|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 27, 2020, 06:01:09 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderators: texasgurl, Associate Justice PiT)
  World elections since 1900 every 4 years: Who would you vote for to be international president?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: World elections since 1900 every 4 years: Who would you vote for to be international president?  (Read 228 times)
Laki
Lakigigar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,921
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 25, 2020, 08:07:59 am »

Assuming you could only write-in, and no-one declared. Every world citizen is eligible, who wins serves 4 years as international president.

Don't underestimate this, you'll likely forget people, be very biased towards a certain country (which is okay), and be sad you can't include some people, or genuinely be torn between some individuals. Without hindsight, this is almost impossible, so i've done with hindsight, until 2000

1900: William Jennings Bryan
1904: Theodore Roosevelt
1908: Theodore Roosevelt
1912: Eugene V. Debs
1916: Eugene V. Debs
1920: Rosa Luxemburg
1924: Robert M. La Follette
1928: Leon Trotsky
1932: Leon Trotsky
1936: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
1940: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
1944: Julien Lahaut
1948: Julien Lahaut
1952: Henry Wallace
1956: Henry Wallace
1960: John F. Kennedy
1964: Martin Luther King
1968: Robert F. Kennedy
1972: Willy Brandt
1976: Frank Church
1980: Frank Church
1984: Francois Mitterand
1988: Francois Mitterand
1992: Mikhail Gorbachev
1996: Francois Mitterand
2000: Hugo Chavez
2004: Hugo Chavez
2008: Hugo Chavez
2012: José Mujica
2016: Bernie Sanders
2020: Bernie Sanders
2024: AOC or Andrew Yang undecided

Top 3 for 2016:
1. Bernie Sanders
2. Justin Trudeau (without hindsight)
3. José Mujica

Top 5 for 2020:
1. Bernie Sanders
2. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
3. Greta Thunberg
4. Ada Colau
5. Evo Morales

Top 3 for 2024:
1. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
2. Andrew Yang
3. Jacinda Ardern
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,115
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2020, 10:39:16 pm »

Apologism for Chavez and his thugs is not acceptable. This man murdered hundreds, imprisoned hundreds of thousands of opposition politicians and voters, slaughtered journalists and priests, rigged elections, and got in bed with the most corrupt politicians and vilest cartels in Venezuela. Very nasty man. He makes Vladimir Putin look like an angel by comparison.
Logged
Southern Archivist Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,717
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2020, 10:43:24 pm »

Apologism for Chavez and his thugs is not acceptable. This man murdered hundreds, imprisoned hundreds of thousands of opposition politicians and voters, slaughtered journalists and priests, rigged elections, and got in bed with the most corrupt politicians and vilest cartels in Venezuela. Very nasty man. He makes Vladimir Putin look like an angel by comparison.
Chavez was not a man who rigged elections. You are thinking about Maduro.
Chavez, while imperfect, was a fundamentally good man whose economic policies were ultimately unsustainable if rather well-intentioned. Maduro is more the degenerated form of Chavez, as much as he was his heir.
Logged
Laki
Lakigigar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,921
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2020, 10:45:44 pm »

Apologism for Chavez and his thugs is not acceptable. This man murdered hundreds, imprisoned hundreds of thousands of opposition politicians and voters, slaughtered journalists and priests, rigged elections, and got in bed with the most corrupt politicians and vilest cartels in Venezuela. Very nasty man. He makes Vladimir Putin look like an angel by comparison.
I voted for Chavez, assuming without hindsight
Logged
😂
SevenEleven
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 962


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2020, 10:49:45 pm »

Apologism for Chavez and his thugs is not acceptable. This man murdered hundreds, imprisoned hundreds of thousands of opposition politicians and voters, slaughtered journalists and priests, rigged elections, and got in bed with the most corrupt politicians and vilest cartels in Venezuela. Very nasty man. He makes Vladimir Putin look like an angel by comparison.
Chavez was not a man who rigged elections. You are thinking about Maduro.
Chavez, while imperfect, was a fundamentally good man whose economic policies were ultimately unsustainable if rather well-intentioned. Maduro is more the degenerated form of Chavez, as much as he was his heir.
https://infodio.com/content/study-shows-how-hugo-chavez-rigged-elections-venezuela

Please don't try to defend Hugo Chavez. He was an innately evil man and Maduro is merely following in his footsteps.
Logged
Southern Archivist Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,717
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2020, 11:09:17 pm »
« Edited: May 26, 2020, 11:22:19 pm by Southern Archivist Punxsutawney Phil »

I will defend Chavez' good intentions economically until the day I die. The party system prior to 1999 was rotten to the very core (comparable to Mexico under the PRI) and Venezuela needed a change in scenery. Chavez also ushered in much-enhanced welfare for the poor people of the country and he also recognized the role the US had in harming the country, though his way of proceeding in the aftermath was not infallible and reasonable people can disagree on the merits of how he approached the United States.

