Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 248: a Perfect impeachment hearing

(+) Yeah! (+)

Sure!

So it has been reported and never refuted that the quick count being stopped after 83% was normal and expected. Rural areas take awhile to come in and heavily favored Morales. So the election weirdness was not actually weirdness. It was just framed that way.


---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Sure!

So it has been reported and never refuted that the quick count being stopped after 83% was normal and expected. Rural areas take awhile to come in and heavily favored Morales. So the election weirdness was not actually weirdness. It was just framed that way.

You should try to avoid talking about things you don't understand. I say this because it is obvious as hell that you don't even know what pyre is referring to
---

LOTM, in the US California was still counting votes a week after the rest of the country was finished last time. That's how Hillary went from losing the popular vote on election night to winning by 3 million votes.
---

I don't think the post I made is dependent at all on whether or not the election was a fair election.

I think people here generally agree that if the election was rigged then that is bad and that Morales should not be allowed to keep power in that scenario. (Note this is not a statement of support for the military to seize control of the country and establish their own leader. What should probably happen in this scenario is that another election should be held between candidates who are not Morales.)

If we assume than the election was a fair election, then probably the position I personally would take is that Morales getting term limits extended is an action that should be condemned--however he should still have been allowed to run in the election and should have been recognized as the legitimate leader if he had the votes for it despite his transparent attempts at power-grabbing.
---

pyresword posted...

"Morales shouldn't seek to change the rules in a way that serves to entrench himself in a position of power".

why not?
---

If Morales won the rural areas, he deserves to win and would with proper gerrymandering.
---

NFUN posted...

You should try to avoid talking about things you don't understand. I say this because it is obvious as hell that you don't even know what pyre is referring to

NFUN i know you like to hate me but shh

Alao you said Morales was horrible. big word to throw around if the elections were fine.

---

Because it is an axiom of my political philosophy that leaders should not undermine the will of the people for the leader's own benefit. I really don't know how else to say it. Any functional government needs to have checks on power and those checks can only be maintained if they are respected and upheld by those in power. (Edit: I think I've misused the word "functional" here because of course governments that aren't democratic at all can still function, but I hope the intended meaning is clear)

In the same post I pointed out that he first tried a public referendum that failed, which is really the key issue. If he'd presented his case to the people for why he wanted to get rid of term limits in a reasonable way and then allowed them to vote on it and the votes said the people agreed with him, then I wouldn't have been bothered at all. But that isn't what happened.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Alao you said Morales was horrible. big word to throw around if the elections were fine.

Trump won an election legitimately, but his attempts to undermine American democracy and centralize power around himself are enough to make me think he's horrible
---

That's really not the issue with Trump, oddly.

I have videos to narrate but I want to come back to this later as I like the discussion.

---

pyresword posted...

In the same post I pointed out that he first tried a public referendum that failed, which is really the key issue.

eh, i'm not as anti-referendum as some people, but this seems like an issue that shouldn't have been put in a referendum.
---

Well Morales was the one who put it to a referendum

---

pyresword posted...

In the same post I pointed out that he first tried a public referendum that failed, which is really the key issue. If he'd presented his case to the people for why he wanted to get rid of term limits in a reasonable way and then allowed them to vote on it and the votes said the people agreed with him, then I wouldn't have been bothered at all. But that isn't what happened.

Legitimately curious: Do you also support Brexit, using this logic?

Edit: wrong paragraph, should've quoted the undermine the will of the people bit

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Well Morales was the one who put it to a referendum

yeah so he shouldn't have done that.

doesn't mean i agree with "well the people spoke on this issue in a referendum and we should always listen to the people so that's that." as the brexit shows us, "the people" don't always make the right decisions when they have to vote in a referendum.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Well Morales was the one who put it to a referendum

yeah so he shouldn't have done that.

doesn't mean i agree with "well the people spoke on this issue in a referendum and we should always listen to the people so that's that." as the brexit shows us, "the people" don't always make the right decisions when they have to vote in a referendum.

They should be voting in first past the post elections with winner-take-all districts! Then they are always right!
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

pyresword posted...

In the same post I pointed out that he first tried a public referendum that failed, which is really the key issue. If he'd presented his case to the people for why he wanted to get rid of term limits in a reasonable way and then allowed them to vote on it and the votes said the people agreed with him, then I wouldn't have been bothered at all. But that isn't what happened.

Legitimately curious: Do you also support Brexit, using this logic?

Edit: wrong paragraph, should've quoted the undermine the will of the people bit

It's possible depending on the details, but I suspect the answer is no.

Basically I think a referendum loses some of its legitimacy if either the government tries to deceive the people as to the consequences of the referendum or if it's about a topic so complicated that the average person has no hope of appreciating all the consequences. I suspect one or both of those are likely to apply to the Brexit situation.

Also there's been 3 years between the present and when the referendum actually happened which probably means something here. The question of whether or not to support Brexit in 2019 is not necessarily the same situation that the people voted on in 2016.
---

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/470861-biden-says-he-wont-legalize-marijuana-because-it-may-be-a-gateway-drug

Reg is here to save the day.

