Over the past few weeks, civil unrest has occurred in Bolivia, including the capital La Paz. These protests have called for the Bolivian President to step down and the opposition leader has come to La Paz to place pressure on the Bolivian Presudent. These are signs of a stand aganist corruption and economic woes. What are your thoughts about the events in Bolivia.
https://mobile-reuters-com.cdn.ampproje ... SKBN1XG22F

The Bolivian President has also resigned after accusations of voter fraud in the last election. He resigned under military pressure and I feel that this was the right thing to do and hopefully will lead to a more transparent and democratic Bolivia.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... lt-dispute

At least the fraudster had the decency to resign and avoid violence and more suffering.

Take a hint, Maduro.

Similar coup to Venezuela. But in Venezuela - all government institutions stayed committed to preserving the institutions. In Bolivia - military leaders did not. Let’s see what this brings for Bolivia, but generally such things do not bring anything good to the nation.

I haven't followed this too closely but I don't think it's comparable, Bolivia isn't in the same state as Venezuela.

Also, he didn't resign just like that, this looks more like a coup, and he'll probably flee the country. Whatever happened, this is never good, and very rarely leads to a return to a stable democracy.

edit : I was responding to the previous post.

anrec80 : except Venezuela is in total chaos with half the population starving and prostituting itself in neighbouring countries. In Venezuela, a coup couldn't hurt.

In Bolivia, there were accusations that the elections weren't open and fair. There was an unexplainable pause in counting. So the results are in doubt. That's why the people were protesting.
Hopefully, Morales will be electable and let's see how much support he really has in a fair and open election.

It seems to be that he resigned in free will, he isn't arrested, he hasn't fled the country or things like that.

I´m happy he´s gone. But, it was a military coup.

The OAS auditors have issued a scathing report on election fraud:

https://www.oas.org/es/centro_noticias/ ... o=C-099/19

Only in Spanish so far.

“What did the OAS say?

In its preliminary report on Sunday, the OAS said it had found "clear manipulations" of Bolivia's voting system and it could not verify the result of the 20 October race.
During the audit, it said it found physical records with alterations and forged signatures, and evidence of wide-scale data manipulation.

The international body concluded it was unlikely that Mr Morales had won by the 10% margin required for a victory. It recommended that a new electoral commission be set up before a fresh election could take place.“

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-50365340

And a far right senator has assumed the presidency....

Dutchy wrote:

In Bolivia, there were accusations that the elections weren't open and fair. There was an unexplainable pause in counting. So the results are in doubt. That's why the people were protesting.
Hopefully, Morales will be electable and let's see how much support he really has in a fair and open election.

It seems to be that he resigned in free will, he isn't arrested, he hasn't fled the country or things like that.

He did flee the country - went to Mexico

The new president smiles a bit too much considering the situation...

ER757 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

In Bolivia, there were accusations that the elections weren't open and fair. There was an unexplainable pause in counting. So the results are in doubt. That's why the people were protesting.
Hopefully, Morales will be electable and let's see how much support he really has in a fair and open election.

It seems to be that he resigned in free will, he isn't arrested, he hasn't fled the country or things like that.

He did flee the country - went to Mexico

Indeed he did, after the post you quoted. Anyhow, there seems to be no investigation.

AR385 wrote:

I´m happy he´s gone. But, it was a military coup.

To call it a military coup implies that the military forced him out of power (put him under arrest and assumed all power). To also call it a coup means that he was the legitimate ruler of the country being forced out by the whims of a few. Despite the new Bolivian constitution forbidding reelection more than once, the Supreme Court (stacked with Morales loyalist) said it doesn't matter and allowed him to stand, even though the new constitution was passed during his first term (meaning his 3rd term should have been his last). During his first 3 terms he was the legitimate ruler. Once he stood for a 4th term (against the constitution and after having been denied explicit permission in a referendum), he lost all legitimacy. That's not even to say the mysterious 24hr freeze in vote counts before suddenly appearing that he had clinched the necessary number.

This was not a coup. This was the military assuming neutrality, telling Morales they wouldn't quell the protests, and a president who, in the eyes of the public, had lost all authority and respect.

The US State Department has issued a Level 4 (Do Not Travel) advisory for Bolivia as a result of the unrest taking place and has advised citizens in the country to depart as soon as possible.
https://www.travelpulse.com/news/impact ... livia.html

Sure doesn't seem like a coup but the fact that the interim president is a right wing christian, quickly backed by the USA and Brazil, is a whole parade of red flags.

einsteinboricua wrote:

AR385 wrote:

I´m happy he´s gone. But, it was a military coup.

To call it a military coup implies that the military forced him out of power (put him under arrest and assumed all power). To also call it a coup means that he was the legitimate ruler of the country being forced out by the whims of a few. Despite the new Bolivian constitution forbidding reelection more than once, the Supreme Court (stacked with Morales loyalist) said it doesn't matter and allowed him to stand, even though the new constitution was passed during his first term (meaning his 3rd term should have been his last). During his first 3 terms he was the legitimate ruler. Once he stood for a 4th term (against the constitution and after having been denied explicit permission in a referendum), he lost all legitimacy. That's not even to say the mysterious 24hr freeze in vote counts before suddenly appearing that he had clinched the necessary number.

