american ideal?  

Considering Umengus' run for Senate and the current recall of Chavezs, I think the Northeast should know something about its candidates.

[Gabu]

I don't see what's so incredibly ground-shattering about this.  Given that the people are able to kick Chavez out of office, which is a sure sign that democracy is alive and well in that country, I can't see anything wrong with that statement.  The article I've read about this issue calls him "authoritarian", but he can't be too much of a dictator if the people elected him into office and can vote to have him leave.

Democracy is an American ideal.  That said, I don't have that much knowledge about Chavez, but I don't see how Chavez is going against it.

Also, I think you're attempting to misrepresent his position on this issue.  I invite everyone to read Umengus' statements on this page of the discussion about Venezuela.  Umengus believes that Chavez is not a dictator and states that he is not either blindly supporting Chavez or a socialist; he feels, however, that there is a large chasm between the rich and poor in Venezuela and that Chavez has not done that bad of a job in his attempts at filling it.

If you want to paint Umengus as someone that loves dictatorship and authoritarianism, it's not going to work.

[Umengus]

I like Hugo Chavez!

Chavez is a president elected by the people venezuelan (not as Bush...) thus want to reverse by the violence is illegal. In venezuela, the media are free (and against chavez). No (illegal) repression by Chavez but freedom for all within the framework in the constitution. You can dislike Chavez and his project but you can not kill him. It's only the democracy... and democracy isn't it a american ideal?  

Considering Umengus' run for Senate and the current recall of Chavezs, I think the Northeast should know something about its candidates.

I do not regret my statement (or maybe only "I like chavez" but it was just provocative ).  Venezuela is a democracy (not perfect I concede) and Chavez is a elected president. To want to remove him by the force was a crime. And the opposition is not virgin: there are corrupt people in.

Knowing the poverty of Venezuela (70%!!!) and the corruption of the elites, I would vote NO for the referendum. Chavez is not my idol, he's not my model but I prefer Chavez rather than dishonest people who have not the concern of the people. Sorry if you prefer dictatorship rather than Democracy but it's definitively not my platform...

[The Duke]

The refleexive defense of the left is more telling than any attack could ever be.

Where did I say you supported dictatorship?  I didn't.  I said you supported Chavez and that givven the fact that his own people regard is radicalism as a failed experiment, the voters should know where you stand on those issues.

It was the left who immediately said they didn't defend dictatorship.  Its like  criminal who is pulled over for speeding and he begins insisting he never robbed that 7/11.  It is suspicious that you would assume I was calling you a supporter of dictatorship when no such thing was said.

[Gabu]

You quoted a small fragment of what Umengus had to say about Chavez in which Umengus is showing saying that he liked Chavez.  AuH2O posted in this topic that a Chavez loss in Venezuela "would be ... a big loss for Chavez' commie sympathizers in the US, aka Democrats."  The right views Chavez as an authoritarian "commie" dictator and, as such, thinks that the left supports authoritarian dictatorship.

I ask this question of you: how can Chavez be such an authoritarian dictator if he allows the people to hold a campaign to remove him from office?

Don't try to convince us that you posted the quote from Umengus just because you thought it would be a good idea.  Give the people more intellectual credit than that.  Had you really just wanted to inform the people of what Umengus stands for, you would not have left off the large majority of Umengus' justification for what he said.  I had to provide that part.

[Umengus]

The refleexive defense of the left is more telling than any attack could ever be.

Where did I say you supported dictatorship?  I didn't.  I said you supported Chavez and that givven the fact that his own people regard is radicalism as a failed experiment, the voters should know where you stand on those issues.

It was the left who immediately said they didn't defend dictatorship.  Its like  criminal who is pulled over for speeding and he begins insisting he never robbed that 7/11.  It is suspicious that you would assume I was calling you a supporter of dictatorship when no such thing was said.

Yes I support Chavez because to support Chavez it's to support Democracy. The opposition in Venezuela is not as the opposition who was against appartheid in SA or against milosevic in Serbia. It's a corrupt opposition with dishonest men and this opposition has not the concern of people. But if Chavez would run in USA, I would not vote for him because I'm not chavist.

Now, I have 2 questions for John Ford:

-are you speaking in the name of Gustaf administration of only in your name?

-Chavez won the referendum (60%-40%). Hence, do you want attack Venezuela?  

