# Red state-blue state in Mexico?



## ptrichmondmike

What with the presidential election just a month away, I realize that I know almost nothing about Mexican politics. I'm vaguely aware that historical opposition to the revolution and its anti-clerical aftermath led to the Cristero rebellion in the west-central regions...a long time ago. Which leads me to speculate on how different areas of Mexico tend to line up politically today. 

Any insights into places/states that tend to be conservative or liberal? And how important a factor does religion continue to be?


----------



## conklinwh

The revolutionary party(PRI) took over with the new constitution and ran the country for 71 years. With any long term governance it became both beaurocratic and very corrupt. 12 years ago the PAN took over with Fox. Pan has lost a lot of it's basic support at the municipal level even in it'd heartland of Guanajuato although will probably hold the governor. After 12 years, it looks like the "new" PRI will win nationally.
PRD with Obregon, the very socialist mayor of Mexico, almost, in fact he claims he did, beat Calderon 6 years ago. Since then there has been a schism within the PRD with Obregon basically leading one half. If polls are to be believed, PRI will win by some 15 points. Other than Obregon, not sure how liberal/conservative fits as seems as if both PRI & PAN very similar.


----------



## Isla Verde

conklinwh said:


> The revolutionary party(PRI) took over with the new constitution and ran the country for 71 years. With any long term governance it became both beaurocratic and very corrupt. 12 years ago the PAN took over with Fox. Pan has lost a lot of it's basic support at the municipal level even in it'd heartland of Guanajuato although will probably hold the governor. After 12 years, it looks like the "new" PRI will win nationally.
> PRD with Obregon, the very socialist mayor of Mexico, almost, in fact he claims he did, beat Calderon 6 years ago. Since then there has been a schism within the PRD with Obregon basically leading one half. If polls are to be believed, PRI will win by some 15 points. Other than Obregon, not sure how liberal/conservative fits as seems as if both PRI & PAN very similar.


Obregón? Do you mean AMLO? He isn't the mayor of Mexico City any more though he was when he ran for president the first time. The current mayor is Marcelo Ebrard, also of the PRD.


----------



## conklinwh

Sorry, meant to say the then mayor of Mexico.


----------



## joaquinx

conklinwh said:


> Sorry, meant to say the then mayor of Mexico.


AMLO has been retuning his guitar and is embracing a more centrist view. Although still leaning to the left, this widening of view has put him 4 point below Peña and, apparently, closing. There is under 30 days to the election and now we have a horse race with the two leaders running neck and neck.

Here is Veracruz, they vote PRI. Oil speaks.


----------



## conklinwh

If anybody believes that AMLO anything but left of left then I've got a bridge in NYC to sell them.


----------



## joaquinx

conklinwh said:


> If anybody believes that AMLO anything but left of left then I've got a bridge in NYC to sell them.


Everyone knows that you don't have a bridge to sell. I, personally, feel that AMLO is a bit on the right.


----------



## Isla Verde

joaquinx said:


> Everyone knows that you don't have a bridge to sell. I, personally, feel that AMLO is a bit on the right.


To the right of whom or what?


----------



## DNP

joaquinx said:


> Everyone knows that you don't have a bridge to sell. I, personally, feel that AMLO is a bit on the right.


We all have a tendency to view things through our own eyes. Im not sure left and right, or liberal and conservative is the way most Mexicans view their electoral choices, or the extent that, for most Mexicans, that carries much importance.

Sent from my iPod touch using ExpatForum


----------



## joaquinx

Isla Verde said:


> To the right of whom or what?


Whatever conklinwh thinks is left.


----------



## Isla Verde

joaquinx said:


> Whatever conklinwh thinks is left.


I wonder who that is. From what my Mexican friends tell me, whether left or right or somewhere else, what concerns them is how corrupt all the political parties here are, without exception.


----------



## FHBOY

*Baby Steps in Mexican Politics*



joaquinx said:


> Whatever conklinwh thinks is left.


Thank you so far but my question is about the basics and is more elementary. When defining the parties in an election is it possible to summarize what are the basic parts of their "platform"? Is there are clear cut way to say PRI stands for this on that whereas the other party says the other thing. Are there things they both agree on?

We NOBers are used to simple definitions and the 24-hour news cycle makes for clearly defined lines e.g.: the Democratic Party is in favor of a single payer medical system, the Republican party is not. I've taken a non-case for my example so I hope you will understand. Another generalization: the Republican party is the party of big business, the Democratic Party is more closely aligned to the working people.

Does on Mexican Party stand more economically with one group than another let's say?


----------



## Isla Verde

FHBOY said:


> Thank you so far but my question is about the basics and is more elementary. When defining the parties in an election is it possible to summarize what are the basic parts of their "platform"? Is there are clear cut way to say PRI stands for this on that whereas the other party says the other thing. Are there things they both agree on?
> 
> We NOBers are used to simple definitions and the 24-hour news cycle makes for clearly defined lines e.g.: the Democratic Party is in favor of a single payer medical system, the Republican party is not. I've taken a non-case for my example so I hope you will understand. Another generalization: the Republican party is the party of big business, the Democratic Party is more closely aligned to the working people.
> 
> Does on Mexican Party stand more economically with one group than another let's say?


The PAN is definitely pro-business and very sympathetic to the Catholic Church. The PRD is left-wing. It's hard to encapsulate what the PRI stands for in one sentence. Maybe another poster can help me out.


----------



## jasavak

The PRI is similar to the U.S. Democratic Party. They also have shared the similar success of the Democratic party of a near monopoly for the past 70 years. 
The PAN is slightly right of the PRI and is the strongest minority party .
The PRD has its roots from the old socialist PSUM party and now is formed by a collection of outcast's from other party’s. Their popularity is strong in Mexico city and a few other states.

The Partido Verde now wants the death penalty . I don't know how this will play with religious voters .


----------



## conklinwh

I spent some time going back into history to try to understand more about the PRI.
I found this interesting article-http://countrystudies.us/mexico/84.htm. It seems that through much of it's history the goal was to enhance the members of the party by integration and then co-opting various groups such as unions and military strongmen. Goal appears to not let anyone group be strong enough to impact the system. This started breaking up in an internal struggle between older line functionaries, politicos, and newer blood brought in to manage, tecnicos.


----------



## Longford

Some resource material (in the links) describing the histories of the three principal political parties in Mexico:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Action_Party_(Mexico)

Institutional Revolutionary Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Party of the Democratic Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Isla Verde

conklinwh said:


> I spent some time going back into history to try to understand more about the PRI.
> I found this interesting article-http://countrystudies.us/mexico/84.htm. It seems that through much of it's history the goal was to enhance the members of the party by integration and then co-opting various groups such as unions and military strongmen. Goal appears to not let anyone group be strong enough to impact the system. This started breaking up in an internal struggle between older line functionaries, politicos, and newer blood brought in to manage, tecnicos.


That's a good synopsis. For over 70 years, the PRI's policy of giving bits and pieces of privileges and perks to various interest groups within the population kept them in power till the electorate was finally fed-up enough to give the PAN a chance to run the country. Twice.


----------



## FHBOY

Thank you all, I've now got sources to look into and the time to do it. Boy, do I love this...


----------



## Isla Verde

FHBOY said:


> Thank you all, I've now got sources to look into and the time to do it. Boy, do I love this...


Have fun. I've lived in Mexico long enough that contemporary politics fills me more with despair than anything else. That's why I focus my studies on things like Mesoamerican art and archaeology and anything to do with the Colonia.


----------



## maesonna

For those 70-plus years, the PRI embraced basically the entire feasible political spectrum. The left-right battles took place inside the party. Because of this historical legacy, it isn’t really meaningful to characterize PRI on the left-right spectrum: it spans the whole range. When you ask, ”What does it stand for?” I think the accurate answer is ”power.”


----------



## circle110

jasavak said:


> The PRI is similar to the U.S. Democratic Party. They also have shared the similar success of the Democratic party of a near monopoly for the past 70 years.


Hmm. I was apparently mistaken in thinking that Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II were Republicans and have held the White House for 32 of the last 70 years.


----------



## HolyMole

maesonna said:


> ..............it isn’t really meaningful to characterize PRI on the left-right spectrum: it spans the whole range. When you ask, ”What does it stand for?” I think the accurate answer is ”power.”


Yes, power is the reason d'etre of every political party since creation.
In my ignorance, and with my usual left-wing bias, I had assumed that any party as corrupt and long-serving as the PRI was - at least until defeated by the PAN in 2000 - must, almost by definition, be conservative and bordering on a right-wing military dictatorship..
Imagine my surprise to learn that my host in Zihuatanejo, who had been the PRI mayor of Zihua in the mid-90's, had visited Bulgaria in the 70's as part of a fact-finding junket of young, up-and-coming Priistas looking for direction to the socialist countries of eastern Europe. He still insists that the PRI was a socialist party.
Kind of blurs the left/right picture, doesn't it?


----------



## mickisue1

Actually, it's 36.

So much for that near monopoly, huh?

And the majorities in either or both houses of Congress have traded back and forth, nearly equally, as well.


----------



## maesonna

Mole, what you wrote makes a good illustration of my point; thanks for posting.

In the decades when anything-but-PRI was an inconceivable outcome, there were right-wings and centrists within the party, too. They battled it out between themselves within the party. Sometimes one faction held the steering wheel of the party, sometimes another.

Of course you’re right to point out that every party seeks power. What I meant to say was that a global, wide-spectrum party like the PRI—unlike parties that can be identified as left-leaning or right-leaning—doesn’t run on the basis of a particular ideological bent; i.e. not “power to the worker and the peasant” vs “give the embattled middle class a break” vs “small government and support for business.” 

What‘s more, the splits between ideologies don’t run along the same lines as in the U.S. Maybe someone else better versed in Mexican politics can give some examples.


----------



## mickisue1

One fault that we from the US, especially, tend to be subject to is to assume that the way things are done in the US is the way they're done all over the world.

We have a representative democracy, as do many other countries, but that does not presuppose that all representative democracies are identical or, necessarily, that ours is even the best way to work with such a form of government.

It's worked fairly well for the past nearly 250 years, but it has its fault, being developed and tweaked over the decades by humans.

It will be interesting to see how the rest of the world deals with the next ten years, no?

Especially, both because so many of us live there, and for those who don't, yet, it's our nearest, most populous neighbor.

.......

Well, except for those of us who live in South Canada.


----------



## ptrichmondmike

*Hey! You guys!*



ptrichmondmike said:


> What with the presidential election just a month away, I realize that I know almost nothing about Mexican politics. I'm vaguely aware that historical opposition to the revolution and its anti-clerical aftermath led to the Cristero rebellion in the west-central regions...a long time ago. Which leads me to speculate on how different areas of Mexico tend to line up politically today.
> 
> Any insights into places/states that tend to be conservative or liberal? And how important a factor does religion continue to be?


I didn't mean to stir up such a storm of political opinions -- I just wanted to ask, "Would you call your part of Mexico liberal or conservative?"


----------



## Isla Verde

ptrichmondmike said:


> I didn't mean to stir up such a storm of political opinions -- I just wanted to ask, "Would you call your part of Mexico liberal or conservative?"


Thanks for stirring up the storm, even if that was not your intent. 

My part of Mexico, Mexico City, is quite liberal, especially for Mexico. Ever since the citizens of this city were allowed to elect their own government, the PRD has been in power.


----------



## Detailman

mickisue1 said:


> One fault that we from the US, especially, tend to be subject to is to assume that the way things are done in the US is the way they're done all over the world.
> 
> We have a representative democracy, as do many other countries, but that does not presuppose that all representative democracies are identical or, necessarily, that ours is even the best way to work with such a form of government.
> 
> It's worked fairly well for the past nearly 250 years, but it has its fault, being developed and tweaked over the decades by humans.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how the rest of the world deals with the next ten years, no?
> 
> Especially, both because so many of us live there, and for those who don't, yet, it's our nearest, most populous neighbor.
> 
> .......
> 
> *Well, except for those of us who live in South Canada.*


 
Good one Mickisue1!!


----------



## ptrichmondmike

Isla Verde said:


> Thanks for stirring up the storm, even if that was not your intent.
> 
> My part of Mexico, Mexico City, is quite liberal, especially for Mexico. Ever since the citizens of this city were allowed to elect their own government, the PRD has been in power.


THANK YOU Isla Verde! This is not so difficult to say....anyone else? Por favor?


----------



## jasavak

circle110 said:


> Hmm. I was apparently mistaken in thinking that Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II were Republicans and have held the White House for 32 of the last 70 years.




In addition to the majority of the presidencies, the Democrats have controlled the power of the Senate and Congress more than 80 % of the time during the past 50 years. . Republican party has been taking a back seat to the superior Democrats. It’s similar to the Vicente Fox situation.


----------



## jasavak

maesonna said:


> For those 70-plus years, the PRI embraced basically the entire feasible political spectrum. The left-right battles took place inside the party. Because of this historical legacy, it isn’t really meaningful to characterize PRI on the left-right spectrum: it spans the whole range. When you ask, ”What does it stand for?” I think the accurate answer is ”power.”




Earlier this year the PRI ran advertisements that claimed they were " Left" of the PAN and "Right of the PRD . 

In other words their porridge is just the right temperature .


----------



## conklinwh

Not sure what the hangup is but 36 of 70 is 50%+


----------



## mickisue1

conklinwh said:


> Not sure what the hangup is but 36 of 70 is 50%+


Exactly.

By my calculations, the power hasn't been held by either party an inordinate portion of the time.

And I say this as a staunch member of the party that has had held the presidency for less of it.


----------



## conklinwh

I'm amazed that anyone admits to being a staunch member of either party. The only thing that prevents total corruption is ineptitude. Long ago I decided to tap into my independent/liberatarian streak and to look at individuals to try to assess the lessor of two evils.


----------



## FHBOY

*Compromise = Progress*

Most people are neither "all" of one and "none" of the other. (Bell Curve Theory). That thinking is what has led to the stalemate in the government. 

I would posit that most of us see good and bad things in everything we do and then make our choices according to ourselves. Doctrinaire anything, and "orthodoxy" to anything, precludes the ability to compromise and compromise is one path to get things accomplished and to some extent limits free will. 

Boy this gets to be heavy. Whew! :ranger:

That is why there is chocolate chip cherry and mocha fudge ice cream, not to mention Neopolitan and Rocky Road - sometimes we need to take the best of something and combine it to make it even better, and extract the worst to make it less bad [sic]. 

Just my political/social/religious commentary for today. Peace!


----------



## Longford

It's natural for people to identify with the values and general (or specific) beliefs of various groups. Two groups we most often do this with are political and religious. But this identification doesn't mean we march in lock-step, arm-in-arm with everything such groups or leaders of groups proclaim or publish 100% of the time. We can accomplish good things, working as a group. I think it's sad to watch someone going through life alone and without affiliations. These are my thoughts on some of the discussion thus far.


----------



## HolyMole

ptrichmondmike said:


> I didn't mean to stir up such a storm of political opinions -- I just wanted to ask, "Would you call your part of Mexico liberal or conservative?"


 Sorry if other posters have already pointed this out, but there is a geographic pattern to Mexican voters' preferences that appears to correspond to over-all levels of prosperity.
Voters in the more-prosperous northern states are more likely to support the conservative PAN. Poorer states in the south - Oaxaca, Guerrero and Chiapas, for example- tend to support the leftist PRD.
As others have noted, the PRI appears to be more chameleon-like in their ability to bend whichever way the wind is blowing in order to win. Given the right-left stance of the PAN and PRD, it makes sense for the PRI to be seen to occupy the centre.


----------



## moonleit1011

It depends on whom you ask and where they live or are from. We live in Queretaro. Some think Josefina (PAN) will win because women will no longer be discounted. Others think she has ruined the education system in Mexico and it has fallen so far in world standards...hmmm. Other friends who are from the state of Mexico think that Pena Nieto (PRI) will win because he's good-looking, but not too intelligent, and some think he can be controlled by the old PRI system. But people in the state of Mexico think he has been a very good governor. Parts of Mexico's "Partido Verde" (Green Party) are supporting him. We have seen many of the young people (college age) and the indigenous people demonstrating/supporting AMLO. He continues to think the last election was rigged. Calderon (PAN) is deeply unpopular because of the war on drugs that has brought visible violence to the country. But he has also been able to continue to develop the economy in Mexico with foreign companies bringing their manufacturing sites and some R&D to Mexico. Mexico has progressed dramatically under PAN with a growing middle class, albeit fragile. It is a socialist democracy by its constitution. Radio ads are aimed at the people to stop depending on the government -- if they see a problem in their community that needs to be fixed, they should do it, not wait for the government. The education and health care systems are tiered. Our experience with Mexican friends is that they are very reluctant to talk politics. It seems to me that JoaquinX is right about their not looking at politics as conservative or liberal.


----------



## conklinwh

I'm surprised that it took so long for Josefina to be brought up. Look how much focus there was when Hillary ran in Presidential primary. Here we have a woman in the very macho country of Mexico actually being the nominee of the party in power. Wow! Now cynics will say that even with his success economically in this very tough time that Calderon's stance on the cartels has basically negated any option of a PAN successor so why not Josefina.
Personally, I think having a woman president in Mexico, and my limited knowledge says that she is very good, may be just what is needed in such an evolving society.


----------



## gudgrief

I have friends who are PRI, PAN and PRD.
I don't pretend to be any kind of expert on Mexican Politics, but here's what I take away from light conversations with them.
They all sing a tune close to the social democracy/labor parties of Europe.
PRI, PAN and PRD governors have supported foreign investment to a much greater degree than 25-30 years ago.
The younger voters are quite vocal about environmental and human rights issues.
There is a definite "Marxist" subtext to everything AMLO says or does.
Even so, the PRI seems to be the party of professionals (doctors, lawyers) and business executives.


----------



## conklinwh

gudgrief said:


> I have friends who are PRI, PAN and PRD.
> I don't pretend to be any kind of expert on Mexican Politics, but here's what I take away from light conversations with them.
> They all sing a tune close to the social democracy/labor parties of Europe.
> PRI, PAN and PRD governors have supported foreign investment to a much greater degree than 25-30 years ago.
> The younger voters are quite vocal about environmental and human rights issues.
> There is a definite "Marxist" subtext to everything AMLO says or does.
> Even so, the PRI seems to be the party of professionals (doctors, lawyers) and business executives.


I like this summary. I do think PAN a little more center right than center left. I agree with your point about professionals and PRI but not sure about business executives and PRI. PAN's heartland is the more industrial/business oriented areas of Mexico. I do agree that business executives had to and to some extent continue to give support to PRI to protect their interests even if they vote PAN. 
I think AMLO is somewhat a bad joke but he hits a number of populist chords so still a problem should he somehow win.


----------



## Isla Verde

conklinwh said:


> I think AMLO is somewhat a bad joke but he hits a number of populist chords so still a problem should he somehow win.


I'm not a fan of AMLO, or of any of the other candidates either, but a bad joke he is not. What sort of problems do you envision for Mexico if he were to win?


----------



## conklinwh

He seems to me to look a lot like the next coming of Chavez and with that a long list of issues.


----------



## 146028

conklinwh said:


> He seems to me to look a lot like the next coming of Chavez and with that a long list of issues.


This is just outrageous. Have you actually looked at AMLO's campaign?


----------



## 146028

Also, for people who want to keep up with information:


http://www.eleccion2012mexico.com/english

Instituto Federal Electoral > Partidos Políticos, Agrupaciones Políticas y su Fiscalización


----------



## conklinwh

I followed AMLO's shenanigans 6 years ago along with all the accompanying rhetoric. I don't believe politicians change their spots but most try.