This was not a coup. This was the military assuming neutrality, telling Morales they wouldn't quell the protests, and a president who, in the eyes of the public, had lost all authority and respect.

When your military, who hold the weapons and the tanks come on TV in full uniform, and "suggest" you need to resign, they are forcing you out of power, outside any established constitutional provision. That, is a coup. Whatever he may have done, he was ultimately forced out of power by the military, period. That is no to say he was not a legitimate ruler (debatable) or had committed evident and rampant election fraud (not debatable).

einsteinboricua wrote:

This was the military assuming neutrality, telling Morales they wouldn't quell the protests, and a president who, in the eyes of the public, had lost all authority and respect.

Ironic considering the massacre of protesters supporting Morales today

https://mobile.twitter.com/dancohen3000 ... 6261671944

AR385 wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

AR385 wrote:

I´m happy he´s gone. But, it was a military coup.

To call it a military coup implies that the military forced him out of power (put him under arrest and assumed all power). To also call it a coup means that he was the legitimate ruler of the country being forced out by the whims of a few. Despite the new Bolivian constitution forbidding reelection more than once, the Supreme Court (stacked with Morales loyalist) said it doesn't matter and allowed him to stand, even though the new constitution was passed during his first term (meaning his 3rd term should have been his last). During his first 3 terms he was the legitimate ruler. Once he stood for a 4th term (against the constitution and after having been denied explicit permission in a referendum), he lost all legitimacy. That's not even to say the mysterious 24hr freeze in vote counts before suddenly appearing that he had clinched the necessary number.

This was not a coup. This was the military assuming neutrality, telling Morales they wouldn't quell the protests, and a president who, in the eyes of the public, had lost all authority and respect.

When your military, who hold the weapons and the tanks come on TV in full uniform, and "suggest" you need to resign, they are forcing you out of power, outside any established constitutional provision. That, is a coup. Whatever he may have done, he was ultimately forced out of power by the military, period. That is no to say he was not a legitimate ruler (debatable) or had committed evident and rampant election fraud (not debatable).

No, it’s not a military coup. It’s a popular uprising preventing Morales own coup.

zkojq wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

This was the military assuming neutrality, telling Morales they wouldn't quell the protests, and a president who, in the eyes of the public, had lost all authority and respect.

Ironic considering the massacre of protesters supporting Morales today

https://mobile.twitter.com/dancohen3000 ... 6261671944

The left in Latin American has a very long history of violent protesting, vandalism.

zkojq wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

This was the military assuming neutrality, telling Morales they wouldn't quell the protests, and a president who, in the eyes of the public, had lost all authority and respect.

Ironic considering the massacre of protesters supporting Morales today

https://mobile.twitter.com/dancohen3000 ... 6261671944

Indeed. The worst dictators are former “democratic opposition” that at last got to power.

"If the election result had stood, it would have marked Morales' fourth consecutive term as president. Although the 2009 Bolivian constitution – which Morales helped write and pass - only allows for two consecutive terms, the constitutional court ruled in 2013 that his first term didn't count towards the term limit, since he had served it under the previous constitution."

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/16/78011842 ... evo-morale


BS excuse. A packed supreme court, bought and paid for by Evo Morales. Nothing new in the region.

Evo Morales is a liar, a dictator, a fraudster of democracies.

From the same link above:

"In 2016, Morales narrowly lost a constitutional referendum that would have allowed him to run for a third term, but he appealed to the courts, which overturned the referendum and abolished term limits entirely, paving the way for last month's election."

I guess Morales was not able to gather quite enough of a cocaine war-chest to keep the military happy, as Maduro has

Pyrex wrote:

I guess Morales was not able to gather quite enough of a cocaine war-chest to keep the military happy, as Maduro has

No confirmation for me on Maduro's doings in this arena but as far as Evo is concerned I believe this to be quite accurate.

I've seen tons of video of huge crowds out in protest because they know 'Evo was railroaded'.

In Mexico, the 'status quo supporters' (those who miss the good ol' days of rape the gov't treasury keep corruption pervasive) otherwise known as Fifi's.

The Fifi's are that select circle of Elites who own everything and they do not want 'to share power (or wealth) with 'others (the people)'...they are number #1 threat to AMLO. Pres. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

What just happened to Evo Morales is exactly what is going with that fraud puppet Guido in Venezuela. Venezuela Fifis hard at work.

If the Fifis in Mexico could get away with it, they pull an Evo on AMLO in a heartbeat 2 years ago!

AMLO and EVO are simple men, AMLO was mayor of Mexico City before becoming president (lost in several elections prior to the corrupt leaders before him). Evo drove like a VW Jetta to the Presidential Palace.
But he is the emblematic face of the indigenous people of Bolivia, him being president is an affront to those who've ruled forever there and the indigenous are not desired, preferred that they remain unseen except to cater to tourists.

