• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is There Any Interest In Discussing The US-Backed Coup Which Has Finally Removed Morales?

eman623 said:
The fact that there was such massive opposition to Morales suggests to me he was not going down a "good mix" of nationalized and corporate industries road. Also, whether you like the term or not, he was not going to voluntarily relinquish power, and was about to purge the military of people opposed to his rule. That's a Chavez-type president for life in all but name.

In a Morales regime, reducing income inequality would mean make everyone poor.
Click to expand...

Not if you're building an economy to help raise that quality of life. As to the rest, there's no way of confirming whether he was going to relinquish power voluntarily especially since he put an extended term up for a vote.
 
ElChupacabra said:
Not if you're building an economy to help raise that quality of life. As to the rest, there's no way of confirming whether he was going to relinquish power voluntarily especially since he put an extended term up for a vote.
Click to expand...

Don't be dishonest. If you're going to argue the facts do me the favor of including all of them. He put it up for a vote - AND LOST! Then he got a politically compliant court to misconstrue a treaty provision to overturn an article of the Bolivian constitution.

I think it's VERY clear he had no intention of ever relinquishing power voluntarily.
 
eman623 said:
Don't be dishonest. If you're going to argue the facts do me the favor of including all of them. He put it up for a vote - AND LOST! Then he got a politically compliant court to misconstrue a treaty provision to overturn an article of the Bolivian constitution.

I think it's VERY clear he had no intention of ever relinquishing power voluntarily.
Click to expand...

The point was he originally put up the term extension up for a vote via the referendum versus just having tried to seize power a la Xi Jinping. As I had already stated, I think this was the turning point that was going to make it difficult for Morales since he went through other measures to extend his term. What I don't agree with is it implies he was looking to be leader for life and only because I don't know if that is indeed the case.
 
ElChupacabra said:
The point was he originally put up the term extension up for a vote via the referendum versus just having tried to seize power a la Xi Jinping. As I had already stated, I think this was the turning point that was going to make it difficult for Morales since he went through other measures to extend his term. What I don't agree with is it implies he was looking to be leader for life and only because I don't know if that is indeed the case.
Click to expand...

Ok, that's a fair point. I don't want to get caught up in whether he wanted to be president "for life" or just "only until he unilaterally decided to quit". The fact remains that he had every opportunity to step down after his final term, but didn't.

Power is a powerful drug and I think Morales was addicted and would have stayed in office until the day he died, like Chavez or Castro. Or maybe he'd only have served 1 or 2 more terms. Either way, he clearly saw the presidency as his personal possession.

And Morales ended up seized power exactly like Xi did, ie by overturning the term limits.
 
eman623 said:
Ok, that's a fair point. I don't want to get caught up in whether he wanted to be president "for life" or just "only until he unilaterally decided to quit". The fact remains that he had every opportunity to step down after his final term, but didn't.

Power is a powerful drug and I think Morales was addicted and would have stayed in office until the day he died, like Chavez or Castro. Or maybe he'd only have served 1 or 2 more terms. Either way, he clearly saw the presidency as his personal possession.

And Morales ended up seized power exactly like Xi did, ie by overturning the term limits.
Click to expand...

The key distinction being what comprises a term; Xi Jinping extended it to life versus another election cycle.
 
Glitch said:
Absolutely! Kicking the posterior of leftist socialist scum since at least the 1960s. A fine example of preserving freedom and democracy indeed. Too bad they failed in Cuba and Venezuela.
Click to expand...

And Americans wonder why nobody likes them.
 
Anyone interested in this topic should try to read an article entitled "What next for Bolivia?" by Tony Wood.

It appears in the December 19, 2019, issue of the British liberal magazine London Review of Books. (Sorry. I am computer illiterate, so I cannot link to it. I read the print edition. I assume it's available online, too.)

Mr. Wood believes that President Morales was a victim of a coup d'état organized by -- among others -- the Bolivian elite. He claims that the current president (Ms. Jeanine Anez) is an "ultra-conservative Catholic."
 
Last edited:
Well at least it would appear that the US is back to its traditional MO of using covert operations to effect hemispheric change. But we have done ourselves so much damage in our overt military actions that still haunt us today that we are still a bit hamstrung in that regard. We are also hamstrung by just plain lousy performance by the Trump Administration ala' Venezuela for example.

Panama during Bush 41 killed us Internationally and it still haunts us today. That was not only overt military action but was unilateral overt military action, leaving the UN no choice but to condemn us. That sent us down a path of world disdain that is still part and parcel of our tarnished image around the world. Iraq during Bush 43 is only distinguishable from Panama by the fact that we drew our allies into Iraq thus making it more difficult for them to criticize us later. That is not much of a difference though.

Truly the only difference between the traditional Republican posture and the current Trumpian Republican posture is that they have brought the overt use of raw power and brute force to domestic affairs and domestic governance from having used them internationally in the past. They are not wielding M-4 rifles in the halls of Congress and Senate YET. But they are certainly wielding their rhetorical equivalents with no regard to the consequences to the Country or its Constitution. That is the legacy of Newt Gingrich which now totally dominates the GOP across the board.
 
Glitch said:
Yet indisputable fact.

Bolivia nationalizes oil and gas industry | Oil & Gas Journal
Bolivia Nationalizes Gas Industry: "The Looting By The Foreign Companies Has Ended" - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Socialist scum are the worst form of humanity, responsible for the deaths of more than 100 million in the last century alone. Just think of the countless lives saved by tossing Morales into the streets where the POS socialist belongs.
Click to expand...

Just think of the countless lives needlessly lost through US bombing of nations who didn't play by America's rules, yet posed no threat whatsoever to either America or her citizens. And you think socialists are scum? Look to your own, American, political scum, whichever party they represent...

United States bombings of other countries – William Blum
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom