Are you talking about the removal of Evo Morales? Or something after that?There's so much unreported information coming out about this. Just want a place to post about the violent coup, and what appears now to be a straightup military dictatorship, unfolding in Bolivia.
Are the voter fraud claims proven?There was massive voter fraud and a new election is suppose to happen in 90 days, right?
The CEPR did a thorough analysis of the vote tallies, it was clear Morales would be the eventual winner. In any case, he agreed to new elections, and the military/police overthrow went forward anyway.There was massive voter fraud and a new election is suppose to happen in 90 days, right?
OAS Stated severe irregulaties or verbiage to that effect in favor of MoralesAre the voter fraud claims proven?
I would be far more likely to believe the courts to be corrupt and in bed with morales since they allowed him to run again.
There was some rioting, one protestor (anti Morales, I believe) was killed and the (pro Morales) mayor of that area was detained by rioters, forcibly had her hair cut and had red paint poured on herI’m not aware of any violence prior to Morales’ resignation. What happened before that? Even Morales doesn’t call it a “violent coup.”
Was that before he resigned?There was some rioting, one protestor (anti Morales, I believe) was killed and the (pro Morales) mayor of that area was detained by rioters, forcibly had her hair cut and had red paint poured on her
What is shown in those graphs is not how elections in Bolivia work.The CEPR did a thorough analysis of the vote tallies, it was clear Morales would be the eventual winner. In any case, he agreed to new elections, and the military/police overthrow went forward anyway.
I believe so. I remember reading that story after OAS had declared the election fishy and before the story that the military leadership had asked Morales to resign. Certainly it was in the same 24 hr period,Was that before he resigned?
You can have less than 50 as long as you are more than 10% ahead of next closest guy.What is shown in those graphs is not how elections in Bolivia work.
What Morales did was to declare victory in the first round, which requires 50% of the votes counted, not just the largest amount.
This is what sparked the Anti Morales demonstrations and in some cases rioting.
And the OAS said that this was not correct.
In any caseYou can have less than 50 as long as you are more than 10% ahead of next closest guy.
From the link in the post aboveThe result was called into question by the Organization of American States (OAS), a regional body, which had found "clear manipulation" and called for the result to be annulled.
Some say Tesla is behind this for the lithium. If "Ego" Morales hadn't overplayed his hand, I doubt if there would've been a military coup.When the military forces the president from power its a coup. Period. End of story. And when it happens in a Latin American country to a president who wants to nationalize valuable mines you can be damn sure its a CIA coup. It boggles the mind that there are still people who don't understand this.
CIA Major American subsidized corporations but I am the threat. I am the danger. Just one young dumb white kid with a gun who notices demographics.Some say Tesla is behind this for the lithium. If "Ego" Morales hadn't overplayed his hand, I doubt if there would've been a military coup.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article237247604.html
You kind of expect the Trump people to go along with the State Dept line. They immediately recognized the Christian supremacist as President of Bolivia.When the military forces the president from power its a coup. Period. End of story. And when it happens in a Latin American country to a president who wants to nationalize valuable mines you can be damn sure its a CIA coup. It boggles the mind that there are still people who don't understand this.
Sounds like people are blaming Morales for upsetting the coup plotters.SoBeDad said:Some say Tesla is behind this for the lithium. If "Ego" Morales hadn't overplayed his hand, I doubt if there would've been a military coup.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article237247604.html
“Legal.”There's a lot of important details about the runup to this, and there's certainly something to be said for Morales' use of the supreme court in 2017 to allow him to run again. But, like it or not, it was an entirely legal mechanism for his 2019 run.
The American revolutionaries were so unfair to King George III.I’m not a fan of overthrowing a government ever.
I’m not a fan of we, the US, participating in the overthrow of a government. To be more clear.The American revolutionaries were so unfair to King George III.
I think there should be exceptions. Overthrowing the German government in the early-mid 1940s seemed justified.I’m not a fan of we, the US, participating in the overthrow of a government. To be more clear.
I agree. However, not sure what this has to do with what is happening in Bolivia (of course, the thread title seems misleading too).I think there should be exceptions. Overthrowing the German government in the early-mid 1940s seemed justified.I’m not a fan of we, the US, participating in the overthrow of a government. To be more clear.
