Jump to content
elfenix

Things not going well in Bolivia

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Are you two going to fuck or what? 

Need more info.

Is bad teammate Sela Ward?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I still feel too uninformed to have a legitimate opinion on this.  Pulling for peace, self determination, and pro-democracy tho

Evil doers should die like dogs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, elfenix said:

op ed?  it's in the tweet you posted.

That's not an op-ed, that's just reporting.

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

1) the incoming government is not legitimate.  Its actions only serve to confirm that.  The statements of the purported president - flavored with evangelical christian fascism - only further serve to confirm that.  Violence against the opposition is wrong, and should be condemned by all legitimate governments.

What do you think is going to come of a coup against a democratically elected leader? What else could possibly happen?

Quote

2) Morales still fucked up.  His government was a new way for Latin America.  While it had flaws, it remained promising.  The biggest risk for that type of government -- and thus, the biggest opportunity for opposing forces to delegitimize it -- would be to go all "president for life," putting the lie to the concept that what was created was a functioning constitutional democracy.  Morales foolishly disregarded that risk.

What is the actual problem with going all "president for life" if the people are still able to decide that with democratic processes?

What IS a "functioning constitutional democracy"? Is the US one?

Chauvinistic paternalism is the actual problem here and it's why someone can be wrong every damned time this happens and never learn.

Here's an extremely simple question: What did Morales actually do (be specific) that made a military coup either preferable or even equally proportional to either keeping the democratic results with Morales as president or going with Morales's offer to re-reun the elections with outside observers?

Share this post


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

What did Morales actually do (be specific) that made a military coup either preferable or even equally proportional to either keeping the democratic results with Morales as president or going with Morales's offer to re-reun the elections with outside observers?

Straw man fallacy (both in the choice you offer, and  in your apparent attribution to me of a position I have not taken).  I don't think that a coup and resulting violence is either preferable or equally proportional to his missteps.  Of the two courses, I'd prefer a re-run of the election.  Of ALL courses, I'd prefer that he hadn't gone down the goddamned "president for life" road that this type of leader fucking ALWAYS seems to go down, making the current outcome more likely than it should have been.

Share this post


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

Straw man fallacy (both in the choice you offer, and  in your apparent attribution to me of a position I have not taken).  I don't think that a coup and resulting violence is either preferable or equally proportional to his missteps.  Of the two courses, I'd prefer a re-run of the election.  Of ALL courses, I'd prefer that he hadn't gone down the goddamned "president for life" road that this type of leader fucking ALWAYS seems to go down, making the current outcome more likely than it should have been.

^ Spot on and pretty much how everyone on here feels, bad_teammate and Fozzz's constant obfuscation and intentional sowing of discord not withstanding. Fucking trolls. 

Share this post


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

 I still feel too uninformed to have a legitimate opinion on this.  Pulling for peace, self determination, and pro-democracy tho

Evil doers should die like dogs. 

There was a democratically elected leader. Circumstances were vaguely shady (where aren't they?) with some unfounded accusations of corruption and the leader said, "OK cool let's just re-run the election and y'all can observe to make sure it's OK."

The opposition said, "No re-run, we're sending the military."

The military said, "Step down" to the leader.

The leader stepped down.

That is a military coup.

A military coup is always worse than a democratic process, even a potentially-corrupt democratic process.

A corrupt leader should be overthrown by the people.

That is the most charitable reading of events to Brisket's "well both sides, actually" perspective.

The more accurate reality is that the OAS is a corrupt tool of American hegemony.

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't think that a coup and resulting violence is either preferable or equally proportional to his missteps.

Go back through this thread (and the Venezuelan one) and ask yourself if your actual words match this. They don't, at all.

Quote

 Of the two courses, I'd prefer a re-run of the election.

Cool then why have you spent this entire thread whining about Morales? Why was your main focus on Maduro regarding Venezuela?

Quote

 Of ALL courses, I'd prefer that he hadn't gone down the goddamned "president for life" road that this type of leader fucking ALWAYS seems to go down, making the current outcome more likely than it should have been.