The new leader, Jeanine Añez comes in bring the same on BS (the conservative christianity schtick) that gave America trump and Brazil, Bosonaro...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/16/worl ... rales.html

The part that is missing is the actual videos of her being banged (my friend from Mexico set me 3 full on clips) now circulating on the web and going viral. That's like trump pee pee tape being circulated just after the EC gave him the presidency.

I have no problem with anyone 'doing their thing' but to fly in on riding on the religious BS, social conservatism while the truth about you flies in the public's face..is most offense!

There are plenty of videos on YT of the deadly protest and killings of Evo supporters who are not going to have the intellect discounted and taken for fools, they the gov't they voted for has been forcefully taken from them just to pacify the 'status quo crows' or the Bolivian Fifis.

An absolute shame that they are getting away with this via govt sponsored terrorism, fear and murder.



BN747

The Far Right Used A Political Crisis To Seize Control Of Bolivia
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/evo-mora ... 982f069c34

Hey, a great idea..let's all support another Pinochet type gov't, it work out well last time! Why not again...???

Yeah, all you guys with zero understanding of how Evo Morales came to power and what he was facing trying to change the status quo in Bolivia, now you can celebrate this...the tried and true military junta regime - again!

BN747

PPVRA wrote:

zkojq wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

This was the military assuming neutrality, telling Morales they wouldn't quell the protests, and a president who, in the eyes of the public, had lost all authority and respect.

Ironic considering the massacre of protesters supporting Morales today

https://mobile.twitter.com/dancohen3000 ... 6261671944

The left in Latin American has a very long history of violent protesting, vandalism.

And the Right in Latin America is notorious for jack-booted thuggery to murders of thousands in soccer stadiums to simply gunning down entire villages, led by Nazi-like Authoritarians ..and the worst ones come wrapped in religious beliefs. The left can't come close to that wickedness.

BN747

BN747 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Ironic considering the massacre of protesters supporting Morales today

https://mobile.twitter.com/dancohen3000 ... 6261671944

The left in Latin American has a very long history of violent protesting, vandalism.

And the Right in Latin America is notorious for jack-booted thuggery to murders of thousands in soccer stadiums to simply gunning down entire villages, led by Nazi-like Authoritarians ..and the worst ones come wrapped in religious beliefs. The left can't come close to that wickedness.

BN747

Mind you, they did plenty of wickedness in Latin America, too.

And after nearly two decades in power, rather than fighting corruption, they disappointedly took part in it—often at the expense of the democratic process, and even stacking supreme courts across the region with people unqualified for the position, but who were given the position in exchange for a lifetime of favorable rulings.

That’s a stealth coup, the real coup, not the false and demeaning narrative they have created because they’ve lost power in democratic processes. The left is extremely arrogant to think they can’t lose power democratically. They must find a scape goat, always. Probably even harder for them to believe they lost elections after the millions in illegal campaign “donations” they received even while selling (and sometimes passing) laws requiring only public funds to finance election campaigns.

Fact is, the Latin American left is corrupt. They need to reinvent themselves, clean up their act, and give the people a mea culpa—something they have failed to do. Again, they’ve been too arrogant and still believe they’re god’s gift to humanity.

Democracy is finally working and people are putting these parties on “time out”. But there’s still an enormous struggle against the corrupt supreme courts who are fighting back, trying to protect their politicians with the same old “culture of impunity” legal tool box.

But thanks to the internet and social media, political engagement is extremely high. People at watching and they’re pushing Congress. Hard.

PPVRA wrote:

BN747 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

The left in Latin American has a very long history of violent protesting, vandalism.

And the Right in Latin America is notorious for jack-booted thuggery to murders of thousands in soccer stadiums to simply gunning down entire villages, led by Nazi-like Authoritarians ..and the worst ones come wrapped in religious beliefs. The left can't come close to that wickedness.

BN747

Mind you, they did plenty of wickedness in Latin America, too.

And after nearly two decades in power, rather than fighting corruption, they disappointedly took part in it—often at the expense of the democratic process, and even stacking supreme courts across the region with people unqualified for the position, but who were given the position in exchange for a lifetime of favorable rulings.

That’s a stealth coup, the real coup, not the false and demeaning narrative they have created because they’ve lost power in democratic processes. The left is extremely arrogant to think they can’t lose power democratically. They must find a scape goat, always. Probably even harder for them to believe they lost elections after the millions in illegal campaign “donations” they received even while selling (and sometimes passing) laws requiring only public funds to finance election campaigns.

Fact is, the Latin American left is corrupt. They need to reinvent themselves, clean up their act, and give the people a mea culpa—something they have failed to do. Again, they’ve been too arrogant and still believe they’re god’s gift to humanity.