[migrendel]

I must admit, Chavez's reforms of Pdvsa have been quite impressive, and he seems to really care about the poor.

[The Duke]

-I am only speaking for myself.

-If you really believed in Democracy, you'd not be so fast to support someone who now faces serious accusations of electoral fraud.

You can't say you support democracy if you support Chavez just because once upon a time he got elected.  Lots of dictators were once elected.  Caesar was elected to a Conslship, Hitler was elected to the Reichstag.  Chavez supports FARC and has built a private militia to supercede the normal, apolitical army.  He is stuffing ballot boxes and then apcks the courts with partisan judges who will defend his right to do it.  This is the stuff dictators are made of.

[Umengus]

-I am only speaking for myself.

-If you really believed in Democracy, you'd not be so fast to support someone who now faces serious accusations of electoral fraud.

You can't say you support democracy if you support Chavez just because once upon a time he got elected.  Lots of dictators were once elected.  Caesar was elected to a Conslship, Hitler was elected to the Reichstag.  Chavez supports FARC and has built a private militia to supercede the normal, apolitical army.  He is stuffing ballot boxes and then apcks the courts with partisan judges who will defend his right to do it.  This is the stuff dictators are made of.

I think that to support Chavez it's to support democracy because, for this moment, Chavez represents the Democracy and the opposition, as one leader of opposition (Martin Sanchez) said, prefers dictatorship for the next years (if the opposition had gained of course...). I don't forget the putch by the opposition (and a part of the "apolitical" army...) against chavez. It was a scandal. And it's not a surprise to observe that opposion refuses results but this election was correct and I don't think that internationals observers can say the opposite.  

PS: Chavez was elected but also re-elected... do you know lots of dictators who were re-elected?

[ilikeverin]

-I am only speaking for myself.

-If you really believed in Democracy, you'd not be so fast to support someone who now faces serious accusations of electoral fraud.

You can't say you support democracy if you support Chavez just because once upon a time he got elected.  Lots of dictators were once elected.  Caesar was elected to a Conslship, Hitler was elected to the Reichstag.  Chavez supports FARC and has built a private militia to supercede the normal, apolitical army.  He is stuffing ballot boxes and then apcks the courts with partisan judges who will defend his right to do it.  This is the stuff dictators are made of.

I think that to support Chavez it's to support democracy because, for this moment, Chavez represents the Democracy and the opposition, as one leader of opposition (Martin Sanchez) said, prefers dictatorship for the next years (if the opposition had gained of course...). I don't forget the putch by the opposition (and a part of the "apolitical" army...) against chavez. It was a scandal. And it's not a surprise to observe that opposion refuses results but this election was correct and I don't think that internationals observers can say the opposite.  

PS: Chavez was elected but also re-elected... do you know lots of dictators who were re-elected?

Saddam Hussein was reelected multiple times.

[migrendel]

Jimmy Carter has just certified that the election was fair, and the totals are accurate.

[Umengus]

-I am only speaking for myself.

-If you really believed in Democracy, you'd not be so fast to support someone who now faces serious accusations of electoral fraud.

You can't say you support democracy if you support Chavez just because once upon a time he got elected.  Lots of dictators were once elected.  Caesar was elected to a Conslship, Hitler was elected to the Reichstag.  Chavez supports FARC and has built a private militia to supercede the normal, apolitical army.  He is stuffing ballot boxes and then apcks the courts with partisan judges who will defend his right to do it.  This is the stuff dictators are made of.

I think that to support Chavez it's to support democracy because, for this moment, Chavez represents the Democracy and the opposition, as one leader of opposition (Martin Sanchez) said, prefers dictatorship for the next years (if the opposition had gained of course...). I don't forget the putch by the opposition (and a part of the "apolitical" army...) against chavez. It was a scandal. And it's not a surprise to observe that opposion refuses results but this election was correct and I don't think that internationals observers can say the opposite.  

PS: Chavez was elected but also re-elected... do you know lots of dictators who were re-elected?

Saddam Hussein was reelected multiple times.

...with 99,9%! it's not a real election...

[StevenNick]

Jimmy Carter has just certified that the election was fair, and the totals are accurate.

Well if Jimmy Carter says so, it must be so....

[King]

Jimmy Carter has just certified that the election was fair, and the totals are accurate.

