|
On November 12 2019 10:10 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2019 09:35 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2019 09:32 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2019 09:28 Nebuchad wrote:...
we can just have new elections....
Oh, wait, you're still backing a coup?
That's... let's say "interesting". Given the following quote, would you care to explain how you came to the above conclusion? On November 12 2019 08:54 JimmiC wrote:...
now all the people, Morales followers included should fight to make sure there are safe, free elections and respect the results when they happen. Hopefully the UN or someone both can agree too can monitor to make sure they are. Hey Jimmi Aquanim thinks that I'm misrepresenting your position when I say you're fine with the military ousting Morales so that democracy can prevail, would you care to set me straight? You are, and you know that you are. You are just conveniently leaving a bunch out. I'm sure you can find another video of a white guy in his dorm room and Europe to drop some truth bombs on me though.
Sure of course here's one:
+ Show Spoiler +
Won't be needing a long video this time because, and I need to stress this out, the facts are very very clear.
|
On November 12 2019 10:07 Nebuchad wrote:
They asked for new elections. He said ok. They said no. That's what's missing from your little Trump analogy.
If you were in this for democracy, you would be fine with new elections with oversight so that we can trust the results...
Was Morales offering new elections with sufficiently powerful and independent oversight to make the results trustworthy? From what I have read it is not at all obvious that he was.
|
The doublespeak is dizzying. We shouldn't trust him in elections, but if he runs again we'll respect it (and not say he cheated again). He's also literally calling for peace:
Please explain why the military, without a conviction of criminal wrongdoing, can legally oust an elected official in a democratic state. Extralegal expulsion of a government is the definition of a coup d'etat, you may not like the word for what you support but unless Morales is convicted of fraud in a court (not accused in an OAS report) and refuses to step down, that is what it is.
From Wikipedia:
A coup d'état (/ˌkuː deɪˈtɑː/ ; French: [ku deta]), also known by its German name putsch (/pʊtʃ/), or simply as a coup, is the overthrow of an existing government by non-democratic means.
|
On November 12 2019 10:17 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2019 10:07 Nebuchad wrote:
They asked for new elections. He said ok. They said no. That's what's missing from your little Trump analogy.
If you were in this for democracy, you would be fine with new elections with oversight so that we can trust the results... Was Morales offering new elections with sufficiently powerful and independent oversight to make the results trustworthy? From what I have read it is not at all obvious that he was.
Yes he was. He agreed to all of the OAS demands and to replacing the bolivian election committee to the standard of the OAS.
Also in order to back a coup you should probably have the standard that it's obvious that he isn't, not that it's not obvious that he is, lol.
|
On November 12 2019 10:17 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2019 10:07 Nebuchad wrote:
They asked for new elections. He said ok. They said no. That's what's missing from your little Trump analogy.
If you were in this for democracy, you would be fine with new elections with oversight so that we can trust the results... Was Morales offering new elections with sufficiently powerful and independent oversight to make the results trustworthy? From what I have read it is not at all obvious that he was.
"Morales, who has been Bolivia’s president for nearly 14 years, announced he would also replace members of the country’s election board. The body has been heavily criticised after an unexplained 24-hour halt in the vote count on 20 October, which showed a shift in favour of Morales when it resumed." (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/10/evo-morales-concedes-to-new-elections-after-serious-irregularities-found)
Of course you can always cast aspirations on the trustworthiness of democracy, but given that it's all new people I can't see how you'd do so in good faith. Furthermore the opposition did not counterpropose, they simply rejected the offer.
|
On November 12 2019 10:19 Nebuchad wrote:...
Also in order to back a coup you should probably have the standard that it's obvious that he isn't, not that it's not obvious that he is, lol.
If he did manipulate the election the first time around, then I would say that qualifies as "obvious that the next ones will be rigged too until demonstrated otherwise".
On November 12 2019 10:20 des wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2019 10:17 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2019 10:07 Nebuchad wrote:
They asked for new elections. He said ok. They said no. That's what's missing from your little Trump analogy.
