Venezuela Ranked Number One in Electoral Fairness by Foundation for Democratic Advancement

Nuclear-armed North Korea has assumed the presidency of a key United Nations disarmament body -despite facing UN Security Council sanctions over its weapons programs.

www.vancouversun.com...

This story came to mind after reading this thread. Not sure why, but I think there are similarities here.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


The majority of the board members are from the UK and Canada. Hmm, Has the progressive movement taken hold in Canada and the UK ?


I will hand it to them it looks legitimate, but I pretty sure it is just a pile of sh*t with roses covering it. It still smells like ****.





Hitler was a progressive socialist and a darn good one at that.

All you idiots are looking at what the Foundation for Democratic Advancement is saying.
Without looking at WHO they ARE.

These people are NOBODIES that are promoting themselves.

They have very good fundraising and marketing skills that can be seen by there skills on promoting themselves over the Internet.

But there history before the Foundation for Democratic Advancement is lacking.
There are no real BIOs on these people that they did not have a major action in posting.

The head of Foundation for Democratic Advancement Stephen Garvey has no history other then what is posted on www.inexpressible.com/ or copied from it by other sites and the media

For all anyone knows they are a bunch of out of work intellectuals that have come up on a scam to make a living by using the Internet to collect donations.

With the right 5 to 8 people with skills in marketing, fundraising and Internet page building i could set up a nonprofit "Foundation for Jobs in America."
We could then go after the politicians and government in the US and get a lot of money in donations to pay our salaries..

And likely the money would pour in. And only around 10% of the money has to be used for the cause to keep the non profit stasis. the rest could be used for internal expenses.

Originally posted by Subjective Truth



Hitler was a progressive socialist and a darn good one at that.

Well, when you ignore everything he actually did and said, and only look at the name of his political party.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


I think you should do some more homework on the sources you decide to use. The newspaper is pro chavez for starters. Secondly if you run down the names of the controlling members you will find their hands in the left leaning pro socialist anti democratic pots throughout south america.

However they do a good job of making the attempt to appear independant, much in the same way PressTV does in Iran.

They are the mouthpiece for Chavez.

He will need all the propoganda he can get right now with his health problems. Hopefully the cancer he has will force him from office so Venezuela can get back to being a free, democratic society.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You're docking the source?

For one, that's the original source that I read. There are many others, but this one had the more adequate title which is necessary since I can only post the article's exact name here or the staff raises a ruckus.

Secondly, it's a Venezuelan source. I don't really see any Western sources reporting this (probably because the findings don't collaborate with the rest of the bullsh!t where they claim they are leaders in democratic progression). I'm sure any Venezuelan source is some commie propaganda rag to some though

Thirdly, I included links to the actual documents of the study done by a Canadian organization. The source that I put in the opening post was reporting what was the findings of the documents themselves.

Subjective Truth-
Hitler was a socialist? Hilarious. That must explain why he saw communists as scum, right?

He was fascist, to the point where he felt that Aryans should be at the top and Germany should rebuild its empire. He disdained the concept of economic distribution, yet he somehow maintained utilitarian control of the people by declaring his vision of what was good for the country (dealing with the Jews).

There is a reason why we are taught to view "nationalist socialists" as only the Nazi way: the idea of a strong nation taking care of all of its people is a threat to capitalist incursion and exploitation by other countries.

reply to post by ANNED


Why assume about people you don't know? Are you upset that Venezuelan democracy may be more progressive and more democratic than American democracy, and that you have been fooled by the US mainstream media in thinking how democratic America is?

Actually, several of the members of the Foundation of Democratic Advancement, are more qualified barring citizenship to be the President of the US, than Obama was in 2008. That's not a tall order with his sparse background in 2008.

However, the FDA results speak for themselves, whether you want to accept them or not. To make personal attacks in hope that the results go away, you are only fooling yourself.

Better to accept reality than deny it. Ignorance is bliss. No thanks....

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
You're docking the source?

Im calliung into question their ability to render an independant position.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
For one, that's the original source that I read. There are many others, but this one had the more adequate title which is necessary since I can only post the article's exact name here or the staff raises a ruckus.

Im calling into question the articles conclusions. I feel they are ignoring some key failures for the sole purpose of supporting Chavez/

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Secondly, it's a Venezuelan source. I don't really see any Western sources reporting this (probably because the findings don't collaborate with the rest of the bullsh!t where they claim they are leaders in democratic progression). I'm sure any Venezuelan source is some commie propaganda rag to some though

We could read into why no western sources are commenting on this. One possible reason is they dont care, another possible reason is they know its bull and wont lend any credability to the article by challenging it.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Thirdly, I included links to the actual documents of the study done by a Canadian organization. The source that I put in the opening post was reporting what was the findings of the documents themselves.

I am calling into question the impartiality of the Venezuelan news source, in addition to their managing group of editors, who are all linked to pro chavez / pro left wing / pro socialist elements, which again leads a person to call into question their impartiality.