Well if Jimmy Carter says so, it must be so....

It is so, if Former President Jimmy Carter was helping out

[Nation]

Jimmy Carter has just certified that the election was fair, and the totals are accurate.

Well if Jimmy Carter says so, it must be so....

I'd trust him a lot more then I trust anybody else -- whether you like it or not, the guy's honest, and on a matter such as this -- I'd take his word.

[The Duke]

-I am only speaking for myself.

-If you really believed in Democracy, you'd not be so fast to support someone who now faces serious accusations of electoral fraud.

You can't say you support democracy if you support Chavez just because once upon a time he got elected.  Lots of dictators were once elected.  Caesar was elected to a Conslship, Hitler was elected to the Reichstag.  Chavez supports FARC and has built a private militia to supercede the normal, apolitical army.  He is stuffing ballot boxes and then apcks the courts with partisan judges who will defend his right to do it.  This is the stuff dictators are made of.

I think that to support Chavez it's to support democracy because, for this moment, Chavez represents the Democracy and the opposition, as one leader of opposition (Martin Sanchez) said, prefers dictatorship for the next years (if the opposition had gained of course...). I don't forget the putch by the opposition (and a part of the "apolitical" army...) against chavez. It was a scandal. And it's not a surprise to observe that opposion refuses results but this election was correct and I don't think that internationals observers can say the opposite.  

PS: Chavez was elected but also re-elected... do you know lots of dictators who were re-elected?

If on January 20th, 2005, GW Bush refused to leave the White House after being beaten in the election, I would expect that the US Army would be willing to help remove him from power he would not leave peacefully (A ludicrous scenario, I know.  But an apt one).  I would not consider our military less apolitical for doing this, yet you seem to put forward a logic that makes it less apolitical.

And Chavez has not been re-elected.  He was elected to a six year term in 2000 and will not stand for re-election until 2006.

And "independent observers" confirmed the election of Yassir Arafat as well, it doesn't mean he really was legitimately elected.  What the hell does Carter know about validating elections?

[StevenNick]

Jimmy Carter has just certified that the election was fair, and the totals are accurate.

Well if Jimmy Carter says so, it must be so....

I'd trust him a lot more then I trust anybody else -- whether you like it or not, the guy's honest, and on a matter such as this -- I'd take his word.

The guy has made a career our of coddling dictators and weakening American foreign policy.  That guy should never have set foot in the White House and everytime he tries to speak now he should be laughed into obscurity, where he belongs.

[Nation]

Jimmy Carter has just certified that the election was fair, and the totals are accurate.

Well if Jimmy Carter says so, it must be so....

I'd trust him a lot more then I trust anybody else -- whether you like it or not, the guy's honest, and on a matter such as this -- I'd take his word.

The guy has made a career our of coddling dictators and weakening American foreign policy.  That guy should never have set foot in the White House and everytime he tries to speak now he should be laughed into obscurity, where he belongs.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

[WMS]

Wow, this may be the first genuine international issue to appear as a point of contention in a Forum race! Interesting...and I'm with John Ford, in case you couldn't tell that already.

[Umengus]

-I am only speaking for myself.

-If you really believed in Democracy, you'd not be so fast to support someone who now faces serious accusations of electoral fraud.

You can't say you support democracy if you support Chavez just because once upon a time he got elected.  Lots of dictators were once elected.  Caesar was elected to a Conslship, Hitler was elected to the Reichstag.  Chavez supports FARC and has built a private militia to supercede the normal, apolitical army.  He is stuffing ballot boxes and then apcks the courts with partisan judges who will defend his right to do it.  This is the stuff dictators are made of.

I think that to support Chavez it's to support democracy because, for this moment, Chavez represents the Democracy and the opposition, as one leader of opposition (Martin Sanchez) said, prefers dictatorship for the next years (if the opposition had gained of course...). I don't forget the putch by the opposition (and a part of the "apolitical" army...) against chavez. It was a scandal. And it's not a surprise to observe that opposion refuses results but this election was correct and I don't think that internationals observers can say the opposite.  

PS: Chavez was elected but also re-elected... do you know lots of dictators who were re-elected?

If on January 20th, 2005, GW Bush refused to leave the White House after being beaten in the election, I would expect that the US Army would be willing to help remove him from power he would not leave peacefully (A ludicrous scenario, I know.  But an apt one).  I would not consider our military less apolitical for doing this, yet you seem to put forward a logic that makes it less apolitical.

