Economy Bolivia's Socialist Economy Booming

[Philo-Publius]

Evo Morales didn’t do any changes, it was the Supreme Court, as I’ve said four posts in a row now.

The democratically elected supreme court informed his decision. If they ruled against a fourth term, MAS would have nominated another candidate.

The logic is flawed because you’re arguing with a strawman you created, not what actually happened. It’s none of my business if you want to deliberately misrepresent the political process in Bolivia and the order of events which led up to election. It’s just denial of reality leading to a disconnect from it.

Why is Morales all of a sudden an all powerful dictator when before the media was saying nothing about it? Opportunism; the need for an explanation that satisfies global opinion when proper justification is lacking.

Contracts are not supposed to be so easily broken. There is a good reason that America puts the power to amend the Constitution in the hands of a very large legislative body instead of a handful of judges. There is nothing "strawman" about that argument at all. lol Your boy, Morales, didn't seem to have much respect for the judiciary branch anyhow. Seems like that corrupt "socialist" was inclined to stack the deck in his own favor.

 

[tatanos]

Contracts are not supposed to be so easily broken. There is a good reason that America puts the power to amend the Constitution in the hands of a very large legislative body instead of a handful of judges. There is nothing "strawman" about that argument at all. lol Your boy, Morales, didn't seem to have much respect for the judiciary branch anyhow. Seems like that corrupt "socialist" was inclined to stack the deck in his own favor.

The only reason “socialists” are in the position to make changes in the judiciary is because they won elections and the structure of the Bolivian constitution permits them to do so.

Provide me with one example where the Bolivian constitution was altered in a manner which is disallowed by the Bolivian constitution. All of a sudden you turn to another angle, and have to hypocritically disavow your own constitutionalist argument. “Oh, but it’s undemocratic according to OAS, or HRW (both external, foreign entities to the Bolivian civil process) so the military is justified in dictating who should be president, even if it’s a dictator that orders the opposition be massacred.” How convenient, democracy is whoever you personally support and the military might they wield, not decided through an electoral process.

After all, we are being told by the media that the election was “suspicious”, that the regularly scheduled recount was “altered”. Well, we’re still waiting for their proof. Why didn’t they provide it first, and then the military could have acted? Because it doesn’t exist. By the time whistleblowers and leaks reveal the extent of fraud the right wing opposition are engaged in, the massacres they’ve authorized, the latter will already be firmly entrenched and can dismiss any arguments because might makes right. Just like what happened in Chile under Pinochet’s right wing military dictatorship which murdered Allende. By the way, they put a price on his head and tried to murder Evo Morales too, how’s that for democracy?

The Supreme Court of Bolivia is elected in a direct, democratic process and if there are “allies” of Evo Morales on it, it’s because, surprise, they won the election. A democracy permits rule by a majority government provided they win a majority, otherwise every democracy in the world would be hamstrung by factionalism and unable to regulate itself.

For a proponent of a firm, rigid contract that can only be changed with difficulty, you are suddenly ignoring the framework it provided and which MAS operated under. Meanwhile the right wing opposition is free to turn the military and police on peaceful protestors and demonstrators and trample upon the constitution because they’re in power now, don’t ask any questions or you’re next.

 

[Philo-Publius]

The only reason “socialists” are in the position to make changes in the judiciary is because they won elections and the structure of the Bolivian constitution permits them to do so.

Provide me with one example where the Bolivian constitution was altered in a manner which is disallowed by the Bolivian constitution. All of a sudden you turn to another angle, and have to hypocritically disavow your own constitutionalist argument. “Oh, but it’s undemocratic according to OAS, or HRW (both external, foreign entities to the Bolivian civil process) so the military is justified in dictating who should be president, even if it’s a dictator that orders the opposition be massacred.” How convenient, democracy is whoever you personally support and the military might they wield, not decided through an electoral process.

After all, we are being told by the media that the election was “suspicious”, that the regularly scheduled recount was “altered”. Well, we’re still waiting for their proof. Why didn’t they provide it first, and then the military could have acted? Because it doesn’t exist. By the time whistleblowers and leaks reveal the extent of fraud the right wing opposition are engaged in, the massacres they’ve authorized, the latter will already be firmly entrenched and can dismiss any arguments because might makes right. Just like what happened in Chile under Pinochet’s right wing military dictatorship which murdered Allende. By the way, they tried to murder Evo Morales too, how’s that for democracy?

The Supreme Court of Bolivia is elected in a direct, democratic process and if there are “allies” of Evo Morales on it, it’s because, surprise, they won the election. A democracy permits rule by a majority government provided they win a majority, otherwise every democracy in the world would be hamstrung by factionalism and unable to regulate itself.

For a proponent of a firm, rigid contract that can only be changed with difficulty, you are suddenly ignoring the framework it provided and which MAS operated under. Meanwhile the right wing opposition is free to turn the military and police on peaceful protestors and demonstrators and trample upon the constitution because they’re in power now, don’t ask any questions or you’re next.

That was long-winded. You are the one who said the judge ruled the constitutional term limits were "undemocratic." You have addressed nothing I have a said. It is absurd to let a handful of judges (elected or not) re-legislate your country's constitution so easily. No wonder so many Bolivians are pissed off.

 

[tatanos]

That was long-winded. You are the one who said the judge ruled the constitutional term limits were "undemocratic." You have addressed nothing I have a said. It is absurd to let a handful of judges (elected or not) re-legislate your country's constitution so easily. No wonder so many Bolivians are pissed off.

Which is their constitutional right, as the Bolivian constitution permits itself to be amended and altered according to the decisions of the democratically elected Supreme Court. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the country’s founding fathers. Or better yet, win elections and alter it to suit your own visions of “rigged” power. Since the right wing couldn’t do that, they resorted to coup.

A whistleblower has already leaked conversations between plotters detailing the coup.

https://www.en24.news/news/2019/11/...s-calling-for-a-coup-against-evo-morales.html

How strange, they knew the election was going to be rigged before it took place and were in a position to act regardless of its outcome? How did they know that before the election actually happened?

Since the constitutional argument doesn’t hold up, we’re supposed to think it’s strange that it took longer to get the votes in from the rural districts, which are traditionally supportive of MAS and Evo Morales, and benefited the most from their policies. I guess farmers and the poor aren’t allowed to participate in democracy, seeing as their votes are always delegitimized and viewed as suspicious.

 

[tatanos]

How's that for American involvement?