If you were in this for democracy, you would be fine with new elections with oversight so that we can trust the results... Was Morales offering new elections with sufficiently powerful and independent oversight to make the results trustworthy? From what I have read it is not at all obvious that he was. "Morales, who has been Bolivia’s president for nearly 14 years, announced he would also replace members of the country’s election board. The body has been heavily criticised after an unexplained 24-hour halt in the vote count on 20 October, which showed a shift in favour of Morales when it resumed." (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/10/evo-morales-concedes-to-new-elections-after-serious-irregularities-found) Of course you can always cast aspirations on the trustworthiness of democracy, but given that it's all new people I can't see how you'd do so in good faith. Furthermore the opposition did not counterpropose, they simply rejected the offer.
The wording of that implies they would be "all new people" chosen by Morales. Not sure how it strains "good faith" to have at least some qualms about that - or anything else carried out under the auspices of the people alleged to have manipulated the election immediately prior.
|
|
|
On November 12 2019 10:25 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2019 10:19 Nebuchad wrote:...
Also in order to back a coup you should probably have the standard that it's obvious that he isn't, not that it's not obvious that he is, lol. If he did manipulate the election the first time around, then I would say that qualifies as "obvious that the next ones will be rigged too until demonstrated otherwise".
You must have a really low opinion of OAS standards then, eh. I hope you won't have to rely on them in the future.
Anyway, as the opposition you can offer your own positions as to what would constitute trustworthiness for you in the next election that we just agreed on. And then if they're sensible and Morales doesn't agree to them, you have a good case. Same if they aren't met. Instead, a democratic solution was offered, you said no, and hours later a military coup removes the person who just offered the democratic solution.
On November 12 2019 10:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2019 10:13 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2019 10:10 JimmiC wrote:On November 12 2019 09:35 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2019 09:32 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2019 09:28 Nebuchad wrote:...
we can just have new elections....
Oh, wait, you're still backing a coup?
That's... let's say "interesting". Given the following quote, would you care to explain how you came to the above conclusion? On November 12 2019 08:54 JimmiC wrote:...
now all the people, Morales followers included should fight to make sure there are safe, free elections and respect the results when they happen. Hopefully the UN or someone both can agree too can monitor to make sure they are. Hey Jimmi Aquanim thinks that I'm misrepresenting your position when I say you're fine with the military ousting Morales so that democracy can prevail, would you care to set me straight? You are, and you know that you are. You are just conveniently leaving a bunch out. I'm sure you can find another video of a white guy in his dorm room and Europe to drop some truth bombs on me though. Sure of course here's one: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YyKCWKxBjI Won't be needing a long video this time because, and I need to stress this out, the facts are very very clear. ROLF, thank you so much for that. My favorite part is where this extraordinarily biased white guy says "if the people didn't want him to run they would have voted him out" somehow forgetting that those people actually voted against extra terms in a REFERENDUM. That is a pretty clear picture the majority didn't want him. I really hope that isn't who you are getting your news from. If it is I suggest rethinking your world view.
Good, glad that this was your favourite part. What did you think of all the other parts?
|
On November 12 2019 10:28 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2019 10:25 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2019 10:19 Nebuchad wrote:...
Also in order to back a coup you should probably have the standard that it's obvious that he isn't, not that it's not obvious that he is, lol. If he did manipulate the election the first time around, then I would say that qualifies as "obvious that the next ones will be rigged too until demonstrated otherwise". You must have a really low opinion of OAS standards then, eh. I hope you won't have to rely on them in the future.
I really don't know what you're getting at here.
Anyway, as the opposition you can offer your own positions as to what would constitute trustworthiness for you in the next election that we just agreed on. And then if they're sensible and Morales doesn't agree to them, you have a good case. Same if they aren't met. Instead, a democratic solution was offered, you said no, and hours later a military coup removes the person who just offered the democratic solution.