I would also say that a lot of the hatred of Chavez was nursed from elite elements who simply did not care for the poor people of Venezuela and had sour grapes because Chavez wanted to solve the economic inequality of the country by levying more taxation. They no longer had control over the government and Caracas was no longer firmly in their pocket. So they left. It is hard for me to feel much sympathy for these people since their elitist intentions are plainly out there for the world to see. The hardship they were being subjected to was...gasp...being asked to pay their fair share to help the country's poor.

Elitism is a long-running curse in Latin American society. And if it gets any worse - yes it does. Dark-skinned Venezuelans were firm Chavismo because of the nature of his opposition and of his program, which sought to better their situation. You thought racism wasn't as much of a thing in Venezuela? Ha, good one. Latin American race relations are just as messed up as America, just in different ways. Specifically, the rich and wealthy (read: a group disproportionately pale compared to the wider population) look down on those who are darker-skinned, despite an increased amount of inter-racial marriage in Latin America relative to America and no taboo associated with marrying down the social ladder. Sad but true.

Given all this it's hard for me to really see Chavez as a bad guy. Maduro on the other hand had relatively few of Chavez' good elements and many more flaws. People fleeing Chavez b/c he wanted to increase taxes were at least mostly not refugees while those who fled after the stuff hit the fan in 2014 have an unchallengeable claim.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,115
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 26, 2020, 11:29:16 pm »
« Edited: May 26, 2020, 11:39:39 pm by Kingpoleon »

I will defend Chavez' good intentions economically until the day I die. The party system prior to 1999 was rotten to the very core (comparable to Mexico under the PRI) and Venezuela needed a change in scenery. Chavez also ushered in much-enhanced welfare for the poor people of the country and he also recognized the role the US had in harming the country, though his way of proceeding in the aftermath was not infallible and reasonable people can disagree on the merits of how he approached the United States.

I would also say that a lot of the hatred of Chavez was nursed from elite elements who simply did not care for the poor people of Venezuela and had sour grapes because Chavez wanted to solve the economic inequality of the country by levying more taxation. They no longer had control over the government and Caracas was no longer firmly in their pocket. So they left. It is hard for me to feel much sympathy for these people since their elitist intentions are plainly out there for the world to see. The hardship they were being subjected to was...gasp...being asked to pay their fair share to help the country's poor.

Elitism is a long-running curse in Latin American society. And if it gets any worse - yes it does. Dark-skinned Venezuelans were firm Chavismo because of the nature of his opposition and of his program, which sought to better their situation. You thought racism wasn't as much of a thing in Venezuela? Ha, good one. Latin American race relations are just as messed up as America, just in different ways. Specifically, the rich and wealthy (read: a group disproportionately pale compared to the wider population) look down on those who are darker-skinned, despite an increased amount of inter-racial marriage in Latin America. Sad but true.

Given all this it's hard for me to really see Chavez as a bad guy. Maduro on the other hand had relatively few of Chavez' good elements and many more flaws. People fleeing Chavez b/c he wanted to increase taxes were at least mostly not refugees while those who fled after the stuff hit the fan in 2014 have an unchallengeable claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chávez

1. Murder rates skyrocketed so badly that he banned his government from releasing statistics.
2. He suppressed the press.
3. He arrested and exiled political opponents.
4. He pardoned many corrupt officials and ordered his government not to investigate corrupt people if they were loyal to him.
5. He pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories.
6. He literally gave out money at polling stations.

These are not the actions of a good man or an intelligent man. I can’t believe you’re defending Hugo Chavez, one of the worst world leaders of the millennium.

