Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 247: Election Night 2019!

(+) Yeah! (+)

I don't know anything about the Bolivian elections. So I may be completely ignorant here.

But shouldn't there have been a recount if there were 'irregularities' found, or even a repeat election? I mean if there was evidence found that the election was rigged -- then yeah, he should be removed regardless of holding another election or not. But if it's just 'irregularities' without any evidence that it was actually rigged -- then another election should be held if there are concerns.

Though I don't think "He was going to win anyways" is a good argument. Hillary was going to win the DNC Primary anyway, but the DNC still acted improperly in showing favor to her. The primary wasn't 'rigged', but they definitely put up roadblocks for Bernie (ultimately I think they helped Bernie more than they hurt him. It definitely boosted his anti-establishment credibility) Of course that they were incompetent at it, doesn't really mean what they did was okay.

I do think, though, that there should be evidence more than just 'voting irregularities'. (Just for an example, maybe a phone call between the President and someone that the calls 'totally perfect' but even the (altered) transcripts make look bad. Or the President admitting on live television, or his chief of staff admitting it but then saying 'nothing illegal here!" )
---

lol imagine being disparaging about online dating in 2019

"i bet you're one of those people who use that email bullshit! you're too much of a pussy to write HANDWRITTEN LETTERS!"
---

kevwaffles posted...

Tony, you are literally following the same playbook as a Republican calling impeachment proceedings a coup. You are grasping onto any piece of information you see, regardless of its potential bias or even validity, that sounds favorable to you because the guy in question is in a party you like.

No Im not, dude. Theres one piece of information against him and it hasnt even been verified. Unlike Republicans, I would change my mind if an unbiased 3rd party verified the irregularities. Morales offered them the opportunity to look and was denied.

This is not the same thing.


---

Dancedreamer posted...

Though I don't think "He was going to win anyways" is a good argument. Hillary was going to win the DNC Primary anyway, but the DNC still acted improperly in showing favor to her. The primary wasn't 'rigged', but they definitely put up roadblocks for Bernie (ultimately I think they helped Bernie more than they hurt him. It definitely boosted his anti-establishment credibility) Of course that they were incompetent at it, doesn't really mean what they did was okay.

Youre totally right, I cede this point.

---

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1193973576304644096
lmao

---

Pathetic.

---

Informative thread on Nick Fuentes and his groyper army:
https://twitter.com/mattsheffield/status/1193953170822586369

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

kevwaffles posted...

Tony, you are literally following the same playbook as a Republican calling impeachment proceedings a coup. You are grasping onto any piece of information you see, regardless of its potential bias or even validity, that sounds favorable to you because the guy in question is in a party you like.

No Im not, dude. Theres one piece of information against him and it hasnt even been verified. Unlike Republicans, I would change my mind if an unbiased 3rd party verified the irregularities. Morales offered them the opportunity to look and was denied.

This is not the same thing.

"One piece of information" is extremely disingenuous. You would (rightfully) be calling foul if Trump in 2020 just shut down the vote count for 24 hours with no explanation and suddenly jumped up to a huge lead when they came back, and you would need to wait on any organization to tell you something was shady about the whole thing. And, in fact, Bolivian citizens didn't wait on the OAS to tell them something was fishy. Protests had already began (and people had already died) before the OAS even started an audit.

Morales calling it a coup attempt with foreign actors? He did that before Bolivia even posted the final vote count. Presumably in response the vice president of Bolivias supreme electoral tribunal resigning in protest over the vote freeze.

Morales being denied a re-vote? It had been recommended from the outset to proceed to a runoff regardless of whether he surpassed the threshold in which a runoff wouldn't be needed. Not a re-vote, mind you, just the runoff that before the freeze seemed inevitable. He refused to do that and proclaimed victory after he only barely ends up past that threshold. Fast forward to this week, and it was only after the OAS published the results of their audit that he said was willing to do a re-vote. This, mind you, was after weeks of protests that he literally could have avoided, or at the very least staved off if I borrow the coup conspiracy hat, if he had just done the damn runoff that he was desperately trying to circumvent.