Joe Biden says he wont legalize marijuana out of fear of the very real possibility of the country devolving into a Reefer Madness style hellscape.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/470861-biden-says-he-wont-legalize-marijuana-because-it-may-be-a-gateway-drug

Space

?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

hey just so you're aware, the garbage after the space is actually, literally, 100% irrelevant and you can just click the link that was posted, as it was posted.

Yeah the question mark in an url is the dividing line between necessary and not
---

You know what's a gateway drug? Lattes!
---

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1196236227965595648

---

Wasnt that basically one of the stated outcomes that Trump openly said was fine? I dont think thats as much of a gotcha as people think. If youre pulling out and you WANT other countries to take over policing the region, it wouldnt be a negative to you when they claim squatters rights
---

i mean, that's a pretty bad counterargument.

"the outcome may be shit but it's not that it was unintentional! i explicitly said before that i WANTED shit!" ok, but shit is still bad.
---

Im just saying that this isnt going to sway anyones opinion. It is an intended consequence of Trumps decision.

Like contrast it with Turkey slaughtering Kurds. Thats likewise a predictable outcome of Trumps decision, but it wasnt what he (openly) intended to happen.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Im just saying that this isnt going to sway anyones opinion.

sure. but the trump drones are going to passionately defend every single thing trump does anyway. whether or not the consequences of his actions were intentional probably doesn't matter all that much. that includes turkey slaughtering kurds (see muffin's "i've never met a kurd, why the fuck should i care about this?!" stance).
---

Not sure if true but Facebook is circulating someone who is supposedly the whistle blower.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

why not?

Let's say for a moment that Morales is benevolent. He has absolutely no bad intentions. Who's to say the NEXT person in charge won't be malevolent? I mean imagine if Trump decided to do away with Term Limits for President so he could run in 2024.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Let's say for a moment that Morales is benevolent. He has absolutely no bad intentions. Who's to say the NEXT person in charge won't be malevolent? I mean imagine if Trump decided to do away with Term Limits for President so he could run in 2024.

Uh, a better analogue for what you're talking about is imagining Barack Obama abolishing term limits. You're arguing he shouldn't, because of the possibility we MIGHT elect Donald Trump in the future. To which I'd say "just don't elect Trump in the first place and also actually punish any president that would abuse the lack of term limits" but that's obviously a fantasy scenario.

---

What this really turns on is how strong and stable the election system of a country is. In theory, there is nothing wrong per se with a popular president winning election after election for life. If that's what the people want, why not? It's problematic when the president eventually starts to see reelection for life as his personal right, and acting accordingly. Recall that the same thing happened in Zimbabwe in 2008 - after winning elections easily for 28 years Mugabe was finally in a position where he was behind in an election. The opposition said they got 50.3% in round one and avoided a runoff while the election commission said they got 47% (still first place, but requiring a runoff) after some long delays in the counting.

Then there was a violent campaign for the runoff and Mugabe scored 90% in the runoff. Free and fair elections in Zimbabwe lasted as long as Mugabe and ZANU-PF were winning.

That said, I absolutely do not discount the possibility that observers in the US/Europe exhibit a bias in their view of elections in third world countries in that they disbelieve that opposition candidates can fairly lose despite winning huge majorities in the cities. They see 200,000 people marching for the opposition in Tehran and conclude they must represent the majority of Iran. They don't see the silent majority in the rural areas, which are probably underrepresented in the limited polling data available also.

And yeah, by their standards, they might well disbelieve the legitimacy of any American election in which a Republican wins after being behind in the polls. Certainly, Republicans lose in the cities and lose big when judging by crowd size, media presence, etc. But they win the silent majority.
---

https://twitter.com/jaxalemany/status/1196505253123940352?s=21

Disgusting

---

Pretty interesting polling on a hypothetical five party system in the US:

https://twitter.com/patrickruffini/status/1196495465732284418?s=21

---

lol why is there a picture of obama next to all those things he definitely doesn't support?

---

Obama as labor leader is funny

---

I find it a bit amusing that Bernie Sanders is most pro-worker out of everyone but they split up labor and green <_<

---

Also calling that hypothetical Acela party "left" is so hilarious it's physically painful.

Although I liked the breakdown of voters at the end regardless of the problems with the voting. Bernie has the most % of pro labor AND Green it looks like, and people finally realize warren/bernie appeal to different people.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Although I liked the breakdown of voters at the end regardless of the problems with the voting. Bernie has the most % of pro labor AND Green it looks like, and people finally realize warren/bernie appeal to different people.

Warren has always been the "establishment progressive" trying to sell more progressive plans to liberals in a less ideological way. I'm not sure why everyone is all shocked about this now when that's been her method from the start.

I think the bigger takeaway here is how many Democrats self-identify with further-left parties (59% between labor and green!) but they sure as hell don't seem to act like it.

---

The plurality of registered Democrats consider themselves "moderates"
---

Labour doesn't act like it either (being a left wing party that is).
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

The plurality of registered Democrats consider themselves "moderates"

Yes, and according to this, 41% of "moderates" favor the Labor and Green parties.

My point is self-identification seems bad.