What does "this type of leader" actually mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2019 at 1:05 PM, 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.

Quote

Let Bolivia determine Bolivia's destiny.

This. 

Do you think this principle should be universal for all countries?

Share this post


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

What does "this type of leader" actually mean?

Populist saviors.

Note that it is not confined to the left, not even close.  Hell, we're wrassling with an aspiring (but oh so dumb) right wing version of that right here at home.

Share this post


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

That's not an op-ed, that's just reporting.

i know it's not an op ed.  i never said anything about an op ed.

Share this post


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

3) the media coverage I've read and seen seems pretty thorough, and has not been kind to the incoming government.  Like, not at all.  I don't see much whitewashing -- they look fucking horrible in the light of coverage.

4) the volume of stories on Hong Kong protests v. Bolivian protests is around 43 million hits to 8 million hits.  You COULD take that as some sign of bias.  OR, you could take it as a sign that the Hong Kong protests have been a big deal since mid-June.  So, for almost five months.  The Bolivian protests, on the other hand, have been going on for less than a month.  Heck, if you match up the number of hits to the amount of time each story has been a thing, the ratio is pretty spot-on -- just over 5:1 to 5:1.

Come on brisket. Thorough? No whitewashing? Link me an article about Bolivian protestor deaths from cnn msnbc abc wsj Bloomberg etc. COULD you take that as a sign of bias? Do you think these outlets will be silent when people in Hong Kong are being killed?

Did you read the headlines when coming up with your ratios? There is barely any mention of people dying in Bolivia at the hands of the military from major news networks. That is what the tweet was insinuating. Not that the coup wouldn’t be covered at all. How could it not be?

Share this post


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

Come on brisket. Thorough? No whitewashing? Link me an article about Bolivian protestor deaths from cnn msnbc abc wsj Bloomberg etc. COULD you take that as a sign of bias? Do you think these outlets will be silent when people in Hong Kong are being killed?

Did you read the headlines when coming up with your ratios? There is barely any mention of people dying in Bolivia at the hands of the military from major news networks. That is what the tweet was insinuating. Not that the coup wouldn’t be covered at all. How could it not be?

Looked back at the coverage -- among the top links on stories about the violence and deaths were NPR and BBC, and my personal presumption bias shows (I get a good bit of my news from those outlets - I'm not a MSNBC/CNN/Fox guy).  The sources are more heavily weighted towards international type outlets and wire services as opposed to the American mainstream outlets (although I did see a prominent Bloomberg story).  So, your point is not unfair.

I'd be interested in a separate conversation of why that is -- there may well be some corporatist bias.  Or, there may be more of what we've seen displayed in spades -- American consumers are more interested in "rah rah, we're just like you, we love democracy and freedom" stories, which the Hong Kong protesters have purposefully cultivated.  So, more eyes on TVs/ads with that story than Bolivia....which most Americans haven't even heard of.  No sinister motive, just plain old greed, selling the stories the consumer wants to consume.  I dunno.  Probably a mix of both.

Share this post


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

Populist saviors.

What is the alternative to a "populist savior"? Technocrats who don't care about their populations? Corporate rule?

What does it even mean?

Because despite your protestation, it really just seems like a way to make it seem like the real problem is democratically-popular leftists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NBA kerfluffle also raised awareness. The University students may also have an advantage in the social media sphere as compared to the typical Bolivian protestor like you said: savvy. Media outlets have fewer feet on the ground these days so the more footage that streams in prior to it being shut down by Bolivian leadership may help. Many Americans would have difficulty naming or locating South American countries on a map.

 

Share this post


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

What is the alternative to a "populist savior"? Technocrats who don't care about their populations? Corporate rule?

What does it even mean?

Because despite your protestation, it really just seems like a way to make it seem like the real problem is democratically-popular leftists.

Nope.  Like I said, there's plenty of examples of right-wing/fascist populist saviors who went (or tried to go) all "leader for life."