But your answer here is to just attack the organization that virtually every country in the western hemisphere is a member of and is 3 years younger than the UN because "they're the only ones we're getting information from and are totally not credible", even though this is a complex situation with many observable contributing factors even when you divorce their involvement from the whole thing.
---

Just because there is plenty to be skeptical about with how Morales ran the election doesn't make the coup justified. If you look at what is actually going down, the opposition is sketch as fuck and it looks like the far right has seized the opportunity and spiraled it out of control. They burned down houses of the leaders of the socialist party. The military and police have taken the side of the opposition and basically strong armed Morales and the VP into stepping down. Now they're strongarming their legislative body, still controlled by the socialist party, into confirming an opposition leader into the president role so an interim government can hold elections (which I'm sure will be totally fair). On top of this, one of the prominent leaders of the protest is a conservative Christian (Bolivia's government became secular in 2009 under Morales), which implies this is religiously and politically motivated.

So even if you think Malores is suspicious, how is this any LESS suspicious? Do you think the interim government will hold a more fair and free election than a redo under UN supervision?

---

Im not inclined to trust a US-based organization when it comes to Leftist South American countries, and I think its absolutely fair to say theres a reason behind that.

---

Question for people:

Suppose on election night 2020 the Democrat wins the Presidential contest, but a Republican Congress is elected. The electoral college meets on December 19 and votes for the Democrat as expected. The new GOP Congress is seated on January 3. On January 6, Congress meets to count the electoral votes, and Mitch McConnell proclaims that Trump has won reelection with a count of 270 to 268.

In this scenario, if the military recognized the Democrat as President after January 20, would that be a coup?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Im not inclined to trust a US-based organization when it comes to Leftist South American countries, and I think its absolutely fair to say theres a reason behind that.

I am inclined to trust you're "confusing" physical placement of an office with the sordid history of US-Soviet proxy wars, and I think its absolutely fair to say theres a reason behind that.
---

I think basically everyone has now accepted calling what occured in Bolivia a coup. The argument now seems to be whether you think a right wing military coup that was at least partially organized by the US government and facist Bolsonaro in Brazil, led by "Christian" zealots who hate the indigenous people of Bolivia like Morales, right after Morales announced his plan to nationalize Bolivia's lithium, which will now be stolen at bargain prices by a puppet to benefit US corporations like Tesla, is justified by election results that are literally less shady than the last US election results.

In essence, if you have any historical understanding of US policy in South America, you know exactly what happened here. If you just blindly believe the propaganda from US corporate news staffed by US intelligence agents, that pretends the US cares about democracy or fair elections while meddling in almost all of them around the world, supporting dictators, monarchists, genocide, and terrorists for strategic purposes, I just don't know what to say.

Morales has massively reduced poverty and improved the infrastructure of Bolivia, while being the first indigenous president there. And now the opposition is burning the indigenous peoples flags, saying they will replace their symbols with the Bible, forcing the socialists into exile and looting their homes. Bolivia is going to be significantly worse off for a long time because of this. Millions of people's lives will suffer because of this. And liberals will defend this facist coup because they are convinced anyone supported by the poor and disadvantaged is a dictator. You see the exact same shit in Venezuela with Maduro, and you saw it with Chavez, with Castro, they will intentionally starve these countries with sanctions as punishment for not overthrowing their popular left wing leaders like the CIA wants, while useful idiot libs cheer them on for starving innocent people, that's how much they despise the poor.

Well liberals have always been a party of the rich, for the rich, by the rich.
---

"You have no understanding of South American history and are just buying into propaganda. Now let me laundry list political talking points as a defense for my position."

Never change, Cyclo.
---

I don't have knowledge either way, but the opposition refusing a re-election and forcing an ouster is... interesting to me.

---

let me be as perfectly clear as i can be: i am not defending my position. i am attacking your position. you are a gigantic piece of shit if you support the US foreign policy goals of ridding the world of socialism through underhanded scummy coups, supporting right wing terror, etc that there is literally hundreds of examples to back up, and the US openly has admitted to this being their policy for hundreds of years, to enrich US corporations, and you should feel like shit about it. you should hate yourself. if you think that a military right wing coup supported by the US and Bolsonaro is better than re-running an election that only a US-backed organization even suggests possibly was iffy, you are a moron, or completely immoral, or both.

Classy
---

I will say I am always interested when people think classiness is the most important thing. As I said I am ignorant either way about this, although having seen both sides of it the tweet string about how the election went versus the reporting in other places felt more compelling to me as it gave a lot of details about the exactness of what was going on - if someone thinks you repeatedly ignore things that are horrible I don't think it is unexpected they find you detestable.

---

I don't think trying to make this whole thing black or white is helpful either.