The standards in the article were used in Iraq prior to the 2nd gulf war. They held elections for president, and after a 99.9% voter turnout, 99.9% of the vote went to Saddam Hussein.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Subjective Truth-
Hitler was a socialist? Hilarious. That must explain why he saw communists as scum, right?

He was fascist, to the point where he felt that Aryans should be at the top and Germany should rebuild its empire. He disdained the concept of economic distribution, yet he somehow maintained utilitarian control of the people by declaring his vision of what was good for the country (dealing with the Jews).

Not sure why you are bringin up the Nazis or the jews in this topic. I didnt bring them up, nor did I use them as an example in my response to you.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
There is a reason why we are taught to view "nationalist socialists" as only the Nazi way: the idea of a strong nation taking care of all of its people is a threat to capitalist incursion and exploitation by other countries.

edit on 11-7-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

Unless the above is an example fo what Venezuela is doing, then I dont grant the premis of the statement / question.

Lets review some facts about Venezuela...

Any media outlet that is against Chavez has ben shutdown or micromanaged by the Government.
Any cable media outlet that is critical of Chavez has seen their operating licenese yanked when Chavez forced that law through their legislature.
Chavez has pretty much nationalized key secotrs of their economy, and we are seeing how great the socialist system works because of that (water / electrical shortages, gas rationing etc).
Chavez has gone to extremes to place his supporters into key positions, and has gone after govenors and mayors whom he feels dont support him.

Its one thing to openly challenge a person in an election. Its another thing entirely to challenge that person and then pass laws that allow Chavez to gain an advantage over them.

The notion that Venezuela is ranked #1 in electoral fairness is a fairy tale put out by pro chavez supporters in an effort to validate the manner in which he rules.

If he were so concerned with the electorate he never would have needed a law passed giving him emergency powers and rule by decree.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Your response does not stack up to fact and reason.

According to you Chavez has closed down all opposition media and broadcasters.

Are you familar with Globovision; it is a major Venezuelan broadcaster backed by the US government... and it is operational...

Chavez's emergency laws were for immediate action to deal severe floods.... western governments have the same provisions... and they even lie to go to war and then everyone turns away as if it didn't happen...

A lot of the media that Chavez did close down, was implicated in slander, false information, and aiding the failed US coup attempt in 2002...

Do you realize that there is a plurality of political parties in Venezuela, unlike the US where it is dominated by two parties--I wonder why?

You should get your facts straight...

Originally posted by fdadvancement
Your point is valid in the sense that the most democratic laws are no good if their application is undemocratic. But that would not happen in a democracy based on rule of law; it would happen in an authoritarian type of society.

But that's what I have been saying, a authoritarian society can have good, democratic laws, but if they do not apply them and/or apply them in an unjust way then the laws are as good as if they didn't exist, the result is the same.

For example, if the law says that public demonstrations are allowed, but only with an authorization from the town authorities, and those authorizations are always denied to all political parties except one, what good is that law, in practice?

Portugal does not sound like a democracy.

If you are talking about Portugal before April 25, 1974, then it's true, it was not a democracy. There was even an election in which a general (Humberto Delgado) ran for president, but he lost the elections and some years later was killed in an ambush near the Portuguese border, in Spain (that was also a dictatorship at the time).

Since 1974 Portugal has been a democracy, and our only problems (besides the economic ones) are the common political problems, not a democracy problem.

Originally posted by fdadvancement

A lot of the media that Chavez did close down, was implicated in slander, false information, and aiding the failed US coup attempt in 2002...

Huh.. those are the reasons Chavez used to close them down... Go figure....

Now all that is left is the pro chavez media.

Also, we are discussing Venezuela, not the US. Are you that paranoid that yuou are unable to engage in the topic at hand that you resort to bringing up facts that have nothing to do with the topic.

Intrestingly enough its yet another tactic Chavez, along with Assad and Achmadinejad use when face with inetrnal dissent. blame the US or Israel.............

Nice to see you are folloiwing the proper talking point when defending chavez.

Maybe he will give you a medal the next time he does a 4 hour race to blame on primtime, provided the cancer he has doesnt take him out first.

Hopefully it will.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by fdadvancement

A lot of the media that Chavez did close down, was implicated in slander, false information, and aiding the failed US coup attempt in 2002...

Huh.. those are the reasons Chavez used to close them down... Go figure....

Now all that is left is the pro chavez media.

Also, we are discussing Venezuela, not the US. Are you that paranoid that yuou are unable to engage in the topic at hand that you resort to bringing up facts that have nothing to do with the topic.

Intrestingly enough its yet another tactic Chavez, along with Assad and Achmadinejad use when face with inetrnal dissent. blame the US or Israel.............

Nice to see you are folloiwing the proper talking point when defending chavez.

Maybe he will give you a medal the next time he does a 4 hour race to blame on primtime, provided the cancer he has doesnt take him out first.

Hopefully it will.