----------



## cuylers5746

*Red State/ Blue State Mexico*



ptrichmondmike said:


> What with the presidential election just a month away, I realize that I know almost nothing about Mexican politics. I'm vaguely aware that historical opposition to the revolution and its anti-clerical aftermath led to the Cristero rebellion in the west-central regions...a long time ago. Which leads me to speculate on how different areas of Mexico tend to line up politically today.
> 
> Any insights into places/states that tend to be conservative or liberal? And how important a factor does religion continue to be?


Hi I can definitely tell you that Nayarit is, has been for a long time a Socialistic State. Nayarit is the state along the Pacific Ocean (not in Baja), north of Puerto Vallarta and ends about 75 miles below Mazatlan, which is in Sinaloa. On the east it borders with Jalisco.

It is a basic Agrearian State. I've been coming here for over 40 years. A sizable amount of WWII and Korean War Veterans retired here after those Wars. They're all pretty much died off now (probably with smiles on their face from living here?). It's basically a State of Anarchy, but with ]very nice, moral, friendly people[. The people are a lot of what makes it a really nice place to live I like the people so much better than the Hawaiins, and it's about the same lattitude and laid back attitudes. 

Politically, it pretty much votes for the PRI Party for Governor, etc. but some cities are run by the PAN Party and even one by the PRD. I think everyone know's how pristine clean the PRI Party run's things? Then ran the Federal Govt. that way for like 72 years.

Basically the State Government stays out of everyone's way, and the trade off is they quitely steal your tax money and grants for projects from Mexico City. For that, they don't even bother to give you a driver's test, no driver's book, and let everyone do their own thing. Oh, and in the past they've even subsidized single mother's without husbands, giving them $500.00 pesos per month. Where that money has come from is very suspect, since it has not shown up on any income side of the ledger. Think Cartel money? Over 60, (Tercer Edad), register and pay your Property Taxes (Predial) a year in advance and save 50%. Same goes with paying your Water Bill for the year if you're over 60. That sounds a little bit Socialistic wouldn't you say? But, I'll gladly take it!

Church and State boundaries blur too. Who's to complain when the Governor sends over the State Folkloric Ballet Troop, or Orchestra to play for free at your local Church Street Fiesta? Not, me. There seems to be quite a few nice things that you receive in this Socialist State for free. So, I'm definitely not complaining. It's very liberal minded with about every type of North of the Border Church imaginable here. Why? For over 50 years NOB Missionaries have been coming here working in the small towns and villages. You name, they got it.

Coruption in higher places in the Government is a given. Probably why very few factories have relocated here, (because of that reputation). Voting Fraud history is quite common here too.

It's just a different World down here. Leave your preconceived notions and beliefs at home and just enjoy all the Fiesta's and good times. Isn't that why you come to retire? Oh, and stay out of Mexican Politics. Anyway, it's way too complicated and fluctuates daily - so why even try?

Cuyler Salyer


----------



## 146028

I think someone has been watching too much Televisa/TV Azteca...



conklinwh said:


> I followed AMLO's shenanigans 6 years ago along with all the accompanying rhetoric. I don't believe politicians change their spots but most try.


Irrelevant. There is no comparison between the two.

1. Hugo Chavez comes from a very poor family, and he saw a lot of injustice since he was a kid, which is the origin of his extremists views towards social justice. He never went to university. Instead, he went to a military academy, and read works by Karl Marx during his spare time. 

2. During his military career, he secretly founded a revolutionary movement called *Movimiento Bolivariano Revolucionario 200*

3. Chavez spent time in prison for his activities against the government (mainly for trying to assassinate the Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez). A few years after, one of Chavez' associates, Rafael Caldera, became president and freed Chavez.

4. Chavez founded his own political party in 1997, the MVR (Movimiento V Republica), and he got elected in 1998.

5. Since then, Chavez has been able to remain in power because under their constitution, he is allowed to be reelected. It is very likely that he won his term by fraudulent means.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador comes from a medium class family, and doesn't feel like a victim the same way Chavez does. He studied political science and public administration at UNAM. This is why, AMLO takes a more educated approach towards his views in poverty. Chavez straight out hates rich people.
Sadly, the corrupt mexican television always makes it seem like he's a danger to the economy while in fact he wants to promote small business.

http://noticias.terra.com.ar/internacionales/candidato-izquierdista-mexico-se-desmarca-de-chavez,1400c9247b2c7310VgnVCM3000009acceb0aRCRD.html

Roughly translated from the first paragraph in link above:
_
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who has gained second place in the polls, distances himself from the socialism applied by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, and he said he would employ a fitting economic model._

2. AMLO has never been in the military, and he did not create his own personal army like Chavez did with the MBR-200

3. AMLO has never spent a day in prison, let alone try to murder someone.

4. AMLO did not create his own radical political party, like Chavez did with the MVR.

5. Under the mexican constitution, the president cannot be reelected, meaning that no matter who wins, they can't pull the same trick Chavez has been using for all these years.


If that's enough for you, maybe you should listen to this:






Pay attention around 4:30

Hugo Chavez says it himself, he has no connections to Lopez Obrador.

You think this only happens in Mexico? Every country in America Latina, whenever they have elections, they compare the opposition to Hugo Chavez.

In fact, in the very same video, Hugo Chavez explains that whenever he has the chance, he reminds leaders from other countries not to use him as a political tool during elections, like they're going to listen to him...


----------



## johnmex

The big question, for me at least, is where does AMLO get his money? Not only campaign funds, but the money he needs to support his ex-wife and kids plus his current wife and kids. They DON'T live humbly....


----------



## 146028

johnmex said:


> The big question, for me at least, is where does AMLO get his money? Not only campaign funds, but the money he needs to support his ex-wife and kids plus his current wife and kids. They DON'T live humbly....


hmmm, what are you talking about? I'll tell you how his ex-wife lives if you tell me where she lives.


Edit: if you don't feel like searching this up, or just don't have the time, highlight the sentence below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*his ex-wife is dead*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Besides, he's 58, his "kids" are not kids anymore, don't you think they have their own jobs?


----------



## conklinwh

Look, in my view at least anybody that chooses political unrest to try to stop the functioning of government and in fact threatens a "shadow government" as AMLO did 6 years ago is unqualified no matter what he says. I never said AMLO was Chavez. What I did say was that he reminded me more of Chavez than any other choice because of his actions and rhetoric six years ago.
Look, I don't have a horse in this race but as I said, the election of AMLO would concern me.


----------



## 146028

His "shadow government" was more symbolic than anything. When he took oath as president during 2006, it was a way to finish off the demonstrations in Mexico City, because almost everyone there strongly believed he was the legitimate president.

As for political unrest, he did not do anything illegal. He was trying to pressure IFE into having a recount of all votes, but he was not successful. The reason he (and millions of mexicans) wanted this was because there were a lot of suspicious things about the election.

You're telling me, that in a country with 100+ million people, there was a difference between Calderon and AMLO of 244,000 votes? That's barely half of a percent of all the people that voted. Not to mention that right before the campaign, all the polls by newspapers showed AMLO with a clear lead.

There was a ridiculous amount of votes that were nullified during the count, because "they were not marked properly;" 900,000 of those nullified votes were from states with strong support for AMLO.

Each ballot box was given certain certain number of boxes, and they were returned with a different number of votes. There is pictures/video on the internet for all of these.

Also, a lot of people were reporting that the software to add up votes wasn't responding at times, giving misleading figures that most people wouldn't think double checking. And it just so happens that one of Calderon's brother-in-law was one of the members responsible for creating IFE's software.

Would it really have been so bad if they recounted the votes? Specially since there were so many fishy circumstances during the election? Wouldn't the right thing to do be to double check just for the sake of being sure?

Yes, the demonstrations in Mexico City pissed a lot of people off, but they were peaceful. I never saw a news report of someone getting arrested for assault or damage of property, which is a lot to say for a demonstration with literally millions of people in the streets at the time. They had one goal, and they focused on it; they saw democracy being betrayed (once again) and they were demanding an answer, all of them, not just AMLO.

I would be more worried if the PRI won. Salinas de Gortari was probably one of the most corrupt president's in Mexico's history, and he just happens to have ties with Enrique Peña Nieto.


----------



## FHBOY

*Citizen Participation*

This voting question prompts a question:
In the USA, more people vote, proportionately, for a TV show than in the national election. Does anyone know what percentage of Mexicans vote in their national elections? Do they take (editorializing here) their democratic responsibilities more seriously than in the USA?

Since expats on the whole are not versed well enough in Spanish (generalization) to follow the daily news, can anyone say that Mexicans are as deeply involved, concerned or polarized in the media due to their politics? _[I know it will take me many, many years to be able to follow the news in Spanish, so this is why I ask.] _

And as a tangential question: What is the proportion of participation in that other North American country, Canada?

Why do I have the gut reaction that both other North American countries take the control of their government through the ballot more seriously than the USA?


----------



## Longford

Here's a link which will take you to a pretty thorough discussion/presentation of information regarding the 2006 Mexican Presidential Election:

Mexican general election, 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I recall the election and controversies pretty well, but not all of the exact details/elements. My belief, though, is that President Calderon won fairly and that, evidenced by his behavior following the election, the nation was fortunate that AMLO did not win ... and that it would be a step backwards and mistake for the nation to elect him President in 2012.


----------



## 146028

Longford said:


> Here's a link which will take you to a pretty thorough discussion/presentation of information regarding the 2006 Mexican Presidential Election:
> 
> Mexican general election, 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I recall the election and controversies pretty well, but not all of the exact details/elements. My belief, though, is that President Calderon won fairly and that, evidenced by his behavior following the election, the nation was fortunate that AMLO did not win ... and that it would be a step backwards and mistake for the nation to elect him President in 2012.


Seriously? Violence and crime have risen more than ever during his six-year period.

Do you think that the drug cartels just appeared out of thin air? They've always been here, people just didn't notice them as much until Calderon declared a "war on drugs."

Were there any public displays of corpses in highways before Calderon jumped the gun to put the army in the streets?


----------



## 146028

FHBOY said:


> This voting question prompts a question:
> In the USA, more people vote, proportionately, for a TV show than in the national election. Does anyone know what percentage of Mexicans vote in their national elections? Do they take (editorializing here) their democratic responsibilities more seriously than in the USA?
> 
> Since expats on the whole are not versed well enough in Spanish (generalization) to follow the daily news, can anyone say that Mexicans are as deeply involved, concerned or polarized in the media due to their politics? _[I know it will take me many, many years to be able to follow the news in Spanish, so this is why I ask.] _
> 
> And as a tangential question: What is the proportion of participation in that other North American country, Canada?
> 
> Why do I have the gut reaction that both other North American countries take the control of their government through the ballot more seriously than the USA?


Check out this link, just drop down the menu to find different countries:

Voter turnout data for United States (Parliamentary, Presidential) | Voter Turnout | International IDEA

Interestingly enough, Canada's turnout seems to be a bit higher, but their numbers are going down with time.


----------



## Longford

polynomial said:


> Seriously? Violence and crime have risen more than ever during his six-year period.
> 
> Do you think that the drug cartels just appeared out of thin air? They've always been here, people just didn't notice them as much until Calderon declared a "war on drugs."
> 
> Were there any public displays of corpses in highways before Calderon jumped the gun to put the army in the streets?


Which discussion are you commenting on? Certainly not the one we've been having thus far.


----------



## 146028

Longford said:


> Which discussion are you commenting on? Certainly not the one we've been having thus far.


I was commenting on Calderon's actions, which have been more damaging to Mexico than AMLO's would have been.

So to go back to the discussion, why would AMLO be a step back for Mexico? He certainly wasn't a danger to Mexico City when he was the head of state. If he was, why would so many still support him today?


----------



## Detailman

I notice that a number of threads have turned political. Each to his own. My own stance is completely neutral, but I thought I would just throw a few things out there. First an easy one!

Who said: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

Comments?


----------



## Longford

conklinwh said:


> He seems to me to look a lot like the next coming of Chavez and with that a long list of issues.


You may have read this article, peviously:

Citizen Feathers.: Is Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador another Chavez?


----------



## Longford

Detailman said:


> Who said: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."


Ronald Reagan


----------



## conklinwh

Longford said:


> You may have read this article, peviously:
> 
> Citizen Feathers.: Is Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador another Chavez?


I had not read this nor know all the details but from what I saw of his actions and rhetoric 6 years ago, it doesn't much surprise me. BTW, it didn't seem at the time that his "shadow government" plan was just for show and seems to have created a schism within PRD so doubt that they saw it as such as well.


----------



## Detailman

Longford said:


> Ronald Reagan


 
Correct. Thirty years ago he stated: *"For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children’s future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals."*
* 
*In the last thirty years what has changed except for a further deterioration and the problems becoming worldwide?:confused2:


----------



## Mr. P Mosh

As one of the only Mexicans here I can say I don't like either Peña Nieto nor López Obrador, but I certainly feel even Peña Nieto being as stupid as he's would be "better" than AMLO... I should be biased being from a _PANista_ state (Nuevo León), but out of the 4, the _menos peor_ option is Vázquez Mota.

Definitely PRD is a bit leftist and their power is mostly in the Southeastern states (they're sort of indigenist and populist) and Mexico City.

PRI represents the old "dinosaurs" in the power, and they're pretty much everywhere.

PAN is definitely the most "conservative" of all them and it's backed mostly by the bussiness men (mostly in the Bajio and Northern states).


----------



## 146028

Longford said:


> You may have read this article, peviously:
> 
> Citizen Feathers.: Is Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador another Chavez?


*Response to Longford's link PART 1*

This is not an article, it's a blog, and whoever wrote this isn't providing his sources. This blog is outdated, misleading and full of mistakes.

*1. *The first paragraph of this *blog* actually confirms what I said earlier. This doesn't just happen in Mexico, but in many countries. Comparing people to Hugo Chavez is a cheap tactic and has been overused.

*2.* What's the deal with all this talk about passports? As far as I know, AMLO has a passport.

This reminds me of the days certain individuals were harassing Obama into proving he had a birth certificate. It was uncalled for, and pointless. Besides, why would one piece of document change how he governs in anyway? Needless to say, he came out and gave them the "original long version" of his birth certificate, making Donald Trump look pretty silly.

To be honest, this passport issue that they speak of hasn't been talked about during the campaign. So I challenge you to find one piece of evidence that proves he doesn't have a passport. Not a blog from 2006 if it's not too much to ask.

*3.* This blog is racist.

_"Lopez Obrador and Chavez are both *provincial and parochial*. Lopez Obrador comes from the state of Tabasco..."_

Saying that AMLO is "provincial and parochial" is disrespectful and derogatory. It's implying that people born in certain parts of the country are somehow bound to be narrow minded, which is not the case. There is nothing wrong with being from Tabasco.

_"Chavez comes from the state of Barinas, where people walk around in alpargatas (crude sandals), eat meat on skews and are prone to recite *cheap romantic poetry* about the plains, the inclement sun and the white herons."_

Imagine you were born in Barinas. Would you like the above description?

*4.* After this, I reached I point where I couldn't take this seriously anymore.

_"*Lopez Obrador likes baseball and played baseball*." _

Seriously? what does it matter if he likes baseball? :clap2: Good job.

There is a good chance that both Osama Bin Laden (when he was alive)and the president of India both like cricket, because it's very popular in that region of the world. Does that count for jack? lol

*5.* 
_"Lopez Obrador has been a populist governor. Chavez has been a populist president"_

You know who else was populist? Gandhi. He was born in Gujarat, he doesn't come from a rich family. He sounds just like Chavez, right? 

*6.* 
_"They both prefer handouts to structural solutions to poverty since these take too much time"_

This is not true. Contrary to what the Mexican television might want you to believe, AMLO is in favor of building schools and creating jobs.

In fact, it is the PRI that believes in handouts, but *only* during elections time. They have been known to give gifts to people in poor communities in exchange of votes, I have seen this myself numerous times... oh the irony.

I really tried to find these in English but I couldn't, so sorry about that:

Las estufas de Peña Nieto: el PRI compra votos a plena luz del día | Pulso Ciudadano

Elecciones 2012 Interceptan perredistas camiones cargados de cemento en Edomex- Vanguardia





Periódico Correo - El diario del Estado de Guanajuato, México - Denuncian al PRI por comprar votos (avance)

La Jornada: Gobernadores del PRI operan ya para comprar votos, denuncia López Obrador

Demandarán al PRI y PAN por compra de votos

Prepara el tricolor compra masiva de votos, alerta el aspirante Luis Walton - La Jornada Guerrero






*7.* 
_"As Governor of the Federal District Lopez Obrador instituted a bonus of *700 pesos per month to all residents over 70 years old*. In Venezuela Hugo Chavez literally throws money at the poor, in an effort to keep them believing that "big daddy" is going to take care of them forever."_
I wonder what was going through this person's mind when he wrote this.

Mexico is the *14th* largest economy in the world.
List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In terms of GDP, Mexico City is the *8th* richest city in the world.
List of cities by GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the same country that has millions of people in extreme poverty, who struggle everyday just to find something to eat.

There is a lot of poor people in the country, but Mexico as a whole is not poor. AMLO doesn't believe in just taking the money from the rich and giving it to the poor, he believes in giving opportunities to people.

And when you look at the big picture, 700 pesos is not a lot of money. That's roughly 23 pesos a day. These people have worked long and hard hours all their lives in dead end jobs that don't have any kind of pension. Some of them have even been exploited and threatened to be fire if they don't accept a lower wage. What should happen to these people once they can't work anymore? What if they don't have families? What if they get sick?

And when you're 70, it's about time you stop working. Life expectancy in Mexico is lower than in Canada and the US, yet people tend to work for a longer period of their lives. It's not uncommon for kids in poor communities to start doing farm work since they are 12 or so, if they can't go to school they have to help around the family somehow.

*So long story short, giving these people 700 pesos a month should not be considered a burden in the economy in anyway, and comparing this to "Chavez throwing money at the poor" is rather ignorant and ludicrous.*


*8.* _"Lopez Obrador talks about political adversaries as los de arriba (the upper class), the rich, the exquisite"_

Oh God, where do I even begin with this one...

First of all, "los de arriba" doesn't mean rich(rico, ricos) or upper class(clase alta).
Los de arriba means the ones above, or the ones in control.

He's not talking about all politicians from the PAN or the PRI, he's talking about a specific group of politicians that have strong ties with the energy industry and the media.

This depends on how long you've been in Mexico, but have you ever heard of Imevisión (Instituto Mexicano de la Televisión)?
It was a organization that was own by the state, and Carlos Salinas de Gortari (mexican ex-president from the PRI) decided to make it private.

There is nothing horribly wrong in privatizing it, the problem is how filthy rich he made himself and his close friends, the ones he sold it to. Almost all of the money went into his pockets. Needless to say, Imevisión became what you know as TV Azteca, and for years it has acted as their particular means of propaganda.

He did the same thing with the mexican beaches. Under mexican law, you're not allow to sell land by the coastline, because is mexican patrimony. This is because tourism is such a big industry in the country. Salinas didn't care, and he went right ahead and sold hundreds to his business associates. After being president, he went right ahead and built hotels all over the place. If you've been to Cancun, chances are that you stayed at a hotel once owned by either him or Carlos Slim (richest man in the world).

He manipulated the information regarding the inflation rate. During his six-year term, inflation was "kept" around *7%*. The moment he left office, people found out a lot of mistakes/miscalculations and surprise surprise, turns out the inflation rate was actually *51.48%*. Sometimes I wonder, if the real inflation rate was known all along, would USA and Canada have negotiated and signed NAFTA with him in 1992? I guess we'll never know.

