Jump to content
elfenix

Things not going well in Bolivia

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

They hate Hispanics?

Or they care because South America has an abundance of natural resources that right wing governments, like bad teammate said, will go to the highest bidder (US firm) that they probably have connections to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Anyone know why Marco and Ted have such hardons for South America? 

Same reason Ted Haggard has such a hardon for teh gheys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

They should.  What Evo has accomplished is remarkable.  Why do you think the right has always been obsessed with crushing every leftist government in Latin America?  It's not all about the oil or lithium or whatever resources may be in play.  They view those governments as a virus that must be killed off before it's allowed to spread.  

They've carried around that mentality for decades, but yes, "our own little region over here" is the most vulnerable to that ridiculous Rotten Apple Theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

To make fun of you mostly.

HenryLames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

To make fun of you mostly.

Hell yeah love to run interference for fascists to own the libs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American politicians won't stand up against the international financial and governmental interests that instigate these world-destabilizing anti-democratic coups as long as their supporters think nothing of this stuff other than to say, "lol look at these stupid leftists caring about stuff".

Just players in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coup aside, there was a pattern of behavior from Morales that should have given even the most sympathetic American leftist some concern.  If the goal is legitimate, popularly-elected governments in Latin America with a focus on lifting people out of poverty by keeping wealth in the country,  Morales should be recognized by his previous accomplishments but was trending in a way that represented an existential threat.  Those two opinions can co-exist together peacefully.  Use a bit of common sense and this should bother you:

1.  This would have been Morales' 4th term.  This was an advanced step in the "president for life" playbook.

2.  His 3rd term was in direct violation of the Constitution that Morales helped create.  The reasoning then was that the first term didn't count, because it began before the modern constitution was adopted.  There was still popular support for him, so ok.  But that is an extremely self-serving interpretation.  World says "you get a hall pass here."  If the standard for succession is George Washington, Morales gets a D+.  Is he their FDR?  On the economy, sure.  Is the bloodiest war in human history currently being waged?  No.

3.  In 2016, there was a referendum to grant Morales a 4th term.  It failed.  Popular support gone.  Bolivians rejected the idea of Presidente por Vida.  The arguments pro Evo right now (simply MadLibs of the same phrases used to support Arbenz, the FMLN, Allende, et al in the 20th century) are not very credible with the outcome of this referendum.  This situation is vastly different, and comparing them to this Bolivia situation dishonors the reality of those injustices.

4.  Morales appealed to the Supreme Court, full of Evo appointees and sycophants, to abolish the term limits.  Massive conflict of interests there, and not much in the way of checks and balances.  As expected, they complied, justifying the decision with a flimsy and very ironic human rights argument.  Alarm bells went off.  The popular will of the people had been ignored. The world started watching.  Everything that has happened thereafter can be labeled as illegitimate.  

5.  The OAS has an imperfect past, but it is the only official audit we have.  Instead of attacking the source, which of these descriptions in the election are inaccurate?  Let's start there.

- Morales needed at least a 10% margin or greater than 50% of the total to avoid a runoff. 

- Election officials, also largely directly or indirectly pro-Morales, stopped releasing results when Morales had less than a 10% lead and less than 50% of the total.  A united opposition in a later runoff election likely would have resulted in a narrow victory for Mesa, the opposition candidate. Final numbers were not released until days later.  Morales declared victory with the "final numbers" which showed a margin greater than 10% and total barely over 50%, which had never been seen before.   Protests ensued.  At a bare minimum, this pattern of events looks pretty bad, even if the final numbers are legitimate.  Why did election officials stop releasing results?  The optics are terrible.  

 

With all that said, the politicians in the US and other OECD countries need to STFU about this.  Stop opining, stop expressing support, just shut up.  Doing so undermines the opposition.  Too much baggage here, and too much bad history in Latin America.  This has all the ingredients for an organic, grassroots evolution of Bolivia's modern Democracy.  Growing pains.  Morales can be recognized for his accomplishments.  He could have honored the referendum, given his full support to a hand-picked successor who would continue the agenda of the MAS and his own presidency, and cemented his legacy as the father of modern Bolivia with a peaceful transition of power.  And we would not be here right now.  There were cracks showing in Morales' base, enough to put his popular mandate at risk.  People who did not want President for Life, and a Venezuela/Zimbabwe starter kit.  But he started viewing himself as God-emperor (new 26 story presidential palace in the continent's poorest country?), and that got in the way.  Democracy has a way of weeding that out, and it was happening organically.  Let Bolivia determine Bolivia's destiny.