Democracy is finally working and people are putting these parties on “time out”. But there’s still an enormous struggle against the corrupt supreme courts who are fighting back, trying to protect their politicians with the same old “culture of impunity” legal tool box.

But thanks to the internet and social media, political engagement is extremely high. People at watching and they’re pushing Congress. Hard.

Yes, leftist governments are as corrupt throughout Latin America, because of a corrupt foundation was laid from their colonial past til this day. There has been periods of leaders breaking from tradition (corruption, nepotism especially) but the never last.

But Latin dictatorial leaders have always gone the martial law route to impose fear among the population.

But true Democracy can only from leftist thought (free thoughts/thinking politically), it cannot ever come from a Rightwing gov't...that approach only reinforces 'the status quo' of 'no changes necessary and a guarantee of the repression of political activism (silencing them).

Violence from the left has usually come in the form of protests..from the right it comes in the form of quelling dissent.
Plus in many cases, America has played a horrific role in Latin America affairs prolonging the unnecessary misery of the masses.


BN747

BN747 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

BN747 wrote:

And the Right in Latin America is notorious for jack-booted thuggery to murders of thousands in soccer stadiums to simply gunning down entire villages, led by Nazi-like Authoritarians ..and the worst ones come wrapped in religious beliefs. The left can't come close to that wickedness.

BN747

Mind you, they did plenty of wickedness in Latin America, too.

And after nearly two decades in power, rather than fighting corruption, they disappointedly took part in it—often at the expense of the democratic process, and even stacking supreme courts across the region with people unqualified for the position, but who were given the position in exchange for a lifetime of favorable rulings.

That’s a stealth coup, the real coup, not the false and demeaning narrative they have created because they’ve lost power in democratic processes. The left is extremely arrogant to think they can’t lose power democratically. They must find a scape goat, always. Probably even harder for them to believe they lost elections after the millions in illegal campaign “donations” they received even while selling (and sometimes passing) laws requiring only public funds to finance election campaigns.

Fact is, the Latin American left is corrupt. They need to reinvent themselves, clean up their act, and give the people a mea culpa—something they have failed to do. Again, they’ve been too arrogant and still believe they’re god’s gift to humanity.

Democracy is finally working and people are putting these parties on “time out”. But there’s still an enormous struggle against the corrupt supreme courts who are fighting back, trying to protect their politicians with the same old “culture of impunity” legal tool box.

But thanks to the internet and social media, political engagement is extremely high. People at watching and they’re pushing Congress. Hard.

Yes, leftist governments are as corrupt throughout Latin America, because of a corrupt foundation was laid from their colonial past til this day. There has been periods of leaders breaking from tradition (corruption, nepotism especially) but the never last.

But Latin dictatorial leaders have always gone the martial law route to impose fear among the population.

But true Democracy can only from leftist thought (free thoughts/thinking politically), it cannot ever come from a Rightwing gov't...that approach only reinforces 'the status quo' of 'no changes necessary and a guarantee of the repression of political activism (silencing them).

Violence from the left has usually come in the form of protests..from the right it comes in the form of quelling dissent.
Plus in many cases, America has played a horrific role in Latin America affairs prolonging the unnecessary misery of the masses.


BN747

Oh come on. Left versus right has many definitions, but traditionally the United States has been a right leaning government and democracy has flourished. Right- self reliance, limited government. Left- government reliance, collective socialism. Which either way you lean is up to you, but in very left leaning Soviet russia democracy sure didn’t flourish, and millions upon millions died as the USSR tried to implement its utopian industrial society. More on point, millions WILL die in leftist Venezuela, where government controls and corruption will eventually lead just like the USSR to mass starvation, unless the international community gets involved. Now, I’m not saying extreme right governments work either, the nazis are a perfect example of that. Extreme versions of left and right philosophy just don’t work. Communism, fascism, despotism... these are failed models. It’s the space in between we can go ahead and argue about.

N757ST wrote:

BN747 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Mind you, they did plenty of wickedness in Latin America, too.

And after nearly two decades in power, rather than fighting corruption, they disappointedly took part in it—often at the expense of the democratic process, and even stacking supreme courts across the region with people unqualified for the position, but who were given the position in exchange for a lifetime of favorable rulings.

That’s a stealth coup, the real coup, not the false and demeaning narrative they have created because they’ve lost power in democratic processes. The left is extremely arrogant to think they can’t lose power democratically. They must find a scape goat, always. Probably even harder for them to believe they lost elections after the millions in illegal campaign “donations” they received even while selling (and sometimes passing) laws requiring only public funds to finance election campaigns.

Fact is, the Latin American left is corrupt. They need to reinvent themselves, clean up their act, and give the people a mea culpa—something they have failed to do. Again, they’ve been too arrogant and still believe they’re god’s gift to humanity.

Democracy is finally working and people are putting these parties on “time out”. But there’s still an enormous struggle against the corrupt supreme courts who are fighting back, trying to protect their politicians with the same old “culture of impunity” legal tool box.

But thanks to the internet and social media, political engagement is extremely high. People at watching and they’re pushing Congress. Hard.

Yes, leftist governments are as corrupt throughout Latin America, because of a corrupt foundation was laid from their colonial past til this day. There has been periods of leaders breaking from tradition (corruption, nepotism especially) but the never last.

But Latin dictatorial leaders have always gone the martial law route to impose fear among the population.

But true Democracy can only from leftist thought (free thoughts/thinking politically), it cannot ever come from a Rightwing gov't...that approach only reinforces 'the status quo' of 'no changes necessary and a guarantee of the repression of political activism (silencing them).

Violence from the left has usually come in the form of protests..from the right it comes in the form of quelling dissent.
Plus in many cases, America has played a horrific role in Latin America affairs prolonging the unnecessary misery of the masses.


BN747

Oh come on. Left versus right has many definitions, but traditionally the United States has been a right leaning government and democracy has flourished. Right- self reliance, limited government. Left- government reliance, collective socialism. Which either way you lean is up to you, but in very left leaning Soviet russia democracy sure didn’t flourish, and millions upon millions died as the USSR tried to implement its utopian industrial society. More on point, millions WILL die in leftist Venezuela, where government controls and corruption will eventually lead just like the USSR to mass starvation, unless the international community gets involved. Now, I’m not saying extreme right governments work either, the nazis are a perfect example of that. Extreme versions of left and right philosophy just don’t work. Communism, fascism, despotism... these are failed models. It’s the space in between we can go ahead and argue about.

Sure, Left versus right has many definitions, the example you give of Russian left vs America left during that era were indeed two different 'leftist tactics', sure there were Russian inspired communists in America, but they had influence in gov't here.

The Left versus Right dilemma of govts world wide have different interpretations subject to local/region perspectives.

We (humans) have only been at 'Left versus Right' positions in gov't since the mid 1800s, just barely 200 years of sorting out the ideas, good and bad. It is an ongoing work-in-progress in the social experiment of civilization.

It is still relatively new.

No blue print exist, an American leftist from 1900 might very well be a conservative Republican in 2019. Why? The social settings today might shock the hell out of such person, what one thinks they want may not be the same when they get their wish and it is materialized. We are a species that is very very slow at 'learning our lessons from bad situations and bad historical events. For that reason, the experiments in Left versus Right govts is constantly evolving but if history is any clue, it tells us which type of gov't is likely to gun down it's citizens and which will not. From Lenin/Stalin to US inspired dictators (left or right) willing to do exactly that as opposed to those gov'ts that refrain from engaging or taking sides in international conflicts.

Honduras, is the only country I know of that has no standing army. Would world benefit from following this cue? Obviously, but that would only go so far as it would not put an end to petty drug wars by domestic gang activity. Where does the Left versus Right component filter in this global concern be it black market, illegal drug activity, the sex trade, etc...there is not and the motivation of easy money makes them all susceptible to some sort of sway on governments directly, Mexico (and other nations) is ruled by them.

And the common link between them and Military dictatorships (no left dictatorships exist) is - Fear. The threat of 'if you step out of line, we will end you' mentality, we do not tolerate dissent.

So bringing up the old ignorant Russian style of leftism has no place in leftist movements today, they were the first large scale (and failed) application because they were not true their convictions, Honduras seems to be trying to do it right, in the governmental sense. You cannot have a rightwing gov't with no standing military...okay well you can but that state has be as close to 100% homogeneous, like Japan for example..which swore off 'an armed military' after WWII, but look at them now ..moving toward exactly that as they sense subtle danger from China bullying (and payback) and the uncomfortable rattling from North Korea.

Fortunately, the internet is making education, information readily availbe to anyone who wants it. The massive crowds protesting Hong Kong, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador and other places is only able to achieve such enormous (millions) crowds because internet communications. It is speeding up the 'reaching the end results' process, China will see a result or way or the other, soon.
What is stopping the Chinese from going full Mao on the protestors? The threat to a devastating blow to their exploding economy, they do not want mess around with their cash cows.
So which way will they go? Bend to the protestors and send a message across the nation (that you can do it too) or crush them and suffer the aftermath.

Those protestors want what you enjoy, freedom only gained by leftist movements..NEVER by forces/believers/advocates of the right.

BN747

BN747 wrote:

But true Democracy can only from leftist thought (free thoughts/thinking politically), it cannot ever come from a Rightwing gov't...that approach only reinforces 'the status quo' of 'no changes necessary and a guarantee of the repression of political activism (silencing them).

reinforcing the status quo, 'no changes necessary', and the repression of political activism are the tools of governments of any kind who find themselves in a defensive position. From Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia. . to the Soviet Union. Only to name a few left wing dictatorships who have used these excuses.

The right does not have the monopoly on conservatism. That's a naive mistake.

BN747 wrote:

Violence from the left has usually come in the form of protests..from the right it comes in the form of quelling dissent.
Plus in many cases, America has played a horrific role in Latin America affairs prolonging the unnecessary misery of the masses.

Most of the time it was vandalism, not protest. Not to mention guerrilla groups across the region and the planet. A very bloody and embarrassing history.

PPVRA wrote:

BN747 wrote:

But true Democracy can only from leftist thought (free thoughts/thinking politically), it cannot ever come from a Rightwing gov't...that approach only reinforces 'the status quo' of 'no changes necessary and a guarantee of the repression of political activism (silencing them).

reinforcing the status quo, 'no changes necessary', and the repression of political activism are the tools of governments of any kind who find themselves in a defensive position. From Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia. . to the Soviet Union. Only to name a few left wing dictatorships who have used these excuses.

The right does not have the monopoly on conservatism. That's a naive mistake.

BN747 wrote:

Violence from the left has usually come in the form of protests..from the right it comes in the form of quelling dissent.
Plus in many cases, America has played a horrific role in Latin America affairs prolonging the unnecessary misery of the masses.

Most of the time it was vandalism, not protest. Not to mention guerrilla groups across the region and the planet. A very bloody and embarrassing history.

From Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia. . to the Soviet Union. Only to name a few left wing dictatorships who have used these excuses.

That is Left wing govt, from your and probably many residents of Latin America..but it is not Left-wing in America.

From Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia. . to the Soviet Union. Only to name a few left wing dictatorships have nothing in common with the ideas of Bernie Sanders or AOC.
From Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia. . to the Soviet Union employ Fear Tactics 100%...American 'Left' want the opposite of that and use of the military is only for national protection.
This Fool president we have has inched closer to the Rightwing antics by trying to put US troops on the US border with Mexico and make no mistake if President Idiot could, he certainly would mobilize the military and inject them into American domestic affairs. Incompetent rulers always go that route just as 'From Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia.. to the Soviet Union' and China, North Korea and Saudi Arabia.

So if you are lumping America into the same 'leftist' category as From Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia. . to the Soviet Union, then you don't understand the American political dynamic at all.

In this country the Right owns Conservatism period. Their socially conservatives excuses are fading as our society slowly (now more rapidly in recent years) accepts it's diverse destiny.
Those who are 'Financial conservative' can be found in both parties.

When Americans flag you as a 'conservative' today, they are stating you've more in common with Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes, David Duke, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc...
And that is more of their 'socially conservative' policies..certainly not their 'financially conservative' policies because each ballooned the national debt!

I believe in the UK, the conservatives are like out Liberals (I think) but what applies here does not necessarily apply there as far as definitions go.

I like to hear your explanation of 'Leftist views' versus Conservatives there.

"Most of the time it was vandalism, not protest. Not to mention guerrilla groups across the region and the planet. A very bloody and embarrassing history"

Well that's pretty much universal.

When people anywhere/everywhere reach a breaking point, they are going to invoke those tactics (another version of fear meant to get the powerful to bring change) ..it is the only tool in their toolbox, his has shown that time and time again.

On the other hand, those Latin American nations that make the Pinochets, Somozas, Dueterte (Philippines) the powerful prefers them because they know they are 'protected' and insulated from negative actions from gov't...but they do run scared if that leader starts picking off his enemies (would trump do that? Hell yes he would - if he could).

Fear works the same in every human, some (most) succumb to it faster and easier than others - whether it fear of protesters or a dictator.

But you are naive of you believe there will never be vandalism, violent rebellion or guerillas..that's because no one political viewpoint can please everyone, therefore those that oppose with strike out in some form of resistance - always!

BN747

Looking for the evil, right wing bugaboo are we?

The left fails every time, time after time, sooner or later. All conservatives are not Klukers wanting to shoot gays an minorities dead in their tracks. You can dress it up as much as desired, but any way you look at it, the left stifles free speech. The left uses violence. Keep painting that rosy image.

Morales was shit from the get go. He, along with Correa and Chavez promised the poor the rich man's house and possessions. And they were all for it. What do they have to show for it? Nothing but misery. Keep advocating leftist ways. The club will get smaller and smaller.

extender wrote:

Looking for the evil, right wing bugaboo are we?

The left fails every time, time after time, sooner or later. All conservatives are not Klukers wanting to shoot gays an minorities dead in their tracks. You can dress it up as much as desired, but any way you look at it, the left stifles free speech. The left uses violence. Keep painting that rosy image.

Morales was shit from the get go. He, along with Correa and Chavez promised the poor the rich man's house and possessions. And they were all for it. What do they have to show for it? Nothing but misery. Keep advocating leftist ways. The club will get smaller and smaller.

Congrats. You've demonstrated you know zero about Morales or Bolivia.

OK professor, what ever you say. Demonstrated how, by disagreeing with you and your cohorts?

extender wrote:

OK professor, what ever you say. Demonstrated how, by disagreeing with you and your cohorts?

Have you read a single article about Bolivia? Or are you just on the sOshUlISm = VeNezUelA train?

News reports in Brazil and Argentina are saying that Evo Morales’ government, through the Bolivian Department of Justice, were directly involved in election manipulation.