I think it's perfectly possible to believe the following three things simultaneously:

1. Conditions in Bolivia have improved under Morales's term as president.
2. The actions taken by the opposition, particularly the far-right segment of it, are alarming and awful.
3. What Morales did during this election was shady and definitely has the appearance of corrupt/power seeking.

Like none of those are mutually exclusive to me. Again, I will certainly not claim to have a strong grasp of the situation in Bolivia, I don't. But again, from all that I've read, things had gotten better under Morales's leadership - that's true. Nevertheless, the situation around the election looks bad.

To me, it gives off the feeling that he thought he could just hold power indefinitely. His actions seem to line up with that. He tried to remove term limits democratically at first, perhaps hoping/believing that the people would "reward" him with it after improving things in Bolivia but he was denied that by the voters. Instead of just accepting that, he challenged it in the court and got it thrown out anyway. Then the whole vote count stuff we've talked about here. Yes, he called for a re-vote but only after protests had mounted and intensified - the police had gone into mutiny across most of the country! I mean, not only did he probably not have any other choice in that situation, it was also a decision made after his first instinct had been to declare victory and try to "get away" with it.

I feel like if he was serious about trying to strength/grow/continue a political movement there he would have tried to pick/groom a successor to carry things on going forward. From all I've read on the matter, there was no such person. Honestly, I feel that building up leadership for the future is something that should have been going on anyway but certainly something that should have been done after the term limits referendum failed and the people sent that message. Instead it seems like he wanted to be the guy in charge and have that power regardless of what the rules said and even when the people reinforced their support for those rules. He may well have improved things in Bolivia, and he may well have continued to do things if granted this extra term, but I don't think that means you just handwave away what's going on here and pretend it was all very legal and very cool.

As for "he would have won anyway why would he rig/cheat/interfere with things" I mean the 2016 thing was brought up but I'll add to that Nixon. Nixon was going to win re-election easily anyway and yet he couldn't help himself from having Watergate committed and trying to cover it up. People will do very dumb things when it comes to power sometimes. It happens.
---

xp1337 posted...

I don't think trying to make this whole thing black or white is helpful either.

I think it's perfectly possible to believe the following three things simultaneously:

1. Conditions in Bolivia have improved under Morales's term as president.
2. The actions taken by the opposition, particularly the far-right segment of it, are alarming and awful.
3. What Morales did during this election was shady and definitely has the appearance of corrupt/power seeking.

Well duh but "it isn't black and white but the coup is still extremely bad and a much worse outcome" is also a completely valid position.

---

Yeah I agree with all three of those points in theory but I am curious about the twitter string that seemed to think what happened during the election was not really unexpected or shady. I don't know if that can be trusted but it dug into details more than the opposite theory of corruption did. Talking about quick count, them promising the 80%+ before the election with a source, the late entries being rural which support the president as is etc.


---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

xp1337 posted...

I don't think trying to make this whole thing black or white is helpful either.

I think it's perfectly possible to believe the following three things simultaneously:

1. Conditions in Bolivia have improved under Morales's term as president.
2. The actions taken by the opposition, particularly the far-right segment of it, are alarming and awful.
3. What Morales did during this election was shady and definitely has the appearance of corrupt/power seeking.

Well duh but "it isn't black and white but the coup is still extremely bad and a much worse outcome" is also a completely valid position.

It didn't seem like everyone in this topic was allowing for such an interpretation!
---

Yeah Hillary would also have probably won the Democratic nomination anyway without cheating but still did it anyway.
---

xp1337 posted...

I don't think trying to make this whole thing black or white is helpful either.

I think it's perfectly possible to believe the following three things simultaneously:

1. Conditions in Bolivia have improved under Morales's term as president.
2. The actions taken by the opposition, particularly the far-right segment of it, are alarming and awful.
3. What Morales did during this election was shady and definitely has the appearance of corrupt/power seeking.

Like none of those are mutually exclusive to me. Again, I will certainly not claim to have a strong grasp of the situation in Bolivia, I don't. But again, from all that I've read, things had gotten better under Morales's leadership - that's true. Nevertheless, the situation around the election looks bad.

To me, it gives off the feeling that he thought he could just hold power indefinitely. His actions seem to line up with that. He tried to remove term limits democratically at first, perhaps hoping/believing that the people would "reward" him with it after improving things in Bolivia but he was denied that by the voters. Instead of just accepting that, he challenged it in the court and got it thrown out anyway. Then the whole vote count stuff we've talked about here. Yes, he called for a re-vote but only after protests had mounted and intensified - the police had gone into mutiny across most of the country! I mean, not only did he probably not have any other choice in that situation, it was also a decision made after his first instinct had been to declare victory and try to "get away" with it.

