South American Politics thread - Page 47

On November 17 2019 09:38 JimmiC wrote:


From what I have read it comes down to the succession in the constitution and it is a bit of a shit show because when Morales resigned so did some of his top people who would be next in line and this lady happened to it. From what I have read, I sadly know no Bolivian's, of those not protesting or rioting are OK with her for now depending on what she does, they needed some one to do it and she has said she will call quick elections. This is obviously a scary time because of the power vacuum and I would hate for the wrong people to take over. Hopefully that won't happen since the right wing party had shit for votes, but you never know in these situations.

As I said, I wish Morales had just respected the constitution and had his successor run, especially after he put it to referendum and also lost that. But I hope you can see why people would cry foul when he lost a referendum to run again, puts it to his appointed supreme court who over rule the constitution and the referendum to allow him to run again. And then when he is only up by 7% the count suddenly stops for 24 hours and when it comes back up he is now just barley over the margin to not need a run off.

And even at this point none of this could have happened, because originally all the opposition asked for was a runoff and only when that was denied did the protest start, and only after the police and military would not quell the protests with violence did Morales offer a new election.

And because of all of the above I would also not trust him to hold fair elections at this time. Which is sad because during his first 2.5 terms he did a great job and a bunch of good for the country. It is sad that he was unwilling to give up power, even to another within his party. Hell someone else running as leader of that party very well could have won!

On November 17 2019 09:45 JimmiC wrote:

Nope, not according to the various oversight groups and you can read all about their findings, not that it will matter to you.

If you actually cared about the Bolivians or democracy what you would be caring about now is that they have a free and fair election and their democracy that was being threatened and is currently being threatened is upheld.

On November 17 2019 10:25 JimmiC wrote:

They did, in the referendum and he ignored it. Im not sure why you keep leaving out this important fact, my guess is because it really hurts the conspiracy angle.

Look I think there is a real chance that the wrongs people take over, and Im pissed that Morales made this about him and not his country opening it up to tgis possibility. Because in a fair election the only two options that had any chance were both left.

Im hopeful that since 90% voted left right wont take over. But sadly as Maduro has proven you dont need the support of any people as long as you have the military.

As odd as you find it that im willing to wait and see what happens until I say what happens. I find it odd that you treat your assumptions as fact.

On November 17 2019 10:31 JimmiC wrote:

I had no distaste for morales until he ignored democracy and the constitution. I mean he got a clear message in tge referendum.

The margin of 7% is good but they dont have a 2 party system. They have a system that has a run off which he was likely to lose, which is why he cheated. You apologizing for his ignoring the constitution is another sign that you dont care about democracy. It shows in all the countries you support and here is another. When are you going to stop pretending you care about democracy? You clearly only care about when it agrees with you.

On November 17 2019 10:44 JimmiC wrote:

No it has not, you don't recognize the facts that Morales lost his referendum. You until two posts ago didn't understand why the opposition parties were upset with the 24 pause, and you have not had time to read why that was cheating, you are just going under the assumption it was fine because.... ??? Maybe read about it. And without the protests turning into riots and the military refusing to use violence to stop them this would be basically a dictatorship right now.

Go read some actual news sources about the election fraud, that are not the radical left equivalent of project veritas and get back to me.

On November 17 2019 10:47 JimmiC wrote:

The only countries I've seen you support are Venezuela and China, neither are democracies.

Having the supreme court over rule a referendum is clearly ignoring democracy.

Cheating in the election so you don't have to have a run off is ignoring the constitution.

Have a good night.

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Bolivia_2009.pdf
Article 168 • Head of state term limits
The period of the mandate of the President or Vice President is five years, and they
may be reelected once for a continuous term.

On November 17 2019 11:12 Aquanim wrote:
The Supreme Court ruling not only overruled the referendum but also the current state of the Bolivian constitution:



doesn't really leave much room for ambiguity.

I am not a lawyer much less familiar with Bolivia's judicial system and maybe in their system it is kosher for the Supreme Court to blatantly contradict the constitution based on a reading of the American Convention on Human Rights which does not seem to be shared by several of the other signatories, which do have term limits.

On November 17 2019 11:29 Aquanim wrote:
I don't think anything about the situation is particularly simple or obvious. It's just that for me that includes "it is not simple or obvious that Morales had or has a reasonable mandate to retain power". Which itself is not inherently a justification for what has happened since.

On November 17 2019 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:That's what the voting is for and why the coup is bad. Because who knows now who, if, or when someone will have a more legitimate/reasonable mandate to retain power?

+ Show Spoiler +

On November 17 2019 12:23 Aquanim wrote:

I guess that just comes down to the amount of trust one puts in the electoral results as reported. In principle there exists some level of impropriety beyond which the results of an election should be actively not taken at face value.

Given how the referendum/constitutional change stuff played out, I would say that at a minimum the opposition and the people of Bolivia have some cause to doubt that Morales and his government have or would have acted in a way which reflected the will of the public.

Has the right thing been done? I don't know. I just certainly don't think it is clear-cut.

+ Show Spoiler +

On November 17 2019 12:23 Aquanim wrote:

I guess that just comes down to the amount of trust one puts in the electoral results as reported. In principle there exists some level of impropriety beyond which the results of an election should be actively not taken at face value.

Given how the referendum/constitutional change stuff played out, I would say that at a minimum the opposition and the people of Bolivia have some cause to doubt that Morales and his government have or would have acted in a way which reflected the will of the public.

Has the right thing been done? I don't know. I just certainly don't think it is clear-cut.

+ Show Spoiler +

On November 17 2019 12:33 Nebuchad wrote:...
When you take into account that Morales agreed to new democratic elections with oversight and that the opposition decided within hours that new elections wouldn't cut it and they needed to remove him instead, it starts becoming a lot clearer.

On November 17 2019 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
You know the right thing hasn't been done. The right thing would be to pursue legal remedies or accept Morales offer for another election. The coup was the wrong thing even if the allegations were true.

The police macing reporters and shooting protesters to secure the coup is definitely wrong/bad.