The PAN has done exactly the same with different politicians. Do you wanna know how much Televisa payed in taxes during Vicente Fox's 6-year term? The grand amount of zero pesos and zero cents.

Do you know what happened with the presidential debate? Televisa and TV Azteca decided to transmit a futbol game at the exact same time, greatly reducing the number of people who actually watched the debate. By the way, Enrique Peña Nieto lost this debate, he did not have an answer to any of AMLO's questions. Support for EPN dropped greatly after that day despite the media's efforts.

*So long story short, when he's talking about los de arriba, he really means Carlos Salinas de Gortari and all his political and media puppets.*

Besides, do you think he's the only one who does this? There have been politicians from the PAN that have called him "piojento" in public.


----------



## 146028

*Response to Longford's link PART 2*

*9.* More about what the writer says AMLO supposedly said.

_"Any popular protest against them, they will claim, has been organized by the extreme Right or by the CIA."_

AMLO has never said the CIA are after him, this is just outrageous. The only who has said this is Hugo Chavez.
And about the "extreme right" part, depends on what you define as extreme right, but Carlos Salinas de Gortari is definitely right-wing.

_"Both are prone to use racist terms against their adversaries: the white, the rich, the well to do, the pirruris (blond)."_

When AMLO talks about "los de arriba," he never refers to them as the white. Again, that's straight out a lie. The only one who has said this is Hugo Chavez.

*10.* Money.

_"Neither Lopez Obrador nor Chavez favor transparency in government."_

Every time he has been asked about how he spends his money, he has made pubic his statements on how he spends money and where he gets it from. That's more than you can say for Enrique Peña Nieto.

La Jornada: Cuenta pública de gestión de AMLO desmiente a Peña

"They use national money as if it were theirs, to achieve their own political objectives."

I don't really know how Chavez uses his money, but I can assure you AMLO doesn't do this. Out of all candidates, he's been the one to spend the least amount of money during the campaign.

A nadie he pedido, ni pediré, dinero para financiar la campaña: AMLO

*11.* Bribes.

_"Some of his collaborators have been filmed taking bribes."_

This is somewhat true; they were not his associates, but they worked for him. Two people were caught in video taking bribes. Do you know where they are now? In jail. AMLO himself wanted them there.

On the other hand, PRI politicians have been caught taking bribes numerous times. None of them are in jail, the PRI protects them too much.

*12.* _"Violence is no big deal in their eyes."_

AMLO has expressed many times that he's not in favour of all the violence going on in the country due to war on drugs. Now, Calderon in the other hand, he just put the army in the streets. A full out provocation. The PAN has said many times that if they win, they will build more military bases and press on their loosing battle with the drug cartels.

And really, like I mentioned before, you cannot compare this to Hugo Chavez' violence, as he led his own personal army killing innocent civilians. AMLO has no ties to the army.

*13.* ?
_
"They are both autocratic and *do not believe in checks and balances*. They share a messianic approach to the exercise of power and promote the *popular belief that they are put there by the divine providence* and constitute the champions of the poor and the dispossessed."_

This is just nonsense. AMLO has never said any of this. He doesn't believe he's God's chosen one or something :S

*14.* The church.
_
"Both have been close to the Catholic Church in their early years and have now become bitterly anti-clerical."
_
Really, AMLO is anti-clerical now? There was a rumor going around saying that AMLO made same-sex marriage legal in Mexico City. While AMLO did fight for gay/lesbian rights, it was actually Marcelo Ebrard (also from the PRD) who made same-sex legal in Mexico City in 2009. Still, people who never do research will believe anything they tell them, and in a country where homophobia is such a big issue, they will use anything they can to damage his image, even if it's not true. From then on, he was known as the anti-cleric candidate in some parts of the country.

_"I am a mystic, I am in the hands of my people."_

I would like to look at the original text to see if he actually said this and if this was translated properly.

_"They promote social and political polarization as a tool to consolidate their political power."_

This implies that AMLO is an extremists, which he's not. The writer of this blog doesn't provide any reasons to justify this statement.


*15.* _"In the early *1980's* Lopez Obrador became the organizer of PRI, the official political party, in his native Tabasco."_

This is true, but that's because PRD didn't exist until *1989*, he joined shortly after it was created.

_"He created a communist type of organization that was rejected by other local leaders, including Governor Enrique Gonzalez Pedrero, as "reflecting a Cuban type of organization." "We are not in Cuba," admonished Gonzalez, who went on to dismiss him."_

Seriously, what is the writer even referring to? This is why I wish the writer cited his sources.

Is he talking about "el éxodo por la democracia" ??? Because that was not a political party, that was a one time movement whose main goal was to force a corrupt politician to resign. This politician did resign, and the movement ceased to exist afterwards.

*16.* Mobilizations.

_"They both love and promote gigantic mass mobilizations."_

Other politicians before AMLO have invited people to gather at Zocalo. He's not the first one, and he's not the last one. I don't see what the problem is. Like I said before, these gatherings of people always focus in their objectvies, and they're never violent. Besides, having the right to protest is part of democracy.

Compare this last year's "we are the 99%" protests in the USA, they had good intentions, and it's good that they got together for a cause, but they lack more organization. It was somewhat hard to know what they actually wanted, and they managed to get pretty violent a lot of times. With many people arrested, a lot of businesss with windows broken, things like that.

Two years ago, here in Toronto, there was the G20 summit, and there was a lot of chaos. People wanted to protest against the G-20, which is fine, but there was so much violence. There were cop cars trashed and upside down, cops using pepper spray on students, people stealing electronics from Future Shop and Best Buy, and the list goes on. There is good and bad protests all over the world.

The point that I'm trying to make is that, some protests are good and peaceful, and some are not so much, but they can improve. Every time the PRD has had a march or a protest, it has always been peaceful; AMLO's goal has never been to incite division or violence.

Hugo Chavez though, he has literally put guns in people's hands, so really, there is no comparison between their "gigantic mass mobilizations."

*17.* just one book??? After all his writing? By a very dubious writer???

_"Enrique Krauze, the author of an excellent profile of Lopez Obrador ("El mesías tropical," June 2006, Letras Libres)"_

This is the only time the writer bothers to cite any kind of sources. So does this mean his blog is pretty much a summary of one source of information? I'm a bit disapointed.

Just after a quick research, I found out that Enrique Krauze is a writer for Televisa. Need I say more? XD

_"También es autor de las series documentales México siglo XX y México nuevo siglo, *transmitidas por la cadena Televisa*"_

Enrique Krauze - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

*18.* Einstein

In some ways they remind me of the definition of madness offered by Albert Einstein. Madness, he said, is "the incessant repetition of the same actions, always expecting a different result." 

What was the writer of this blog thinking? "Hmmmm, let's just throw a random quote from Einstein here" lol

*19.* Contradiction! The writer of this blog contradicts himself!

I just had to copy the whole thing. The whole blog is about ridiculous accusasions and then he throws this in.

"Lopez Obrador will not succeed in establishing an authoritarian regime in Mexico, *even if he wins* the election. *That country is too imbricate with the US economically, socially and politically, for this to happen*. It is too close to the US geographically and otherwise. In addition, *Mexico is already in a stage of economic and political evolution that will make such pretensions impossible*. The country is too big and already too decentralized."

So he's telling us, that even if AMLO does win, none of the ridiculous accusations could come true? What the hell is the risk then? What is the point of his blog???

*20.* Ending

The second last paragraph only talks about Hugo Chavez, he doesn't even mention anything about AMLO.

His last paragraph literally is "Hugo Rafael Lopez Obrador or Andres Manuel Chavez Frias? You take your pick. It does not really make much difference!"

A ridiculous statement to finish off a mediocre blog. I wouldn't have expected anything else.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides all of these, have you heard of all the protests by university students against Enrique Peña Nieto? That's because they all have one thing in common, they spend more time in their computers than watching TV, getting information from all kinds of sources, not just the bias mexican media. 
As of right now, there isn't any censorship in the internet by the mexican government, but who knows if that'll last forever.

Cheers


----------



## Longford

Someone's leadership qualities, and character, is often best tested and displayed at times of great challenge. How does someone handle the tough circumstances. The challenges of office and life. Lopez Obrador probably best displayed his true character during and immediately following his unsuccessful bid to become President in 2006. But before that he presided over what's been viewed as a hugely corrupt leadership team as president of the Mexico City district. The commentary included in the following two links offer some of what I remember of that time:

Lopez Obrador Los Angeles | The `madness' of Lopez Obrador - Los Angeles Times

Extreme measures: Lopez Obrador's suicidal behavior in Mexico City - Chicago Tribune

Mexico deserves better than the man I think many observers in Mexico (and viewing from afar) consider a meglomaniac.


----------



## 146028

Longford said:


> Someone's leadership qualities, and character, is often best tested and displayed at times of great challenge. How does someone handle the tough circumstances. The challenges of office and life. Lopez Obrador probably best displayed his true character during and immediately following his unsuccessful bid to become President in 2006. But before that he presided over what's been viewed as a hugely corrupt leadership team as president of the Mexico City district. The commentary included in the following two links offer some of what I remember of that time:
> 
> Lopez Obrador Los Angeles | The `madness' of Lopez Obrador - Los Angeles Times
> 
> Extreme measures: Lopez Obrador's suicidal behavior in Mexico City - Chicago Tribune
> 
> Mexico deserves better than the man I think many observers in Mexico (and viewing from afar) consider a meglomaniac.


So who do you think should win then? There isn't really much of a choice.

The PRI has not changed it's old corrupt ways. They have stolen too much money already and they're ready to steal more.

Josefina Vazquez Mota barely cares enough to attend political meetings.

When she was a diputada, which is a representative in federal legislature, she had a horrible attendance record. Out of 298 voting sessions, she was absent for at least 190. They created a whole website about her just for this.

¿Dónde andabas Josefina? | Faltas de la Dip. Vázquez Mota en la Cámara de Diputados

Donde andabas Josefina = Where were you Josefina

A group of people are trying to figure out where she actually was during those meetings.

Does this seem like the right attitude to you? Not even showing up to her job, but still getting paid for it?


----------



## FHBOY

polynomial said:


> Check out this link, just drop down the menu to find different countries:
> 
> Voter turnout data for United States (Parliamentary, Presidential) | Voter Turnout | International IDEA
> 
> Interestingly enough, Canada's turnout seems to be a bit higher, but their numbers are going down with time.


Thank you for the link - the USA figures are not a dismal as I thought - and on par with the rest of North America.

As to the way this thread has turned political - it really started that way and we should have expected it. I find most of the comments, if you will, non-advocacy oriented and more educational than anything. I object to partisan political discussion on this Forum, but see nothing that is objectionable. 

Maybe it is because I have no dog in this hunt and am just learning.


----------



## jasavak

Longford said:


> Ronald Reagan



"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".

JFK

Yup , Kennedy and Reagan were the last good presidents we had in the U.S. 

They got worse with Carter , Clinton , Bush , more Bush and absolutely ridiculous with Obama.


----------



## mickisue1

jasavak said:


> "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".
> 
> JFK
> 
> Yup , Kennedy and Reagan were the last good presidents we had in the U.S.
> 
> They got worse with Carter , Clinton , Bush , more Bush and absolutely ridiculous with Obama.


I don't know a polite way to say this...but comparing JFK and Reagan is an insult to JFK.

There are enough political POVs in this forum that making blanket statements like the above only serves to annoy people.

If I were a conservative Republican, I would ask you to get off my side; I don't need people who are deliberately antagonistic promoting my beliefs.

Comments like the above are the right wing version of my mother-in-law, who is outrageously rude to Republicans. 

Because she IS my mother in law, I can't ask her to get off my side. But, BOY! do I think it.


----------



## FHBOY

:focus: Please can we get back to Mexican politics?

_"For USA politics, please press 2" _- OK?


----------



## 146028

There are very few Mexican presidents that I would call "good presidents", and they're all dead now. 

I don't know enough about US politics, but I feel like almost any American president has been better than any Mexican president, simply because of corruption. At least they don't bluntly steal from the people.

I can't stress enough how much I dislike the Salinas de Gortari family.

Carlos Salinas de Gortari created the mess that led to the economy disaster of 1994. 

Even from within his own political party, the candidate for the presidency Luis Donaldo Colosio didn't agree with the mess Carlos did, and he was taken cared of. Colosio was assassinated in 1994, and Carlos fled to Ireland with his wife and kids. The lead investigator of the murder was also killed for mysterious reasons. He came back in 2004 when Vicente Fox told him it was safe enough to return. In 2006, during his first night he went to Los Pinos, Felipe Calderon had dinner with Carlos Salinas. They claim they didn't talk about politics.

Raúl Salinas de Gortari is a convicted fellon, he has been accused numerous times of money laundering. His wife and brother-in-law were arrested in Geneva, Switzerland for trying to withdraw 84 million USD. Raul has had hundreds of millions in assets frozen, I honestly can't tell you the exact number because no one knows for sure, but it is a ridiculous amount of money.

Going back to 2004, when Carlos came back to Mexico, the drug cartels were eager to ressume negotiations with him and Enrique Salinas de Gortari Enrique called a lot of deals off, angering drug cartels, and Enrique was killed that same year. One of the leading investigators, again, mysteriously disappeared.

To compensate the cartels, Carlos decided to free el chapo(Joaquín Guzmán Loera) from federal maximum security a few months later. Of course they had to make it look like a prison break.

By every definition of the word, Los Salinas are a criminal family, yet Carlos can still walk a free man. Not only that, but he has connections with Enrique Peña Nieto, the current candidate. They still have dinners in a regular basis.

Google Image Result for http://jenarovillamil.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/salinaspenanieto.jpg
Google Image Result for http://pulsociudadano.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/398715_210776329005072_201709096578462_436553_502103129_n.jpeg

http://www.eleccion2012mexico.com/noticias/noticia297

Even in the elections portal, he's listed as part of his team:

http://www.eleccion2012mexico.com/candidatos/enrique-pena-nieto/equipo/carlos-salinas-de-gortari-i-equipo-enrique-pena-nieto

Also, turns out that Enrique Peña Nieto's wife is a very famous Televisa actress. Is that a coincidence? I don't think so. 
Angélica Rivera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He doesn't only have ties with the PRI, but with some PAN politicians as well.

This man is the real danger for Mexico. He has sociopathic tendencies. He enjoy's being the invisible man that no one knows about, yet pulling all the strings. 

He was caught once saying by telephone that he enjoy's Mexico's ignorance, because ignorant people are easier to control.

This brings me back to my original point. If Obama, or any American candidate had the slightest connection to a criminal family, would he have any serious chance of getting reelected? NOT AT ALL. All kinds of media would make it known to the public. In Mexico, I have never seen a commercial that linked Salinas with EPN, NOT ONCE.

Disclaimer: If you check the wikipedia links that I posted, they don't mention everything I said. That's because the spanish version and the english version of the same articles don't have the same stuff for some reason, or they are just incomplete. One example is the assessination of Colosio which is in the spanish version and not the english one. They main ideas about fraud and corruption are constant though. Furthermore, some of the information I've collected comes from wikileaks and similar websites, and I really don't think I should post those links. I got banned from a forum before for posting similar links, so I'd rather not risk it again. Thanks for reading though.


----------



## ptrichmondmike

jasavak said:


> The PRI is similar to the U.S. Democratic Party. They also have shared the similar success of the Democratic party of a *near monopoly* for the past 70 years.


Your statement fails to account for the fact that, for 36 of those past 70 years, the GOP has held the Presidency, by FAR the most powerful office in the land. And that all those GOP presidents got plenty of legislation through the Democratic congresses, since Democrats are almost always willing to compromise....unlike their latter-day opponents. And -- like the modern GOP, the PRI was monolithic -- it was their way or the highway.


----------



## conklinwh

I want to respect that this a Mexican political thread but I can't abide by the side shots without one response so this my one and only US response. I will then stifle myself no matter how one sided the responses will be. 
1st, you talk about media coverage. There has never been an attempt to vet our present President by any mainstream media. We are now stuck with the most secretive group and the most distain for political discourse of any administration. Look I lived in Chicago and do understand the Chicago way. Here we have a President that openly deals with an avowed domestic terrorist and the media says nothing. Here is a president that joined the far left New Party in 1996 in order to get their support for his run as state senator and the media says nothing. For space purposes, I won't deal with the other dozen or more examples.
I do need also go back to the Reagan/JFK comment. I think that JFK had significant promise in spite of his personal life but he actually did very little in 3 years other than the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis and the latter from Schlessinger's book(he was part of the kitchen cabinet) was as much luck in terms of the various cable timings as anything.
I certainly don't begrudge JFK any of the adoration but most of it is based on potential and a life cut tragically short versus real accomplishments.


----------



## tepetapan

"We are now stuck with the most secretive group and the most distain for political discourse of any administration"
Sorry guy but I think that line was used with Bush2. In fact, I am sure of it. One of the best parts of living full time in Mexico is all that up there does not really matter if you live here full time. Learning a whole new set of rules is required here in Mexico.. I too spent years in the Chicago area and love politics like some love football or baseball. I call politics the most fun non contact (mostly) sport of all. New players every year, teams and some good and dumb plays thoughout the year. Best of all the season has no season, I can follow along everyday of the year. 
Back to politics in Mexico.


----------



## Longford

conklinwh said:


> I want to respect that this a Mexican political thread but I can't abide by the side shots without one response so this my one and only US response. I will then stifle myself no matter how one sided the responses will be.
> 1st, you talk about media coverage. There has never been an attempt to vet our present President by any mainstream media. We are now stuck with the most secretive group and the most distain for political discourse of any administration. Look I lived in Chicago and do understand the Chicago way. Here we have a President that openly deals with an avowed domestic terrorist and the media says nothing. Here is a president that joined the far left New Party in 1996 in order to get their support for his run as state senator and the media says nothing. For space purposes, I won't deal with the other dozen or more examples.
> I do need also go back to the Reagan/JFK comment. I think that JFK had significant promise in spite of his personal life but he actually did very little in 3 years other than the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis and the latter from Schlessinger's book(he was part of the kitchen cabinet) was as much luck in terms of the various cable timings as anything.
> I certainly don't begrudge JFK any of the adoration but most of it is based on potential and a life cut tragically short versus real accomplishments.


I think it's a mistake to delve off-topic (I.e., USA politics) but if that's where you're intent on moving this thread the discussion will become nasty. I encourage you to stay on topic. Thanks.


----------



## jasavak

mickisue1 said:


> I don't know a polite way to say this...but comparing JFK and Reagan is an insult to JFK.
> 
> There are enough political POVs in this forum that making blanket statements like the above only serves to annoy people.
> 
> If I were a conservative Republican, I would ask you to get off my side; I don't need people who are deliberately antagonistic promoting my beliefs.
> 
> Comments like the above are the right wing version of my mother-in-law, who is outrageously rude to Republicans.
> 
> Because she IS my mother in law, I can't ask her to get off my side. But, BOY! do I think it.



That's the problem with blind partisanship . It has caused people to close their minds . Straight ticket voting has dumbed down the masses.


----------



## jasavak

ptrichmondmike said:


> Your statement fails to account for the fact that, for 36 of those past 70 years, the GOP has held the Presidency, by FAR the most powerful office in the land. And that all those GOP presidents got plenty of legislation through the Democratic congresses, since Democrats are almost always willing to compromise....unlike their latter-day opponents. And -- like the modern GOP, the PRI was monolithic -- it was their way or the highway.