Bolivian DoJ workers were “forced” to manipulate ballots by the Secretary of Justice. The accusations were leveled by the workers themselves in a written document to the OAS.

PPVRA wrote:

News reports in Brazil and Argentina are saying that Evo Morales’ government, through the Bolivian Department of Justice, were directly involved in election manipulation.

Bolivian DoJ workers were “forced” to manipulate ballots by the Secretary of Justice. The accusations were leveled by the workers themselves in a written document to the OAS.

Suuurrreeeeee they are...sounds exactly like something the Evo would do, just live Bolosonaro will announce free university courses to all Brazilian households earning less than 20K a year - which you know is the last thing he would be capable of doing, so ...let's see the links to this reports, regardless they be Portuguese or Spanish.

BN747

PPVRA wrote:

News reports in Brazil and Argentina are saying that Evo Morales’ government, through the Bolivian Department of Justice, were directly involved in election manipulation.

Bolivian DoJ workers were “forced” to manipulate ballots by the Secretary of Justice. The accusations were leveled by the workers themselves in a written document to the OAS.

I'm not sure who I trust the least: Morales, Bolsonaro, or the OAS. Tough call.

MaverickM11 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

News reports in Brazil and Argentina are saying that Evo Morales’ government, through the Bolivian Department of Justice, were directly involved in election manipulation.

Bolivian DoJ workers were “forced” to manipulate ballots by the Secretary of Justice. The accusations were leveled by the workers themselves in a written document to the OAS.

I'm not sure who I trust the least: Morales, Bolsonaro, or the OAS. Tough call.

if you trust the word of the poor and in the indigenous people, that's EVO's crowd. They have very little access to press...the Fifis, everything.

Bosonaro, is your guy if you love trump (and you do not) but he is a 1st class grifter sending his unqualified son to be US Amb. from Brazil.

BN747

From the start if another country is making comments on your internal elections, something isn't right. It's very possible, maybe even likely, that Morales has fiddled with the election, but this should be determined by an independant Bolivian entity, with as little link as possible to any political party.

Aesma wrote:

From the start if another country is making comments on your internal elections, something isn't right. It's very possible, maybe even likely, that Morales has fiddled with the election, but this should be determined by an independant Bolivian entity, with as little link as possible to any political party.

Not sure who you are addressing with this...
But, the hallmark calling card for the coming of tyrants is very telling and very accurate.

The tyrant (from Hitler to Putin) always corrals the military, easy process by enriching and promoting with the ranks of Nationalist.
Every South American dictator has done this.
America helped Marcos to do it in the Philippines to Dueterte today (trump loves the dude).
America helped Col. Qaddafi come into power in Libya.
America back Papa Doc & Baby Doc in Haiti.
Turkey,where Erdogan nailed down power with the military.
China's Xi and every previous leader since Mao, relied and still does on the use of the military to maintain control.
...and on and on.

Convincing the Military to aid you in your campaign is easy, just buy off the top leaders, the ones troops respect...and requires money, lots of it.

The average or the poor in all those countries cannot compete with an established 'power structure in place'.
Once that is accomplished, the rest is easy, just wrap yourself in the Nation's flag, speak to fear and come packaged with the appearance of 'success' (dress for success).
The only place this tactic did not work....Venezuela, the slick smooth operator in Juan Guaidó came up short, he's still in play but has lost traction he cannot cover.
The US wants Maduro out, Putin wants Maduro to stay...Putin is winning, although I'd rather he not be involved, but when the US is bearing down on you, you take whatever help that comes your way. The US aims are led by the most corrupt American leader of all time. And if anyone things America's Energy honchos have Zero designs on Venezuelza's oil reserves..you are lying to yourself. It perfect explains the intense media drive to trash Maduro and Putin has eyes on as well.

The American president is doing his best to follow the dictator's guide...no one here can doubt trump running the US military as his personal Army - if he could, everyone knows his passion for absolute control, he's publicly admitted his admiration of tyrants.

BN747

BN747 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

News reports in Brazil and Argentina are saying that Evo Morales’ government, through the Bolivian Department of Justice, were directly involved in election manipulation.

Bolivian DoJ workers were “forced” to manipulate ballots by the Secretary of Justice. The accusations were leveled by the workers themselves in a written document to the OAS.

I'm not sure who I trust the least: Morales, Bolsonaro, or the OAS. Tough call.

if you trust the word of the poor and in the indigenous people, that's EVO's crowd. They have very little access to press...the Fifis, everything.

Bosonaro, is your guy if you love trump (and you do not) but he is a 1st class grifter sending his unqualified son to be US Amb. from Brazil.

BN747

Well aware, but Morales went off the rails toward the end and obviously has an interest in pushing a narrative as much as anyone else.

MaverickM11 wrote:

BN747 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

I'm not sure who I trust the least: Morales, Bolsonaro, or the OAS. Tough call.

if you trust the word of the poor and in the indigenous people, that's EVO's crowd. They have very little access to press...the Fifis, everything.

Bosonaro, is your guy if you love trump (and you do not) but he is a 1st class grifter sending his unqualified son to be US Amb. from Brazil.

BN747

Well aware, but Morales went off the rails toward the end and obviously has an interest in pushing a narrative as much as anyone else.

I'm unaware of the 'narrative'...catch me up!

BN747

BN747 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

BN747 wrote:

if you trust the word of the poor and in the indigenous people, that's EVO's crowd. They have very little access to press...the Fifis, everything.

Bosonaro, is your guy if you love trump (and you do not) but he is a 1st class grifter sending his unqualified son to be US Amb. from Brazil.

BN747

Well aware, but Morales went off the rails toward the end and obviously has an interest in pushing a narrative as much as anyone else.

I'm unaware of the 'narrative'...catch me up!

BN747

ie that this additional term was as legitimate as the vote was, when neither seems to really be the case.

MaverickM11 wrote:

BN747 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Well aware, but Morales went off the rails toward the end and obviously has an interest in pushing a narrative as much as anyone else.

I'm unaware of the 'narrative'...catch me up!

BN747

ie that this additional term was as legitimate as the vote was, when neither seems to really be the case.

I wasn't sure if the Bolivian presidency similar to Mexico with a single term limit...it is not, according to wikipee the presidents is term is 'renewable' , he can run as long as he wants.

That tells me that the powers-that-be in Bolivia, decided to allow Evo's 1st term go through to 'demonstrate' that elections in Bolivia are fair and just because 'Hey look! An Indigenous guy won!'
...now that they've allowed his term to near completion...they have decided 'enough is enough'!

No more of the Poor people's candidate! They want a return to the status quo, ASAP!

I'm not fooled, the signs are everywhere and the no-so-educated Bolivians know this, it is exactly why they are in the streets.

BN747

BN747 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

BN747 wrote:

I'm unaware of the 'narrative'...catch me up!

BN747

ie that this additional term was as legitimate as the vote was, when neither seems to really be the case.

I wasn't sure if the Bolivian presidency similar to Mexico with a single term limit...it is not, according to wikipee the presidents is term is 'renewable' , he can run as long as he wants.

That tells me that the powers-that-be in Bolivia, decided to allow Evo's 1st term go through to 'demonstrate' that elections in Bolivia are fair and just because 'Hey look! An Indigenous guy won!'
...now that they've allowed his term to near completion...they have decided 'enough is enough'!

No more of the Poor people's candidate! They want a return to the status quo, ASAP!

I'm not fooled, the signs are everywhere and the no-so-educated Bolivians know this, it is exactly why they are in the streets.

BN747

This would have been his fourth term. While I don't doubt the wealthy and non indigenous were happy to see him go, I also think he wore out his welcome and did not do any succession planning, which is sad seeing as he legitimately has a lot to get credit for in Bolivia:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandso ... ed-to-flee

MaverickM11 wrote:

BN747 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

ie that this additional term was as legitimate as the vote was, when neither seems to really be the case.

I wasn't sure if the Bolivian presidency similar to Mexico with a single term limit...it is not, according to wikipee the presidents is term is 'renewable' , he can run as long as he wants.

That tells me that the powers-that-be in Bolivia, decided to allow Evo's 1st term go through to 'demonstrate' that elections in Bolivia are fair and just because 'Hey look! An Indigenous guy won!'
...now that they've allowed his term to near completion...they have decided 'enough is enough'!

No more of the Poor people's candidate! They want a return to the status quo, ASAP!

I'm not fooled, the signs are everywhere and the no-so-educated Bolivians know this, it is exactly why they are in the streets.

BN747

This would have been his fourth term. While I don't doubt the wealthy and non indigenous were happy to see him go, I also think he wore out his welcome and did not do any succession planning, which is sad seeing as he legitimately has a lot to get credit for in Bolivia:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandso ... ed-to-flee

I had no idea he had been president from 2006 to 2019, yes his not planning for a successor (like from day 1) is all on him, a major screw up!

None theless, the Fifis are back...and they aren't gonna ever allow another 'Evo' to hold that office again.

BN747

"Given the overwhelming evidence we have found, we can confirm a series of malicious operations aimed at altering the will of the voters,"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boli ... SKBN1Y9063


A massive concerted effort to keep Morales in power, at the expense of democracy.

Ten Important Accomplishments Under Evo Morales
https://www.telesurenglish.net/analysis ... -0069.html

Look at the reduction rate of decreased extreme poverty - from 38.2 percent in 2005 to 21.6 percent in 2012.

That's almost 20 points..I ask if any of you can show anyone else doing that in recent Bolivian history.

Can any of YOUR countries achieve a 20% decrease in extreme poverty? How much a difference would that make in YOUR country...in America, that would make an enormous difference.

PP-VRA, the OAS report in your link looks like something from Bill Barr's office...zero details on their findings.

BN747