I feel like if he was serious about trying to strength/grow/continue a political movement there he would have tried to pick/groom a successor to carry things on going forward. From all I've read on the matter, there was no such person. Honestly, I feel that building up leadership for the future is something that should have been going on anyway but certainly something that should have been done after the term limits referendum failed and the people sent that message. Instead it seems like he wanted to be the guy in charge and have that power regardless of what the rules said and even when the people reinforced their support for those rules. He may well have improved things in Bolivia, and he may well have continued to do things if granted this extra term, but I don't think that means you just handwave away what's going on here and pretend it was all very legal and very cool.

As for "he would have won anyway why would he rig/cheat/interfere with things" I mean the 2016 thing was brought up but I'll add to that Nixon. Nixon was going to win re-election easily anyway and yet he couldn't help himself from having Watergate committed and trying to cover it up. People will do very dumb things when it comes to power sometimes. It happens.

You are arguing for nuance with Cyclo which is a bit like trying to debate a billboard. He's linked to literal propaganda sites here and doesn't understand one person's opinion doesn't refute fact.

I admire your tenaciousness but you are wasting your time!
---

xp1337 posted...

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

xp1337 posted...

I don't think trying to make this whole thing black or white is helpful either.

I think it's perfectly possible to believe the following three things simultaneously:

1. Conditions in Bolivia have improved under Morales's term as president.
2. The actions taken by the opposition, particularly the far-right segment of it, are alarming and awful.
3. What Morales did during this election was shady and definitely has the appearance of corrupt/power seeking.

Well duh but "it isn't black and white but the coup is still extremely bad and a much worse outcome" is also a completely valid position.

It didn't seem like everyone in this topic was allowing for such an interpretation!

I mean this was exactly the point I was trying to get at yesterday!

And to echo your point (and reiterate what I said yesterday) if this was about a movement and not about clinging to power, he would've found a successor and campaigned for them rather than trying to get the voters to abolish term limits then going around the voters when he didn't get what he wanted.

I don't disagree with Tony's assessment that what Evo did was largely good. That was never my point. But it doesn't excuse him now doing bad things because of the good he did before.
---

Morales had a second in line, a young woman who was forced to resign and flee the country and take asylum in Mexico as a result of the coup. And that argument is nonsense. Chavez successor, Maduro, gets the exact same treatment and right wing coup attempts backed by the US government. Right wing facist Bolsonaro is completely supported by the US government despite massive corruption and attempts to rig elections against the left, destruction of indigenous peoples and their lands, etc. Look into what happened to Lula! They don't fucking care about democracy, or fair elections, they care about making sure only right wingers who bow before the US are in power in South America.

Suprak the Stud posted...

You are arguing for nuance with Cyclo which is a bit like trying to debate a billboard. He's linked to literal propaganda sites here and doesn't understand one person's opinion doesn't refute fact.

I admire your tenaciousness but you are wasting your time!

name me which news website is not a propaganda website

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://thegrayzone.com/2018/06/01/oas-anti-venezuela-pro-us-bias-right-wing-hypocrisy/

please read up about the OAS

I dont know if the new system will let me snip Cyclos name and allow you to see his quote, but here.

Like I said above, Morales said he wanted multiple outside groups, including the UN to analyze the vote themselves, AND offered another election in the meantime, and it was refused.

What kind of guy rigs the vote, offers outsiders the chance to check it, AND says well do another vote too?

Be honest, is the US meddling in left-wing South American governments unprecedented?

And to briefly get back to this point, all you've linked to here is one person's opinion about the OAS which is not the worldwide opinion nor the overwhelming opinion held by most Latin American countries. This is a well respected organization body that dates back generations.

The link here is two pro-Venezuela people complaining about it because the OAS and Venezuela haven't seen eye to eye (leading to Venezuela withdrawing from the OAS). It would be like someone saying Trump is the best president of all time and then linking to an opinion piece from OANN as evidence. These two are certainly entitled to their opinion, but I would hope you agree an opinion piece from "thegrayzone" and "therealnews" doesn't outweigh global consensus.
---

xp1337 posted...

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

xp1337 posted...

I don't think trying to make this whole thing black or white is helpful either.