I didn't mention 70 years of Democratic control . The 70 years was used as the example of the dominance of the PRI . However, the Dem’s have controlled the House and Senate more than 80% of the time during the past 50 years . 
My comparison shows how both parties represent the dominant establishment party’s of their countries.


----------



## FHBOY

jasavak said:


> I didn't mention 70 years of Democratic control . The 70 years was used as the example of the dominance of the PRI . However, the Dem’s have controlled the House and Senate more than 80% of the time during the past 50 years .
> My comparison shows how both parties represent the dominant establishment party’s of their countries.


Jas, again, we can appreciate your POV (and are aware of it) on USA politics but this is/was a discussion on politics of *Mexico*. Please, you needn't get in the last word on USA politics, let's bet back to the topic. Thanks.

:focus:


----------



## jasavak

FHBOY said:


> Jas, again, we can appreciate your POV (and are aware of it) on USA politics but this is/was a discussion on politics of *Mexico*. Please, you needn't get in the last word on USA politics, let's bet back to the topic. Thanks.
> 
> :focus:



My response was directly related to the topic. Remember the title reads :“Red State , Blue State in Mexico “ 
The terms “Red State” and “Blue State” refer to the division of political power in the U.S. We are comparing this division of power to how it relates in Mexico.


----------



## FHBOY

jasavak said:


> My response was directly related to the topic. Remember the title reads :“Red State , Blue State in Mexico “
> The terms “Red State” and “Blue State” refer to the division of political power in the U.S. We are comparing this division of power to how it relates in Mexico.


Jas - I can see your point and in the literal sense, you are correct. But the intent of the thread seems for us to try and define the Mexican political system in its sum. The views of yours that I mentioned, as I said are valid but seem more suited to a debate on USA politics: who did what, when could this have happened, who was responsible in the USA. It is a debate, I feel, for another Forum, and not one on Mexico. 

Using the USA Red/Blue paradigm, could be useful to try understanding Mexican politics (maybe), but as we have learned so far, it is not how they define their political system.

So, while we all may have opposing views on the USA political scene, let's not espouse them here but use, if we can, the paradigm as a model - if it applies - as a point of reference only.


----------



## conklinwh

The following link is somewhat gringoesque but is an interesting view of what new president up against.
www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/opinion/is-mexico-turning-back-or-moving-on.html?_r=3


----------



## conklinwh

This article also very good about the economic challenges that need be addressed by the new President. Note the comment that without any majority in congress, Calderon basically had no chance to get anything through.
/www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-28/mexico-s-new-president-needs-to-bust-its-business-cartels.html


----------



## FHBOY

Thanks for the links, it makes it a bit clearer for me at least to understand. From what it says, it is the near or total monopolies in major sectors has held back progress in Mexico, but from a visitors standpoint I can't see it. The idea that if PRI got back into power, somehow the breaking of these monopolies would be a benefit to Mexicans and prices would get even lower (?) than they are now?

Both articles seem pretty tough on the PRN, but haven't they been in power for 13 years, and as a visitor (and future resident) I can't see what has been so bad about their governance.

Does this idea, breaking up the monopolies, in some way parallel the trickle down theory we know so well, that seems (non-political commentary-not debating) in general not to have worked too well in the USA? With a government that appears not as well organized with regulation as the USA, would bringing more players into the marketplace really help economically, or work more to the benefit of the corporations and their shareholders rather than the citizenry?

I can understand the PEMEX thing. Even in the USA, within markets there is hardly any competition in consumer pricing, so regional pricing stays on par. But in telecommunication, would the PRI maintain the communication standards so it does not become like mobile was here in the USA - a free market to choose formats and such, which led (like the old VHS/Beta) thing to a retardation of growth and innovation as compared to Europe and Japan, where all manufacturers knew which "platform" they had to use and then worked to innovate within it.

And finally, to the expat level, does anyone see this election affecting the expat community directly in day-to-day living? Is there a projection or opinion on how the election will affect housing, health care, necessities and lastly the way the drug wars interface with daily life.


----------



## 146028

conklinwh said:


> This article also very good about the economic challenges that need be addressed by the new President. Note the comment that without any majority in congress, Calderon basically had no chance to get anything through.
> Mexico?s New President Needs to Bust Its Business Cartels - Bloomberg


You should also read the comments below that post:

"There will be no true competition in business unless there is true competition in politics; the PRI is not a pro-democracy party, so don't expect any big changes in the economic arena, no sutainable ones, though. Just like PRI managed a perfect dictatorship under a phony democracy, so will it manage oligopolies in a supposedly free market."

"I would respectfully point out that modernizing and stabilizing Pemex has been a cornerstone of the AMLO economic plan since before the 2006 elections. In particular, moving Pemex from current gross inefficiency to optimum production is a necessity to fund development and infrastructural renewal in the AMLO plan."

"AMLO, the center-left candidate, has repeatedly taken Televisa to task for its dominance in the media. Televisa not only has
70% of the market for broadcast TV, but also 55% of the PayTV market. 
And if any candidate dares to argue for a capital gains or dividend tax
(Mexico has neither), the anchors and reporters will immediately brand
that person a "Marxista"; and far too many Mexicans blindly accept
everything Televisa's transmits. Through its embrace of reactionary
economic policies, Televisa has contributed more to Mexico's mediocrity
over the last three decades than has any other institution."

"Good post. Televisa/TV Azteca have caused huge damage to Mexico's economy. Similar to what happens in the U.S., the commercial Mexican media destroy a lot of human capital and box politicians into small policy corners. Unlike the U.S., however, Mexico isn't rich in agricultural land and cheap transportation.

To the editors of Bloomberg, what is your evidence that Mexico's dysfunctional teachers' union causes Mexico's poor educational outcomes?"


----------



## mickisue1

polynomial said:


> To the editors of Bloomberg, what is your evidence that Mexico's dysfunctional teachers' union causes Mexico's poor educational outcomes?"


You have hit the nail on the head.

Bloomberg is breathtaking in their ability to draw sweeping conclusions (that always reflect their political views) out of their...


hats.


----------



## johnmex

mickisue1 said:


> You have hit the nail on the head.
> 
> Bloomberg is breathtaking in their ability to draw sweeping conclusions (that always reflect their political views) out of their...
> 
> hats.


Ask the kids in Michoacan how much they actually learned this school year....


----------



## edgeee

johnmex said:


> Ask the kids in Michoacan how much they actually learned this school year....


i could interpret that many ways, could you clarify your point?


----------



## 146028

mickisue1 said:


> You have hit the nail on the head.
> 
> Bloomberg is breathtaking in their ability to draw sweeping conclusions (that always reflect their political views) out of their...
> 
> hats.


Hmm, I'm not the one who wrote that, I just copied comments from the link the other user posted, but I agree with you.

Also, it turns out that after all, the PRI is coming back :/
Mexico’s old rulers claim presidential election victory, ending 12 years in opposition | News | National Post

Edit: it also looks like there won't be a majority, like some people thought.


----------



## 146028

Also, if you check this link, you can look at the count of votes:

PREP - Resultados preliminares a nivel nacional

So far, there is 969,906 "votos nulos." Those are votes that just get thrown out because, apparently, they were not marked properly. This number of votos nulos is already higher than the one in 2006... does that seem right to any of you?


----------



## FHBOY

OK - now I am back to a question from one of my posts. What are, and it is very early to tell, the ramifications of these results to present and future expats? Realizing that it just happened, all we can post is conjecture at this point. hopefully more time will give more knowledge and we can expound and expand on it.

BTW - and personally - I do not intend to get involved in Mexican politics, I paid my dues in US politics and am going to Mexico to just "live simply, so that others may simply live." Peace.


----------



## Longford

FHBOY said:


> OK - now I am back to a question from one of my posts. What are, and it is very early to tell, the ramifications of these results to present and future expats? Realizing that it just happened, all we can post is conjecture at this point. hopefully more time will give more knowledge and we can expound and expand on it.
> 
> BTW - and personally - I do not intend to get involved in Mexican politics, I paid my dues in US politics and am going to Mexico to just "live simply, so that others may simply live." Peace.


The election of a new President and the turning-over of the Federal government to a different political party after the one which now controls it has been in office 12 years will affect all expats in one way or another - mostly when it comes to the application/enforcement of federal regulations and laws and in particular, in some areas of the country ... how the war is handled. Equally, and sometimes more importantly ... we should look to the balance of power in the Mexican Congress because without a supportive Congress the new President will not be able to fulfill his proposals. President Calderon and the PAN lacked sufficient support in Congress for much of what he wanted to accomplish these past 6 years.

As important as the Presidency of Mexico is, for most expats, who controls the state government and legislatures and local governments is also important to pay attention to. All politics is local and it's at the local level we're most impacted. I don't think it's possible to be disinterested in politics, no matter where we live.


----------



## TundraGreen

polynomial said:


> Also, if you check this link, you can look at the count of votes:
> 
> PREP - Resultados preliminares a nivel nacional
> 
> So far, there is 969,906 "votos nulos." Those are votes that just get thrown out because, apparently, they were not marked properly. This number of votos nulos is already higher than the one in 2006... does that seem right to any of you?


That link also contains a link to download all of the election results. You can see the actual vote counts for each individual casilla (Ballot box) in every estado, distrito, and seccion. Pretty impressive.


----------



## Longford

polynomial said:


> Also, if you check this link, you can look at the count of votes:
> 
> PREP - Resultados preliminares a nivel nacional
> 
> So far, there is 969,906 "votos nulos." Those are votes that just get thrown out because, apparently, they were not marked properly. This number of votos nulos is already higher than the one in 2006... does that seem right to any of you?


The campaigns of the unsuccessful candidates will carefully look at the "votos nulos" and in some instances suggest a verification/examination of them. For the sake of discussion, and if someone assumed that those approx. 970,000 votes should have gone to the PRD candidate AMLO, and election authorities reversed the "nulos" and gave AMLO all of those nullified ballots ... he'd still be more than 1,000,000 votes shy of victory. The "votos nulos" probably play a more important part in determining the winner of local and congressional elections than ones at the Presidential election this year. Just my thoughts on the matter. Thus far, the tallies disclose that approx. 63% of eligible voters participated.


----------



## Longford

An additional note to my comments appearing at #93, above:

Almost 1/2 of the states (14) plus the Federal Distsrict elected Governors, state legislatures and municipio presidents yesterday. For most people it's the state and local elections which are most important when it comes to the political/governmental impact on their everyday lives.


----------



## Isla Verde

FHBOY said:


> BTW - and personally - I do not intend to get involved in Mexican politics, I paid my dues in US politics and am going to Mexico to just "live simply, so that others may simply live." Peace.


As an expat in Mexico. you cannot legally get involved in local politics.


----------



## FHBOY

Isla Verde said:


> As an expat in Mexico. you cannot legally get involved in local politics.


Naturally, but what I meant was more "invested" in politics - you know. 
It seems to be a part of my life I can leave behind and not miss too much.
Unless engaging in political discussions is more civil. 

I do not want another USA style "political life" - too much shouting, not enough listening; too much "my way or the highway" not enough compromise for the common good.


----------



## Longford

Isla Verde said:


> As an expat in Mexico. you cannot legally get involved in local politics.


Yes, and No. I think that's the "involvement" answer. Like many other things, "It depends." There's a fine, often disappearing line ... depending upon the involvement.

Case in point: Expats in both the Lakeside communities at Lake Chapala and in San Miguel de Allende have been vocal, active in local meetings ... particularly so regarding crime. While not capital "P" politics such involvement/activity borders on it. Authorities will most likely take a dim view of an expat posting signs or a billboard on their property advocating the election of one particular candidate over another and an expat's assertive and vocal participation supporting or opposing a, as a further example, municpio President or Governor. How federal government responds to expat involvement depends on the issue, the timing and the visibility ... and who may complain about it.

There's no prohibition on discussing politics and expressing an opinion, that I know of. Such are probably best done with persons the expat has already established a friendship/relationship with as compared to a complete stranger, however. But there can be environments in which there are opinions expressed and sought ... from Mexicans and expats alike. Cultural and language differences can ripen the chances of hurt feelings and misunderstandings. I try to test the waters before diving in, but I frequently engage in political discussions with the wide range of Mexicans.



FHBOY said:


> I do not want another USA style "political life" - too much shouting, not enough listening; too much "my way or the highway" not enough compromise for the common good.


I doubt politics differs much around the globe. I think a democracy is a relatively new concept in Mexico, particularly so with political organizations. If you're not pleased with the "political life" in the USA I suspect you'll be very unhappy with what you observe in Mexico ... particularly so when you have nothing to say about what happens and no input. It can be frustrating and unpleasant ... depending on one's personality. These have been my observations/experiences.


----------



## Isla Verde

Longford said:


> Yes, and No. I think that's the "involvement" answer. Like many other things, "It depends." There's a fine, often disappearing line ... depending upon the involvement.
> 
> Case in point: Expats in both the Lakeside communities at Lake Chapala and in San Miguel de Allende have been vocal, active in local meetings ... particularly so regarding crime. While not capital "P" politics such involvement/activity borders on it. Authorities will most likely dame a dim view of an expat posting signs or a billboard on their property advocating the election of one particular candidate over another and an expat's assertive and vocal participation supporting or opposing a, as a further example, municpio President or Governor. How federal government responds to expat involvement depends on the issue, the timing and the visibility ... and who may complain about it.
> 
> There's no prohibition on discussing politics and expressing an opinion, that I know of. Such are probably best done with persons the expat has already established a friendship/relationship with as compared to a complete stranger, however. But there can be environments in which there are opinions expressed and sought ... from Mexicans and expats alike. Cultural and language differences can ripen the chances of hurt feelings and misunderstandings. I try to test the waters before diving in, but I frequently engage in political discussions with the wide range of Mexicans.


By "involved" I meant join a political party, go to rallies and demonstrations, work on a campaign for a particular candidate, things like that. I could certainly go to a neighborhood political meeting and listen to what was going on, but I wouldn't feel comfortable getting up and making comments. Even if I lived in a place like Lakeside or San Miguel, where there are many more expats than the few in my neighborhood, I still wouldn't feel it were my place to "get involved". 

As far as talking about politics with my Mexican friends, I might begin a conversation by asking what they thought about an issue or who they were going to vote for in an election, but I prefer to listen rather than to express any strong opinions I might have about local or national politics.


----------



## FHBOY

"I doubt politics differs much around the globe. I think a democracy is a relatively new concept in Mexico, particularly so with political organizations. If you're not pleased with the "political life" in the USA I suspect you'll be very unhappy with what you observe in Mexico ... particularly so when you have nothing to say about what happens and no input. It can be frustrating and unpleasant ... depending on one's personality. These have been my observations/experiences."[/QUOTE]

Totally agree, the trouble is we know too much about out native country's politics to be able to ignore it. I suspect it will be much easier to ignore it (bury your head in the sand if you will) when you don't comprehend it that well, and that your life does not get as directly affected as you can choose not to get involved, since you are still and "outsider". This status affords you the luxury of viewing the politics as an academic subject/discussion - giving at least one degree of separation - therefore easier to not be involved.


----------



## Longford

Isla Verde said:


> Even if I lived in a place like Lakeside or San Miguel, where there are many more expats than the few in my neighborhood, I still wouldn't feel it were my place to "get involved".


The best posture for most if not all expats in Mexico to assume is not to do or say too much that will cause others to focus they're attention on you and to stay below the radar of persons in positions of governmental and policing authority. You become an easy "mark" when you stand-out and someone who you've knowingly or un-knowingly offended may develop a grudge which results in your being reported to the authorities for wrongdoing ($$$) ... a charge you're innocent of.


----------



## FHBOY

Longford said:


> The best posture for most if not all expats in Mexico to assume is not to do or say too much that will cause others to focus they're attention on you and to stay below the radar of persons in positions of governmental and policing authority. You become an easy "mark" when you stand-out and someone who you've knowingly or un-knowingly offended may develop a grudge which results in your being reported to the authorities for wrongdoing ($$$) ... a charge you're innocent of.


True that. During WWII the GI's were given a small foolscap booklet on how to behave when they arrived in England, I have a copy. It says exactly the same thing but says (paraphrase): _ the British have the option of criticizing their government and royalty in public, if you do so it would not be greeted with anything other than scorn, you are in their country. _

Good advice then, good advice now.


----------



## tepetapan

Here is an article from cnn web page. It covers my feelings about politics in Mexico about 100%. 
By Robert A. Pastor, Special to CNN
The main question asked about the Mexican presidential elections on July 1 is whether victory by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) means that Mexico will return to its authoritarian past.
The answer is simple: The PRI has changed because Mexico has changed. For more than six decades, the PRI manipulated elections and ruled Mexico in a quasi-authoritarian system. However, between 1988 until 2000, two Mexican presidents – Carlos Salinas de Gortari and Ernesto Zedillo – gradually responded to internal and external pressures and opened the economy and the political system.
I have observed elections in Mexico since 1986 and witnessed the transformation of the election system from the worst to the best in the Americas. The projected victory by PRI candidate Enrique Peña Nieto will not turn Mexico backwards. Mexicans have chosen democracy, and after two terms under PAN presidents, they are voting for change.
Indeed, in this year when the United States is engaged in a ferocious campaign for the presidency, the question that ought to be asked is: How does the U.S. electoral system compare to Mexico's? I undertook a comprehensive study of the electoral systems in North America, and the good news is that the United States came in third. The bad news is that there are only three countries in North America.
In fact, the Mexican electoral system is much fairer, professional, independent and non-partisan than the U.S. system on all eight criteria for assessing election administration:
1. Nonpartisan election administration. Mexico's Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) is a nonpartisan, professional institution in which political party representatives have access but no control. IFE manages a nation-wide system with uniform rules. In contrast, the United States has 13,000 counties and municipalities that manage our national elections with different rules and less capacity. Partisan officials generally control the process, and in a close election, the opposition is often suspicious of the result.
Follow the Mexican election coverage in Spanish at CNNMéxico.com
2. Registration and identification of voters. IFE actively registers about 95% of 77 million eligible voters and gives each a biometric, photo ID card, which Mexicans use as a primary identification. The registration list is audited regularly, and the photos of the voters are on the list in each polling site.
In contrast, U.S. states and communities passively register about 55% of eligible voters, and the lists are flawed with many duplicates and errors, especially between states and counties. Each state has different rules, and in states where Republicans have a majority, their focus on preventing electoral fraud has led them to restrict registration and require IDs, while Democrats are more concerned about voters' access and believe the Republican ID laws are aimed to suppress voter turnout from poor people or minorities. The truth is that we ought to adopt Mexico's national, biometric ID system. That would eliminate duplicates and simplify the registration and voting process.
Related: Voter ID laws: Discrimination or 'no big deal'?
3. Poll workers. Mexico views the conduct of elections like Americans view jury duty – a civic obligation – and they recruit on a random basis a large number of people from each district. They are well-trained in every stage of the electoral process. When I asked a U.S. election official about the criteria for choosing poll workers, he said: "I'll take anyone with a pulse." Most poll workers are very senior citizens without the kind of stamina necessary to manage a polling station for 12 hours, and in most cases, they are poorly trained as compared to their Mexican counterparts.
4. Campaign finance/corruption. Each of Mexico's main political parties receive approximately $24 million of public financing for a three-month campaign. They can also receive 10% of their funds from supporters, but no one can give more than $71,000. In contrast, in the United States, there will be an estimated $6 billion raised privately, and with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money. Major contributors could have extraordinary access and substantial influence over public policy. Some would define that as corruption on a scale that even the drug cartels couldn't compete.
5. Equitable access to the media/negative advertising. IFE pays for media advertising, and ensures that the candidates have equal access. IFE also tries to discourage any negative advertising. A substantial amount of the $6 billion raised by the candidates in the United States goes for media advertising, and a recent study showed that 70 percent of ads in this year’s presidential contest has been negative. Just think what $6 billion could do as an endowment to a university; it would have lasting positive effects. Who believes that negative advertising can have a lasting positive effect?
6. Neutralizing incumbency. Since its revolution, Mexico's constitution prohibits re-election in order to prevent incumbents from using government to manipulate the electoral process. IFE goes even further by trying to prevent the president from even campaigning in the most indirect way for his party's candidates. In the United States, incumbents have a huge advantage in fund-raising because special interests can contribute to members of Congress while they are writing laws.
7. Judging disputes. Mexico has minutely-detailed election laws, and a professional and independent Electoral Tribunal to judge election disputes. The United States has few laws and no court with the expertise to settle such disputes.
8. Observers. Mexico invites international polling observers while the U.S. government does not welcome any international observers, and only two states allow them.
It was partly because of decades of electoral fraud that the Mexican people decided to construct a completely professional, independent and nonpartisan election organization. This has not eliminated all problems, but as compared to the thousands of complaints received by U.S. election authorities, the concerns from Mexico are minor.
A measure of commitment is that Mexico's IFE spends roughly 10 times more per capita than the United States to manage a state-of-the-art electoral process. The U.S. system is so antiquated, decentralized, dysfunctional, under-funded with public resources, and over-funded with private interest money that it behooves us Americans to stop asking whether the PRI is a return to the past in Mexico and to start asking why can't our electoral system be as good as Mexico's.
The U.S. could and the U.S. should establish an independent national nonpartisan election administration with a national biometric ID, a single national (or inter-operable) registration list, restrictions on private funding, public financing for short campaigns, poll workers that are recruited by lot and well-trained, disincentives for negative advertising, independent electoral courts, and international and domestic observers. There is much work for us to do before we can catch up to Mexico.
- The views expressed in this article are solely those of Robert A. Pastor.