I expect part of the opposition's position is "anything carried out while Morales holds the reins is unacceptable given that we believe he manipulated the previous election". As such they don't believe a properly democratic solution was offered to them.
|
Then the opposition can offer alternative terms for a second election, or they can try him in a court of law for fraud. The opposition does not get to decree that the election was fraudulent without due process, at least not within the confines of the law.
|
|
|
Military action is being taken to suppress those who are protesting against the coup. Democracy at its finest!
|
|
|
On November 12 2019 10:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2019 10:34 des wrote:
Then the opposition can offer alternative terms for a second election, or they can try him in a court of law for fraud. The opposition does not get to decree that the election was fraudulent without due process, at least not within the confines of the law. The people of Hong Kong should be rioting, they should be following all the rules within the confines of the law they should have just let those new rules go though....... Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?
If they want to claim they are following democracy and the rule of law and seek peaceful resolution then...yes? If they are claiming to be a revolution trying to oust their government then no? Do you not understand the difference between a legal democratic transfer of power and a coup?
|
On November 12 2019 10:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2019 10:13 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2019 10:10 JimmiC wrote:On November 12 2019 09:35 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2019 09:32 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2019 09:28 Nebuchad wrote:...
we can just have new elections....
Oh, wait, you're still backing a coup?
That's... let's say "interesting". Given the following quote, would you care to explain how you came to the above conclusion? On November 12 2019 08:54 JimmiC wrote:...
now all the people, Morales followers included should fight to make sure there are safe, free elections and respect the results when they happen. Hopefully the UN or someone both can agree too can monitor to make sure they are. Hey Jimmi Aquanim thinks that I'm misrepresenting your position when I say you're fine with the military ousting Morales so that democracy can prevail, would you care to set me straight? You are, and you know that you are. You are just conveniently leaving a bunch out. I'm sure you can find another video of a white guy in his dorm room and Europe to drop some truth bombs on me though. Sure of course here's one: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YyKCWKxBjI Won't be needing a long video this time because, and I need to stress this out, the facts are very very clear. Edit: perhaps who ever has the highest % of the first round should just rule the democratic party even if it shown they rigged it so they won big enough. Who cares that Biden had 42% and Warren and Sanders had 20% and Bernie had 38%. Hypothetical numbers to show show why the rest of that video was also garbage.
Shit your reading comprehension always slips when you're angry, I forgot about that. This doesn't adress any points made by anyone.
|
To be clear I am less than comfortable with the involvement of the police and especially the military in this whole business.
My main point is that Nebuchad repeating "the facts are very very clear" does not seem to me to be a reasonable characterisation of events. It is not at all clear to me that Morales should have retained power, even if the means which have in reality been used to remove him from it are not ideal (and may indeed do more harm than good). It is also not clear to me that the "ideal" means to remove Morales from power would have succeeded in doing so.
On November 12 2019 10:44 Nebuchad wrote:
Shit your reading comprehension always slips when you're angry, I forgot about that. This doesn't adress any points made by anyone.
Does this post serve any purpose whatsoever other than to antagonise JimmiC?
|
|
|
On November 12 2019 10:47 JimmiC wrote:
Edit: here is another one, if after the last presidential election where Trump won, but had less total votes (which is shit, but not as bad as cheating the system, the US just has a flawed system) and the people were so mad about it that they protested for a while with it escalating, and Trump ordered them to stop them, and the police and military refused to break up the protests and than eventually called for Trump to be out and new elections to be held. Even if though Trumps was within the system I would support both the protests and the military and police not breaking them up and asking Trump to set down. Would you?
For what it's worth that one is a bridge too far for me.
|
On November 12 2019 10:45 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2019 10:44 Nebuchad wrote:
Shit your reading comprehension always slips when you're angry, I forgot about that. This doesn't adress any points made by anyone. Does this post serve any purpose whatsoever other than to antagonise JimmiC?
Not really, no. You're right, I should have refrained.
What do you think of the quality of his post? Does it serve any purpose?
"My main point is that Nebuchad repeating "the facts are very very clear" does not seem to me to be a reasonable characterisation of events. It is not at all clear to me that Morales should have retained power, even if the means which have in reality been used to remove him from it are not ideal (and may indeed do more harm than good). It is also not clear to me that the "ideal" means to remove Morales from power would have succeeded in doing so."
If your framing of events includes the dude having to lose, why care about the democratic process?
He was at 45% vs 36% before any of the allegations of fraud happened. There is no indication that he should be losing this in order for fairness to be achieved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
