Reply With Quote
This is all cool, and he could be the second coming of mother teresa, but the lack of respect for the cons ution (or how easy is to change it) is a big factor why banana republics are banana republics...
Self-declared president muses about banning the opposition party, as one does.
This is all cool, and he could be the second coming of mother teresa, but the lack of respect for the cons ution (or how easy is to change it) is a big factor why banana republics are banana republics...
What are you talking about? I posted: "he was elected in 2005, IIRC, and Bolivia had a 2 term max limit for president".
That means his mandate was supposed to end in 2013 (4 year first term + 4 year second term), but he shat on the cons ution.
He even had a referendum to enable him to be re-elected indefinitely a couple of years back, and the people said no...
RE: the lithium coup hypothesis
https://twitter.com/triofrancos/stat...478521861?s=19
The law was changed to allow more than two terms; stop trying to talk your way around that fact.
You're talking past El Nono. He isn't arguing that what Morales did was illegal, he's saying he forfeit normative legitimacy by ignoring the consi ution and a popular referendum. The people voted against extending Morales's term of office.
Though procedurally legal and legit, the Supreme Court ruling declaring term limits uncons utional looked like.home cooking and further eroded his legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
Evo had been getting 60% of the vote, this time around he barely cracked 45%. There were erstwhile leftist allies of Morales out in the streets protesting him before the coup because the situation looked uncomfortably like caudillismo.
Savage irony, so does the self-declared president and her party of light skinned colonial elites.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-16-2019 at 03:54 AM.
The courts can't be corrupt. Liberals been telling us that for years.
Procedural legality does not guarantee democratic legitimacy, far from it. Everything the Nazis did was legal.
Sorry, who's been telling you that?
Just curious, what do you think about people protesting the coup? Are they lawbreakers who need to be brought to heel by the state?
Basically what Wino said... he perverted the democratic process of Bolivia to remain in power. That normally ends in one of two ways: a coup or dictatorship.
Sooner or later people get tired of Dear Leader (pun intended).
Perverting the process is what politicians do. FDR perverted the process; same players are saying he's top five president.
It's different. The two terms were not yet enshrined in the US Cons ution when FDR governed. It was simply a tradition. Eventually, that was corrected.
In this case, the Cons ution clearly spelled out it was two terms. The reason I said he was asking for it is because he even attempted to change the Cons ution and received a resounding no. And still tried to cling to power.
Uh, how did FDR pervert the process?
nothing Moscow Mitch has done to pollute the Federal judiciary with inexperienced, ABA-disapproved, young, incompetent assholes is illegal, it's just "Cons utional hardball" to up America in favor of the anti-democratic, authoritarian oligarchy and hate-driven Christian supremacists/dominionists. Mitch McConnell has pulled off, and will continue to implement a right-wing coup
Will the oligarchy's SCOTUS s shield Trash's tax returns?
I wouldn't be surprised that they overturn the 1924 law created in response to the Repug Teapot Dome "scandal".
The oligarchy's SCOTUS s consider stare decisis meaningless, weightless if the oligarchy/Christians want it overruled.
Spurtacular is a very typical man of the right in 2019. He defends official abuse of democratic norms by pointing out its legality. At bottom this gambit is an argument from the standpoint of raw power: no legitimate objection can be raised to legally enacted policies.
NO LAWS WERE BROKEN, is the love song when right wingers abuse power and the polity. Spurtacular is so far gone in this direction that he'll even defend leftists this way.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-16-2019 at 12:11 PM.
Evo Morales was first-ever indigenous President (aka a ing "Indian" to be exterminated),
helped indigenous people overturn colonial exploitation, and
was a "socialist",
so USA, blindly kneejerking at any hint of For The People "socialism" (aka, anything NOT pure, predatory, brutal, inhumane, avaricious Capitalism),
HAD to get rid of him.
Little doubt the USA influenced it, but the coup looks more or less homegrown to me.
derp getting on with facts
In the context of what NoNo is talking about, he violated the rich two-term tradition and during turbulent times to boot.
He said nothing of the sort.
FDR did not pervert the process.
I didn't say he said it. We're talking concepts. You shouldn't jump into conversations if you don't know what the you're talking about.
"concepts"
FDR did not pervert the process. He followed the process the founding fathers put in the Cons ution.
You don't know what the you're talking about.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