And Chavez has not been re-elected.  He was elected to a six year term in 2000 and will not stand for re-election until 2006.

And "independent observers" confirmed the election of Yassir Arafat as well, it doesn't mean he really was legitimately elected.  What the hell does Carter know about validating elections?

-I think that Army must respect the Constitution. If the president is elected (and it was the case with Chavez), Army must respect that. She doens't

-Sorry but I think that Chavez was elected in 1998 and re-elected in 2000.

-You can hate Arafat but it's obvious that palestian people has elected him.

[The Duke]

Umengus,

You must have serious issues when it comes to beng in touch with reality if you accept the outcome of the Palestinian elections.

And yes, I looked it up as well.  He was lected in 1998 after ablishing the old Constitution.  I'd forgotten that he wrote his own constitution, something which has been done to some extent by every dictator in history, and that the six year term was a new invention.

You keep saying Chaez is a democrat.  This is a lie, and you know it.

-He led a military coup (failed) in 1989 and was a supporter of another in 1992.
-He has rewritten the Constitution to suit his own ends
-He bribes and intimidates voters
-He stuffs ballot boxes
-He violently represses opposition (See Chavez' reaction to general strike in 2002)
-He has begun having recall backers killed (one was shot yesterday in the chest 3 times)
-He sends money to FARC
-He backed the Bolivian coup d'etat last year
-He meets regularly with fellow dictator Fidel Castro
-He has created a series of paramilitary death squads to supercede the regular army

As the Secretary of Defense, I must let it be known to the residents of the district where Umengus is running that he is a staunch supporter of Hugo Chavez, a man who is a sworn enemy of the United States and a man who subverts democracy in his country and in neighboring nations.

The voters can do with this knowledge whatever they wish, but they must know.

[Umengus]

Umengus,

You must have serious issues when it comes to beng in touch with reality if you accept the outcome of the Palestinian elections.

And yes, I looked it up as well.  He was lected in 1998 after ablishing the old Constitution.  I'd forgotten that he wrote his own constitution, something which has been done to some extent by every dictator in history, and that the six year term was a new invention.

You keep saying Chaez is a democrat.  This is a lie, and you know it.

-He led a military coup (failed) in 1989 and was a supporter of another in 1992.
-He has rewritten the Constitution to suit his own ends
-He bribes and intimidates voters
-He stuffs ballot boxes
-He violently represses opposition (See Chavez' reaction to general strike in 2002)
-He has begun having recall backers killed (one was shot yesterday in the chest 3 times)
-He sends money to FARC
-He backed the Bolivian coup d'etat last year
-He meets regularly with fellow dictator Fidel Castro
-He has created a series of paramilitary death squads to supercede the regular army

As the Secretary of Defense, I must let it be known to the residents of the district where Umengus is running that he is a staunch supporter of Hugo Chavez, a man who is a sworn enemy of the United States and a man who subverts democracy in his country and in neighboring nations.

The voters can do with this knowledge whatever they wish, but they must know.

Sorry but you are distorting the reality and hence, I ask you to resign because I think that the current administration doesn't need a liar.

I'm not a staunch supporter of Hugo Chavez. I'm just a supporter of democracy and I see venezuelan people prefers Chavez rather than a opposition wich wants dictatorship. You know my values and my opinions on the problems and it's obvious that I'm not a chavist (or then UAC is maybe a Chavist party?).


The constitution of Chavez was approved by venezuelan people and De Gaulle also wrote the current French Constitution. Was it  a dictator? The remainder of your arguments are sometimes corrects and it's for that that I'm not a supporter of Chavez.


The difference between you and me is that I prefer the verdict of the people whereas you you prefer the verdict of the elites.

[The Duke]

Spout all the platitudes you want.

I listed 10 highly undemocratic things Chavez has done, and you refuse to address even one of them.

You have been beaten in this debate and your fallback position to try and recover is that you support "democracy".  Unfortunately, Chavez doesn't.

I will list the ten items again.  Care to address them.

And no, I don't think I'll be resigning anytime soon.

