Bolivian president resigns amid fraud poll protests

[Henri Bardot 3,990]

2 hours ago, Gov Hooka said:

This is a coup, it is undemocratic, and you are in the wrong for supporting the right wing, anti-indigenous reasons for his removal. Shameful

His removal was unavoidable.

The whole country wanted him OUT because these last years he did **** to the country.

Honestly, I’m surprised that people support these kind of presidents.Not everything is black and white, rightwing or leftwing. There’s so much more into it. Im not going to support someone only because they’re leftwing or decline someone because theyre rightwing.

Overall, he’s the one who’s undemocratic, he ****ed himself by getting re-elected so many times.

also, not everything in twitter is the absolute truth

how am i wrong tho? explain me please.

[Othon 34,299]

35 minutes ago, Henri Bardot said:

The whole country wanted him OUT because these last years he did **** to the country.

He's incredibly popular in Bolivia.

37 minutes ago, Henri Bardot said:

Overall, he’s the one who’s undemocratic, he ****ed himself by getting re-elected so many times.

He's undemocratic because he... was re-elected democratically.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

4 hours ago, Lumi said:

 

"Democratically elected". Nope, it was a fraudulent election.

I mean yes, Bolivia's inequality decreased but I mean that's what happened in all the region. Peru, Ecuator, Chile. When there's an economic boom going on the economy will create jobs and wealth if the government doesn't have much intervention. (Unless you have someone like Maduro as a president.)

I'm not saying Evo was a bad president or that whoever is in charge of Bolivia will be better/worse. The thing is Evo tried to cling to power in any way he could and the results are now being terrible for Bolivia. I know Evo is nothing like Trump, but I bet your reaction to that whole "the economy is good" argument would be very different if he tried to stay in power in an illegitimate way.

That's the thing. It was not a fradulent election.

 

http://cepr.net/press-center/press-releases/no-evidence-that-bolivian-election-results-were-affected-by-irregularities-or-fraud-statistical-analysis-shows

This claim has only been perpetuated by OAS, an entity that is mostly controlled by the United States that has sought to regulate election veracity in foreign countries for years now. It has mostly been successful at this, but it has also irrefutably overriden the will of the people in democratic elections before and it seized an opportunity to do so again here. One of the reforms the OAS has sought is to allow for transparency in these elections, which quite ironically has allowed for their claims of "election interference" to be provably false.  It requires these to be published on the internet so as to be corroborated live by observers and election officials. Here is a literal link to the voting tallies of Bolivia's election:

https://computo.oep.org.bo/listaMesas.html

I don't expect you to read this, I am just showing you that during the vote counts everyone was able to look at this and anyone looking at it could tell you that by the time the "quick count" voting was halted, the race was not numerically able to be called yet.

To put it as shortly as I can because it requires explaining how elections work in Bolivia, the confusion was caused by the fact that there is a quick call and an official vote count in Bolivia. The quick call is made to give updates and reports as voting tallies come in rapidly, but by the Bolivian governments term, the official vote is the only one that is legally binding and that will be certified ultimately as being correct. The quick call was halted around 80% reporting, and at that point Morales was not behind, his opposition (he was leading) but not seemingly on the path to be able to eek out a +10 percentage point victory required to win the election. (In Bolivian elections, if you are over 10% above your opponent in 1st round voting, you are defaulted as being the winner of the election, so Morales didn't have to win like, 50% of the vote, but they believe if you are significantly already winning the election, there's no need for a second round situation) 

However, when the call resumed, he had won the election by around 11%. This led for some to believe that he may have somehow altered the results, but in reality the majority of his support came from indigenous people that live in smaller more rural areas - the exact people that live in those areas that are last counted and in this case, there was enough legitimate support from that region to give him the victory.  This is why you cannot call an election with only 80% of the voting in, and with outlying reporting that numerically could still swing the election. That would be like if 80% of states electoral college votes came in, but large electoral swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin etc. had not come in. You would not be able to call the election for one party without these states. That's what happened here. There were more than enough people whose votes had yet to be counted to push Morales to a percentage lead over 10%, and it DID happen.