8 things the U.S. election system could learn from Mexico's – Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs

For all the experts , many who don´t live here full time or if so only for a couple years, read it a couple times. For those who have lived here in Mexico for many years, follow the news of politics via TV and newpapers the article sure is a nice read about Mexico.


----------



## edgeee

*just to be contrary...*

the very idea of catagorizing states as red or blue seems to me to be counterproductive.
in the US, the electoral college process is the main reason it came about to begin with.
the electoral college is antiquated, unweildly and a misrepresentation of the will of the people.
but like most things in America, it will not change until it becomes a full blown crisis.
(some would even say we had that crisis in 2004. i would not dissent.)
some day 'none of the above' will be a wide-spread voter option.

i don't even know if the Mexican elections work in a similar fashion.
but whether they do or don't, the question is moot. what difference does it make?

someone once said "all politics are local" and i agree.
based on the early news stories following the Mexican presidential election,
it seems PRI has made significant strides, with Nieto the presumptive winner, and also,
that at least two, and as many as four, of the six governors races will have PRI winners.

from far away, it looks like the PRI has convinced many voters they have evolved.
their previous practices have been replaced by more intelligent choices.
i'm not saying they have, only that the PRI has convinced many that it is so.
and yet 60% of voters did not pick Nieto, if early numbers are accurate.

right about here is where the differences between the US and Mexico disappear.
the rest of this applies to any form of government.

any way you slice it, it will always come down to the basics.
money is behind it and drives it, but the goal is power.
money + power = control.
that may sound ominus, but again, it's only natural.
you naturally want control of your own life.
without control we are helpless. when out-of-control, we are a danger to ourselves and others.

i'm a confessed control freak, but we all love it.
it's what makes video games work (the controler), and your TV/DVR/stereo have a remote control.
even your garge door has one. the 'clapper' is famous world wide.

and this is why, in any country, state, city or village,
those in control want to keep it, and those without it want to sieze it.
the local magistrate, constabulary, autoridades, even your landlord and family,
have some degree of control over your life.

to maintain some sanity, we must also maintain some control. but it becomes too much to handle.
so we need help, and to get it, we offer our help to those with the same problem.

that's where trust comes in. we pick people we trust to watch our backs, and vice versa.
family and friends come first, but they have limits too.
with everyday life pounding on us 24/7, we need someone to deal with the 'other' stuff.
we hire experts, when we need them, but we cling to our resilient roots.

we elect officials to act as our agents, (locals first),
to deal with issues that affect us, but are far removed from our individual influence.

if we trust them to protect our interests, we elect them. (the collective, public, we.)
but just when we start to understand that, the focus shifts.
the local politician is dependent on something. usually the party leaders, but not always.
(i won't list the probables, someone else will i'm sure.)
just realise this. no matter how much they want to help you, they can't do that without some amount of control.
and that control will always come with a price to pay. it takes many forms, but it is always there.
and the higher up the ladder you go, the more influence/control is at stake. and the higher the price.

so i don't like 'red v. blue' any more than i like 'conservative v. liberal' or 'right v. wrong',
mostly, they are just labels thrown around to gather converts as ye may.

what i really want, wherever i live, is to see the rise of my party.
(and btw, how did such destructive behavior patterns ever get to be labeled as 'parties'? togas?)

i call it the PraPle Party (PPP). it's short for 'Practical People'. (and red + blue = purple!)
it's very informal, yet quite common, but still without organization.

lucky for me, lots of people are practical, and they tend to gather together.
also lucky for them, unless you count it as a blessing. there is strength in numbers.
feel free to found your own local chapter.
common sense is hard to find, but it's there.

and getting back to the recent Mexican elections, i would say this:
don't hold your breath waiting for things to change. change takes time and many forms.
politics does not always work fast, but is decisive, so hold close all you consider dear.

and if, like me, you wish to relocate to Mexico, always listen to those who are there.
they may not be rocket surgeons, but they are in the middle of what you only wish you understood.

and remember, those who stand close to the fire feel the heat, but the ones farther away see the light it shines.


----------



## Isla Verde

Longford said:


> The best posture for most if not all expats in Mexico to assume is not to do or say too much that will cause others to focus they're attention on you and to stay below the radar of persons in positions of governmental and policing authority. You become an easy "mark" when you stand-out and someone who you've knowingly or un-knowingly offended may develop a grudge which results in your being reported to the authorities for wrongdoing ($$$) ... a charge you're innocent of.


I can't imagine anyone I know in my colonia wanting to get back at me for something I had or hadn't done and reporting me to the authorities. People know me and usually know I'm not Mexican (though the woman who works in the local convenience store that I patronize asked me yesterday if I had voted and seemed surprised when I told her I wasn't a citizen, which pleased me no end, for some reason), but it doesn't affect the way they deal with me. Maybe things are different in smaller places with lots of expats. I enjoy blending in with my Mexican neighbors - it makes me feel like I belong here, which I do!


----------



## mickisue1

A request: when you are posting large blocks of text, could you be so kind as to break the paragraphs with a line of blank space?

I WANT to read what people write. But it's so difficult to plow through unbroken text (especially with no grammar rules applied) that I skim or skip.

It's not fair to the person who spent the time writing it. 

But then, it's not fair to the reader to expect that they get eyestrain reading your work.

If you are James Joyce, you get a pass on that. But only if you are James joyce.


----------



## 146028

tepetapan said:


> The main question asked about the Mexican presidential elections on July 1 is whether victory by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) means that Mexico will return to its authoritarian past.
> The answer is simple: The PRI has changed because Mexico has changed.


Really? the PRI has changed because Mexico has changed? That makes no sense.
This whole article is all about the electoral process, not the PRI, so why would they make an statement like that?



tepetapan said:


> For more than six decades, the PRI manipulated elections and ruled Mexico in a quasi-authoritarian system.


They still do this in many states. Just wait and see for yourself how Mexico will change within the next few years.



tepetapan said:


> However, between 1988 until 2000, two Mexican presidents – Carlos Salinas de Gortari and Ernesto Zedillo – gradually responded to internal and external pressures and opened the economy and the political system.


What does this even mean? they opened the political system? They opened the economy to fulfill their own goals, but not the political system.

Right after the election, Carlos Salinas de Gortari ordered to burn all the votes. He wanted no proof of his own proof. Everything about his government was secretive.

During Ernesto Zedillo's government, there were many protests by union workers and farmers in different parts of the country. To deal with the crisis, the PRI ordered to kill many of this people. It was a massacre all over the place. Later on, these killings were blamed on the State Police. The PRI claimed that they were all independent events, and there was no larger agenda.

So yeah, both Salinas and Zedillo are great examples of Mexican "Democracy" and they fit right in this article.



tepetapan said:


> Campaign finance/corruption. Each of Mexico's main political parties receive approximately $24 million of public financing for a three-month campaign. They can also receive 10% of their funds from supporters, but no one can give more than $71,000.


Many politicians have been known to go pass their limit. Nothing ever happens to them. Some universities and organizations had evidence that Enrique Peña Nieto went over this limit, by a lot. Did IFE do anything about it? Not at all.



tepetapan said:


> Poll workers. Mexico views the conduct of elections like Americans view jury duty – a civic obligation – and they recruit on a random basis a large number of people from each district. They are well-trained in every stage of the electoral process. When I asked a U.S. election official about the criteria for choosing poll workers, he said: "I'll take anyone with a pulse." Most poll workers are very senior citizens without the kind of stamina necessary to manage a polling station for 12 hours, and in most cases, they are poorly trained as compared to their Mexican counterparts.


This training is pointless if people can be easily bought. Even during this election, there is many people who reported being offered money to manipulate the numbers behind closed doors. They see it as a duty, but a lot of times they don't feel any moral obligations towards this duty.



tepetapan said:


> Equitable access to the media/negative advertising. IFE pays for media advertising, and ensures that the candidates have equal access. IFE also tries to discourage any negative advertising. A substantial amount of the $6 billion raised by the candidates in the United States goes for media advertising, and a recent study showed that 70 percent of ads in this year’s presidential contest has been negative. Just think what $6 billion could do as an endowment to a university; it would have lasting positive effects. Who believes that negative advertising can have a lasting positive effect?


Except this doesn't actually happen, there is plenty of negative advertising.


----------



## 146028

Also, something I found after searching the news:

Expats in San Miguel de Allende debate decision to remain in Mexico 
Expats in San Miguel de Allende debate decision to remain in Mexico - thestar.com

Mexican poll tipped to trigger expatriate exodus
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

thoughts?


----------



## cuylers5746

*Mexico Electoral System*



tepetapan said:


> Here is an article from cnn web page. It covers my feelings about politics in Mexico about 100%.
> By Robert A. Pastor, Special to CNN
> The main question asked about the Mexican presidential elections on July 1 is whether victory by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) means that Mexico will return to its authoritarian past.
> The answer is simple: The PRI has changed because Mexico has changed. For more than six decades, the PRI manipulated elections and ruled Mexico in a quasi-authoritarian system. However, between 1988 until 2000, two Mexican presidents – Carlos Salinas de Gortari and Ernesto Zedillo – gradually responded to internal and external pressures and opened the economy and the political system.
> I have observed elections in Mexico since 1986 and witnessed the transformation of the election system from the worst to the best in the Americas. The projected victory by PRI candidate Enrique Peña Nieto will not turn Mexico backwards. Mexicans have chosen democracy, and after two terms under PAN presidents, they are voting for change.
> Indeed, in this year when the United States is engaged in a ferocious campaign for the presidency, the question that ought to be asked is: How does the U.S. electoral system compare to Mexico's? I undertook a comprehensive study of the electoral systems in North America, and the good news is that the United States came in third. The bad news is that there are only three countries in North America.
> In fact, the Mexican electoral system is much fairer, professional, independent and non-partisan than the U.S. system on all eight criteria for assessing election administration:
> 1. Nonpartisan election administration. Mexico's Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) is a nonpartisan, professional institution in which political party representatives have access but no control. IFE manages a nation-wide system with uniform rules. In contrast, the United States has 13,000 counties and municipalities that manage our national elections with different rules and less capacity. Partisan officials generally control the process, and in a close election, the opposition is often suspicious of the result.
> Follow the Mexican election coverage in Spanish at CNNMéxico.com
> 2. Registration and identification of voters. IFE actively registers about 95% of 77 million eligible voters and gives each a biometric, photo ID card, which Mexicans use as a primary identification. The registration list is audited regularly, and the photos of the voters are on the list in each polling site.
> In contrast, U.S. states and communities passively register about 55% of eligible voters, and the lists are flawed with many duplicates and errors, especially between states and counties. Each state has different rules, and in states where Republicans have a majority, their focus on preventing electoral fraud has led them to restrict registration and require IDs, while Democrats are more concerned about voters' access and believe the Republican ID laws are aimed to suppress voter turnout from poor people or minorities. The truth is that we ought to adopt Mexico's national, biometric ID system. That would eliminate duplicates and simplify the registration and voting process.
> Related: Voter ID laws: Discrimination or 'no big deal'?
> 3. Poll workers. Mexico views the conduct of elections like Americans view jury duty – a civic obligation – and they recruit on a random basis a large number of people from each district. They are well-trained in every stage of the electoral process. When I asked a U.S. election official about the criteria for choosing poll workers, he said: "I'll take anyone with a pulse." Most poll workers are very senior citizens without the kind of stamina necessary to manage a polling station for 12 hours, and in most cases, they are poorly trained as compared to their Mexican counterparts.
> 4. Campaign finance/corruption. Each of Mexico's main political parties receive approximately $24 million of public financing for a three-month campaign. They can also receive 10% of their funds from supporters, but no one can give more than $71,000. In contrast, in the United States, there will be an estimated $6 billion raised privately, and with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money. Major contributors could have extraordinary access and substantial influence over public policy. Some would define that as corruption on a scale that even the drug cartels couldn't compete.
> 5. Equitable access to the media/negative advertising. IFE pays for media advertising, and ensures that the candidates have equal access. IFE also tries to discourage any negative advertising. A substantial amount of the $6 billion raised by the candidates in the United States goes for media advertising, and a recent study showed that 70 percent of ads in this year’s presidential contest has been negative. Just think what $6 billion could do as an endowment to a university; it would have lasting positive effects. Who believes that negative advertising can have a lasting positive effect?
> 6. Neutralizing incumbency. Since its revolution, Mexico's constitution prohibits re-election in order to prevent incumbents from using government to manipulate the electoral process. IFE goes even further by trying to prevent the president from even campaigning in the most indirect way for his party's candidates. In the United States, incumbents have a huge advantage in fund-raising because special interests can contribute to members of Congress while they are writing laws.
> 7. Judging disputes. Mexico has minutely-detailed election laws, and a professional and independent Electoral Tribunal to judge election disputes. The United States has few laws and no court with the expertise to settle such disputes.
> 8. Observers. Mexico invites international polling observers while the U.S. government does not welcome any international observers, and only two states allow them.
> It was partly because of decades of electoral fraud that the Mexican people decided to construct a completely professional, independent and nonpartisan election organization. This has not eliminated all problems, but as compared to the thousands of complaints received by U.S. election authorities, the concerns from Mexico are minor.
> A measure of commitment is that Mexico's IFE spends roughly 10 times more per capita than the United States to manage a state-of-the-art electoral process. The U.S. system is so antiquated, decentralized, dysfunctional, under-funded with public resources, and over-funded with private interest money that it behooves us Americans to stop asking whether the PRI is a return to the past in Mexico and to start asking why can't our electoral system be as good as Mexico's.
> The U.S. could and the U.S. should establish an independent national nonpartisan election administration with a national biometric ID, a single national (or inter-operable) registration list, restrictions on private funding, public financing for short campaigns, poll workers that are recruited by lot and well-trained, disincentives for negative advertising, independent electoral courts, and international and domestic observers. There is much work for us to do before we can catch up to Mexico.
> - The views expressed in this article are solely those of Robert A. Pastor.
> 
> 8 things the U.S. election system could learn from Mexico's – Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs
> 
> For all the experts , many who don´t live here full time or if so only for a couple years, read it a couple times. For those who have lived here in Mexico for many years, follow the news of politics via TV and newpapers the article sure is a nice read about Mexico.


Great article;

Some things, that I didn't know. One common theme as I read into it.
Mexico started out as a 3rd World Country quickly closing in on 2nd World Status, but as it
examines other countries systems, applies the Mexican Test to it a nd it generally jumps to the head of the class with their new system, leap frogging generations of mistakes from other societies. Oh, and don't forget the Mexican way. They can do anything; quicker, faster, cheaper than in the USA with tools you wouldn't even think possible.

In many areas, like Health Care "Delivery" for the masses, it just puts what passes for a Medical
System in the USA to shame.


----------



## dongringo

YES - The UFO's have landed in Mexico
Mexico Elections 2012: IFE Fraud and Number Manipulation Claims Trending Among Mexican Social Media Users
Mexico Elections 2012: IFE Fraud and Number Manipulation Claims Trending Among Mexican Social Media Users - Latinospost :: World :: Latinos Post


----------



## edgeee

mickisue1 said:


> A request: when you are posting large blocks of text, could you be so kind as to break the paragraphs with a line of blank space?
> 
> I WANT to read what people write. But it's so difficult to plow through unbroken text (especially with no grammar rules applied) that I skim or skip.
> 
> It's not fair to the person who spent the time writing it.
> 
> But then, it's not fair to the reader to expect that they get eyestrain reading your work.
> 
> If you are James Joyce, you get a pass on that. But only if you are James joyce.


i agree completely, but,
please, please include R. Buckminster Fuller in your exceptions.
not because he wrote that way, he didn't.
but he did once write a piece that was all one long sentence. just to show it could be done.

and he is the most overlooked genius the 20th century has known.
anyone who wants to understand and enjoy life and living needs to sample his understandings. wikipedia is a good place to start.

"_The most important fact about Spaceship Earth: an instruction manual didn't come with it._" R. Buckminster Fuller. 1895-1983

the color of a state is only a perception, created by someone who wishes the state had a color.
the status of any area (a state?) is reflected by it's inhabitants and the current state of affairs. these are constantly changing, so any analysis is of a general nature, if it is to be useful. stereo-typing is real, and cliches are true.

so if i had to sum up the current affairs of Mexican politics, i'd say they are moving toward better things. remember, i'm a distant observer, but it seems the voice of the people is finally being heard. and however it turns out, at least the elections are now part of the past, so it's time to make the most of what is left.

now if i could just find a way to convince Americans that sometimes thinking comes before obeying.


----------



## 146028

dongringo said:


> YES - The UFO's have landed in Mexico
> Mexico Elections 2012: IFE Fraud and Number Manipulation Claims Trending Among Mexican Social Media Users
> Mexico Elections 2012: IFE Fraud and Number Manipulation Claims Trending Among Mexican Social Media Users - Latinospost :: World :: Latinos Post


Yes, many irregularities in the electoral process have already been found, and more to come.

More than 100% participation?
el5antuario: Irregularidades de casillas mas del 100% de Participación ciudadana

Numbers that do not match:

https://twitter.com/#!/search/%23fraude2012/slideshow/photos?url=https%3A%2F%2Fp.twimg.com%2FAw10JHKCAAAlrRs.jpg


There will be many protests to come.


----------



## dongringo

polynomial said:


> Yes, many irregularities in the electoral process have already been found, and more to come.
> 
> More than 100% participation?
> el5antuario: Irregularidades de casillas mas del 100% de Participación ciudadana
> 
> Numbers that do not match:
> 
> https://twitter.com/#!/search/%23fraude2012/slideshow/photos?url=https%3A%2F%2Fp.twimg.com%2FAw10JHKCAAAlrRs.jpg
> 
> 
> There will be many protests to come.