When you read all these pro-Chávez things online, they come from Maduro. Maduro was the only competent man in Chávez’s inner circle. With the possible exception of Evil Villain Tareck El Aissami, the rest of Chávez’s inner circle was dangerously incompetent. If one of those like Alí Rodríguez Araque, Elias Jaua, Diosdado Cabello, or Adán Chávez, they would probably be dead by now.
Logged
😂
SevenEleven
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 962


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 26, 2020, 11:32:06 pm »

A populist autocrat with anti-democratic tendencies fully reliant on charisma and cultism has never been a good thing, anytime or anywhere.

https://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/ways-chavez-destroyed-venezuelan-economy/story?id=18239956

Chavez is directly responsible for Venezuela's current situation. Venezuela is indisputably worse off than it was pre-Chavez.

I really don't need lectured to about Latin American race relations. There were problems then and still many problems now. If you're idea of "helping the poor" is to create more poverty, then sure, Chavez is a good man. But the millions of suffering Venezuelans today dwarfs the number of suffering Venezuelans when he took power.

Hugo Chavez is simply the other side of the coin to Donald Trump.
Logged
brucejoel99
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,138
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 26, 2020, 11:45:30 pm »

Without hindsight:

1900: Lord Salisbury
1903 special: Arthur Balfour
1907: H.H. Asquith
1911: H.H. Asquith
1915: H.H. Asquith
1919: Woodrow Wilson
1923: Stanley Baldwin
1927: Stanley Baldwin
1931: Herbert Hoover
1935: Stanley Baldwin
1939: Franklin D. Roosevelt
1943: Franklin D. Roosevelt
1945 special: Clement Attlee
1949: Clement Attlee
1953: Dwight D. Eisenhower
1957: Dwight D. Eisenhower
1961: John F. Kennedy
1963 special: Lyndon B. Johnson
1967: Lyndon B. Johnson
1971: Richard Nixon
1974 special: Gerald Ford
1978: Jimmy Carter
1982: Ronald Reagan
1986: Ronald Reagan
1990: George H.W. Bush
1994: Bill Clinton
1998: Bill Clinton
2002: George W. Bush
2006: George W. Bush
2010: Barack Obama
2014: Barack Obama
2018: Angela Merkel
2022: Joe Biden
2026: Elizabeth Warren
Logged
Southern Archivist Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,717
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 26, 2020, 11:48:58 pm »

It bears mentioning that previous Venezuelan governments were so corrupt (and even more entwined with organized crime) that it is not really credible to use the corruption card against Chavez, and it was clear that people were fed up in 1999. At least Chavez put oil revenues into welfare programs as opposed to just singularly focusing on looting it and dumping it in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands or somewhere else.
Logged
Parrotguy
Wyman
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,545
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -4.00, S: -4.35


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2020, 11:54:01 pm »

Dropping in with my pesky and annoying "if antisemites get power many of my people will definitely die" reminders: aside from being a deeply evil man on many other fields, Chavez was also a major antisemite. He enthusiastically supported the holocaust-denying Iranian regime (also famous for executing gays, sponsoring terrorism and brutally murdering tens of thousands of unarmed protestors) He said that "the descendants of the same ones that crucified Christ" hold "all of the wealth of the world", and used antisemitic rhetoric in his "criticisms" of Israel (while supporting terrorists who target innocents by the way), fanning the flames of hatred.
Logged
😂
SevenEleven
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 962


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: Today at 12:04:10 am »

It bears mentioning that previous Venezuelan governments were so corrupt (and even more entwined with organized crime) that it is not really credible to use the corruption card against Chavez,
Bothsidesism is not really credible to use.

Quote
and it was clear that people were fed up in 1999.

Yeah, and they should have been. But "anything else" doesn't mean better, as we saw in US in 2016.

Quote
At least Chavez put oil revenues into welfare programs as opposed to just singularly focusing on looting it and dumping it in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands or somewhere else.
Oil revenues themselves are a form of looting anyway, there was no way for the structure of this economy to realistically work to benefit the most people of Venezuela. The grass isn't always greener.
Logged
Southern Archivist Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,717
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: Today at 12:08:45 am »

It bears mentioning that previous Venezuelan governments were so corrupt (and even more entwined with organized crime) that it is not really credible to use the corruption card against Chavez,
Bothsidesism is not really credible to use.