Defining the precise contours of the exceptions seems tricky, but there must be some.
I struggle whenever an “elected leader” strong arms others to change the constitution to allow for more time as the “elected leader.”The elected government in Bolivia was violently overthrown. Through threat of military/police force, threats against MAS families and diplomats, houses burned down and mayors dragged through the street, preceding virulent racism and military suppression against the indigenous population of Bolivia, a US-backed Christian supremacist declared herself the ruler of Bolivia. That's facts. That's a coup. Not sure why people are struggling with that.
Yep. And I also pause when the "elected leader" decides that counting begun should halt for 24 hours for no apparent reason (and then declares himself a winner), and when the correct international body to look at election malfeasance declares the vote manipulated and recommends it be redone.I struggle whenever an “elected leader” strong arms others to change the constitution to allow for more time as the “elected leader.”
The true vote count was never suspended, only the "Quick Count" which was suspended at the suggestion of OAS. And of course Morales did agree to new elections. But the army forbade him from running, is terrorizing members of his party, and gunning down civilians. So, yay for democracy I guess.Yep. And I also pause when the "elected leader" decides that counting begun should halt for 24 hours for no apparent reason (and then declares himself a winner), and when the correct international body to look at election malfeasance declares the vote manipulated and recommends it be redone.
But that's just me
I don't. If the MAS want him to run again and he still has popular support it's not our place to say who their leader can be. The supreme court decision was to allow him to run for an election again- democracy, in other words- not to be crowned king dictator for life.I struggle whenever an “elected leader” strong arms others to change the constitution to allow for more time as the “elected leader.”
If Añez calls for new elections within her 90 day window, that are verified intermationally and not manipulated; with no requirement for exceptions for term limits required or granted to any candidates, yes, yay for the constitution and yay for democracyThe true vote count was never suspended, only the "Quick Count" which was suspended at the suggestion of OAS. And of course Morales did agree to new elections. But the army forbade him from running, is terrorizing members of his party, and gunning down civilians. So, yay for democracy I guess.
How can any election called by this government be legitimate when they are currently murdering their opponents?If Añez calls for new elections within her 90 day window, that are verified intermationally and not manipulated; with no requirement for exceptions for term limits required or granted to any candidates, yes, yay for the constitution and yay for democracy
That’s ridiculous.I don't. If the MAS want him to run again and he still has popular support it's not our place to say who their leader can be. The supreme court decision was to allow him to run for an election again- democracy, in other words- not to be crowned king dictator for life.
not as ridiculous as the reasoning the Supreme Court gave - the UN declaration of Human Rights, it would violate Evo Morales human rights to adhere to the constitutional term limits...Alex P Keaton said:That’s ridiculous.
Maybe to you. I'd love to know where you get the idea that it's our place to decide who Bolivians are allowed to vote for.Alex P Keaton said:That’s ridiculous.
But didn't the people also vote for the national assembly and the constitution?Maybe to you. I'd love to know where you get the idea that it's our place to decide who Bolivians are allowed to vote for.
Either way, the 2017 supreme court decision is no excuse for a military coup.
Perhaps they did. In any case, looks like the supreme court is allowed to change the constitution. It's still no excuse for the coup.But didn't the people also vote for the national assembly and the constitution?
Well, let me ask you then if the President simply decides to ignore the court, the assembly and the constitution, and if police or military step aside, what then?Perhaps they did. In any case, looks like the supreme court is allowed to change the constitution. It's still no excuse for the coup.
He didn't ignore the court- the court permitted him to run. He didn't ignore the assembly- he agreed to hold another election. The constitution isn't monolithic- if it were, the SC wouldn't be able to change it.Well, let me ask you then if the President simply decides to ignore the court, the assembly and the constitution, and if police or military step aside, what then?
Maybe I need to better inform myself. I thought he was term limited and the assembly essentially impeached him. I’ll circle back.He didn't ignore the court- the court permitted him to run. He didn't ignore the assembly- he agreed to hold another election. The constitution isn't monolithic- if it were, the SC wouldn't be able to change it.
Not sure what hypothetical you're getting at but it's pretty absurd to imply Morales was some sort of dictator.