Of course there was fraud and irregularity, as probably in any country's election. But I very much doubt this first conspiracy theory about the IFE (Mexican election regulator) manipulating the count.


----------



## mickisue1

dongringo said:


> Of course there was fraud and irregularity, as probably in any country's election. But I very much doubt this first conspiracy theory about the IFE (Mexican election regulator) manipulating the count.


For once, I agree with you, dongringo. 

There isn't a country that doesn't have fraud in elections, whether at the state level, with voter suppression, or with organized crime.

And, for an exciting third possibility, we have the voting machines with no paper trails to compare to the stated results. Who knows who could program them to skew the results subtly, but just enough to influence an outcome?


----------



## Longford

dongringo said:


> Of course there was fraud and irregularity, as probably in any country's election. But I very much doubt this first conspiracy theory about the IFE (Mexican election regulator) manipulating the count.


Yes, in any election there are "irregularities." Irregularities affecting all candidates. It's a process dominated by humans, and technology. And one that's not perfect. I believe that what the international observers saw in Mexico was an honest election and that we will read reports confirming that.

The PRD has been, during the past decade, the most corrupt political organization in Mexico and I find it humourous that AMLO, that party's standardbearer, would allege or suggest that he's been robbed of a victory ... because of fraud or corruption. _Complot!_ 

My view of AMLO is that he's a megalomaniac. He will never accept that the nation has now rejected him twice and he will do whatever he is allowed to thwart the democratic process in Mexico. It's all about him, not what's in the best interests of the nation.

There was no chance that the PAN, which I believe has done an excellent job at the federal level these past 12 years, would be returned to office. The nation is ready to give someone else a chance to solve the problems ... even the PRI, which was abusive for more than 7 decades. 

Peña Nieto won the election and he and the PRI should be given the support to see if they can do better.


----------



## 146028

I find it interesting that American news sources put the PRI in such a positive light. They talk about a new and different PRI, when there really isn't anything to suggest this is true. A lot of the older members of the PRI still keep in contact with Peña Nieto and the party as "advisers." Not to mention he did a horrible job while in government in "Estado de Mexico."

Anyways, this is from a german website. The grammar is not "perfect" because google has its limitations. 

Note: If you use google chrome, there is an plug-in that automatically translates pages to whatever language you want.
_________________________________________________

*Mexico's future president Peña Nieto*

*Señor soap opera*

The path to power may not always be rocky, it can sometimes run very smoothly, almost self-evident. Anyone with the appropriate external attributes and has the right supporters, it creates even to the president, without having any significant political talent. At least in Mexico, where on Sunday the 45-year-old Enrique Peña Nieto chosen clearly on the future head of state .

Peña Nieto, a boy with charm and Beau permanent smile, returns the second largest country in Latin America in the past. With it comes the Institutional Revolutionary Party, PRI briefly, returned to power. The party that has ever been given 71 years in a row, the fate of Mexico in a dubious manner. With their rule from 1929 to 2000 combines electoral fraud, oppression, corruption and economic crisis. But the memory of a caring government. The Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa called Mexico the PRI once as the "perfect dictatorship." Their sinister party bosses called the Mexican vernacular "dinosaurs".

Now the PRI is after twelve years in opposition again. The devastation of Mexico's drug war, bringing crucial President Felipe Calderon has greatly contributed to the electoral victory of the old guard. But just as much the perfect formula for success for the seizure of power did this: The victory of the PRI and Peña Nieto, briefly called EPN, was possible only with the help of Televisa, Latin America's largest television and radio empire. "Televisa has raised Peña Nieto into office," says Jenaro Villamil, journalist and author who has followed the rise of a politician in less than ten years from a small party soldiers to the president.

*Televisa's gravedigger or kingmaker*

In 2006, after the second electoral defeat in a presidential election in a row, started the PRI "dinosaurs", the project Reconquista, the renewed takeover. Peña Nieto, the scion of a powerful political family, was at that time just a couple of months equal to the governor of the neighboring State of Mexico's capital. He brought with him the perfect attributes: handsome, telegenic, youthful. The fact that he is intellectually weak, not particularly bothered. EPN is like an actor from the soap operas of the Dream Factory and Televisa was the perfect candidate in TV country Mexico.

The party leaders of the PRI, Peña Nieto and Televisa agreed to look at the 2012 election advertising and positive coverage of the former governor in the programs of the transmitter. Interviews, home stories and reports about his alleged successful projects have been committed. PRI, EPN and Televisa have calculated the perfect equation for success, the political scientist Denise Dresser scoffs: "Pretty face + money + TV + Advertising + Dinosaur = PRI electoral success."

For Televisa, the channel for soap operas, sports, and Shallow, off 70 percent of Mexican households. And what says Televisa, the truth is in the country where the majority of the people gets its information from television. Televisa is aware of his power and apply them selectively. The transmitter is gravedigger or kingmaker. That was six years ago as if the media company in its news always negative over the long leading candidates in the polls, the Left Party, PRD, Andrés Manuel López Obrador said. This ran into the commercial breaks spots up and down, claiming that Mexico would be a second Venezuela, López Obrador would win. This smear campaign cost the then leftist electoral victory. On Sunday, he came in again and was again finished second.

This time it was the exact opposite: Televisa accompanied EPN of indigenous origin, reported on his meeting with businessmen and covered him even before the altar. His marriage in November 2010 killed the Televisa telenovela star Angélica Rivera from the channel on all channels in all programs.

And when the election time did not run, the transmitter of the candidates jumped to the side: was booed as Peña Nieto a few weeks ago at a campaign event at an elite university students and driven away, Televisa then spoke of "purchased protesters".

The campaign could be PRI and EPN cost annually about two million euros, Jenaro Villamil writes in his book "Si yo fuera presidente" ("If I were President"). In it he lists the economic arrangements at exactly the party candidate and met stations. Was financed by all taxpayers' money from the budget of the State of Mexico.

*His three favorite books? A complicated question for Peña Nieto!*

Thus, the President Peña Nieto is the perfect product, proof that elections in Mexico, not necessarily the polls, but on the TV screens to be decided. It's a deal which, for the most powerful and largest party in the country retaliated with commercials and political favors. So put PRI parliamentarians to ensure that no laws are passed that could jeopardize the television monopoly Televisa. "Democracy is a good customer," Emilio Azcarraga Televisa boss once said.

In fact, the connection between politics and business to our mutual advantage is a Mexican brand. The second-largest economy in Latin America is Monopolandia chat over the world for top dogs. Here was King Carlos Slim phone with his telephone company to become the richest man in the world, public and private cartels also control the oil, cement and electricity market. In the media market, it does not look better. Televisa and TV Azteca share almost all the television pie, which Televisa has a 70 percent market share, the largest piece of cake.

Enrique Peña Nieto is now able to pass as president of the PRI, the ossified and corrupt image. Its mission is to miss the party a fresh and youthful image. He should show that the PRI is no Jurassic Park, but a modern political-boy band.
Therefore it depends mainly on its qualities as an entertainer, because policy issues are not quite so important. Peña Nieto is dynamic, close to the people and exudes the hope for a brighter future beyond the carnage of the war on drugs.

However, the future head of state is Mexico's only really good if he stands in front of the masses, or he may drop the prepared text of his advisors blocks. Without a teleprompter, mock the Mexicans themselves verhaspele EPN. In fact, it can be embarrassing if a question comes to which he was not prepared. At the Book Fair in Guadalajara in December, the candidate was asked what three books would have impressed him most. The Bible even occurred to him, then he began to swim. In two other titles and author names he gave them completely. Not even the recently deceased Mexican author Carlos Fuentes, he was able to quote correctly.

Enrique Peña Nieto gewinnt Präsidentschaftswahl in Mexiko - SPIEGEL ONLINE
_________________________________________________

And you can find similar articles in different languages:

Dutch:
Mexico keert terug naar verleden - Buitenland - Algemeen - Nieuws - bndestem

French:
Présidentielle mexicaine: retour à la «dictature parfaite» | Emmanuelle Steels, collaboration spéciale | Amérique latine

Russian:
??????? ???? ????? “??????????? ?????????”? | euronews, ???

Korean:
?? : ?, 70 ?

You get the point, I could probably do this for every country. So why is it that when looking for news of Mexico in another language, it's actually hard to find an article that talks about the PRI and Peña Nieto in a positive way?

Why is it that American websites are so ready to accept and believe Peña Nieto's lies? It almost seems like a double standard. If a party with PRI's history or a politician like Peña Nieto were running for office in the US, no one would take any of this crap.

The only possible explanation I can think of, is that the US wants to keep good relations with Mexico, but that's about it, and that's not even a good enough reason...


----------



## conklinwh

Interesting set of articles. It was clear early on that PAN had no chance after 12 years so basically the issue was AMLO or PRI. Discussed a lot and I know that you disagree but AMLO is scary to a lot of people. How he reacted to the last defeat is very telling.
Pretty clear from the German report as well as earlier Bloomberg link that Mexico is severely impacted by monopolies and duopolies. To Calderon's credit he tried but with PRI & PRD in control of the legislature, he had no chance. I haven't seen the legislature makeup but the thought was, at least in the Bloomberg article, that the one even small chance for progress was if PRI had the presidency & the legislature.


----------



## edgeee

polynomial said:


> . . . Why is it that American websites are so ready to accept and believe Peña Nieto's lies? It almost seems like a double standard. If a party with PRI's history or a politician like Peña Nieto were running for office in the US, no one would take any of this crap.
> 
> The only possible explanation I can think of, is that the US wants to keep good relations with Mexico, but that's about it, and that's not even a good enough reason...


the American public is probably the world leader at believing lies.
we've done it so well for so long it's almost like an addiction.


----------



## conklinwh

Most of my Mexican friends sort of view that they were faced with two less than exciting options since PAN not a factor. I think that they and the US press decided to go with the dog they know versus the one they don't.
This thread is not meant to be a commentary on US press or politics so I will ignore the rest.


----------



## FHBOY

Was anyone here living in Mexico when PRI was in power the last time? What were the effects, if any, on your lives?


----------



## TundraGreen

polynomial said:


> ... The only possible explanation I can think of, is that the US wants to keep good relations with Mexico, but that's about it, and that's not even a good enough reason...


 Of course the US would like to keep good relations with Mexico. Mexico and the US have to interact on a whole host of issues, trade, border, drugs. In addition, it is never a good idea for an outsider to criticize something. I can dis my mother all I want but I will react very negatively to anyone else criticizing her. I don't like it when I read about Scandinavians or Japanese criticizing how the US handles its multicultural issues. I feel like with their monoculture they have no idea what they are talking about. And I don't imagine Mexicans like to listen to outsiders criticizing their country. You certainly do not get the sense that the US has a very nuanced understanding of Mexico, given that almost all the media coverage prior to this election was about the drug violence.


----------



## conklinwh

Few things:
-Let's drop the Red/Blue discussion as everyone basically agrees that this is a Mexico discussion and little applicability. Just happens to be the thread title.
-As expats we are not allowed and shouldn't get involved with Mexican politics.
-However, we should try to understand what might change, or not and look at the implications.
-To me, there are really two key questions.
:What if any effect will this have on the level of violence
:Will there be any serious effort to try to deal with the monopolies/duopolies both public and private. If so, what might be the effect.


----------



## Longford

conklinwh said:


> -Let's drop the Red/Blue discussion as everyone basically agrees that this is a Mexico discussion and little applicability. Just happens to be the thread title.


While the Red/Blue comparisons aren't an exact fit with Mexican politics, there is some similarity to those discussions (as are had in other countries) when we discuss which states have trended to voting for one particular party over another. In that context, I believe the discussion is appropriate.

Here's a link to how the control of states looked prior to the July 1 election. A newer map isn't available yet, from what I'm seeing:

File:State governments by party.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> As expats we are not allowed and shouldn't get involved with Mexican politics.


Discussing politics and actively participating in political events and campaigns in Mexico is, to the greater extent, not permitted by the Mexican Constitution. However, there's no prohibition against expats and other foreigners discussing politics ... in Mexico or on international web forums. Discussions about politics helps everyone to better understand the nation's culture and current events.



> -However, we should try to understand what might change, or not and look at the implications.
> -To me, there are really two key questions.
> :What if any effect will this have on the level of violence
> :Will there be any serious effort to try to deal with the monopolies/duopolies both public and private. If so, what might be the effect.


A. If the new President behaves similar PRI Presidents prior to 2000, then we might see a decline in violence and an accommodation made to the cartels allowing them to traffick their drugs through Mexico to the USA without the federal government interferring ... in exchange for an agreed to lessening of violence impacting innocents. I think, however, that the new President will be hemmed-in by the overall policy instituted by President Calderon which will result in continuing violence. The cartels have branched-out into many other criminal enterprises which victimize so many Mexicans and expats alike and I doubt they'll withdraw from those activities.

B. As regards monopolies/duopolies: I don't expect to see any significant changes under a PRI federal government. Any such reigning-in will require the support of the new Congress. So we'll have to wait and see what alliances form and what the priorities of the the new President and Congressional leaders will be.


----------



## conklinwh

Red State/Blue State-As discussed earlier in the thread, this has a lot more connotation that just which party a state votes for. There was a discussion that from 10,000 feet, PAN probably center right, PRD center left and PRI center/all things to all people. This somewhat born out by recent elections(not necessarily Sunday, where PAN did better in higher economic areas, mostly in the north while PRD did better is less economic areas, mostly in the south. It's just hard for me at least to map red state/blue state to Mexico.

Politics-I agree that everyone has the right, or should have the right, to discuss almost anything. To me though the important thing is now what.

Cartels-I also agree that will be very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle for a number of reasons. The Zetas are not your father's cartel. Also an untended consequence of removing a lot of top leaders is that there has been a splintering where not all groups have equal access to the dry routes. As said in an earlier thread, hard to believe these new groups will turn into baggers at Soriana. More likely, as after prohibition in the US, they will look for new sources of income within Mexico such as extortion and kidnapping. This will probably require a significant change in the various law enforcement roles.

Monopolies/Duopolies-I think the Bloomberg article link a good start for discussion. Whether the President gets a working majority and follows through on his rhetoric is yet to be seen.


----------



## Longford

FHBOY said:


> Was anyone here living in Mexico when PRI was in power the last time? What were the effects, if any, on your lives?


I was living in Mexico during the last years of the PRI reign. There was little freedom of the press (If a newspaper printed critical articles it found itself without newsprint onto which to print the paper); restricted freedom of speech except when that speech favored the government; corruption from the top to the bottom of government organizations natioinwide; impunity for many criminal enterprises and a rading of the national treasury and resources for the benefit of a very few insiders. You learn to deal with such situations because you have to survive, not because you support the system. It was little different than living under a dictatorship. It wasn't a democracy.


----------



## FHBOY

Longford said:


> I was living in Mexico during the last years of the PRI reign. There was little freedom of the press (If a newspaper printed critical articles it found itself without newsprint onto which to print the paper); restricted freedom of speech except when that speech favored the government; corruption from the top to the bottom of government organizations natioinwide; impunity for many criminal enterprises and a rading of the national treasury and resources for the benefit of a very few insiders. You learn to deal with such situations because you have to survive, not because you support the system. It was little different than living under a dictatorship. It wasn't a democracy.


:confused2: Again my bad for an incomplete question: In your (expat) daily life, how was Mexico under PRI? I accept everything that you have said but what I am trying to ascertain was do you feel that your day-to-day activities were worse, the same or better after PRI left power (eg: food prices, entertainment, utilities, transportation, safety, et.al)? 

Since there was no internet, I find a question in my mind: How will the new PRI handle the freedoms afforded by the internet - after all it is an electronic newspaper and in pre-1970, it seems PRI controlled that also.


----------



## 146028

Josefina Vazquez Mota is protesting too:

Reclamaré despilfarro millonario en comicios: Josefina Vázquez Mota | Color Electoral

Is she a communist too? Is she being sponsor by Hugo Chavez as well?


----------



## conklinwh

Big difference with lodging formal or informal protests under the law and trying to prevent government from being sworn in by "stuffing" the legislature after court ruling.


----------



## edgeee

some things are universal. 
for instance, the so-called 'bad guys', for lack of a better word, always believe they will get away with whatever scheme they are running.
oddly enough, it usually works. the gullible condition is wide-spread.
the nature of the net is to deliver truth almost instantly, so it will surely change things.
of course, it also delivers loads of crap, and the responsibility of sifting all that stuff falls to the reader. spreading it is just as bad as starting it.
but i believe that works in the favor of the public.
by and large, the truth will out, at least enough to help.

the Soriana gift card story is an example. the common knowledge of the efforts to sway voters. happened overnight. details will follow, let the sorting begin.
(not picking favorites, the common intent pervades all of politics.)
but it makes me wonder what the Mexican voters will be the most moved by.

is it worse that votes were bought, or that many only got 100 pesos, when they were promised more?
either way, it just shows one more startling similarity to US politics.
people all over the world have the the same radio station playing inside their head.
i call it WiiFM. What's in it For Me?


----------



## 146028

Obama Plays Risky Game in Mexico With Embrace of Enrique Peña Nieto

Without waiting for the official vote count, Enrique Peña Nieta has declared himself Mexico’s president-elect—and Obama played into his hands with premature congratulations, says John M. Ackerman.

The Mexican people are more stunned than excited by Enrique Peña Nieto’s apparent victory in Sunday’s presidential election. No one has taken to the streets to celebrate the return of the old Party of the Institutional Revolution (PRI). To the contrary, thousands of youth congregated at the Revolution Monument in downtown Mexico City to protest against the “imposition” of Peña Nieto through media manipulation, vote-buying, and ballot-tampering. Meanwhile, waves of people who sold their vote to the PRI on Sunday in exchange for gift cards flooded local supermarkets on Monday to cash in on their payments.

It is likely that Peña Nieto’s advantage in the preliminary count, 38 percent to leftist Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s 32 percent, will hold up once the official count is issued at the end of the week and the electoral tribunal later resolves any lawsuits. But the formal, legal recognition of Peña Nieto as Mexico’s new president will not necessarily translate into the public legitimacy he would need to govern the country effectively.

Elections are nothing new in Mexico. The country’s distinct brand of authoritarianism, or “perfect dictatorship,” according to Mario Vargas Llosa, has always used elections to gloss over its public image. The infamous 19th-century dictator Porfirio Díaz won eight elections between 1877 and 1910. The first leader of the Mexican Revolution, Francisco I. Madero, did not take power by force but through elections. Since 1934, Mexico has held presidential elections like clockwork every six years, even during the worst moments of authoritarian politics.

Scholars, therefore, do not have the privilege of being able to identify the advent of democracy in Mexico with the arrival of electoral politics. The big question is not whether elections occur but whether they are free and fair and whether the new president is recognized by the people as their legitimate leader.

Sitting president Felipe Calderón was significantly bruised by his experience in the last presidential elections in 2006. He refused to accept a full recount or even allow citizen access to the ballots after the election was over, casting a long shadow of doubt over his 0.58 percent lead, especially since half of the electoral tally sheets had evident irregularities. Even today, a third of Mexico’s population thinks that Calderón did not win the elections, and at least 40 percent of the population does not trust electoral results.

The legitimacy crisis explains a great deal about how Calderón has behaved as president. Instead of attacking the roots of the problems by reconstructing institutions, fighting corruption, and reducing poverty and inequality, Calderón has preferred “shock and awe” tactics that appeal to the media and foreign leaders but have proved to be highly ineffective on the ground. Just as George W. Bush covered up his own legitimacy crisis after the 2000 presidential elections with the war in Iraq, Calderon has done the same with the “drug war” against his own people.

