The World is on Fire: Protests Happening All Over the Globe Thread

[jpyaks3]

38 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

No one is disputing that they are popularly elected. Tossing out term limits, when the public had declared their support for it, despite the fact that term limits are not unconstitutional, was undemocratic and clearly done to enable Morales to stay in power. The Bolivian constitution even explicitly authorizes term limits for the justices, so term limits are not “incompatible” with their constitution as you say, is nonsense.
 

The OAS’s preliminary audit report is open to read for everyone and found severe irregularities that led to Morales calling new elections: https://www.oas.org/documents/spa/press/Informe-Auditoria-Bolivia-2019.pdf

No one is going to believe that fair elections can be held again by someone caught rigging them the first time. 

 

If you are caught rigging an election, after declaring a public referendum on your ability to run again invalid, people are going to be angry and they aren’t  going to trust that you and members of your party are driven by national interests, rather than self-preservation. It’s unfortunate what is happening now,  but this is typical anywhere in the world when people have had enough of authoritarianism. There is no peaceful overthrow of dictators or wanna-be dictators and violence and targeting of opposition is coming from Morales supporters as well. The mayor who was unfortunately targeted in your video was triggered by an opposition protestors being killed by having his skull fractured via an explosive.
 

If we’re spinning partisan narratives, people rigging elections and cracking the skulls of those in opposition isn’t a particularly good look.

My Spanish isn't strong enough to really dig into the OAS report, do you happen to have an English version? From what I gather a lot of the issues were with the electronic reporting/how they were transmitted, but I could be wrong there.

I think calling Morales a wanna-be dictator is pretty ridiculous considering the only thing that he has done is ask the Supreme Court to decide on term limits (which I agree is kinda ****ty since the referendum would have kept them in place). He still won the popular vote (pretty much everyone agrees on this) and after the OAS report offered to have new elections with international monitoring. In response the right wing opposition has launched a coup and has arrested the leadership of the party. If anyone is acting like a wanna be dictator it is the people that are overthrowing the popularly elected government and imprisoning (or attempting to imprison) opposition leaders. 
 

It isn't very difficult to look at the history of Latin and South America and to see exactly what is going on here. 

In your opinion is the opposition acting in a way that would foster democracy/anti-authoritarianism? What do you think the path forward for Bolivia looks like under the army/opposition?

Edited November 11, 2019 by jpyaks3

[No Excuses]

2 hours ago, jpyaks3 said:

I think calling Morales a wanna-be dictator is pretty ridiculous considering the only thing that he has done is ask the Supreme Court to decide on term limits (which I agree is kinda ****ty since the referendum would have kept them in place). He still won the popular vote (pretty much everyone agrees on this) and after the OAS report offered to have new elections with international monitoring.

 

The referendum overturn is especially ****ty because Evo himself called for it. You can't call a referendum, dislike the public's decision, appeal to your friends in the Court and have the public's will and constitutional mandates overturned.

 

Whether he won a plurality or not in a deeply tainted election is almost entirely irrelevant. Placing any kind of credibility in a process that seems to have been rigged on his behalf from the start is problematic.

 

I am not sure where Bolivia goes with this but the police and military unwilling to go along with an authoritarian takeover isn't necessarily what has always happened in Latin America. I think viewing Evo through the lens of past Latin American leaders being overthrown is not entirely accurate. He seems to be operating in Maduro territory, where he would have maintained power through an illegitimate process.

 

Ideally, we see free and fair elections monitored by third party observers. I think it is mandated that the new interim President has to call an election within the first 90 days.

[nonniey]

Surprised Morales had not yet subverted the military to his will. It looked like he had been following the Venezuelan playbook - guess he either didn't get around to that part or he failed in the attempt.  Lots of dispute over the election results - most believe he didn't get the majority he needed to avoid a runoff -  so shut down the count for 24 hours, a little re-tabulation and then presto no runoff needed. (Venezuelan President Maduro did the same thing in 2013 when he lost but decided to re-tabulate the results - can't have elections messing with the revolution after all).

Edited November 11, 2019 by nonniey

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[DoneMessedUp]

[jpyaks3]

Whole bunch of peaceful democracy loving people here. Glad they could enact a coup to overthrow a popularly elected leader.

 

https://twitter.com/redfishstream/status/1194211935660728320

 

this is just one video of many. The opposition is burning indigenous flags, has arrested or forced out every member of the MAS in the succession line and has shown zero regard for democracy. 

1 hour ago, DoneMessedUp said:

Do you have zero historical knowledge of South and Latin America? Honest question here.

[No Excuses]

9 minutes ago, jpyaks3 said:

Whole bunch of peaceful democracy loving people here. Glad they could enact a coup to overthrow a popularly elected leader.

No amount of repeating this nonsense talking point is going to make this true. You are not popularly elected if the constitution was changed by partisan courts and the election was rigged to ensure you stay in power. 
 

Expecting people to quietly and peacefully accept authoritarian takeover and rigged elections is an interesting position. As long as the wanna-be dictator says all things you like right?

 

27 minutes ago, jpyaks3 said:

Do you have zero historical knowledge of South and Latin America? Honest question here.