Edited by ryskey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

*Russia runs a troll farm to post GIFs of Pepe pushing a collapsing Hillary into a van on 9/11*

"THIS IS THE DEATH OF DEMOCRACY!"

*A right-wing military coup runs a democratically-elected president out of his country*

"Hmmm, can one really ever know things? Perhaps South America is simply a land of contrasts."

Quote

Maestra fell quiet and remained quiet for such a lengthy period that Switters wondered if she might have nodded off, as the elderly are wont to do. Either that or she was truly very angry. He cleared his throat. He cleared it again. Louder now.

"South America," she said abruptly.

"Yes."

"Nice."

"Not nice. No. South America holds a minimum of charm for this buckeroo."

"I suppose. The death squads, the poverty, the corruption, the destruction of nature."

"Hmm, well, yes, there's that." He scratched his himself, as if thinking of South America made him itch. "And then there's the fact that it's just too goddamn vivid."

such a great book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

4.  Morales appealed to the Supreme Court, full of Evo appointees and sycophants, to abolish the term limits.  Massive conflict of interests there, and not much in the way of checks and balances.  As expected, they complied, justifying the decision with a flimsy and very ironic human rights argument.  Alarm bells went off.  The popular will of the people had been ignored. The world started watching.  Everything that has happened thereafter can be labeled as illegitimate.  

Well there's a fun preview of what happens if Trump wins a 2nd term and appoints RBG's replacement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Well there's a fun preview of what happens if Trump wins a 2nd term and appoints RBG's replacement. 

Yep. At that point in the cycle, it's time for a people's revolution.

Never the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, ryskey said:

Coup aside, there was a pattern of behavior from Morales that should have given even the most sympathetic American leftist some concern.  If the goal is legitimate, popularly-elected governments in Latin America with a focus on lifting people out of poverty by keeping wealth in the country,  Morales should be recognized by his previous accomplishments but was trending in a way that represented an existential threat.  Those two opinions can co-exist together peacefully.  Use a bit of common sense and this should bother you:

1.  This would have been Morales' 4th term.  This was an advanced step in the "president for life" playbook.

2.  His 3rd term was in direct violation of the Constitution that Morales helped create.  The reasoning then was that the first term didn't count, because it began before the modern constitution was adopted.  There was still popular support for him, so ok.  But that is an extremely self-serving interpretation.  World says "you get a hall pass here."  If the standard for succession is George Washington, Morales gets a D+.  Is he their FDR?  On the economy, sure.  Is the bloodiest war in human history currently being waged?  No.

3.  In 2016, there was a referendum to grant Morales a 4th term.  It failed.  Popular support gone.  Bolivians rejected the idea of Presidente por Vida.  The arguments pro Evo right now (simply MadLibs of the same phrases used to support Arbenz, the FMLN, Allende, et al in the 20th century) are not very credible with the outcome of this referendum.  This situation is vastly different, and comparing them to this Bolivia situation dishonors the reality of those injustices.

4.  Morales appealed to the Supreme Court, full of Evo appointees and sycophants, to abolish the term limits.  Massive conflict of interests there, and not much in the way of checks and balances.  As expected, they complied, justifying the decision with a flimsy and very ironic human rights argument.  Alarm bells went off.  The popular will of the people had been ignored. The world started watching.  Everything that has happened thereafter can be labeled as illegitimate.  

5.  The OAS has an imperfect past, but it is the only official audit we have.  Instead of attacking the source, which of these descriptions in the election are inaccurate?  Let's start there.

- Morales needed at least a 10% margin or greater than 50% of the total to avoid a runoff. 

- Election officials, also largely directly or indirectly pro-Morales, stopped releasing results when Morales had less than a 10% lead and less than 50% of the total.  A united opposition in a later runoff election likely would have resulted in a narrow victory for Mesa, the opposition candidate. Final numbers were not released until days later.  Morales declared victory with the "final numbers" which showed a margin greater than 10% and total barely over 50%, which had never been seen before.   Protests ensued.  At a bare minimum, this pattern of events looks pretty bad, even if the final numbers are legitimate.  Why did election officials stop releasing results?  The optics are terrible.  

 

With all that said, the politicians in the US and other OECD countries need to STFU about this.  Stop opining, stop expressing support, just shut up.  Doing so undermines the opposition.  Too much baggage here, and too much bad history in Latin America.  This has all the ingredients for an organic, grassroots evolution of Bolivia's modern Democracy.  Growing pains.  Morales can be recognized for his accomplishments.  He could have honored the referendum, given his full support to a hand-picked successor who would continue the agenda of the MAS and his own presidency, and cemented his legacy as the father of modern Bolivia with a peaceful transition of power.  And we would not be here right now.  There were cracks showing in Morales' base, enough to put his popular mandate at risk.  People who did not want President for Life, and a Venezuela/Zimbabwe starter kit.  But he started viewing himself as God-emperor (new 26 story presidential palace in the continent's poorest country?), and that got in the way.  Democracy has a way of weeding that out, and it was happening organically.  Let Bolivia determine Bolivia's destiny.

Good post.

And I'll be honest, it's something I just don't fucking get -- why is the populist play ALWAYS to go to "president for life?"  I note that it's not confined to any particular end of the ideological spectrum (see, e.g., Dotard).

The missteps of the OAS, the clumsy intervention/statements by the US and its allies, etc. -- not good.  This is and should be an issue by and for Bolivians to sort out.  But that also means that Morales bears a shitload of responsibility and blame for how this went down.  He was a game-changer of a president.  They implemented a new constitution.  When his time in office is done, be done.  Instead, he HAD to make the play.  I just don't fucking understand why they can't resist it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yep. At that point in the cycle, it's time for a people's revolution.

Never the military.

Or maybe -- and here's a wild and wacky fucking idea -- leaders could leave office when their time is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unforseeable! A right-wing military coup leading to mass violence against minorities and indigenous people!?!?!??!?!?!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Unforseeable! A right-wing military coup leading to mass violence against minorities and indigenous people!?!?!??!?!?!

 

You know what would help end the shitty cycle of right-wing death squads/people's revolutions and imprisonment/execution of "counterrevolutionaries throughout South America?

A stable system based on the rule of law instead of a strongman.  Craziness, I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fozzz said:

HenryLames

You're gonna need a bigger boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You know what would help end the shitty cycle of right-wing death squads/people's revolutions and imprisonment/execution of "counterrevolutionaries throughout South America?

A stable system based on the rule of law instead of a strongman.  Craziness, I know.

What are you talking about?  Evo won the election convincingly and even offered to hold a runoff to satisfy the opposition and yet they still went through with the coup.  In spite of what the OAS claimed based off of incomplete results, there is no evidence that irregularities or fraud affected the result of the election.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

What are you talking about?  Evo won the election convincingly and even offered to hold a runoff to satisfy the opposition and yet they still went through with the coup.  In spite of what the OAS claimed based off of incomplete results, there is no evidence that irregularities or fraud affected the result of the election.  

This is funny. The constitution of Bolivia says that a president can be re-elected ONCE. This was his third re-election. Defend that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.

In keeping with the American Convention on Human Rights, Bolivia's chief court did away with term limits prior to Evo's running for a fourth term.  If the people of Bolivia wanted Evo out of power in favor of the opposition, then they could have voted for someone else in the most recent election - something they chose not to do.  Moreover, Evo did not prevent the opposition from running and I have not seen any claims whatsoever that he hindered them from mounting a competitive campaign.  

The term limits issue is simply immaterial to what the opposition chose to do, as evidenced by their planning of the coup months prior to the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it’s OK for the Supreme Court to say fuck the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And I'll be honest, it's something I just don't fucking get -- why is the populist play ALWAYS to go to "president for life?"  I note that it's not confined to any particular end of the ideological spectrum (see, e.g., Dotard).

Why specify "populist" here? Are authoritarians more likely to want to leave office or something? Nationalists? Oligarchs?

~*~*bOtH sIdEs*~*~

People in power usually wish to remain in power. George Washington was the historical exception, not the rule.

50 minutes ago, ryskey said:

Coup aside, there was a pattern of behavior from Morales that should have given even the most sympathetic American leftist some concern.

"Coup aside" is a pretty astonishing way to start the post.

"Beside that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

This really just smacks of, "Well if you oppose the coup from Guiado, I guess you love Maduro!" and "Well if you oppose the invasion of Iraq, I guess you love Saddam!"

War-mongers and neo-cons run the exact same playbook every single time. It's exhausting. (see: Briskethorn doing the same thing here he did in the Venezuela thread, learning absolutely nothing along the way.)

No one is writing paeans to Evo Morales. There aren't leftists in America with Evo shrines.  Morales doesn't need to be perfect or even good for people to vehemently oppose military coups. Corrupted democracy (like we have here) is preferable, by 20 miles, to military coup and junta in which genocide and ethnic cleansing are both only ever a heartbeat away.

How can any American honestly look at America 2019 and condescend about fledgling, weak democracies elsewhere?

Quote

5.  The OAS has an imperfect past, but it is the only official audit we have.  Instead of attacking the source, which of these descriptions in the election are inaccurate?  Let's start there.

Morales agreed publicly to go with the OAS audit and final count. He even agreed to new elections.

And why shouldn't we attack the OAS? It's an appendage of US hegemony.

2 minutes ago, XYZ said:

So it’s OK for the Supreme Court to say fuck the constitution.

No, it's not OK.

That doesn't excuse or justify a military coup, especially one so obviously fueled by foreign interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

In keeping with the American Convention on Human Rights, Bolivia's chief court did away with term limits prior to Evo's running for a fourth term.  If the people of Bolivia wanted Evo out of power in favor of the opposition, then they could have voted for someone else in the most recent election - something they chose not to do.  Moreover, Evo did not prevent the opposition from running and I have not seen any claims whatsoever that he hindered them from mounting a competitive campaign.  

The term limits issue is simply immaterial to what the opposition chose to do, as evidenced by their planning of the coup months prior to the election.

There are multiple reasons that entrenched, presidencies for life are a bad thing.  The biggest one is that once an administration/personality has so installed itself into every facet of life for decades, removal by election is nigh on impossible.

Bolivia had a constitution that Morales himself favored (hell, he called it his crowning achievement -- I don't much quibble with that assessment).

After he realized that he was running up against term limits, and he decided he didn't want to leave, he pushed for the Supreme Court to give him a loophole third term.  And then abolish term limits altogether.

He might be re-elected for a third, fourth, fifth, 90th term.  It doesn't much matter.  He managed to transform himself from a potentially globally transforming revolutionary leader.....to just another generic Latin American "president for life."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, XYZ said:

So it’s OK for the Supreme Court to say fuck the constitution.

Our Supreme Court straight up STOLE the 2000 election and no one here did one fucking thing.  Do you think SCOTUS stealing that election justified some crazed rightwing military junta assuming power?  The fact of the matter is that the people of Bolivia convincingly chose Evo to be their president - he won by like 11%, which would be a massive margin in a presidential election here.  NO ONE voted for the generals currently in control of that country.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Brisketexan said:

There are multiple reasons that entrenched, presidencies for life are a bad thing.  The biggest one is that once an administration/personality has so installed itself into every facet of life for decades, removal by election is nigh on impossible.

Bolivia had a constitution that Morales himself favored (hell, he called it his crowning achievement -- I don't much quibble with that assessment).

After he realized that he was running up against term limits, and he decided he didn't want to leave, he pushed for the Supreme Court to give him a loophole third term.  And then abolish term limits altogether.

He might be re-elected for a third, fourth, fifth, 90th term.  It doesn't much matter.  He managed to transform himself from a potentially globally transforming revolutionary leader.....to just another generic Latin American "president for life."

It's funny how this logic is never applied in say, Germany, where Merkel has been in power for as long as Evo.  Maybe they need a coup as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Our Supreme Court straight up STOLE the 2000 election and no one here did one fucking thing.  Do you think SCOTUS stealing that election justified some crazed rightwing military junta assuming power?  The fact of the matter is that the people of Bolivia convincingly chose Evo to be their president - he won by like 11%, which would be a massive margin in a presidential election here.  NO ONE voted for the generals currently in control of that country.  

That’s a yes then, right? It’s OK for the supreme court to say fuck the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Our Supreme Court straight up STOLE the 2000 election and no one here did one fucking thing.

That's because our corruption is cool. Just normal stuff like a president having an election stolen for him based on an election in a state where his brother is the governor.

Cool & Good

Quote

Do you think SCOTUS stealing that election justified some crazed rightwing military junta assuming power?  The fact of the matter is that the people of Bolivia convincingly chose Evo to be their president - he won by like 11%, which would be a massive margin in a presidential election here.  NO ONE voted for the generals currently in control of that country.  

They don't, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be that famed third world cult of personality that makes Evo so hard to get out of office...it couldn't be that his administration has been an incredible success.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why specify "populist" here? Are authoritarians more likely to want to leave office or something? Nationalists? Oligarchs?

~*~*bOtH sIdEs*~*~

People in power usually wish to remain in power. George Washington was the historical exception, not the rule.

You start stupid, and end smart.

"Populist" and "Authoritarian" are not mutually exclusive.  In fact, they quite often overlap.  Shit, see our own Presidente.

And yes, Washington was the exception.  But it's a good exception.  The rule is shitty.  Morales should have opted to be another exception, not another example of the shitty rule.

 

There's plenty of Morales and his platform to disagree with -- I certainly didn't agree with all of it.  BUT....he was the legally elected president.  And I certainly understood WHY he was elected.  And the Bolivian people have the right of self-determination, and they chose their path -- again, some of it I understood and agreed with it, some of it I didn't, but everyone doesn't need to run their country the way I would run mine.  Their history and circumstances are different.  So, I didn't have any particular problem with Morales.  I favor the rule of law and the right of genuine self-determination more than any particular political leaning.

So, no problem with Evo. Until he started taking the predictable steps to become President for Life.  Then the rule of law and self-determination get chucked out the window, and he's just another generic president for life.

None of this excuses right wing death squads, foreign interference, etc.  But goddamit, Evo shouldn't have fucking teed things up for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, XYZ said:

That’s a yes then, right? It’s OK for the supreme court to say fuck the constitution.

I don't think Evo did anything wrong by running for a fourth term given that it was legal for him to do so.  It sounds like you should write an angry letter to their judiciary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Brisketexan said:

So, no problem with Evo. Until he started taking the predictable steps to become President for Life.  Then the rule of law and self-determination get chucked out the window, and he's just another generic president for life.

None of this excuses right wing death squads, foreign interference, etc.  But goddamit, Evo shouldn't have fucking teed things up for them.

Yeah I can tell that's the thing that really bothers you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

It's funny how this logic is never applied in say, Germany, where Merkel has been in power for as long as Evo.  Maybe they need a coup as well.

When Merkel and her cronies void the Constitution that she said was her "greatest achievement," I'll criticize her for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Yeah I can tell that's the thing that really bothers you.

It bothers me a great deal.

My parents lived in Argentina for 5 years.  We know families who lost members to the junta.  I've walked the steps of the mothers of the disappeared.

My grandfather's family fled Mexico City during the revolution, a few steps ahead of leftist revolutionaries who wanted to kill them all.

I'm quite familiar with the history of Latin American political death squads, of all political stripes.  Unlike you, I don't fucking whitewash any such effort because it aligns with my political beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

When Merkel and her cronies void the Constitution that she said was her "greatest achievement," I'll criticize her for that.

lmao of course it's just Evo and his cronies.  Fucking chauvinist.  Do you support the Bolivian coup or not?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I don't think Evo did anything wrong by running for a fourth term given that it was legal for him to do so.  It sounds like you should write an angry letter to their judiciary.

