If Nicaraguans and Cubans love their communist overlords so much, why not have actual free elections, with a secret ballot and a free press? Oh wait, because as soon as they allowed that in Nicaragua (1990), the communists were out of a job.
If the election was free and fair, why wouldn't you be happy with the same rules here? Fair is fair! Yeah, communism would have been awesome if everyone agreed! The Sandinistas should totally have been free to do whatever they wanted. So would you be willing to have the same rules here? If it was a fair election, what's your problem? So naturally one bad election means Nicaragua can't also have bad elections. Excellent logic!
Ah, Chomsky... now I know why you are defending an oppressive communist dictatorship. Would you be willing to have the same 'free' Nicoraguan election here? The GOP's military wing will seize power in a violent coup ban all other parties for four years and kill lots of people they don't like. They'll ban all opposition press. Then, a few months before the election, they'll let new parties form. But there will be no free press, no secret ballot, and Republicans will control most polling stations. Sound fair?
and just like nobody can pin Obama, nobody can pin Reagan.
Wow, that's amazingly free! New parties that had previously been banned had all of three months to organize, and didn't have the benefit of a free press or even a secret ballot. Such freedom! Very fairness! The source you picked is literally a propaganda website for Sandinistas. Great choice. I'm sure I could find the North Korean website certifying their elections as fair. How about reading this from the Dutch observers:
Once again - the Dutch observers said only left parties, with no discernible differences from the Sandinistas, participated in the elections. The Sandinistas, with rigged rules, undoubtably won a majority of votes. It's a minor miracle 30% voted against the Sandinistas given the opposition abstained due to unfair and unfree rules and despite the ballots not being secret. Once again, "not perfect" is as big an understatement as saying Vegemite is "kind of salty". The elections weren't acceptable by any Western standard. Would you be happy with the Republicans instituting these rules - banning opposition parties for a few years before giving them only a few months to campaign, no secret ballots, no opposition press? I doubt it.
And are you seriously going to defend elections with no opposition, no free press and no secret ballot by saying we can spend money in ours, so doh we aren't free? Do you even understand how stupid that sounds? And no, they didn't. They did it to on Nov. 4 to try and appear legitimate before the US elections on Nov. 6th.
Do you consider a public election, boycotted by opposition parties (who had just been legalized and had literally no time to organize) and lacking any sort of free press to be 'free'?
lolololol Iran-Contra is the liberal Benghazi.
You're right, he is an oppressive dictator. Saying he 'wasn't perfect' is like saying Vegemite is 'kind of salty'. Seriously, what is with you liberals and embracing communist dictatorships? You aren't communists, right?
You realize that in those 'elections' they didn't use secret ballot, that opposition parties had been banned until a year before the election (hardly enough time to organzie), and that there wasn't anything resembling a free press, right?
You mean like a country defending themselves from terrorists that want to kill each and every one of them?
The Nazis built the autobahns and improved Germany's economy. Are they worth praising for that? No. Dictators harm people and don't deserve praise. Communist regimes murder innocent people, oppress dissidents, and suppress fundamental human rights. They deserve no more praise than other dictators.
Ever heard of the Mitt Romney dog incident? Or Mitt Romney's supposed inappropriate hazing behavior as a college student? Those were major issues pushed by left-wing journalists in 2012. Why isn't Bernie Sanders' history of supporting communist dictatorships relevant? I'd argue the countries that he approve of gives a great deal of insight into how he views the world and how he would conduct foreign policy.
Cause someone totally, on record multiple times saying he likes Communist dictatorships is totally the same as people believing, contrary to evidence, that the President was born in Kenya. I'd say the thing about going to a church with a racist pastor is kind of important too, but not nearly as much as supporting communist dictatorships.