The assertion by the OAS that this "must" preclude election interference is quite literally baseless, as he was expected to win. In fact, several  majorly respected polls in Bolivia saw him as the likely victor of the election going into the actual day of the election.

This article summarizes it quite well and links to many other articles that can corroborate all of this.

https://www.thenation.com/article/bolivia-election-oas/

This was a military coup, supported by the United States and other Right wing government officials, to install a right wing government in Bolivia against the will of the people who - despite holding a referendum earlier - did choose to elect him again.

[Lumi 3,512]

@ItsTommyBitch why do people think that the OAS is being controlled by the US? Sure they do have an impact but once again Latinamerican countries may also agree/disagree with left and right regimes. And the people did go to a referendum and voted no for Evo to run again so he took control of the supreme court (weak institutions here) to run again for a fourth time.

http://m.la-razon.com/nacional/TCP-verde-repostulacion-Evo-Morales_0_2828117202.html

Lmao I told myself I wouldn't reply but here I am I can't with myself.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 hour ago, Lumi said:

@ItsTommyBitch why do people think that the OAS is being controlled by the US? Sure they do have an impact but once again Latinamerican countries may also agree/disagree with left and right regimes. And the people did go to a referendum and voted no for Evo to run again so he took control of the supreme court (weak institutions here) to run again for a fourth time.

http://m.la-razon.com/nacional/TCP-verde-repostulacion-Evo-Morales_0_2828117202.html

Lmao I told myself I wouldn't reply but here I am I can't with myself.

 ~~~

Do you really think with all the information I just posted that I don't know that?  I talked about it in my first post in this thread...  

My position is not - "Morales is a perfect human being, has never done anything remotely bad, ever" my position is - this was certainly a coup, and the United States was almost certainly responsible for the ousting of a democratically elected president for political gain.  Regardless of how you feel about term limits and their *inherent* ability to judge whether a place is democratic or not, he was elected by the people, yes for a fourth term.  Even if it were to bother me conceptually, the opposition party is a lot more frightening to me than the fourth term of a socialist leader that has yielded pretty concrete success in his time as leader and without having to slaughter or persecute groups of people, so forgive me for not being mad at that. Could someone else have run from his party that was newer  than him? Yes, and the opposition party didn't have to run on religious extremism, so there's that lol.

America  allows for and perpetuates the existence of humanitarian crises all over the world and doesn't generally fight dictators and authoritarian regimes where there is no material benefit for us, plain and simple. We saw an opportunity here, we took it. It's wrong. Don't have to reply if you don't want to, I think I've said and provided more than enough to support my position.

 

[Lumi 3,512]

27 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

 ~~~

Do you really think with all the information I just posted that I don't know that?  I talked about it in my first post in this thread...  

My position is not - "Morales is a perfect human being, has never done anything remotely bad, ever" my position is - this was certainly a coup, and the United States was almost certainly responsible for the ousting of a democratically elected president for political gain.  Regardless of how you feel about term limits and their *inherent* ability to judge whether a place is democratic or not, he was elected by the people, yes for a fourth term.  Even if it were to bother me conceptually, the opposition party is a lot more frightening to me than the fourth term of a socialist leader that has yielded pretty concrete success in his time as leader and without having to slaughter or persecute groups of people, so forgive me for not being mad at that. Could someone else have run from his party that was newer  than him? Yes, and the opposition party didn't have to run on religious extremism, so there's that lol.

America  allows for and perpetuates the existence of humanitarian crises all over the world and doesn't generally fight dictators and authoritarian regimes where there is no material benefit for us, plain and simple. We saw an opportunity here, we took it. It's wrong. Don't have to reply if you don't want to, I think I've said and provided more than enough to support my position.

 

Nah, that's ok sorry I didn't read that I also hope the best for Bolivia and its people. Honestly frick America but its involvement in this particular case it's something I am skeptical about. Something that really bothers me it's how much self-importance americans give themselves everytime.

I'm not saying they have 0 involvement but opening a world politics thread and the first thing said is "America should stop intervening" when the situation is much more complex is . But I guess this makes sense since it's an american forum. Anyway, nevermind me but this is basically what I've been trying to say in my posts.