-He led a military coup (failed) in 1989 and was a supporter of another in 1992.
-He has rewritten the Constitution to suit his own ends
-He bribes and intimidates voters
-He stuffs ballot boxes
-He violently represses opposition (See Chavez' reaction to general strike in 2002)
-He has begun having recall backers killed (one was shot yesterday in the chest 3 times)
-He sends money to FARC
-He backed the Bolivian coup d'etat last year
-He meets regularly with fellow dictator Fidel Castro
-He has created a series of paramilitary death squads to supercede the regular army

As for de Gaulle.  I am saying that a square is a kind of rectangle.  You are trying to argue that a rectangle is a kind of square.  Simple logic excercises dictate that certain things are necessary but not sufficient to be a dictator.  Rewriting your constiution (or tearing an old one to shreds, or simply ignoring it) is one of those things.  However, while this is necessary it is not sufficient.  Hence, de Gaulle is not a dictator.  Duh.

[Umengus]

Spout all the platitudes you want.

I listed 10 highly undemocratic things Chavez has done, and you refuse to address even one of them.

You have been beaten in this debate and your fallback position to try and recover is that you support "democracy".  Unfortunately, Chavez doesn't.

I will list the ten items again.  Care to address them.

And no, I don't think I'll be resigning anytime soon.

-He led a military coup (failed) in 1989 and was a supporter of another in 1992.
-He has rewritten the Constitution to suit his own ends
-He bribes and intimidates voters
-He stuffs ballot boxes
-He violently represses opposition (See Chavez' reaction to general strike in 2002)
-He has begun having recall backers killed (one was shot yesterday in the chest 3 times)
-He sends money to FARC
-He backed the Bolivian coup d'etat last year
-He meets regularly with fellow dictator Fidel Castro
-He has created a series of paramilitary death squads to supercede the regular army

As for de Gaulle.  I am saying that a square is a kind of rectangle.  You are trying to argue that a rectangle is a kind of square.  Simple logic excercises dictate that certain things are necessary but not sufficient to be a dictator.  Rewriting your constiution (or tearing an old one to shreds, or simply ignoring it) is one of those things.  However, while this is necessary it is not sufficient.  Hence, de Gaulle is not a dictator.  Duh.

I don't think that you can give me lessons. You didn't know that Chavez was reelected then...

My answers about your "arguments":

1) I would never support a "coup d'état" against a elected president. But this president, Andres Perez, was a corrupt man and overal he massacred hundreds of demonstrators who were against his liberal reforms... A "coup d'état" was a bad way to have the power, it's obvious. And Chavez understood that because he becomes president by elections with 60% in 1998.

2) as De Gaulle. He was not alone to write the Constitution. And the new constitution was approved by venezuelan people. Do you know that it's Chavez who marked in the Constitution the possibility of "recall"?

3) A proof of these allegations? none

4) A proof of these allegations? none. The suspicions of corruption go especially on the petition of the opposition.
And I repeat that Carter, former president of USA, approved the Vote (but maybe do you think that Carter is a Chavist?)

5) sorry but lol. When opposition destroys economy (by blocking petrol oil industry which is very important in the economy of Venezuela), it's not scandalous that the government reacts. How many deaths in this "repression"? Do you know that it's the opposition who made violence to accuse Chavez of repression? Your are badly informed by private medias acquired with the opposition.

6) as 5

7) as 3

8 )  Sanchez de Lozada was a murder. He ordered with the army to shoot at demonsrators (60 deaths). You are a funny guy: you condemn Chavez because he kills people (ant it's not true) but when another president kills people, it's good for you... is it the "bono coherence"?

9)Castro is a friend of Chavez, it's clear. I don't like Castro, it's a dictator. But I think that Bush has good friends with families of saudi arabia isn't it? And it was a time when sassam Hussein was supported by USA isn't it? And Chavez is also supported by Lula and Kirchner.

10) lol It's the propaganda of opposition.
Don't forget that a part of "regular and apolitical" army took share with the coup d'état against Chavez. I can understand the mistrust of Chavez about it.


In conclusion, I am not chavist (but maybe that for you chavist= democrat) but I support Chavez against opposition because venezuelan people  wants Chavez as president and I prefer people rather than (rich) elites. It's just the play of the democracy...


PS: "You have been beaten in this debate" lol another argument?

But the best thing to make is a boad of inquiry. It will prove that you are a liar or at best inefficient. Ready for that?