Don’t know if he does, but one of your key talking points in this thread on term limits and the Bolivian constitution was laughably wrong. It was clear that you had no idea what took place in 2016. So it’s peachy that you are asking this question to others when your own understanding of Latin American affairs is awfully shallow.

[jpyaks3]

18 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

No amount of repeating this nonsense talking point is going to make this true.  You are not popularly elected if the constitution was changed by partisan courts and the election was rigged to ensure you stay in power. 
 

Expecting people to quietly and peacefully accept authoritarian takeover and rigged elections is an interesting position. As long as the wanna-be dictator says all things you like right?

 

 

 

The courts were popularly elected. The people of Bolivia chose the court and the people who sit on the court. It wasn't like Morales hand picked the judges. Additionally, almost everyone agrees that Morales received more votes now there were irregularities which is an issue but Morales was willing to have another election with international monitors.

The current opposition is burning indigenous flags, has openly fascist members in its ranks, is/was looting and burning MAS peoples homes, drug an indigenous mayor into the streets cut her hair and threw paint on her before throwing her out of government and has forced the entire succession line up until their person to resign. You seem to whte-wash all of this which is much much worse and more dangerous than the Bolviarian Supreme Court removing term limits because you disagree with the ideology of Morales.

 

Quote

Don’t know if he does, but one of your key talking points in this thread on term limits and the Bolivian constitution was laughably wrong. It was clear that you had no idea what took place in 2016. So it’s peachy that you are asking this question to others when your own understanding of Latin American affairs is awfully shallow.

I was quoting the Bolvian Supreme court and their decision regarding term limits. It seems you have an issue with the Supreme Court of Bolivia because all I did was quote them and I trust them on the constitutionality of their decision rather you.

Edited November 12, 2019 by jpyaks3

[No Excuses]

31 minutes ago, jpyaks3 said:

I was quoting the Bolvian Supreme court and their decision regarding term limits. It seems you have an issue with the Supreme Court of Bolivia because all I did was quote them and I trust them on the constitutionality of their decision rather you.

 

Their decision on overturning term limits had nothing to do with the constitution of the country as you had originally tried to claim. Term limits were in fact what the constitution mandated. The courts made a bogus argument that term limits violate the human rights of Evo Morales. So you have no idea what you are talking about and your entire factual understanding of this issue is extremely suspect.

 

Just to be clear, your voicing support for an act that included: Evo calling a referendum to gain popular support for running again, which he expected to win. Evo loses the referendum. Not accepting the results of his own referendum, Evo takes the issue to his friends on the courts, who decide that the constitution has to be changed because Evo wants to run again. Ironically, he could have never called a referendum and just let the courts side with him, but the fact that he was rejected by the public and still chose to undertake a nakedly authoritarian power grab set the stage for the past weeks events.

 

And after disregarding the public's approval of constitutional term limits, his party engages in electoral fraud in the subsequent election.

 

And to you this isn't a deeply undemocratic and problematic event, but rather totally fine. Obviously millions of Bolivians who have protested this for the past few weeks is the really problematic part. Attempting to paint all of them as fascists because of the actions of a few is ****ing stupid, when Evo's goons have been going around cracking skulls and engaging in violence and rioting themselves.

 

A power grab aided by the courts that annulled a key tenet of a countries constitution, followed by election fraud = fine, but the military stepping in after week of protests and proof of electoral fraud = fascist coup.

Edited November 12, 2019 by No Excuses

[No Excuses]

52 minutes ago, jpyaks3 said:

you disagree with the ideology of Morales.

 

I am a supporter of left wing policies and even earlier in this thread, I voiced support for what Evo accomplished. What I am not is a fan of illiberal autocrats. There is no policy agenda worth advancing that comes at the cost of democratic norms and institutional integrity.

Edited November 12, 2019 by No Excuses

[TheGreatBuzz]

Honest question:  Is there really a reason to give a **** about Bolivia?

[jpyaks3]

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

 

Their decision on overturning term limits had nothing to do with the constitution of the country as you had originally tried to claiNm. Term limits were in fact what the constitution mandated. The courts made a bogus argument that term limits violate the human rights of Evo Morales. So you have no idea what you are talking about and your entire factual understanding of this issue is extremely suspect.

 

Just to be clear, your voicing support for an act that included: Evo calling a referendum to gain popular support for running again, which he expected to win. Evo loses the referendum. Not accepting the results of his own referendum, Evo takes the issue to his friends on the courts, who decide that the constitution has to be changed because Evo wants to run again. Ironically, he could have never called a referendum and just let the courts side with him, but the fact that he was rejected by the public and still chose to undertake a nakedly authoritarian power grab set the stage for the past weeks events.

 

And after disregarding the public's approval of constitutional term limits, his party engages in electoral fraud in the subsequent election.

 

And to you this isn't a deeply undemocratic and problematic event, but rather totally fine. Obviously millions of Bolivians who have protested this for the past few weeks is the really problematic part. Attempting to paint all of them as fascists because of the actions of a few is ****ing stupid, when Evo's goons have been going around cracking skulls and engaging in violence and rioting themselves.