Evo said that his greatest accomplishment was the Bolivian Constitution.  I agree with that statement.  Drafting and imposing a system of order and preservation of the rights of the people that will outlast you is an incredible achievement.  And a, perhaps the, hallmark of a successful governmental system is a peaceful transition of power by democratic action within a constitutional process.  Had Morales not sought to change the very thing that he once said was his greatest achievement so that he could hold power indefinitely, I would certainly have thought pretty damned highly of his legacy.

Robust and long-lived institutions stand as a bulwark against autocracy and authoritarianism, which are by their nature anti-democratic, and have a strong track record of being bloody as well.

A Bolivia -- a state that for so much of its history was wildly undemocratic, racist, and oppressive of the indigenous people who were the majority of its population -- that built democratic institutions that provided for a long-term voice, protection, and participation in the process for all Bolivians, well, that would be a Boliva to be celebrated.  And we almost had it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, elfenix said:

BBC is also not western media

????  Really?  I mean, the UK is not "the West?"  Am I missing something?

Share this post


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

????  Really?  I mean, the UK is not "the West?"  Am I missing something?

there's a tweet above about the police killing protestors in cochabamba/sacaba (they're contiguous cities) and how western media won't cover it. 

Quote

Bolivia crisis: Death toll mounts amid pro-Evo Morales protests

The death toll in Bolivia continues to rise after violent clashes between security forces and supporters of former President Evo Morales.

On Friday, security forces opened fire on supporters of Mr Morales in Sacaba, killing at least eight people.

A doctor in the city told the Associated Press that most of those killed and injured had bullet wounds.

...

What's the latest from Sacaba?

Hospital director Guadalberto Lara told AP that most of the killed and injured in the central town of Sacaba had bullet wounds.

Witnesses said police opened fire on protesters calling for the return of Mr Morales to Bolivia.

Separately, an AFP correspondent said five supporters of the former president were killed, after seeing their bodies at a local hospital. The deaths were later confirmed by interim minister Mr Justiniano to local journalists.

On Saturday, three more deaths were confirmed.

 

no, doesn't seem like western media is covering it. 

Share this post


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

Nope.  Like I said, there's plenty of examples of right-wing/fascist populist saviors who went (or tried to go) all "leader for life."

So what's the alternative to a "populist savior"? What other kinds of leaders are there?

Quote

Evo said that his greatest accomplishment was the Bolivian Constitution.  I agree with that statement.  Drafting and imposing a system of order and preservation of the rights of the people that will outlast you is an incredible achievement.  And a, perhaps the, hallmark of a successful governmental system is a peaceful transition of power by democratic action within a constitutional process.  Had Morales not sought to change the very thing that he once said was his greatest achievement so that he could hold power indefinitely, I would certainly have thought pretty damned highly of his legacy.

The hallmark of democracy is the free choice of the citizenry, not how restricted they are in their choices. Him seeking re-election is not anti-democratic.

Quote

Robust and long-lived institutions stand as a bulwark against autocracy and authoritarianism, which are by their nature anti-democratic, and have a strong track record of being bloody as well.

What evidence is there of Morales's government being autocratic or authoritarian?

Quote

A Bolivia -- a state that for so much of its history was wildly undemocratic, racist, and oppressive of the indigenous people who were the majority of its population -- that built democratic institutions that provided for a long-term voice, protection, and participation in the process for all Bolivians, well, that would be a Boliva to be celebrated.  And we almost had it.

Until what happened, specifically? At what moment was the Bolivia we want (democratic, non-racist, and supportive of indigenous people) lost?

When a very popular indigenous president sought to be democratically elected and was democratically elected? Or when the military pushed him out and installed a religious fascist from a 4% party who wants to murder indigenous people and imprison journalists/political rivals?

You acting like Morales seeking another term was the death of democracy in Bolivia is a melodramatic fucking joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, the BBC is the dictionary picture of “western media”.

It’s not American media but “the west” contains much, much more than “USA Today”.

Share this post


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

So what's the alternative to a "populist savior"? What other kinds of leaders are there?

The hallmark of democracy is the free choice of the citizenry, not how restricted they are in their choices. Him seeking re-election is not anti-democratic.

