- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Nicaragua's Dictator, Daniel Ortega, has cancelled elections
Posted on 7/22/26 at 7:59 am to imjustafatkid
Posted on 7/22/26 at 7:59 am to imjustafatkid
Someone get ahold of Ollie North
0
Posted on 7/22/26 at 8:38 am to Jorts R Us
quote:
You left out that minor detail about the election laws being altered to frick the anti--sandinista majority in the country over...small little detail...
You mean the rule that incumbents can't hold the office twice? Yeah, that certainly hasn't stopped Ortega, but they didn't hesitate to use it to push out Bolanos in 2007.
Posted on 7/22/26 at 8:50 am to imjustafatkid
more communism from Nazi democrats
Posted on 7/22/26 at 9:56 am to Austrianpainter34
This thread made me think. When is Ukraine going to have their Presidential election?
Posted on 7/22/26 at 10:17 am to SDVTiger
quote:
All the Dems on here would want to do the same thing
Of course,
They literally tried to impeach and arrest their last opponent over and over again. Of course they support what this guy is doing.
Posted on 7/22/26 at 10:42 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
You mean the rule that incumbents can't hold the office twice?
No, that's not to what I am referring.
Surely you didn't make your statement re: the voters in Nicaragua from a position of ignorance...
This post was edited on 7/22/26 at 10:45 am
Posted on 7/22/26 at 11:12 am to Jorts R Us
quote:
No, that's not to what I am referring.
Surely you didn't make your statement re: the voters in Nicaragua from a position of ignorance...
That's correct, I didn't. Apparently you did, because what I stated is how they got rid of the popular democratically-elected president in 2007 because Bolanos stepped aside. That is when Ortega regained power. The morons in Nicaragua voted for Ortega instead of the guy Bolanos endorsed to replace him.
This post was edited on 7/22/26 at 11:17 am
Posted on 7/22/26 at 11:20 am to deltaland
Fortunately, Trump does not have the power to do that, legally.
Posted on 7/22/26 at 11:21 am to KiwiHead
quote:
Fortunately, Trump does not have the power to do that, legally.
Neither does Ortega. A stacked socialist Democrat SCOTUS would absolutely rule that a socialist Democrat president can legally do this.
This post was edited on 7/22/26 at 11:22 am
Posted on 7/22/26 at 11:25 am to imjustafatkid
That would be in violation of the 20th Amendment and even multiple statutes. You are probably projecting your own paranoia......must be some powerful weed to get you that riled up.
Posted on 7/22/26 at 11:32 am to KiwiHead
quote:
That would be in violation of the 20th Amendment and even multiple statutes. You are probably projecting your own paranoia......must be some powerful weed to get you that riled up.
Nope, I'm not projecting anything at all. You must not understand how socialists work.
Posted on 7/22/26 at 11:53 am to imjustafatkid
Do you, really? Please stop with your hissy ninny projecting. You don't know any more about how socialists work than you do how nuclear fusion or fission works in detail.
This post was edited on 7/22/26 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 7/22/26 at 12:19 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Do you, really? Please stop with your hissy ninny projecting. You don't know any more about how socialists work than you do how nuclear fusion or fission works in detail.
Yes, yes I do. It's not like they ever change. They always pretend to be "for the people" and then they take all power away from the people. It happens every single time. Good luck finding anywhere it didn't happen that way.
ETA: Claiming otherwise only makes you look like a fool.
This post was edited on 7/22/26 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 7/22/26 at 12:28 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
That's correct, I didn't. Apparently you did, because what I stated is how they got rid of the popular democratically-elected president in 2007 because Bolanos stepped aside. That is when Ortega regained power. The morons in Nicaragua voted for Ortega instead of the guy Bolanos endorsed to replace him.
Once again your entire analysis excludes the fact that the election laws were changed because of political shenanigans to essentially ensure that the Sandinistas could avoid a runoff with just 35% -ish of the vote. THAT is what actually allowed Ortega to make his comeback in 2006 despite the majority in that country being anti-Sandinista.
You're welcome for the education. For further reading, you can look up the Aleman-Ortega shennanigans.
This post was edited on 7/22/26 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 7/22/26 at 12:33 pm to imjustafatkid
That's communists you are describing. Socialists are a non issue in all of this, , they learn how to use existing laws to their advantage and then pass their own that just " overwhelms" the existing.
American prigressive liberals don't want to suspend elections.....American populist "nationalists" are however open to the idea. ......such as some parts of MAGA using the SAVE America Act as or lack of it as pretext
American prigressive liberals don't want to suspend elections.....American populist "nationalists" are however open to the idea. ......such as some parts of MAGA using the SAVE America Act as or lack of it as pretext
Posted on 7/22/26 at 12:36 pm to Powerman
quote:
You know things are going great for republicans when they're bringing up something irrelevant Bernie said in the 1980s
Has the definition of socialism or dictatorship changed?
Didn't think so.
Why are his comments on that definition still valid?
Ohhhh, that's right. It doesn't fit your narrative anymore
Moron
Posted on 7/22/26 at 12:49 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
That's communists you are describing. Socialists are a non issue in all of this
Socialists are communists. There is no difference whatsoever.
quote:
American prigressive liberals don't want to suspend elections.....American populist "nationalists" are however open to the idea. ......such as some parts of MAGA using the SAVE America Act as or lack of it as pretext
This is complete nonsense.
Posted on 7/22/26 at 12:52 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
Once again your entire analysis excludes the fact that the election laws were changed because of political shenanigans to essentially ensure that the Sandinistas could avoid a runoff with just 35% -ish of the vote. THAT is what actually allowed Ortega to make his comeback in 2006 despite the majority in that country being anti-Sandinista.
You're welcome for the education. For further reading, you can look up the Aleman-Ortega shennanigans.
In reality, you educated me about nothing. The reason that was effective is because the incumbent was constitutionally prevented from running for reelection. Bolanos would have beaten Ortega, and the people were dumb enough not to coalesce behind the only actual opposition candidate. The Sandinistas splintered off their own "opposition" party to split the remainder of the vote so Ortega could win.
Of course, Ortega ignored the incumbent rule as soon as he was in power. Constitutional "norms" are only important to socialists/communists until they gain power.
This post was edited on 7/22/26 at 1:03 pm
Posted on 7/22/26 at 1:02 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Bolanos would have beaten Ortega.
Now I know you're truly coming from a position of ignorance. The anti-Sandinista base would have still been fractured if Bolaños wasn't term-limited, so the change to the runoff rule would have still ensured a Sandinista victory. quote:
The Sandinistas splintered off their own "opposition" party to split the remainder of the vote so Ortega could win.
Yeah, you don't know what drove the anti-Sandinista split. This post was edited on 7/22/26 at 1:06 pm
Posted on 7/22/26 at 1:09 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
Now I know you're truly coming from a position of ignorance. The anti-Sandinista base would have still been fractured if Bolaños wasn't term-limited, so the change to the runoff rule would have still ensured a Sandinista victory.
The PLC wasn't an opposition party. They were running simply to splinter the opposition vote. This was only effective because Bolanos could not run and because the people were so stupid they didn't follow him to the only actual opposition party.
You truly do not know what you are talking about. In your imaginary scenario where there was a runoff, the PLC would have endorsed Ortega.
ETA:
quote:
Yeah, you don't know what drove the anti-Sandinista split.
To refute this, I would give too much identifying information. I have personal knowledge of what happened, not whatever nonsense you think you've gleaned from the Google machine.
This post was edited on 7/22/26 at 1:18 pm
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News