Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 104:
Line 104: − − == Sources == − − The Economist listed Venezuela as a hybrid of democracy and authoritarianism, not an authoritarian regime. The reason given was the functioning power of the government was brought into question over a variety of factors, most of which are only indirectly tied to Chavez. This, combined with the OAS and Carter Center's reports on the fairness of the elections that put Chavez into office, makes me question how Conservapedia can claim that he is a totalitarian dictator. Surely the quality of the sources I have given would at least make it an alleged voter fraud, rather than confirmed voter fraud. [[User:JamesArtois|JamesArtois]] 00:39, 14 March 2012 (EDT)
Reverted edits by JamesArtois (talk) to last revision by Rutger
Nonsense. Nobody thought this election was fair, and trying to deprive our readership of the knowledge that it was a rigged election is censorship. Your goal isn't to make the article more informative, but LESS informative, and your edit is designed to influence Conservapedia readers in favor of Chavez and socialism. There's nothing biased about saying an election was probably rigged if it was probably rigged.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:32, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Nonsense. Nobody thought this election was fair, and trying to deprive our readership of the knowledge that it was a rigged election is censorship. Your goal isn't to make the article more informative, but LESS informative, and your edit is designed to influence Conservapedia readers in favor of Chavez and socialism. There's nothing biased about saying an election was probably rigged if it was probably rigged.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:32, 10 December 2009 (EST)
::Nonsense yourself. One or two ratbags claiming something doesn't make it true and as per Andy this website operates on a concensus of facts, not the opinions of a few. Almost everyone (eventually, many claimed like you did there was fraud initially but gave up once they failed to find evidence of it) thought the election was fair except the opposition, those involved in the previous coup attempt and hardcore capitalists. Even Fox gave up on claiming they were fraudulent. You see the problem with the theory that it was rigged is how did he rig his first election? The next two? How did he rig the massive amount of popular support which overthrew the coup attempt? How did he physically "rig it"? '''And lastly, and very importantly, why did he rig the elections but not the referendum which would have given him greater power?''' I know it's strange that poor people wouldn't vote to support large companies and disgustingly greedy wealth distribution but it really did happen. [[User:Rutger|Rutger]] 22:57, 10 December 2009 (EST)
::Nonsense yourself. One or two ratbags claiming something doesn't make it true and as per Andy this website operates on a concensus of facts, not the opinions of a few. Almost everyone (eventually, many claimed like you did there was fraud initially but gave up once they failed to find evidence of it) thought the election was fair except the opposition, those involved in the previous coup attempt and hardcore capitalists. Even Fox gave up on claiming they were fraudulent. You see the problem with the theory that it was rigged is how did he rig his first election? The next two? How did he rig the massive amount of popular support which overthrew the coup attempt? How did he physically "rig it"? '''And lastly, and very importantly, why did he rig the elections but not the referendum which would have given him greater power?''' I know it's strange that poor people wouldn't vote to support large companies and disgustingly greedy wealth distribution but it really did happen. [[User:Rutger|Rutger]] 22:57, 10 December 2009 (EST)