See it’d be one thing to overwrite a constitutional provision that imposes term limits in favor of unlimited attempts to run for election, but the accusation is that he was becoming authoritarian and “leader for life” like he was Xi and actually implementing indefinite rule, and that just doesn’t hold water. It’s not authoritarian or “leader for life” to make oneself eligible for election whereas they previously wouldn’t be under previous constructs.
 

I’ve very often invoked the Hernandez example in Honduras, but it’s not even the mere fact that he bypassed the constitution by boldly inserting himself in the 2017 election; it was the utterly embarrassing 2-faced reaction in the US. When Zelaya called for a non-binding referendum asking the population if they would favor a constitutional rewrite, the right wing in the west couldn’t wait to accuse him of the same kind of “leader for life” nonsense thats been replayed here.

It was ok when Hernandez boldly defied the constitution by just inserting himself in an election his government forbade him to run in, but it wasn’t ok when Zelaya tried to accomplish that in a clean and legit process. He was willing to risk being turned down by the population straight up on the proposed referendum, he was willing to be turned down via the population not supporting that particular provision and he was willing to be turned down via the population voting against him even if he was put on the ballot legally, and yet so many American retards and idiots interpreted that as “authoritarian.” Hernandez completely bypassed that entire process, and those same sexually repressed and emotionally arrested screamers couldn’t be bothered to offer comment 1 about it. That’s...handy.

It’s the same here. Look, I can understand if people have reservations about pulling back term limits, but putting yourself in a position to potentially be voted out isn’t authoritarian. It certainly isn’t nearly as authoritarian as Hosni Mubārak or Xi or Augusto Pinochet or Suharto or a host of other actual Presidents-For-Life.

Quote

What evidence is there of Morales's government being autocratic or authoritarian?

Figureheads in the West proudly proclaim it without using “lol.”

 

Edited by hpslugga

Share this post


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

BBC is also not western media

 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

????  Really?  I mean, the UK is not "the West?"  Am I missing something?

 

24 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Um, the BBC is the dictionary picture of “western media”.

It’s not American media but “the west” contains much, much more than “USA Today”.

I wish I could say I’m surprised by your ability to be intentionally obtuse in the face of overwhelming evidence. Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean like overwhelming evidence that western media is, indeed, covering the very thing the alt-news twittersphere claims it's not?  it's as mindless a tack as when EMAW claims MSM won't cover something because it's bad for democrats.

Edited by elfenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

It’s the same here. Look, I can understand if people have reservations about pulling back term limits, but putting yourself in a position to potentially be voted out isn’t authoritarian. It certainly isn’t nearly as authoritarian as Hosni Mubārak or Xi or Augusto Pinochet or Suharto or a host of other actual Presidents-For-Life.

It's the first damned step.  Term limits are term limits.  If you change them "because I think the people will vote for me again," then they are meaningless.  Term limits don't exist for rulers who WON'T be re-elected.  They exist for rulers who WOULD be re-elected.  They prevent populism, as opposed to the rule of law, from ruling the day.

And that's really, really important.  Leadership 101 shows us that.  I regularly deal with organizations - businesses, governments, etc.  And almost without exception, any  of them that have the same leader for longer than 10-15 years end up in trouble.  Because the entity stops being "XYZ enterprises," and becomes "Bob's company."  It becomes defined by the leader.  And then its processes and systems are defined as whatever the leader does and wants.  And importantly, anyone who questions the leader's vision ends up being shown the door.  Successful enterprises and governments have and maintain a regular and orderly transition of leadership.  The philosophy might not change dramatically -- maybe they were conservative before, and they remain conservative, or vice-versa -- but the fact that there is a change in leadership is huge.