Quote
and it was clear that people were fed up in 1999.

Yeah, and they should have been. But "anything else" doesn't mean better, as we saw in US in 2016.

Quote
At least Chavez put oil revenues into welfare programs as opposed to just singularly focusing on looting it and dumping it in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands or somewhere else.
Oil revenues themselves are a form of looting anyway, there was no way for the structure of this economy to realistically work to benefit the most people of Venezuela. The grass isn't always greener.
Would you rather have corruption with a side serving of trampling the poor or corruption with the side serving of helping the poor? Because half a loaf is better than none and corruption is normal. That's just par for course in Latin America...
Logged
😂
SevenEleven
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 962


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: Today at 12:14:56 am »

It bears mentioning that previous Venezuelan governments were so corrupt (and even more entwined with organized crime) that it is not really credible to use the corruption card against Chavez,
Bothsidesism is not really credible to use.

Quote
and it was clear that people were fed up in 1999.

Yeah, and they should have been. But "anything else" doesn't mean better, as we saw in US in 2016.

Quote
At least Chavez put oil revenues into welfare programs as opposed to just singularly focusing on looting it and dumping it in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands or somewhere else.
Oil revenues themselves are a form of looting anyway, there was no way for the structure of this economy to realistically work to benefit the most people of Venezuela. The grass isn't always greener.
Would you rather have corruption with a side serving of trampling the poor or corruption with the side serving of helping the poor? Because half a loaf is better than none and corruption is normal. That's just par for course in Latin America...
The results of Chavez's policies have not helped the poor in the long term. The entire country is worse off.

Is five years of the poor doing better worth the current state of Venezuela? A Venezuelan would say no.
Logged
Southern Archivist Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,717
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: Today at 12:18:38 am »

It bears mentioning that previous Venezuelan governments were so corrupt (and even more entwined with organized crime) that it is not really credible to use the corruption card against Chavez,
Bothsidesism is not really credible to use.

Quote
and it was clear that people were fed up in 1999.

Yeah, and they should have been. But "anything else" doesn't mean better, as we saw in US in 2016.

Quote
At least Chavez put oil revenues into welfare programs as opposed to just singularly focusing on looting it and dumping it in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands or somewhere else.
Oil revenues themselves are a form of looting anyway, there was no way for the structure of this economy to realistically work to benefit the most people of Venezuela. The grass isn't always greener.
Would you rather have corruption with a side serving of trampling the poor or corruption with the side serving of helping the poor? Because half a loaf is better than none and corruption is normal. That's just par for course in Latin America...
The results of Chavez's policies have not helped the poor in the long term. The entire country is worse off.
Not really, when you consider that welfare levels skyrocketed for over a dozen years, bankrolled by oil revenues. This was an extraodinary and in fact excessive investment, which should have included more efforts to diversify beyond oil. "In the long term" includes the oil boom and not just the oil bust.
The old establishment in the country would never have gone to these lengths to provide for the poor.
Logged
😂
SevenEleven
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 962


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: Today at 12:22:19 am »

It bears mentioning that previous Venezuelan governments were so corrupt (and even more entwined with organized crime) that it is not really credible to use the corruption card against Chavez,
Bothsidesism is not really credible to use.

Quote
and it was clear that people were fed up in 1999.

Yeah, and they should have been. But "anything else" doesn't mean better, as we saw in US in 2016.

Quote
At least Chavez put oil revenues into welfare programs as opposed to just singularly focusing on looting it and dumping it in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands or somewhere else.
Oil revenues themselves are a form of looting anyway, there was no way for the structure of this economy to realistically work to benefit the most people of Venezuela. The grass isn't always greener.
Would you rather have corruption with a side serving of trampling the poor or corruption with the side serving of helping the poor? Because half a loaf is better than none and corruption is normal. That's just par for course in Latin America...
The results of Chavez's policies have not helped the poor in the long term. The entire country is worse off.
Not really, when you consider that welfare levels skyrocketed for over a dozen years, bankrolled by oil revenues. This was an extraodinary and in fact excessive investment, which should have included more efforts to diversify beyond oil. "In the long term" includes the oil boom and not just the oil bust.
The old establishment in the country would never have gone to these lengths to provide for the poor.
Yeah, because populism doesn't work. The quick fix never does (see: stock buybacks and now COVID). Chavez was more interested in maintaining power than building a better future for Venezuela. He's a Donald Trump when Venezuela needed a Barack Obama.
Logged
Southern Archivist Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,717
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: Today at 12:31:19 am »
« Edited: Today at 12:52:33 am by Southern Archivist Punxsutawney Phil »

It bears mentioning that previous Venezuelan governments were so corrupt (and even more entwined with organized crime) that it is not really credible to use the corruption card against Chavez,
Bothsidesism is not really credible to use.