UPDATE: Fox news: The State Department said Tuesday that it acknowledges "the preliminary results of the referendum" that shows that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (search) "received the support of the majority of voters" in Sunday's vote."

I tought that Chavez was a dictator....

[The Duke]

UPDATE: Fox news: The State Department said Tuesday that it acknowledges "the preliminary results of the referendum" that shows that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (search) "received the support of the majority of voters" in Sunday's vote."

I tought that Chavez was a dictator....

What did you expect the press release to say?  That the State Department would like to condemn the life and legacy of Hugo Chavez, who just so happens to sell us 15% of our oil?

1) I would never support a "coup d'état" against a elected president. But this president, Andres Perez, was a corrupt man and overal he massacred hundreds of demonstrators who were against his liberal reforms... A "coup d'état" was a bad way to have the power, it's obvious. And Chavez understood that because he becomes president by elections with 60% in 1998.

Andres Perez actually was elected.

2) as De Gaulle. He was not alone to write the Constitution. And the new constitution was approved by venezuelan people. Do you know that it's Chavez who marked in the Constitution the possibility of "recall"?

I have no doubt he was not alone in writing the Constitution, but he was a driving force behind it.  Whether he was alone is far from the important point.  Besides, Pinochet also submitted himself to a recall vote, do you support Pinochet?

3) A proof of these allegations? none

This is pretty commonly accepted stuff, but if you really want, I'm sure WMS can provide you with some insightful stuff from stratfor.

4) A proof of these allegations? none. The suspicions of corruption go especially on the petition of the opposition.
And I repeat that Carter, former president of USA, approved the Vote (but maybe do you think that Carter is a Chavist?)

Again, I'm not going to search for links that prove Chavez is corrupt any more than I'll spend time trying to give links that prove the law of gravity.

I think Carter is a fool who has rubber stamped phony election before (see Yassir Arafat).  Being a Chavist and being a dupe are two separate things.

5) sorry but lol. When opposition destroys economy (by blocking petrol oil industry which is very important in the economy of Venezuela), it's not scandalous that the government reacts. How many deaths in this "repression"? Do you know that it's the opposition who made violence to accuse Chavez of repression? Your are badly informed by private medias acquired with the opposition.

Check globalsecurity.org on this.  They go into some detail about the 12 people killed by Chavez' goons.  The site is funded by private donations, so its not some Rupert Murdoch conspiracy.

6) as 5

This is again, common knowledge.  It was all over the networks a few days ago.

7) as 3

Again, you are denying something that is commonly accepted knowledge.

8 )  Sanchez de Lozada was a murder. He ordered with the army to shoot at demonsrators (60 deaths). You are a funny guy: you condemn Chavez because he kills people (ant it's not true) but when another president kills people, it's good for you... is it the "bono coherence"?

Sanchez de Lozada was also elected.  You say you "would never support a "coup d'état" against a elected president."  I guess if that President is not a leftist, you are okay with coup, seeing as you now approve of two separate coup attempts by leftists against rightists, but find a way to defend Chavez for stuffing ballot boxes.

9)Castro is a friend of Chavez, it's clear. I don't like Castro, it's a dictator. But I think that Bush has good friends with families of saudi arabia isn't it? And it was a time when sassam Hussein was supported by USA isn't it? And Chavez is also supported by Lula and Kirchner.

I don't know who Sassam Hussein is, but if you mean Saddam Hussein, our support for him is often overstated.  I recommend doing some research of your own on how much support he actually received.

In any case you have dodged the question by throwing out a red herring.  You take a debate about Chavez and try to make it about Bush and Saddam and the Saudis.

10) lol It's the propaganda of opposition.
Don't forget that a part of "regular and apolitical" army took share with the coup d'état against Chavez. I can understand the mistrust of Chavez about it.

Check out some of the army's history, and you'll see that compared to the rest of Latin America, the Venezuelan Army is apolitical.  The 1989 coup attempt was a rogue group within the army.

In conclusion, I am not chavist (but maybe that for you chavist= democrat) but I support Chavez against opposition because venezuelan people  wants Chavez as president and I prefer people rather than (rich) elites. It's just the play of the democracy...

You say you're not, but you have supported him on everything he does.  Yes, you're a Chavist.  At least people like BRTD don't hide what they believe to sound more electable.