I don't disagree that perhaps a majority of the Bolivian people want Morales to serve another term.  And maybe they'd want him to serve another.  And then another.  To the point where the people really can't conceive of a Bolivia without Evo.  Which is a fucking disaster.   Because Bolivia isn't Evo.  XYZ corp. isn't Bob.  The City of Weenie World isn't Mayor Jones.  All of them need to be bigger than one man, because otherwise, they become that one man, and are susceptible to all of his foibles, failures, and inevitable self-aggrandizement, self-enrichment, and definition of all who oppose him not just as people who oppose him, but because he is the state, they oppose the state.  And enemies of the state must, of course, be dealt with.

You correctly point to the history of US corporatist interference in Latin America as a negative.  But keep reading the whole history book, and read the chapters on nations that become one and the same as their leader for life, even if he has popular support.  It doesn't end well.

Edited by Brisketexan

Share this post


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

It's the first damned step.  Term limits are term limits.  If you change them "because I think the people will vote for me again," then they are meaningless. 

So what's the actual number of years someone can be democratically elected president before being an authoritarian?

Also, Morales didn't change the rules, a non-partisan constitutional tribunal did. (The same one that ruled that Anez, the religious fascist, was actually next in line for the post according to the Constitution).

Quote

Term limits don't exist for rulers who WON'T be re-elected.  They exist for rulers who WOULD be re-elected.  They prevent populism, as opposed to the rule of law, from ruling the day.

Populism and rule of law are not in conflict here. Morales did nothing against the rule of law.

Quote

I don't disagree that perhaps a majority of the Bolivian people want Morales to serve another term.  And maybe they'd want him to serve another.  And then another.  To the point where the people really can't conceive of a Bolivia without Evo.  Which is a fucking disaster.   Because Bolivia isn't Evo. 

Paternalism. Jesus Christ

Quote

And enemies of the state must, of course, be dealt with.

Was this happening under Morales?

Quote

You correctly point to the history of US corporatist interference in Latin America as a negative.  But keep reading the whole history book, and read the chapters on nations that become one and the same as their leader for life, even if he has popular support.  It doesn't end well.

Be specific.

Share this post


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

Populism and rule of law are not in conflict here. Morales did nothing against the rule of law.

Tautology much?  When you make the laws....then nothing is against the law.  That's not the rule of law, that's the rule of a man.

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Paternalism. Jesus Christ

It ain't just Bolivia.  It's any place.  Including the United States.  People do this shit.  All people.  Go ahead and get your dander up, but that's because that's what you like to do.  Doesn't make what I said any less true, predictable, or repeated over and over.

 

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Was this happening under Morales?

Not yet, generally.  But now you sound like a Trumpkin, defending HIS authoritarianism.  I mean, he hasn't actually exterminated brown people YET, why are you sounding the alarm just because he's taking the predictable and known steps that regularly result in that?  The time to be alarmed is before the fire has consumed everything -- afterwards is too fucking late.

 

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Be specific.

Mugabe.  De Francia in Paraguay.  Trump's giving it a shot.  The Kim regime.  Saddam.  A few for starters.

And I'm not gonna bust anyone's confidentiality, but I could name similar enterprise leaders who followed the same script.

Share this post


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

Tautology much?  When you make the laws....then nothing is against the law.  That's not the rule of law, that's the rule of a man.

What law(s) are you talking about, specifically, that Morales made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just vote for Trump you gutless shitheads. Y’all want the same things. 

Share this post


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

Morales didn't change the rules,

i'm sure morales had no say in whether the court case was brought or not.

Share this post


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

i'm sure morales had no say in whether the court case was brought or not.

Bringing a case before a court isn't making law.

Authoritarians don't ask courts permission for things. Authoritarians don't have elections. Authoritarians don't offer to run elections back under international oversight.

Evo Morales wasn't a perfect president. I would venture to say, however, that he was a better and more ethical one than the one in the White House in DC. Whether or not Morales is good is completely immaterial.

Share this post


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

Bringing a case before a court isn't making law.

he petitioned the court to change the rules, knowing that he'd made them and that a referendum had rejected that rule change.  no, i suppose the court could have ruled the other way, but changing the rules was morales's intended effect.  this is like claiming that the koch brothers are just taking advantage of the rules available to all americans when they were instrumental in getting the rules changed.  don't be fucking naive.