Peña Nieto is heading down the same road. Instead of waiting for the official results, he has already started to put together his “transition team” and presents himself in the U.S. media as “president-elect”. This is false self-representation; according to Mexico’s highly sophisticated electoral laws, only the electoral tribunal can name a candidate president-elect after a full review of the legality of the election. And preliminary reports suggest that thousands of irregularities have tainted the results.

But President Obama has agreed to play Peña Nieto’s game. On Monday, Obama called the Mexican candidate to congratulate him prematurely for his “victory.” Obama’s action reveals a worrisome lack of respect for both the Mexican people and for legal process south of the border. Such double blindness is precisely what has led to the present impasse in U.S.-Mexican relations, as well as the bitter failure of the “drug war.”

Obama’s irresponsible phone call can best be understood Peña Nieto’s presentation of himself as the most “modern,” pro-American candidate. The U.S. president, therefore, wants to support him from the beginning to guarantee U.S. interests and consolidate American intervention south of the border.

But a Peña Nieto administration may create more problems than solutions to the longstanding issues that affect North America. In the candidate’s op-ed Tuesday in The New York Times he argues that one of his principal objectives will be to “end the polarization that has paralyzed our politics.”

Such a statement is both wrong and dangerous. Over the last 15 years, the Mexican Congress has passed, normally with broad multipartisan support, more constitutional reforms and new laws than during any other equivalent period in modern history, including new criminal justice, human rights, anti-corruption, transparency, and electoral legislation. There is no paralysis or polarization.

But instead of appreciating the dynamic and plural nature of Mexico’s new politics, which requires careful negotiations and coalition building, Peña Nieto openly disqualifies it. His attitude betrays a dangerous nostalgia for the old days, in which the president could unilaterally impose his will on the country. Peña Nieto apparently has the firm intention of excluding the opposition to push through highly unpopular reforms like privatizing Mexico’s national oil company or scaling down protections for labor.

But the political opposition is stronger today than ever before. López Obrador received more votes on Sunday, approximately 15.5 million, than he did six years ago, when he came within a hair of winning the presidency. This time around, his more conciliatory campaign was highly effective in courting broad public support.

*And López Obrador’s relative political strength against Peña Nieto will likely grow in coming years. According to Reforma newspaper’s exit poll, the leftist is strongest among the young, the well-educated, and independents. In contrast, Peña Nieto’s most important support is in the countryside, as well as with the elderly and the underschooled. *López Obrador also held a 13-point lead over Peña Nieto among those voters who voted “for a change” in government and a commanding 28-point lead among those who voted for the most “honest” candidate.

If Peña Nieto tries to rule as he did as governor of the state of Mexico, where his friends and allies controlled party politics and all three branches of government, the result will be dangerous political instability and social conflict. This situation could derail Mexico’s slow democratic progress and put peace and development in North America at risk.

To avoid such a scenario, the U.S. government needs to stop pandering to Mexico’s corrupt leaders and robber barons. It is time for U.S. diplomacy toward Mexico to branch out to include the political opposition, Congress, civil society, and the common person. Military aid also should be replaced, perhaps entirely, with support for infrastructure and the economy. Instead of helping Mexico’s old guard reestablish the ways of the past, the U.S. should help the Mexican people protect the gains of the present.

Obama Plays Risky Game in Mexico With Embrace of Enrique Peña Nieto - The Daily Beast


----------



## dongringo

polynomial said:


> Obama Plays Risky Game in Mexico With Embrace of Enrique Peña Nieto
> 
> Without waiting for the official vote count, Enrique Peña Nieta has declared himself Mexico’s president-elect—and Obama played into his hands with premature congratulations, says John M. Ackerman.


The election is over! Move on!


----------



## 146028

Mexico elections: claims of dirty tricks cast shadow over Peña Nieto's victory

Mexico elections: claims of dirty tricks cast shadow over Peña Nieto's victory | World news | guardian.co.uk

The PRI denies it, Soriana denies it, but they were stupid enough to put it in their receipts:

https://twitter.com/elyz_elyz/status/220903395484114944/photo/1/large


----------



## 146028

dongringo said:


> The election is over! Move on!


But why do you want people to move on? Do you think people are just protesting because of one number?

All kinds of crimes have been committed, and you want people to do nothing? What happened last sunday has occurred in Mexico numerous times.

The PRI, and ONLY the PRI bought millions of votes. PRI propaganda was displayed in electoral boots when clearly that's against the law. 

There is thousands of cases of people writing the wrong numbers when entering data for the software. Almost all the time, those "mistakes" either affected negatively AMLO or benefited Peña Nieto. PAN was almost unaffected somehow.

Do you know the student movement YOSOY132? Eleven of their speakers have been kidnapped. No one knows where they are for sure. Many of other students were arrested for taking videos of the PRI buying votes. But don't expect the media to report on those crimes, at least not for a long time.

PRI spent a crazy amount of money in propaganda, well over the limit they're allowed, and a lot of it was dedicated to making AMLO look bad. Six years ago, when AMLO supporters were occupying zocalo in Mexico City, it wasn't because they were butt-hurt due to AMLO loosing, it was because every time there is elections in this country, social injustice goes hugely reported. The difference this year was, that things like facebook, twitter and youtube, made it much easier for people to make it public. Take those away and the media would be reporting that AMLO wants to destroy this country because he doesn't respect democracy.

So yeah, people can think that AMLO is a monster for blocking Reforma Ave. in Mexico City, but the real monster is already in power. They haven't even began governing and they are already guilty of so many acts of corruption. But nooo, the PRI has change, trust us. What a joke.

So this is why I'm really curious, why do you want people to move on? Mexico is more than food, music, and traditions. Mexico is a country with people struggling everyday, with political leaders who only care about money. Besides, these protests didn't start just this week. Students have been protesting intensively against Peña Nieto for the past few months.

Maybe you should take a bus ride down to Chiapas, and tell these people to move on. It even has german subtitles, just for you:


----------



## RPBHaas

polynomial said:


> All kinds of crimes have been committed, and you want people to do nothing?
> 
> Take those away and the media would be reporting that AMLO wants to destroy this country because he doesn't respect democracy.



Just a few points/questions
1. It's obvious you think AMLO should be the President. (disclosure, I am not against AMLO)
Fact- He lost/is behind by over 3 million votes. (Multiple sources)

2. What are the facts and sources for - "All kinds of crimes have been committed", "There is thousands of cases of people writing the wrong numbers when entering data for the software. Almost all the time, those "mistakes" either affected negatively AMLO or benefited Peña Nieto" and "The PRI, and ONLY the PRI bought millions of votes"?

3. If the media has not reported the students being kidnapped, how do you know it to be true? Were you there?

4. Where I live, there are first hand reports of "buying" votes by all 3 major parties. This was heard first hand and I saw some of it happening. I am not sure if what I saw and heard is against Mexican law but it is not prevalent in the US.

5. Your early post from John M Ackerman is his opinion. He does not reference any sources for his "facts" such as; "40% of the population doesn't trust election results". He also states that congress has passed more reforms/laws in the last 15 years. It is widly accepted that Calderon could not pass his agenda due to congressional gridlock. (sound familiar?) OPINION; His article is heavily biased.

The original title of this thread is red state- blue state. It has been answered and is generally accepted that the states are; (generally) PAN in the north and west, PRI in the north and many rural areas and PRD in DF and the south. :focus:


----------



## mickisue1

polynomial, I understand your anger. 

But it gets you nowhere. You are in a country where you don't have the right to vote, and even if you did, whatever crimes have been committed, I guarantee that the vast majority of them have been covered up so well that they cannot be seen.

The rest, well the rest are as much a part of the unsung history of MX as the routine suppression of voting by minorities in FL was in 2000. 

It wasn't just hanging chads, you know. It was names erased from registration, when people had been voting in that district for over a decade. It was rampant rumors that, if you even had a traffic ticket, there would be cops outside the polling place to arrest you as you walked out. And more, and more.

Electoral shenanigans are much more the rule, all over the world, than they are the exception. 

They usually don't get exposed, because they wouldn't have made any difference. It's only in close elections that we start to look closer. And, even then, it's in the best interest of some for us not to look too closely, isn't it?


----------



## conklinwh

The election article was interesting reading. I'd be a lot more interested if from somewhere other than the Daily Beast.


----------



## 146028

Ok, I didn't realize there was a negative stigma associated with that website. I'll keep that in mind.

And as for the questions about the students kidnapped and the other crimes, I'm gonna retrace my steps and search for the information, but I'll find those links again.

The reason they can't report it a lot of times is because the police can be very corrupt too.


----------



## 146028

*So I guess I should be more explicit with what I mean by "all kinds of crimes."*

This is a video that shows PRI keeps records on some students. Peña Nieto and one of his assistants discuss a girl's profile, who is pro-AMLO. Unfortunately, this video is too short to know what they were really talking about, but the fact that they have profiles on students is creepy. Since they are a political organization, and not a federal organization, it is illegal for them to keep records of people, specially if they include political preference:
Video Secreto de Pena Nieto Revisando Expedientes de Estudiantes

Votes dumped in the garbage, which I'm pretty sure is illegal too:
#ExigimosDemocracia Porque hubo fraude en estas elecciones y ... on Twitpic

This guy talks about malfunctions with the software when entering the votes:





#YOSOY132 reports kidnapping of students:
Denuncia #YoSoy132 secuestro de estudiantes -20120702-wradio.com.mx
(this one I was surprised it was in a website, I originally read about it on twitter)

_________________________________________________
#YOSOY132 reports receiving threats and having some of its members arrested for recording PRI supporters:
Denuncia #YoSoy132 amenazas y detenciones de sus integrantes por ?grabar a priistas?
First paragraph says that Joel Martínez was arrested for taking pictures of people buying votes, so they were arrested without committing a crime.

The people in the picture are protesting because they weren't allowed to vote. Apparently it was due to lack of ballots, which is illegal. No one should be denied their right to vote, and it is their responsibility to have sufficient material.

Fourth paragraph says that students were attacked with tear gas, which is an excessive use of force for people who were just observing the electoral process. Such excessive use of force is a crime.

Fifth paragraph says that five people stole electoral papers from another voting _casilla_, and they took off in two trucks. That is illegal.

Sixth paragraph says that in Tohayana, Chihuahua, the installation of electoral _casillas_ was suspended, because of organized crime.

Seventh paragraph says that 3 IFE workers invalidated votes that were not marked with the pencil that they provided, which is illegal. No where in the rules does it say what you have to use to mark the vote.

Eighth paragraph says that in Guerrero and Mexico City, an armed group (not the same group) took by force electoral polls.

Ninth paragraph says that a woman opened the electoral polls (before the designated time) without all the party representatives being present, which is illegal.

Tenth paragraph mentions three cases. One where PRI personal were safekeeping _casillas_ in Estado de México, another where ballots were crossed off in favor of PAN in Chiapas, and one more video of someone buying votes in Sonora.

Eleventh paragraphs says that PRD representatives reported armed groups took off with the electoral ballots in Totoloapan, Guerrero.

Last paragraph talks about more threats in Aguascalientes and in Cosmos de Morelia.

There is probably pictures in twitter or videos on youtube for all the crimes mentioned above, it's just a matter of looking for them. Looking for these specific ones might or might not take a while, because of the immense number of cases already reported online. I guess the police couldn't possibly go after the thousands of students out there. If you want me to, I'll find them those specific videos/pictures, I'll just need more time for those. If you don't care about those specific ones, you can just search on youtube something like "compra de votos"
and you'll get all kind of videos. Same thing with twitter when you search #FRAUDE2012

It should be noted that YOSOY132 is not pro-AMLO. They are simply anti Peña Nieto. There is students from YOSOY132 who voted for Vazquez Mota and for Quadri as well.
_________________________________________________

Guy with camera reported people buying votes. A car without license plates was involved, and driving without plates is a crime.What's worse is that the police let them go, including the driver of the car, and the guy taking the video was arrested!!!
In this sense, the police committed crimes themselves, letting this driver (and the other idiots) get away with this.





This man saw police breaking into some students' house, and taking them out. He followed them to film it. When he accuses them of their actions, they don't deny anything:
PRI Secuestra Opositores Del PRI, En "Supuesto" Choque Político - YouTube
According to the description of this video, at least 100 people have been keep under arrest this far without any charges.

Another student saw PRI members taking information from people. He got video of it, and they called the police. This video is taken by a second guy, after he gets there. They try to go after the second guy too, so he starts to run.
He is not very good holding the camera though, his finger is visible most of the time:





Almost the same story, police are behind it too. They claim that there is no ballots left, and this woman found them:





A nice explanation of what the PRI really is from a university professor:





Finally, this one mentions vote-buying, but it doesn't go into specifics. I'm just posting it because I like the picture they use:
?Enojados y frustrados?, integrantes del #YoSoy132


Right now, I'm looking for a video of some guy who visits his friends in jail and they explain why they are there, and another video of a woman looking for her son, who she hasn't seen in days, I'll posts those when I find them. To be honest, I can't even remember right now everything that I wanted to post, but it will come to me later. I mean, I could keep posting more of the same videos, but I wanted to post videos that were different in some way, otherwise it looks too repetitive.

The point of all this is, even if there was no fraud by the software, and even if Peña Nieto did indeed get that many votes, this election was won by all kinds of fraudulent means.

I understand that no party is perfect, and I guess some members of the PRD did indeed buy votes, but you have to look at the numbers. If you look online, the overwhelming majority of the reported cases were done by the PRI. Some of them by PAN, and almost none by PRD (I was looking online and I could only find 2 videos of PRD buying votes). Not to mention PRI's systematic corruption with Soriana and Cemex. It wasn't just a few cases, it was millions of pesos that were wasted on this (with time, the exact numbers will come out).

The fact that an election like this can be considered "legitimate" just goes to show that there is a problem with the legal system. And above all, the fact that citizens can't trust their own police should be enough reason on itself to protest.


----------



## conorkilleen

polynomial said:


> *
> The fact that an election like this can be considered "legitimate" just goes to show that there is a problem with the legal system. And above all, the fact that citizens can't trust their own police should be enough reason on itself to protest.*


*


Agreed. There is a great problem here in Mexico and something needs to be done...by the PEOPLE. Mexico has a very looooong history of corruption from the top down. 

I would be afraid that a large scale protest would lead to revolt and then to violence as it always has in Mexican history.

Sad to see what is happening here with these elections, but did anyone expect anything different? This is Mexico, land of corruption. Just look at the breaking news about the DF airport shootings of the federal police. THERE WERE NO GOOD GUYS! IT TURNS OUT THEY WERE ALL IN ON THE SAME DRUG DEALINGS! I'm in that terminal 5-6 times a month. Can't trust anyone. Not even the police. Who is for the people? Nobody.

As I always say here in Mexico....You had better be looking out for number one because you are number two to everyone else.*


----------



## 146028

*Now this is an interesting one from back in january:*






Background information:

Article 24 of the constitution says:

_Todo hombre es libre para profesar la creencia religiosa que más le agrade y para practicar las ceremonias, devociones o actos del culto respectivo, siempre que no constituyan un delito o falta penados por la ley.

El Congreso no puede dictar leyes que establezcan o prohiban religión alguna.

Los actos religiosos de culto público se celebrarán ordinariamente en los templos. Los que extraordinariamente se celebren fuera de éstos se sujetarán a la ley reglamentaria._

The third paragraph roughly translates to:

Religious acts of public worship are ordinarily held in temples. Those that tend to be celebrated outside are subject to the regulations of the law.

This was a very important part of the constitution. It was added when the government separated the church from education.

So what has Peña Nieto done? He influenced the PRI to change this article, and now the third paragraph has been *deleted*.

Their end goal is to bring religion back to public education. And there is many problems with this. Mainly, that this wouldn't benefit all religions equally. When they talk about religion, really they're referring to Catholicism. But what about kids who have other religions? And what about atheist kids? Now they have to endure being thrown catholic traditions at public schools?

They are doing things very slowly, they are taking baby steps. It might take him two more years, it might take him 5 more years, who knows, but one of Peña Nieto's main goals is to bring religion back to public education.

Now back to the video. After the change has been done, he has a conference with PRI members. What does Peña Nieto do? He just ignores them! He doesn't even acknowledge that they're there. What does security do? It incites violence! Security guards tell other crowd members to confront the students who are protesting, and then security starts hitting the students. You can see in the video, that after they get out (and not everyone got out), they accuse him in front of the camera of being physically abusive, and they don't deny any of it. One of the students says "I remember you, you're the one who hit that guy in the face" and the security guard just stands there, minding his own business.

So what does this say about Peña Nieto's way of dealing with problems? There is a saying that Salinas liked to say on television to his opponents, which made him pretty famous. "NI LOS VEO NI LOS OIGO" Which roughly translates to "I don't see them nor hear them." So it seems that the PRI has not changed its ways, since this is exactly what Peña Nieto is doing too.


----------



## Isla Verde

polynomial said:


> Article 24 of the constitution says:
> 
> _Todo hombre es libre para profesar la creencia religiosa que más le agrade y para practicar las ceremonias, devociones o actos del culto respectivo, siempre que no constituyan un delito o falta penados por la ley.
> 
> El Congreso no puede dictar leyes que establezcan o prohiban religión alguna.
> 
> Los actos religiosos de culto público se celebrarán ordinariamente en los templos. Los que extraordinariamente se celebren fuera de éstos se sujetarán a la ley reglamentaria._
> 
> The third paragraph roughly translates to:
> 
> Religious acts of public worship are ordinarily held in temples. Those that tend to be celebrated outside are subject to the regulations of the law.
> 
> This was a very important part of the constitution. It was added when the government separated the church from education.
> 
> So what has Peña Nieto done? He influenced the PRI to change this article, and now the third paragraph has been *deleted*.


When was this third paragraph deleted from the Mexican constitution? Some links, please.


----------



## Longford

I think it's time to allow religious organizations to have greater involvement in the education system in Mexico. The public school system is a failure and too many "teachers" are unqualified. Since the overwhelming majority of Mexicans identify themselves as Roman Catholics I really doubt many people will object to greater religious involvement. The PAN was for that. Many in the PRI are for that. The anarchists? We know where they stand. They'll be opposed. If there are things about the President-elect to complain about, I don't think this is a very good issue for his opponents to concentrate on.


----------



## conorkilleen

Longford said:


> I think it's time to allow religious organizations to have greater involvement in the education system in Mexico. The public school system is a failure and too many "teachers" are unqualified. Since the overwhelming majority of Mexicans identify themselves as Roman Catholics I really doubt many people will object to greater religious involvement. The PAN was for that. Many in the PRI are for that. The anarchists? We know where they stand. They'll be opposed. If there are things about the President-elect to complain about, I don't think this is a very good issue for his opponents to concentrate on.


Its laughable to think that the Mexican government would do anything for the education system in Mexico. I know, this is coming from someone with a 10 year old in school and another one going in.

Private schools are the way to go....its a shame that you need to make at least 5,000 pesos a month to put your kid in a Private school...and thats not even a good one.

Pretty much shows you why the poorer, and sometimes middle class by Mexican standards, Mexican youth are turing to gangs and cartels for education and jobs. Sad state Mexico is in with the education system.


----------



## TundraGreen

Longford said:


> I think it's time to allow religious organizations to have greater involvement in the education system in Mexico. The public school system is a failure and too many "teachers" are unqualified. Since the overwhelming majority of Mexicans identify themselves as Roman Catholics I really doubt many people will object to greater religious involvement. The PAN was for that. Many in the PRI are for that. The anarchists? We know where they stand. They'll be opposed. If there are things about the President-elect to complain about, I don't think this is a very good issue for his opponents to concentrate on.