 

A power grab aided by the courts that annulled a key tenet of a countries constitution, followed by election fraud = fine, but the military stepping in after week of protests and proof of electoral fraud = fascist coup.

First off, I was quoting exactly what the Supreme Court said. Now you for some reason don't believe they are a legitimate organization despite their constitutional role in the country and the fact that they are democratically elected. I am not sure why that is. I was not arguing that term limits were against the constitution. I was simply pointing out that the people who decide what is and isn't constitutional ruled that they weren't. That's all. I think you are attributing the Supreme Court of Bolivia's opinion on the constitutionality of term limits for mine. I never commented on whether term limits were constitutional outside of what the Supreme Court of Bolivia decided.

Now voting irregularities are never a good thing, but the solution isn't to have the military overthrow the government, forcing out members of the leading party until they get to someone they like. That is the definition of a coup. Now what happens next is the big thing. If for like the first time ever the army steps in and holds free and fair elections like Morales was calling for with international monitors then this situation isn't a huge deal and you can resume democracy and it will probably be a net good that Morales is forced out but there are free and fair elections with all parties represented.

Now if that doesn't come to pass (what has happened pretty much every other time the army has ever stepped in) then there is a massive problem because the opposition is already signaling they are going to be attacking the indigenous people and there are a lot of really ****ty folks floating around leadership roles in the opposition. So color me skeptical that this will all work out and the opposition and the army are really just standing up to a leader who overstepped democratic norms and bounds rather than a naked power grab and a way to subjugate indigenous groups and anyone who is to the left of center. 

Do you really believe that this situation results in free and fair elections and a resumption of the democratic process? 

28 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Honest question:  Is there really a reason to give a **** about Bolivia?

I mean its a potentially violent situation and many people could lose their lives. On a more cynical note Bolivia has some of the largest amounts of lithium which are essential to a lot of smart technology, and they just nationalized the lithium industry so thats kind of a big deal

Edited November 12, 2019 by jpyaks3

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, jpyaks3 said:

I mean its a potentially violent situation and many people could lose their lives. On a more cynical note Bolivia has some of the largest amounts of lithium which are essential to a lot of smart technology, and they just nationalized the lithium industry so thats kind of a big deal

Okay, that second part sounds like it might matter.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

Edited November 13, 2019 by visionary

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[jpyaks3]

https://mobile.twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1194728799662956545

 

Looks like the Bolivian people (although current self declared President doesn’t count these people as real Bolivians) aren’t taking the coup lying down. It will be interesting if the media covers this or just ignores it to continue on with the coup is simply responding to the people’s wishes line they have been pushing which completely erases the majority of Bolivians.

Edited November 14, 2019 by jpyaks3

[jpyaks3]

And the fascist coup is. Is killing indigenous protesters. Who could have seen this coming? But Morales definitely had to be removed in a coup because he followed the Supreme Courts ruling on term limits. 

 

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/15/what-dictatorship-looks-bolivian-security-forces-open-fire-indigenous-protesters

[No Excuses]

8 minutes ago, jpyaks3 said:

And the fascist coup is. Is killing indigenous protesters. Who could have seen this coming? But Morales definitely had to be removed in a coup because he followed the Supreme Courts ruling on term limits. 

 

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/15/what-dictatorship-looks-bolivian-security-forces-open-fire-indigenous-protesters

 

Supporters of an overthrown autocrat are usually met with force when revolutions happen. Morales could have not rigged the electoral process for three years. I don’t know, simple things like don’t change the constitution and don’t rig elections.

[jpyaks3]

7 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Supporters of an overthrown autocrat are usually met with force when revolutions happen. Morales could have not rigged the electoral process for three years. I don’t know, simple things like don’t change the constitution and don’t rig elections.

Revolution? When the military forces out the democratically elected party (and the next 2 people in line) then it’s not a revolution it’s a coup. And you still seem to be confused Morales didn’t change the constitution the Supreme Court of Bolivia rules that the term limits were unconstitutional.

 

There was also the offer for elections monitored by OAS and international observers but instead the opposition chose military intervention and a coup rather than the democratic process. Now they are shooting indigenous protesters in the streets. 
 

Also why were the earlier protests legitimate in your mind but these protestors should be met with extreme violence? 
 

Are you concerned about any of the rhetoric coming out of the self appointed President? 

Edited November 16, 2019 by jpyaks3

[No Excuses]

49 minutes ago, jpyaks3 said:

Morales didn’t change the constitution the Supreme Court of Bolivia rules that the term limits were unconstitutional.

 

He shouldn’t have asked the public on term limits if he wasn’t ready to accept their decision and was going to ask his partisan friends on the Supreme Court to rewrite the constitution for him regardless of what the people said. You can ignore this point as much you like, but that decision, followed by a rigged election in which he cheated, is exactly why Bolivia is unraveling. Cheaters don’t typically get do-overs when they are caught.

 

Some use the Supreme Court and electoral fraud to initiate a coup, some use the military. One was obviously a wiser choice.

[DoneMessedUp]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DoneMessedUp]

 

 

[visionary]