---

https://www.unz.com/isteve/did-jeffrey-epstein-personally-set-off-the-financial-crash-of-2008/

TLDR version: Jeffrey Epstein might very well have been the guy who pushed over the first domino leading to the crash of 2008.

It's absolutely mind boggling that I (and you) never heard of this until now. That the mainstream media is completely and totally disinterested in this little factoid. They don't think we'd care to learn more about it. Not even just the mainstream, Fox and Breitbart aren't even on this. It takes literally Steve Sailer writing in Unz. That's like three or four levels down the crazy right-wing rabbit hole.

Why?
---

That five political parties thing has to be taken with such a heaping grain of salt because depending on the exact wording given for each political platform and the way they're presented you're going to get very different answers. Not to mention that the people they used to represent each party to me suggests either ignorance or underlying motivation behind the person doing it - listing Obama as a "labor" leader doesn't make sense.

SmartMuffin posted...

https://www.unz.com/isteve/did-jeffrey-epstein-personally-set-off-the-financial-crash-of-2008/

TLDR version: Jeffrey Epstein might very well have been the guy who pushed over the first domino leading to the crash of 2008.

It's absolutely mind boggling that I (and you) never heard of this until now. That the mainstream media is completely and totally disinterested in this little factoid. They don't think we'd care to learn more about it. Not even just the mainstream, Fox and Breitbart aren't even on this. It takes literally Steve Sailer writing in Unz. That's like three or four levels down the crazy right-wing rabbit hole.

Why?

Because that's unremarkable and it would be completely unfair to blame the crash on Jeffrey Epstein for figuring out that it was coming a little earlier than other people. That's like blaming the weatherman for causing the storm. If you had money invested in a fund and you believed it would go under soon would you take out your money now or wait for the fund to go under? This just means that Jeffrey Epstein was good at investing, which is how he became a billionaire in the first place.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Not even just the mainstream, Fox and Breitbart aren't even on this.

You are implying here that Fox is not "mainstream" ?
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

That five political parties thing has to be taken with such a heaping grain of salt because depending on the exact wording given for each political platform and the way they're presented you're going to get very different answers. Not to mention that the people they used to represent each party to me suggests either ignorance or underlying motivation behind the person doing it - listing Obama as a "labor" leader doesn't make sense.

I agree that you shouldnt take the numbers super seriously, but the qualitative findings of e.g. more similar looking coalitions for Pete/Warren than you would expect based on policy are probably more robust (and backed up by other data like demographics of support, second choices, etc.)

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Let's say for a moment that Morales is benevolent. He has absolutely no bad intentions. Who's to say the NEXT person in charge won't be malevolent? I mean imagine if Trump decided to do away with Term Limits for President so he could run in 2024.

if trump wins in '20 and runs again in '24, the dems just need to get a good (or at least better than trump) candidate who will beat him. so basically what herodeltiempo said.

i still don't get why term limits are necessary. here in the netherlands we've had the same prime minister since '10 and we're still doing fine.
---

Also, the US got along for 150 years just fine without term limits.
---

Because that's unremarkable and it would be completely unfair to blame the crash on Jeffrey Epstein for figuring out that it was coming a little earlier than other people. That's like blaming the weatherman for causing the storm. If you had money invested in a fund and you believed it would go under soon would you take out your money now or wait for the fund to go under? This just means that Jeffrey Epstein was good at investing, which is how he became a billionaire in the first place.

You aren't thinking this through. The "conspiracy theory" behind the Epstein stuff is that he's not just some random pedophile, that he was a blackmail agent working on behalf of international intelligence agencies.

The fact that the same guy happened to be the first to pull out of a major fund that led to the housing bubble isn't at all interesting to you within that context?

"Did the CIA/Mossad (I'm still not sure which is more likely) order Epstein to crash the economy" isn't a question you think is fascinating?
---

Its not fascinating because the answer is very obviously no

---

SmartMuffin posted...

Because that's unremarkable and it would be completely unfair to blame the crash on Jeffrey Epstein for figuring out that it was coming a little earlier than other people. That's like blaming the weatherman for causing the storm. If you had money invested in a fund and you believed it would go under soon would you take out your money now or wait for the fund to go under? This just means that Jeffrey Epstein was good at investing, which is how he became a billionaire in the first place.

You aren't thinking this through. The "conspiracy theory" behind the Epstein stuff is that he's not just some random pedophile, that he was a blackmail agent working on behalf of international intelligence agencies.

The fact that the same guy happened to be the first to pull out of a major fund that led to the housing bubble isn't at all interesting to you within that context?

"Did the CIA/Mossad (I'm still not sure which is more likely) order Epstein to crash the economy" isn't a question you think is fascinating?

No, it's unremarkable because the way the market was, any number of billionaires could have "triggered" the crash by being the first to sell. If withdrawing an investment of $57 million was all the spark needed, then the economy was a house of cards (a "bubble") whose collapse was inevitable.

And I'm sure there were other billionaires out there making moves of similar size around the same time. It wouldn't be an especially remarkable event if you sold some shares that represented 5% of your net worth right?
---