I’m not angry. He got what was coming to him. Trying to be president for life has repercussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

lmao of course it's just Evo and his cronies.  Fucking chauvinist.  Do you support the Bolivian coup or not?  

No, I do not support the coup.

I do not support Bolivia descending into lawlessness.

I would have much preferred that Evo didn't decide to change the rules set in his "greatest accomplishment" so that he could become president for life.  And yes, I realize that means there's a risk that the Bolivian people might have someday elected someone who didn't align with Evo's political beliefs.  So be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, XYZ said:

I’m not angry. He got what was coming to him. Trying to be president for life has repercussions.

I like Evo quite a lot, but I'm more worried about what will happen to the people of Bolivia now that the person chose to be their President has been forced to flee and insane Christian extremists have taken power.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"will of the people."  Jesus Christ.  Imagine being anything other than totally and unqualifyingly against this bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

I like Evo quite a lot, but I'm more worried about what will happen to the people of Bolivia now that the person chose to be their President has been forced to flee and insane Christian extremists have taken power.  

You know how I have warned the Trumpkins over and over that once you void the rule of law, and make it the rule of one man, then that opens the door to rule of the fist/the gun?  That's why the rule of law is so damned important.  It allows for the people -- people who may change their beliefs over time, by the way -- to be heard, and to believe in legitimacy.  Once that's gone, then the people (or at least a good portion of them) begin to think "fuck it, just take power however you can."

Evo made a grave mistake when he had the court void the constitutional term limits.  He sent a message that the law was actually whatever he wanted it to be, not something that was bigger and more permanent than any one man.  And when you send the message that the law as written doesn't matter, all that matters is your power to change it or overcome it, then that sets the stage for this shit.

I favor the rule of law and self-determination.  If that means the people elect a leftist, so be it.  If that means they elect a right winger, so be it.  So long as both leaders are constrained by the constitution, and leave office when constitutionally required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'm quite familiar with the history of Latin American political death squads, of all political stripes.  Unlike you, I don't fucking whitewash any such effort because it aligns with my political beliefs.

uhhh what? lol

You were (still are?) a cheerleader for starvation-by-sanction in order to spark a revolution in Venezuela. Your foray into this thread is to rage about Morales, not the obvious racist, fascist, right-wing nationalist military coup. It's a consistent and obvious pattern.

"I'm mad about cancer and fingernail bruising, I just spend 99% of my time on the subjects talking about how terrible fingernail bruising is."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

"will of the people."  Jesus Christ.  Imagine being anything other than totally and unqualifyingly against this bullshit.

"Sounds good to me!" - The right, center-right, and center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"Sounds good to me!" - The right, center-right, and center.

They want a people's revolt, i'd figure you'd like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

uhhh what? lol

You were (still are?) a cheerleader for starvation-by-sanction in order to spark a revolution in Venezuela. Your foray into this thread is to rage about Morales, not the obvious racist, fascist, right-wing nationalist military coup. It's a consistent and obvious pattern.

"I'm mad about cancer and fingernail bruising, I just spend 99% of my time on the subjects talking about how terrible fingernail bruising is."

Well, it just so happens that in our hemisphere, the most authoritarian, least democratic government happens to be nominally "leftist."  I don't like authoritarian anti-democratic regimes.  Sorry that hurts your feelings.  I mean, among the candidates for second-most authoritarian, least democratic governments is our own right-wing Trumpist state, which I think I've made clear I ain't a fan of.  If we get a full-blown right wing version of Venezuela, I'll shit on that as much as I've shit on the Chavez-Maduro regime.

But we get it.

The world according to bad teammate:

Murder of millions by leftist regimes (of which history has a rather impressive scorecard) -- A-OK.

Right wing violence and murder (history fills some pages with this shit, too) -- not just wrong, but actually proof that being to the right of center is evil.

The world according to sane people:

"Authoritarian, anti-democratic regimes kill the fuck out of people, and they're a bad thing, and we shouldn't have them, regardless of which school of political thought they purportedly align with."

I'm good with where I stand. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...