I think it's perfectly possible to believe the following three things simultaneously:

1. Conditions in Bolivia have improved under Morales's term as president.
2. The actions taken by the opposition, particularly the far-right segment of it, are alarming and awful.
3. What Morales did during this election was shady and definitely has the appearance of corrupt/power seeking.

Well duh but "it isn't black and white but the coup is still extremely bad and a much worse outcome" is also a completely valid position.

It didn't seem like everyone in this topic was allowing for such an interpretation!

I don't have a problem with any of those points.

I do have a problem with the constant "this is the exact same as the Cold War era" defense any time a South American socialist government has problems, especially after conditions were actually terrible in Venezuela with Maduro and the same people were doing the same thing before with them.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Well duh but "it isn't black and white but the coup is still extremely bad and a much worse outcome" is also a completely valid position.

Right, I'm shocked that "I don't think a coup likely leading to complete Right-wing Christian control of a successful secular socialist state is valid" is seen as an extreme stance here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/after-morales-resignation-a-question-for-bolivia-was-this-the-democratic-will-or-a-coup/ [SPACE] 2019/11/11/ff36ce9a-040c-11ea-9118-25d6bd37dfb1_story.html

The Right-wing opposition, who is in control of the military and police, are now arresting members of the Socialist party, and it's even in question if they allow a Socialist candidate on the ballot for these new elections.

Definitely no coup here, folks.

---

Like, again, I don't disagree with Tony's assertion that Evo has been good for his people up until roughly six months ago when his time in power was supposed to come to an end. I don't think you are bad or crazy for liking what Evo has done and what he has represented to the people of Bolivia.

I just think all this doesn't excuse trying to change the constitution because you suddenly won't be in power any more. Your legacy should outlive you. Step aside and support your number two for the role. And if he/she loses, then peacefully transfer power and prepare for the next election.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I just think all this doesn't excuse trying to change the constitution because you suddenly won't be in power any more. Your legacy should outlive you. Step aside and support your number two for the role. And if he/she loses, then peacefully transfer power and prepare for the next election.

I totally agree with you.

But I think it's completely possible that advantage was taken of his want for a fourth term, and now the entire successful socialist movement in Bolivia will pay the price.

---

Nrrr posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

You are arguing for nuance with Cyclo which is a bit like trying to debate a billboard. He's linked to literal propaganda sites here and doesn't understand one person's opinion doesn't refute fact.

I admire your tenaciousness but you are wasting your time!

name me which news website is not a propaganda website

So I guess I would be confused why you would go "lol npr and bbc is obviously globalist western propaganda" but then not apply that same critical thinking to state sponsored media from Venezuela.
---

it's a coup

Suprak the Stud posted...

So I guess I would be confused why you would go "lol npr and bbc is obviously globalist western propaganda" but then not apply that same critical thinking to state sponsored media from Venezuela.

Where did this come from? Did someone link to it and I missed it? Is that the source of cyclo's audio recordings showing a plot to overthrow Bolivia?

Because if you're still going off of LotM saying "The coup talk originated from Venezuelan propaganda", that's pure nonsense.


---

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/dara-khosrowshahi-jamal-khashoggi-uber

Its a serious mistake. Weve made mistakes, too with self-driving, and we stopped driving and were recovering from that mistake, he said in the episode of Axios on HBO. I think that people make mistakes, it doesnt mean they can never be forgiven. I think they have taken it seriously. - Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi

Uh excuse me, what the fuck?

edited because I pasted the wrong quote

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

I just think all this doesn't excuse trying to change the constitution because you suddenly won't be in power any more. Your legacy should outlive you. Step aside and support your number two for the role. And if he/she loses, then peacefully transfer power and prepare for the next election.

I totally agree with you.

But I think it's completely possible that advantage was taken of his want for a fourth term, and now the entire successful socialist movement in Bolivia will pay the price.

Which is a shame, and could've been avoided entirely if he had just stepped aside as dictated by their constitution (and reaffirmed by the voters). The tragedy here (well, one of many) is this is now an undeniable part of his legacy when it did not have to be.
---

Uhh Tony that's not even the worst quote oh my god that interview.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Which is a shame, and could've been avoided entirely if he had just stepped aside as dictated by their constitution (and reaffirmed by the voters). The tragedy here (well, one of many) is this is now an undeniable part of his legacy when it did not have to be.