You have a problem with blaming the US in this case? Have you not forgotten that the CIA tried to assassinate Chavez several times? That they used their assets in Venezuela, including media outlets, to organize a military coup and manipulate images and facts to portray it as "democracy" to the world?

The reality of the situation was that the Venezuelan people would not put up for that BS and they got him back in three days.

The US hates Venezuela. They labelled it as an "axis of evil" country because it does not get on its knees for American foreign policy. The US has done nothing but clandestinely attack the Venezuelan government's efforts to run successful government. These are NOT new tactics, the CIA has been doing it for half a century in South America.

Seriously dude, you really must be ignorant of history if you cannot see what problems the US has been intentionally causing for Venezuela. Unfortunately for the US, every attempt they make only strengthens Venezuela's resolve, contrary to all of the BS that anti-Chavez media and individuals claim.

Subjective Truth-
Hitler was a progressive socialist and a darn good one at that.

Man, you aren't even close. Stop making up lies please

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


It's best to ignore specific posters because all they do is try to play American Cop.

I've been surprised time and time again, after posting links on how Chavez is trying to awaken his people to their political rights, that certain posters here would bash it straight away(and that includes American Cop and personality ignorant extraordinaire Xcath). For instance, how in kiosks instead of pictures of naked ladies they have constitutional laws printed.

I honestly can't understand the reply from the mod either. By comparing the dictatorship in Portugal to Venezuela now he effectively makes Chavez into a dictator. Man, another clueless poster posting not thought through things.

I'm comfortable understanding that the truth is as it is and that these folk will understand in a couple of years that they were deceived. Even IF Venezuela was that bad of a place to live, the prospects for Venezuela are a whole lot more independent and better than say the US or parts of Europe. But how come people choose to be as stupid to NOT think ahead? It's like they're asking for a geopolitical whoopin'.

Some posts here make me feel as if some peoples role in life is to watch American Idols.

reply to post by Zamini


You're right. It's all about viewing things through a positivist, empiricist sense. Some people can only accept that the system they belong to is the only just system, and any other social structure is wrong and needs to assimilate to be liberated. These very people fail to see the cardinal cage that they trap themselves in.

The truth is that the world is a very culturally diverse place. Social science CAN NOT EVER be dictated by some empirical observations, unlike natural sciences. Our societies adhere to our cultural features, which differ all over the world, from the individual to national to even global level. There is no one way to go about it, but those who still cling on to this pathetic mindset are only interested in forcing other cultures to live under their way of life, since it gives them the opportunity to exploit such foreign societies.

Originally posted by Zamini
I honestly can't understand the reply from the mod either. By comparing the dictatorship in Portugal to Venezuela now he effectively makes Chavez into a dictator. Man, another clueless poster posting not thought through things.

I was not comparing the dictatorship in Portugal to Venezuela, I was trying to show my point of view that just analysing the laws instead of the way they are applied may not give a real idea of what things happen in any country.

Is my English that bad?

reply to post by ArMaP


Your point is taken about the importance of application of law.

However, application alone faces the same shortcomings.

If a country's laws are undemocratic, the application will not mean much. Application is tied to what is being applied.

I think the Report Venezuela is looking at the foundation for Venezuela's democracy. Sure, that does not give a whole picture of Venezuela democracy, but it gives an indication of the nature of Venezuelan democracy. Egalitarian. Pluralisitic. Individual rights etc.

A country that does not enforce laws etc., I would not consider a democracy. Venezuela is very much a democracy in terms of having a national assembly, regular elections, plurality of parties, private media, private civic organizations, rule of law etc. etc. Chavez is supported by a majority of the people. It is Venezuelan's right to choose who represents them.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


I could not agree more with your comments.

I would only add the stronger individual and society will embrace what is of value and worthy of merit etc., no matter where it is from.

Originally posted by fdadvancement
If a country's laws are undemocratic, the application will not mean much. Application is tied to what is being applied.

That's true, the negative side always wins.

If we have a country with undemocratic laws that are not changed then that means that the politicians do not want a true democracy, because if they did then they would change the laws to make them more democratic. That means that undemocratic laws point to an unjust and undemocratic system.

But if we have democratic laws and a society that does not enforce them, we get the same unjust result. That means that a country with democratic laws can be democratic if the laws are applied or undemocratic if they are not. That's why I think that way of analysing real situations is not the best, and why I called it "theoretical".

I think the Report Venezuela is looking at the foundation for Venezuela's democracy.

Sorry, I don't understand that sentence.

Marx and Enlge would be proud! The ends does justify the means. You can put anything on any document and call it anything you like, but it results that matter. Claiming that a thing is so does not make it real.

Democracies and representative rebublics that are functional and sustainable have governments that are subordinate to their constituencies, they are not functional if the state is the one setting the rules and dictating the terms. Rigged elections, stiffled speech in the public square, reprisals, threats towards your political opponents is not democratic, nationalizing industries shutting down the press, ad nauseum....., does not a democracy make.