Edited by elfenix

Share this post


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

when you know that the court will make law regardless of the way it rules

What does this mean? Courts don't make law. The court in question was in the 2009 Constitution and it is their job to do exactly this. They ruled that the rights of politicians and voters superseded the Constitution's term limits.

Are you saying that the Constitutional Tribunal was in Morales's pocket? Evidence? As I mentioned earlier, this exact same Constitutional Tribunal just validated Anez's rise to power after the coup that displaced Morales. Why would they do that if they were Morales cronies?

There was a referendum on term limits that Morales barely lost, and in the run-up to that his political opposition ran at least two different completely false smear campaigns (a love child that didn't exist and accusations of corruption from Chinese investors).

The wealthy urban classes hate him, and class protects class across international borders. In came the coup.

Share this post


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

They ruled that the rights of politicians and voters superseded the Constitution's term limits.

that's making law.

Edited by elfenix

Share this post


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

that's making law.

If we go with this tortured logic, then I guess all nations with judiciaries are anti-democratic?

Share this post


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

If we go with this tortured logic, then I guess all nations with judiciaries are anti-democratic?

speaking of tortured logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, elfenix said:

speaking of tortured logic.

explain

If courts are "making law" when they hand down rulings, then every single judiciary is "making law" every time they hand down a ruling, right?

Share this post


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

explain

If courts are "making law" when they hand down rulings, then every single judiciary is "making law" every time they hand down a ruling, right?

i don't know how you got from determining the interaction between a constitution and a treaty being making law (because that's what it is), to, every state that has a judiciary is anti democratic.

Share this post


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

i don't know how you got from determining the interaction between a constitution and a treaty being making law (because that's what it is), to, every state that has a judiciary is anti democratic.

Could you rephrase this in a clearer way? I'm a simple country petro engineer.

veterinary-cute-dog-is-tilting-head-funn

I don't want to respond without better understanding because I wouldn't want to mischaracterize the point you're making here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ethnic cleansing is happening.

Hey someone tell me about how bad it is for Evo Morales to ask for a chance to run for president again in a democratic election.

Share this post


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

Could you rephrase this in a clearer way? I'm a simple country petro engineer.

veterinary-cute-dog-is-tilting-head-funn

I don't want to respond without better understanding because I wouldn't want to mischaracterize the point you're making here.

 

if you and i came to an agreement whereby i was to sell you 500 widgets for your use in the course of your business, and i was to deliver 50 widgets every monday for the next 10 weeks, and you were to pay me 5 megabucks for the widgets after i deliver the 500th widget, and we wrote that down and each of us signed the document, we'd have a contract.  now, that part is settled law that we've formed a contract.  if i delivered all the widgets, and then you failed to pay, you'd be in breach.  i could sue you, and the court would issue a ruling saying that you owe me 5 megabucks.  that ruling doesn't resolve any new legal questions.  there's no law been made.  if i didn't deliver any widgets, but then sued you because you failed to pay me, the court would issue a ruling that your breach would be excused by my non performance.  that's very settled law now, so it's not making law (but at one time was a novel legal question somewhere in front of some tribunal, probably the king, in sumeria).

going back to morales, you have a constitution with a clear prohibition against el presidente serving more than 2 terms.  el presidente went to the constitutional tribunal saying 'well, i know i'm in my second terms, and i know the constitution says i can only serve 2 terms as president, but the first one was under a prior constitution, and this constitution is silent as to whether terms in progress counted against the term limit, so, tribunal, can you clarify whether the constitution meant to count terms in progress against the term limit, or did it mean to count only terms commencing under the constitution?'  and the tribunal came back and said that the constitution only meant to count terms commenced after the constitution's adoption.  note, that was a gray area.  the constitution itself was silent on the issue, so the tribunal made a determination because it was necessary to do so in order to rule. in common law countries, we call that making law [as an aside, courts have done this now for damn near 1000 years in the common law legal history that we inherited from england, so the conservative claims that judges shouldn't make law has no basis in history]. now, as bolivia is (presumably) a civil law country, this isn't accorded precedential value (and they might even be offended at me characterizing it as making law), but civil law countries like consistency just like common law countries (and coming to radically different results under very similar fact patterns is a quick way to lose credibility, which is all courts really have), so if some other official in a similar situation went to the tribunal and asked, the tribunal would answer similarly.  that's no longer making law.  that's applying already settled law. 