I mean, I agree buuut the court said he could do it and it is like us having a coup if Trump got the supreme court to say he could have no term limits. Or Obama had done it. Does the supreme court having a rule we don't like justify a coup? Curious.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

So I guess I would be confused why you would go "lol npr and bbc is obviously globalist western propaganda" but then not apply that same critical thinking to state sponsored media from Venezuela.

Where did this come from? Did someone link to it and I missed it? Is that the source of cyclo's audio recordings showing a plot to overthrow Bolivia?

Because if you're still going off of LotM saying "The coup talk originated from Venezuelan propaganda", that's pure nonsense.

No, sorry, one of the sources used when citing support was telesur english (not the post you made, one by cyclo before that). It was meant to be a direct response to cyclo's question of "which news source isn't propaganda" where I was trying to establish a difference between independent media with a political lean and news sites and sources that were established specifically to push a nation's agenda (telesur, rt, chinadaily, etc).
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

So I guess I would be confused why you would go "lol npr and bbc is obviously globalist western propaganda" but then not apply that same critical thinking to state sponsored media from Venezuela.

i have never in my life used the term globalist, and if you can point out anything that was incorrect or untrue in any of the articles i have posted, feel free. thats what critical thinking actually is, looking at facts and applying it to a judgement. my judgement is based on looking at all the facts and putting it all together in a way that makes sense based on my understanding of the world. i don't know what else you could expect from me. dismissing a source, even if it is biased, is not critical thinking. sifting through biased information on all sides to form a judgement is. for example, wikileaks is a biased source, but that doesn't make the emails they leaked not real. you are thinking about intentions, not information.

edit: also the fucking telesur article I posted was just an english summary of the other article with less information. it was not even their own reporting.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Uhh Tony that's not even the worst quote oh my god that interview.

Yeah I goofed with pasting, I don't even know how I selected the original quote.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/dara-khosrowshahi-jamal-khashoggi-uber

Its a serious mistake. Weve made mistakes, too with self-driving, and we stopped driving and were recovering from that mistake, he said in the episode of Axios on HBO. I think that people make mistakes, it doesnt mean they can never be forgiven. I think they have taken it seriously. - Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi

Uh excuse me, what the fuck?

edited because I pasted the wrong quote

I had to double check, and this is, in fact, Not The Onion
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeNNgCeCndc

Yeah this video going over the tweets that were linked earlier is something I agree with <_<

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Which is a shame, and could've been avoided entirely if he had just stepped aside as dictated by their constitution (and reaffirmed by the voters). The tragedy here (well, one of many) is this is now an undeniable part of his legacy when it did not have to be.

I mean, I agree buuut the court said he could do it and it is like us having a coup if Trump got the supreme court to say he could have no term limits. Or Obama had done it. Does the supreme court having a rule we don't like justify a coup? Curious.

I mean I guess how would you respond if two more liberal justices died, Trump appointed judges friendly to him in his place, and then that court banned his presidential term limits for "violating his human rights' (which citing a document many countries in the hemisphere ignore for various reasons, including strong anti-abortion wording about the right to life) so he could keep on serving as president in perpetuity? He went to the courts, so it is fair? I understand Bolivia's constitution is different than the US and the way to amend it is different (and I mean the two term limit is extremely recent considering Evo served three terms, one of which before the provision was added), but essentially any act by a person to increase their individual power at the expense of the will of the voting public is at the very least a serious concern.

I guess do you think all the protestors are right wing extremists/shills for the US government? Do they have genuine concerns or legitimate grievances?
---

I have no idea, I literally just came into this but I will say nothing has refuted the tweet string that I found compelling. I have trouble with the no term limits thing - for sure - but in terms of the actual election I have seen nothing that refutes the tweet string.

---

How well-regarded is the Bolivian Supreme Court as an institution? The US Supreme Court is taken so seriously because it has a 200-year history of delivering fair and well-reasoned decisions. At the other end of the spectrum we have the Venezuelan Supreme Court which appears to be a rubber stamp for the government.
---

And before people deliver hyperbolic attacks on the US Supreme Court, let's be honest - right now the Court would rule 9-0 that Trump can't be elected as President a 3rd time. You would have to replace 5 justices with people like:

Ivanka Trump
Donald Trump Jr.
Eric Trump
Barron Trump
Ann Coulter

And even then, I don't think the odds are better than 50/50 that they would let him stand for a third term without a constitutional amendment.
---

Coulter wouldn't vote with Trump, lol. She wants someone who will actually stop immigration.
---