Quote
and it was clear that people were fed up in 1999.

Yeah, and they should have been. But "anything else" doesn't mean better, as we saw in US in 2016.

Quote
At least Chavez put oil revenues into welfare programs as opposed to just singularly focusing on looting it and dumping it in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands or somewhere else.
Oil revenues themselves are a form of looting anyway, there was no way for the structure of this economy to realistically work to benefit the most people of Venezuela. The grass isn't always greener.
Would you rather have corruption with a side serving of trampling the poor or corruption with the side serving of helping the poor? Because half a loaf is better than none and corruption is normal. That's just par for course in Latin America...
The results of Chavez's policies have not helped the poor in the long term. The entire country is worse off.
Not really, when you consider that welfare levels skyrocketed for over a dozen years, bankrolled by oil revenues. This was an extraodinary and in fact excessive investment, which should have included more efforts to diversify beyond oil. "In the long term" includes the oil boom and not just the oil bust.
The old establishment in the country would never have gone to these lengths to provide for the poor.
Yeah, because populism doesn't work. The quick fix never does (see: stock buybacks and now COVID). Chavez was more interested in maintaining power than building a better future for Venezuela. He's a Donald Trump when Venezuela needed a Barack Obama.
The old establishment of Venezuela had many Donald Trumps who loved gimmicks and short-term fixes in order to keep the wool over people's eyes.
Only Chavez had a long-term plan to actually make the country more successful, unfortunately it relied on oil prices being high enough in perpituity to keep it funded.
Logged
MB
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,585
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: Today at 01:18:32 am »

1908: Enver Hoxha
1912: Enver Hoxha
1916: Enver Hoxha
1920: Enver Hoxha
1924: Enver Hoxha
1928: Enver Hoxha
1932: Enver Hoxha
1936: Enver Hoxha
1940: Enver Hoxha
1944: Enver Hoxha
1948: Enver Hoxha
1952: Enver Hoxha
1956: Enver Hoxha
1960: Enver Hoxha
1964: Enver Hoxha
1968: Enver Hoxha
1972: Enver Hoxha
1976: Enver Hoxha
1980: Enver Hoxha
1984: Enver Hoxha
1988: Nexhmije Hoxha
1992: Nexhmije Hoxha
1996: Nexhmije Hoxha
2000: Nexhmije Hoxha
2004: Nexhmije Hoxha
2008: Nexhmije Hoxha
2012: Nexhmije Hoxha
2016: Nexhmije Hoxha
2020: none, full communism has been acheived
Logged
😂
SevenEleven
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 962


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: Today at 02:07:46 am »

It bears mentioning that previous Venezuelan governments were so corrupt (and even more entwined with organized crime) that it is not really credible to use the corruption card against Chavez,
Bothsidesism is not really credible to use.

Quote
and it was clear that people were fed up in 1999.

Yeah, and they should have been. But "anything else" doesn't mean better, as we saw in US in 2016.

Quote
At least Chavez put oil revenues into welfare programs as opposed to just singularly focusing on looting it and dumping it in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands or somewhere else.
Oil revenues themselves are a form of looting anyway, there was no way for the structure of this economy to realistically work to benefit the most people of Venezuela. The grass isn't always greener.
Would you rather have corruption with a side serving of trampling the poor or corruption with the side serving of helping the poor? Because half a loaf is better than none and corruption is normal. That's just par for course in Latin America...
The results of Chavez's policies have not helped the poor in the long term. The entire country is worse off.
Not really, when you consider that welfare levels skyrocketed for over a dozen years, bankrolled by oil revenues. This was an extraodinary and in fact excessive investment, which should have included more efforts to diversify beyond oil. "In the long term" includes the oil boom and not just the oil bust.
The old establishment in the country would never have gone to these lengths to provide for the poor.
Yeah, because populism doesn't work. The quick fix never does (see: stock buybacks and now COVID). Chavez was more interested in maintaining power than building a better future for Venezuela. He's a Donald Trump when Venezuela needed a Barack Obama.
The old establishment of Venezuela was filled to the brim with Donald Trumps who loved gimmicks and short-term fixes in order to keep the wool over people's eyes.

Yes, this a typical function of corrupt governments.

Quote
Only Chavez had a long-term plan to actually make the country more successful, unfortunately it relied on oil prices being high enough in perpituity to keep it funded.
Relying on oil is the exact sort of short term fix gimmick mentioned above. The real reform needed was never an option given the prevalence of Chavismo. This is the same trap that all "populist" (read:Cultist, anti-democratic) leaders find themselves in.

If you think Venezuela's current state is ambitious, by all means defend Chavez. Those of us with a functioning brain and an empathetic heart will continue to decry you ad Venezuelans experience abject poverty we will never have to face head on. Congrats.
Logged
Laki
Lakigigar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,921
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: Today at 02:42:04 pm »

It bears mentioning that previous Venezuelan governments were so corrupt (and even more entwined with organized crime) that it is not really credible to use the corruption card against Chavez,
Bothsidesism is not really credible to use.

Quote
and it was clear that people were fed up in 1999.

Yeah, and they should have been. But "anything else" doesn't mean better, as we saw in US in 2016.

Quote
At least Chavez put oil revenues into welfare programs as opposed to just singularly focusing on looting it and dumping it in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands or somewhere else.
Oil revenues themselves are a form of looting anyway, there was no way for the structure of this economy to realistically work to benefit the most people of Venezuela. The grass isn't always greener.
Would you rather have corruption with a side serving of trampling the poor or corruption with the side serving of helping the poor? Because half a loaf is better than none and corruption is normal. That's just par for course in Latin America...
The results of Chavez's policies have not helped the poor in the long term. The entire country is worse off.
Not really, when you consider that welfare levels skyrocketed for over a dozen years, bankrolled by oil revenues. This was an extraodinary and in fact excessive investment, which should have included more efforts to diversify beyond oil. "In the long term" includes the oil boom and not just the oil bust.
The old establishment in the country would never have gone to these lengths to provide for the poor.
Yeah, because populism doesn't work. The quick fix never does (see: stock buybacks and now COVID). Chavez was more interested in maintaining power than building a better future for Venezuela. He's a Donald Trump when Venezuela needed a Barack Obama.
The old establishment of Venezuela had many Donald Trumps who loved gimmicks and short-term fixes in order to keep the wool over people's eyes.
Only Chavez had a long-term plan to actually make the country more successful, unfortunately it relied on oil prices being high enough in perpituity to keep it funded.

You're correct and I agree with you, and I like you go against the current. Chavez is BY NO MEANS perfect, and i'm sure in retroperspective there were better people to vote for, but I don't know any 2000's people i would instantly vote for, and right than Venezuela looked like a success state. Like you say it relied too much on oil, and that caused it collapse. Chavez was clearly the lesser of the two evils there. I have no doubts the right would've ed up the economic crisis as well. Venezuela was a ticking time bomb.

We see what happened in Bolivia. Coup d'état, bad race relations and a return to authoritarianism as well. Exactly the same thing we see in Brazil as well. I'm not sure if that's someone we should prefer over Maduro's government currently. Even Maduro with all it's flaws, is someone I prefer over Jair Bolsonaro or the current Bolivian coup d'etat attemptors. That doesn't mean he isn't a terrible guy however.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,115
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: Today at 05:06:03 pm »

If you really think Hugo Chavez was better than Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Gerhard Schröder, Lula de Silva, or Manmohan Singh, I don’t know what to say.

Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and all the others I don’t really understand, but if you want to be anti-globalization or anti-The Big Five, there are still much better leaders than Chávez to turn to.
Logged
Dope and Diamonds
HillGoose
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,544
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.87, S: -5.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: Today at 05:51:13 pm »

1996: Colin Powell
2000: Dick Cheney
2004: Dick Cheney
2008: John McCain
2012: John McCain
2016: Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or Nikki Haley
2020: same as 2016

idk about before that
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.251 seconds with 14 queries.