So we should let the church take over the education of all the children in the country, the same church that took 400 years to admit that earth is not at the center of the universe, prohibits women from leadership roles, and protects child molesters. You don't have to be an anarchist to think that is a bad idea.


----------



## conorkilleen

TundraGreen said:


> So we should let the church take over the education of all the children in the country, the same church that took 400 years to admit that earth is not at the center of the universe, prohibits women from leadership roles, and protects child molesters. You don't have to be an anarchist to think that is a bad idea.


I like the cut of your jib, sir.


----------



## Longford

TundraGreen said:


> So we should let the church take over the education of all the children in the country, the same church that took 400 years to admit that earth is not at the center of the universe, prohibits women from leadership roles, and protects child molesters. You don't have to be an anarchist to think that is a bad idea.


Your comments suggest something more broadly that I've said earlier and seem to me to be a harsh criticism of Mexicans and their religious practices/beliefs and insensitive to the educational needs of the nation.


----------



## conorkilleen

Longford said:


> Your comments suggest something more broadly that I've said earlier and seem to me to be a harsh criticism of Mexicans and their religious practices/beliefs and insensitive to the educational needs of the nation.


I also find it laughable that I am going to let a bunch of child molester protectors teach my children how to be a citizen and educate them on "whatever" the church thinks they need to learn.

[Deleted]


----------



## TundraGreen

Longford said:


> Your comments suggest something more broadly that I've said earlier and seem to me to be a harsh criticism of Mexicans and their religious practices/beliefs and insensitive to the educational needs of the nation.


It was not a criticism of Mexicans at all. It was a comment on the Catholic Church. If we had been talking about turning education over to some other church in some other country, I would have found an equally negative statement for the other church.


----------



## Guest

Isla Verde said:


> When was this third paragraph deleted from the Mexican constitution? Some links, please.


It is not enacted yet (16 states must first agree before it becomes the law), but here is a translation: (see Article 24 in this translation which would now allow religious activity outside of a church as well)

Google Translate

Say what you want, but allowing some religion into the schools in the form of prayers, learning the 10 commandments or whatever, seems to me to be an easy way to instill ethics or some form of a moral compass in youngsters to avoid some problems later. The majority of students hear the same messages in church. In a country where 80% or more would say they are practicing Catholics, involving the Church here seems to be an obvious choice. No one has said the Catholic Church is going to "take over the education process", just assist.

Of course, none of what either a religious or an obstinate atheist teacher says can be scientifically proven, so it's all balderdash according to the small but vocal minority that wants to prevent any religious discussions to be kept out of schools for political purposes.

I remember prayer in school and at public events. America seemed to go down the rathole when a small minority hired some high powered attorneys to legally exclude ANY reference to ANY religion in US schools, public events or government functions. To me, Mayberry disappeared and went down the same rathole with this process.

To avoid any discussion of religion in schools is denying youngsters to make their own informed decision about their own lives. To someone older, those results can be seen in today's US youth. Does society really want the same thing to happen here in MX?

Please hold off on blaming priests for most child molestation. Molesters come from all walks of life, and from both sexes. The Church is an easy target for hecklers and lawyers.


----------



## edgeee

*But. . . .*

molesters do come from anywhere, but only the church has untold wealth and massive power to protect them. and sending them to some new area to avoid bad publicity is just as despicable as the original act.

what i can't figure out is why it took so long for them to get a black eye from molestation.
using the death penalty for heresy for centuries wasn't bad enough?


----------



## johnmex

I would bet that the Mormons in Chihuahua, La Luz del Mundo in Guadalajara (coming to your neighborhood soon!), the Jewish community in DF and myriad local indigenous religious groups would frown upon religion in the schools.

Being of Irish/Italian descent I am obviously Roman Catholic and I don't want the church helping educate my kids. 

Hey! Maybe we could invite Tom Cruise to help out!


----------



## mickisue1

Longford said:


> Your comments suggest something more broadly that I've said earlier and seem to me to be a harsh criticism of Mexicans and their religious practices/beliefs and insensitive to the educational needs of the nation.


So far as I can see, most Mexicans are similar to most people in other Catholic countries in the world.

They are not so much Catholics in the sense that they believe every word that the Catholic Church teaches, they are Catholics because it gives structure to their social lives.

My daughter's fiancé's family in Italy are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The only one who "attends" mass is his grandma, who watches it on TV. But they have all been baptized, and made first communion, and were confirmed. 

The wedding will be Catholic. It seems to be the US where the most hard-core (as well as the most rebellious) Catholics are located.

Mexico adds the frequent celebration of religious holidays to the mix. But, lucky for those of you who already live there, Mexicans like to party!

Nevertheless, in any country where the teaching of children was a primary role for priests and nuns, there was, and probably is, molestation, physical and emotional abuse.

Until the Catholic Church, at the highest level, understands the immorality of covering up molestation, in order to protect its own reputation, it will, at least in my mind be unfit for working with children.

Think about the reputation of Joe Paterno, who was a hero at Penn St. Now it's come out that it was, most likely, his influence that allowed Sandusky to continue to molest kids. I don't find it a coincidence at all, that he was Catholic.


----------



## TundraGreen

mickisue1 said:


> ...
> Until the Catholic Church, at the highest level, understands the immorality of covering up molestation, in order to protect its own reputation, it will, at least in my mind be unfit for working with children.
> 
> Think about the reputation of Joe Paterno, who was a hero at Penn St. Now it's come out that it was, most likely, his influence that allowed Sandusky to continue to molest kids. I don't find it a coincidence at all, that he was Catholic.


That is a valid comparison. Paterno and the president, Spanier have resigned. The Catholic church seems to be more concerned with protecting the people who covered up molestation cases. I will believe they are serious when the pope and a few cardinals are fired.


----------



## adamathefrog

GringoCArlos said:


> To avoid any discussion of religion in schools is denying youngsters to make their own informed decision about their own lives. To someone older, those results can be seen in today's US youth. Does society really want the same thing to happen here in MX?


Correlation does not mean causation, to imply as such is at best propaganda and at worst outright lies. Society has gone to **** everywhere on the planet in the past 30-40 years, and it's not to do with religion being removed from American schools.

The real issue with involving religion in education is that religions are some of the most successful memes around, they're incredibly difficult to resist when introduced by someone in authority. Children don't decide, children are hard-coded to believe whatever adults tell them. It's better that fairy-teapot-in-the-sky nonsense isn't introduced to them until their brains allow them to sort truth from fantasy.

There's also the issue that teaching someone to accept something on face without any evidence at all teaches them that evidence is unimportant and leads to a totally different world view (I'd hazard a guess that this effect is what has created the huge gulf between the "red" and "blue" states).

Lastly, I think every Atheist should vehemently refute the assertion that religion is the only provider of morality and/or the regulator of behaviour in society. What can be said about religion, however, is that it teaches you that people who don't believe as you do are somewhat sub-human (yeah, I know what you're just about to say, it's nonsense, just look on youtube for bible-belters bashing Atheists), which leads to so much evil.

The Nordic countries have some of the lowest rates of belief in the world, yet they also have some of the highest standards of living and lowest crime rates, whilst i don't claim this to be caused by lack of religion, it certainly wasn't caused by presence religion!.

*TL;DR* : introducing children to unverifiable religious belief whilst their brains are still hardwired to believe what adults tell them is absolute truth is pretty close to child abuse.


----------



## Isla Verde

mickisue1 said:


> Think about the reputation of Joe Paterno, who was a hero at Penn St. Now it's come out that it was, most likely, his influence that allowed Sandusky to continue to molest kids. I don't find it a coincidence at all, that he was Catholic.


I'm not a big fan of the Catholic Church as an institution though I respect the beliefs and faith of my Catholic friends here in Mexico. 

As far as Joe Paterno's faith having something to do with his helping to cover up Sandusky's abhorrent behavior, I find that taking things too far. I think it was more a matter of protecting the reputation of Penn State football (itself a kind of religion) that led to the scandal. Other closed religious communities have also had this problem. For example, there have been many cases of the cover-up of child molestation by rabbis and others taking place within ultra-orthodox Jewish communities in the States.


----------



## stilltraveling

polynomial said:


> I think someone has been watching too much Televisa/TV Azteca...
> 
> Irrelevant. There is no comparison between the two.
> 
> 1. Hugo Chavez comes from a very poor family, and he saw a lot of injustice since he was a kid, which is the origin of his extremists views towards social justice. He never went to university. Instead, he went to a military academy, and read works by Karl Marx during his spare time.
> 
> 2. During his military career, he secretly founded a revolutionary movement called *Movimiento Bolivariano Revolucionario 200*
> 
> 3. Chavez spent time in prison for his activities against the government (mainly for trying to assassinate the Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez). A few years after, one of Chavez' associates, Rafael Caldera, became president and freed Chavez.
> 
> 4. Chavez founded his own political party in 1997, the MVR (Movimiento V Republica), and he got elected in 1998.
> 
> 5. Since then, Chavez has been able to remain in power because under their constitution, he is allowed to be reelected. It is very likely that he won his term by fraudulent means.


1. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in Latin America that didn't read Marx in university or in their spare time. Unlike in the US, Marx's were not burned and shunned in an effort to keep out any competing thought. 

2. The MBR was in response to the Venezuelan government slaughtering people in the streets for protesting. They were literally gunning them down on television. The response of the military was what one should expect in a free society. It was a very popular movement, as evidenced by Chavez's landslide victory in 1998. 

3. Same as the previous point. 

4. Beating his nearest rival by nearly 20%. 

5. No evidence has ever been presented that would suggest that any of Chavez's victories were fraudulent. Venezuela's elections are some of the most internationally-monitored in the world and none of the monitors implied they were anything other than free and fair. 


The whole Chavez-AMLO canard really only works on people who get all their "information" from television news. The above talking points on Chavez really only work on people who get their information from US corporate media and Televisa. The two men have never met. The only thing they have in common is their mutual disdain for neoliberalism, a system that forced onto Latin America at gunpoint and failed miserably in every country where it was implemented (costing hundreds of thousands of dead and disappeared required to implement it). 

The calls for socialism in Latin America are no different than every developed country in the western world other than the US. Why isn't the neoliberal cabal as antagonistic towards France, Norway, or any of the other (every) country in Europe? They are just as socialist as Chavez, if not more so (actually, much more so). For some reason, the north feels entitled to veto decisions made by Latin American electorates. It's a normal reaction by people who feel a paternal relationship towards Latin America. The fact that the policies these critics have imposed failed so miserably doesn't shake their belief in their righteousness or their moral authority. 

I find it disheartening that the misinformation is so widely accepted, though when one considers the billions that are spent to disseminate it every year, it's really not surprising. You get what you pay for, even when it's with stolen taxpayer dollars.


----------



## stilltraveling

Longford said:


> I think it's time to allow religious organizations to have greater involvement in the education system in Mexico. The public school system is a failure and too many "teachers" are unqualified. Since the overwhelming majority of Mexicans identify themselves as Roman Catholics I really doubt many people will object to greater religious involvement.


What makes you think religious teachers would be any more qualified? 

The overwhelming majority of Mexicans are Catholic in name only. I would object to any group teaching their mythology to my children as fact. I don't sent them to school to be indoctrinated in some death cult.


----------



## stilltraveling

GringoCArlos said:


> To avoid any discussion of religion in schools is denying youngsters to make their own informed decision about their own lives.


They are more than free to have those discussions at home and in church. 

BTW, how does one make an "informed decision" about mythology? Will there be equal time given to all religions (there are thousands), or will this project be limited only to those faiths that the government deems worthy of inclusion?


----------



## adamathefrog

stilltraveling said:


> They are more than free to have those discussions at home and in church.
> 
> BTW, how does one make an "informed decision" about mythology? Will there be equal time given to all religions (there are thousands), or will this project be limited only to those faiths that the government deems worthy of inclusion?


All any religious person wants is for children to be given the choice between *their* beliefs and a painful burning eternity of misery in hell. Give that choice to a 6 year old and you've a sheep for life. Kids are like CD-Rs.

adam.


----------



## stilltraveling

adamathefrog said:


> Correlation does not mean causation, to imply as such is at best propaganda and at worst outright lies. Society has gone to **** everywhere on the planet in the past 30-40 years, and it's not to do with religion being removed from American schools.


To imply that society has degraded flies in the face of the evidence. By every measure we have available to us, quality of life is vastly better than in was 30-40 years ago for the overwhelming majority of humans on this planet. Sure, it's not so easy to have a housekeeper who works 6 days a week for $20 and no vacation, but I don't know too many people who were housekeepers that long for those days. 



> Lastly, I think every Atheist should vehemently refute the assertion that religion is the only provider of morality and/or the regulator of behaviour in society. What can be said about religion, however, is that it teaches you that people who don't believe as you do are somewhat sub-human (yeah, I know what you're just about to say, it's nonsense, just look on youtube for bible-belters bashing Atheists), which leads to so much evil.


There are always good people in the world who do good things and bad people in the world who do bad things. It takes religion to convince good people to do bad things. 

I find no evidence in the historical record that would suggest that religion is a net positive influence on human ethics. Religion may have made sense during the transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian societies when it was written back in the bronze age, but it has no relevance in the modern world. 



> introducing children to unverifiable religious belief whilst their brains are still hardwired to believe what adults tell them is absolute truth is pretty close to child abuse.


:clap2:


----------



## stilltraveling

Isla Verde said:


> As far as Joe Paterno's faith having something to do with his helping to cover up Sandusky's abhorrent behavior, I find that taking things too far. I think it was more a matter of protecting the reputation of Penn State football (itself a kind of religion) that led to the scandal.


And that excuses it because . . .


----------



## adamathefrog

For what it's worth, normally I would try not to offend anyone regarding their belief system as I don't think people have a choice in what they're exposed to, so apologies to anyone if they think I was too harsh.

However, when you try to push your own special brand of fairy tales on other people's children, that's just plain out of line. I don't think I can stress enough how totally unacceptable I find government pushing religion on kids is.


----------



## FHBOY

I'm not sure how a red/blue state thread got to religion (a topic that is difficult to discuss face-to-face let alone keyboard to keyboard). Accepting the premise that religious beliefs were born of man's need to explain the unexplainable, then indeed some of the tenets of that religion are as false as the explanation we give children about thunder and lightning - it puts an understandable paradigm on that which is not understandable.

Norse gods, the Egyptian underworld where the sun god Ra travels every night, the imbuing of stone idols with supernatural powers, are all man's attempt to make his/her place understandable.

The moral codes drawn from these beliefs though are another matter entirely. Judeo-Christianity as an example only, minus the miracles and God figure, contains many rules on how people should act in relationship to each other, to the earth, towards animals, etc. This is the humanistic view of religion and in that, in the 21st Century we can see no particular harm. You can live a "religious" life based solely on those teachings, and throw away the Noah and the Ark, Jonah and the Big Fish, Methuselah and the rest. Separate out the lessons from the fables, then living a religious life has nothing to do with church/synagogue/mosque.

Having an Omnipotent punishing/rewarding figure is the concern. If the belief for doing the "right thing" is that there is reward and punishment when you shuffle off the mortal coil, then the only impetus is fear, is a religious belief based on fear a way to live? I am not too studied on Incas and Aztec religious beliefs, but from what I know, it seems that their way of explaining the unexplainable was fear and retribution. Is that what we want our kids to learn, "Do it or God'll getcha!" 

How about "Do it because it is the right thing".

What is hard to accept is when the church/synagogue/mosques, any orthodoxy, requires you to believe all their teachings in order to define yourself as "religious". Many of the stories, many of the "facts" in sacred books cannot be proven and defy logic, yet we tell our kids that they are true. It is not my place to question your beliefs, but I would prefer to be able to find some shard of evidence to back up some of the stories and characters in holy books, as we have about the time of Moses and Egypt, the city of Jericho, the ruins at Masada and Capernum.

"The Book of Mormon" currently running on B'way, put's it in a song, "We Are Mormons, We Just Believe." The point of view is the apparent absurdity of the origins of the Mormon religious beliefs, beliefs so far from logic that the world may view them as absurd. I am sure we could critique any religious/mythology in the same way, so I am not picking on Mormons. You see, that is my point: the beliefs in the Mormon religion should not bother anyone, but the fact that their principles of living with each other revolves around a moral code of behavior is important. [In fact, the best records and prime sources for the Holocaust and such is maintained by the Mormon Church - I do not have to believe in the Smith mythology to say that this type of thing is a contribution to the world, it is a moral humanistic duty.] Am I getting too far off in my exposition?

I am not Catholic yet Semana Santa in Ajijic was a spiritual experience for me. I may not believe a lot of the story, but the actions of the people, the respect for each other was an amazing experience, the outpouring of communal good will was, as I said, amazing. 

In the end, there are two points: Religion and mythology (not the same) was invented to help man explain his existence and the world around him that he did not understand. If you believe that an Omnipotent being wrote these explanations down, so be it. Second, I can sum up religious belief as the ancient Jewish sage Hillel did, "Do not do unto others that you would not have them do unto you. The rest is commentary."

Our hymn for this evening will be found on page 286 of your hymnal.

:focus: ??????


----------



## stilltraveling

It's a shame that Rabbi Hillel's teachings are only offered in a religious context. The fact is, his words transcend all religions and boil social norms down to what should be common sense in any society. 

I'm sure that if schools started teaching religion, tikkun olam wouldn't be on the curriculum.


----------



## mickisue1

Adam, it's not that simple. 

Do you get most of the kids? Yup. Do you keep them all? Not at all.

My entire family was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools. The oldest four of us went through HS, the last two through grade school.

Of those of us with kids, two sent their own kids to Catholic schools, and their kids are still very much Catholic as adults. The other two, well, my younger brother goes to some other church, and I decided about 20 some years ago that a man in the sky who favored one football team over another was illogical.

My kids are some of the kindest, most socially responsible people I know, so I guess their lack of a hellfire option didn't affect that too much.


----------



## adamathefrog

mickisue1 said:


> My kids are some of the kindest, most socially responsible people I know, so I guess their lack of a hellfire option didn't affect that too much.


That was my point 

The alleged benefits are not the sole preserve of religion, and one should take great offence when people claim they are.


----------



## terrybahena

As for the elections, I am only around Mexicans, no Americans, and what I have heard people say is, this guy won and nobody voted for him. When I asked huh? I was told... this is Mexico.
I have no opinion, just reporting what I heard around here....


----------



## adamathefrog

terrybahena said:


> As for the elections, I am only around Mexicans, no Americans, and what I have heard people say is, this guy won and nobody voted for him. When I asked huh? I was told... this is Mexico.
> I have no opinion, just reporting what I heard around here....


Yeah, I heard similar from my other half. She was pretty furious when the results came in...

The PRI lost power 3 elections ago, right? Easily about time for the pendulum of democracy to swing back to the other bad choice.


----------



## Longford

terrybahena said:


> As for the elections, I am only around Mexicans, no Americans, and what I have heard people say is, this guy won and nobody voted for him. When I asked huh? I was told... this is Mexico.
> I have no opinion, just reporting what I heard around here....


Where you're at, in Guerrero, and especially in the Costa Chica region ... where the PRD candidates now win elections by a 3-1 or 4-1 margin ... I understand how people think all of their countrymen voted similarly. There's a huge disconnect in Mexico from one part of the country to another and many people rarely if ever leave the region where they were born and have lived their entire lives.

I hope all is going well for you, with your new adventure!


----------