 

Share this post


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

if you and i came to an agreement whereby i was to sell you 500 widgets for your use in the course of your business, and i was to deliver 50 widgets every monday for the next 10 weeks, and you were to pay me 5 megabucks for the widgets after i deliver the 500th widget, and we wrote that down and each of us signed the document, we'd have a contract.  now, that part is settled law that we've formed a contract.  if i delivered all the widgets, and then you failed to pay, you'd be in breach.  i could sue you, and the court would issue a ruling saying that you owe me 5 megabucks.  that ruling doesn't resolve any new legal questions.  there's no law been made.  if i didn't deliver any widgets, but then sued you because you failed to pay me, the court would issue a ruling that your breach would be excused by my non performance.  that's very settled law now, so it's not making law (but at one time was a novel legal question somewhere in front of some tribunal, probably the king, in sumeria).

 

So law is made when new legal questions are resolved in the courts?

Quote

now, as bolivia is (presumably) a civil law country, this isn't accorded precedential value (and they might even be offended at me characterizing it as making law), but civil law countries like consistency just like common law countries (and coming to radically different results under very similar fact patterns is a quick way to lose credibility, which is all courts really have), so if some other official in a similar situation went to the tribunal and asked, the tribunal would answer similarly.  that's no longer making law.  that's applying already settled law. 

Still not really following the problem here with regard to the concept of "making law".  I, of course, understand the arguments in support of term limits and ~*~* concerns *~*~ with presidents pushing for extra terms. What I don't really follow is how a Constitutional tribunal saying that a section of the Constitution violates someone's rights is problematic. This seems to be what courts do all the time, very often in novel situations.

The fact that we don't actually have a Constitutional Tribunal with this responsibility obviously makes their system of jurisprudence different from ours, of course.

Share this post


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

So law is made when new legal questions are resolved in the courts?

pretty much.  or overturning prior court decisions.

 

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Still not really following the problem here with regard to the concept of "making law". 

who said anything about a problem with the concept of making law?

 

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The fact that we don't actually have a Constitutional Tribunal with this responsibility obviously makes their system of jurisprudence different from ours, of course.

well, the supreme court decided that it had that responsibility when it made law by deciding marbury v. madison

Edited by elfenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2019 at 8:57 PM, bad_teammate said:

They ruled that the rights of politicians and voters superseded the Constitution's term limits.

How can bad_teammate not see the problem with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, XYZ said:

How can bad_teammate not see the problem with this?

In my last post, I literally said, "I, of course, understand the arguments in support of term limits and ~*~* concerns *~*~ with presidents pushing for extra terms."

If Morales was in office right now after being duly elected (which he was) through a legal process (which he was) and we were having a conversation about whether or not that's a potentially dangerous situation, fine, let's be ~*~*~ concerned ~*~*~ about a vague potentiality.

But that's not what kicked this thread off, what kicked this thread off was a military coup whose ethnic cleansing/autocratic ramifications were obvious from the outset. Whose corrupt imperialist beginning was obvious from the outset. Just like the attempted coup of Maduro (not really duly elected but not entirely rigged, certainly less valid than Morales) in Venezulea and the dozens of other Western-fueled coups in South and Central America over the decades.

So what's the conversation to have with people who come in and pretend that either (1) the coup and Morales's 3rd term are morally equal or (2) actually focus primarily on the supposed dangers of Morales's third term while ignoring the coup until it is screamed about in their faces? Are they pro-coup or just dumb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, XYZ said:

How can bad_teammate not see the problem with this?

Meanwhile in Bolivia...

Imagine being such a fucking creep you spend your time on Surlyhorns posting shitty apologetics for this bloodshed.  

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...