Bolivia - coup d'etat

[SHaYap]

7 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Seeemples. 

Wikipedia  

Good for you, duly noted 

~

8 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

@third_eye

If you want evidence read my post and actually read the links. You just count it all as "fake news".

Reports, referendums, phone calls, unexplained voter counts suspensions. 

It's all pretty clear. That's why there was a popular uprising and why so many people who were very loyal to Evo turned on him. 

Most Bolivian's seem happy about it.

They will have fair elections in a few months. Evo's party can run someone new in his place if they want.

Their country, their rules, their law, their choice? 

~

8 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Because no one person should rule for four terms that each last 5 years. Only dictators do that.

You evaded my question... You avoided an opportunity to be truthful... Only what does that? 

~

[+and-then]

11 hours ago, third_eye said:

When the law enforcement and military, whose duty is to keep the peace, protect citizens and the country, starts killing them instead, it is treason and traitorous, a crime to the people that they were suppose to serve and protect. 

Free and fair will now be measured by the spill of blood and the depths of graves lining the tomb of democracy. 

Except in Iran?

[spartan max2]

1 hour ago, third_eye said:

Good for you, duly noted 

~

Their country, their rules, their law, their choice? 

~

You evaded my question... You avoided an opportunity to be truthful... Only what does that? 

~

Yeah it's there choice, thats why they got rid of Evo. They literally chose to do that. 

And your question was irrelevant to voting fraud or the accusation that it was a U.S led coup.

Which is what the whole Bolivia situation is about. 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by spartan max2

[SHaYap]

38 minutes ago, and then said:

Except in Iran?

Before or after American meddling, influencing and interfered with their elections? 

~

29 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Yeah it's there choice, thats why they got rid of Evo. They literally chose to do that. 

Who is this "they" you keep alluding to? 

The loudest, more violent, brutal and most willing to kill with lawlessness under the guise of "democracy" ?

~

29 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

And your question was irrelevant to voting fraud or the accusation that it was a U.S led coup.

Why not? 

Just because you're dishonest enough to think as such? 

~

29 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Which is what the whole Bolivia situation is about. 

What is it about, really? 

It does not please or appeases you? 

~

[spartan max2]

12 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Before or after American meddling, influencing and interfered with their elections? 

~

Who is this "they" you keep alluding to? 

The loudest, more violent, brutal and most willing to kill with lawlessness under the guise of "democracy" ?

~

Why not? 

Just because you're dishonest enough to think as such? 

~

What is it about, really? 

It does not please or appeases you? 

~

The situation is that there was a rigged election that led to a popular uprising that threw out Evo.

Or

That there was a staged U.S backed coup to replace Evo.

Those are the two general positions. I have no idea what you're going on about.

[SHaYap]

25 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

The situation is that there was a rigged election that led to a popular uprising that threw out Evo.

Or

That there was a staged U.S backed coup to replace Evo.

Judge jury and executioner? 

Popular, you say, you sound like a judge on American Idol... 

~

25 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Those are the two general positions. I have no idea what you're going on about.

Exactly, thanks for being honest, you have no idea, doesn't means you never had an idea though, that's the disappointing fact that you brings to this table 

~

[spartan max2]

Alrighty then, to get back into the substance of the thread.

OAS final election report is out. To recap, this is the watchdog group that Bloivia contracted to audit and keep an eye on their elections for the last decade or more.

Quote

"Given the overwhelming evidence we have found, we can confirm a series of malicious operations aimed at altering the will of the voters," the OAS report said.

OAS findings included "deliberate actions to manipulate the result of the election" that make it "impossible to validate" the official results, the report said.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2019-12-04/bolivia-election-rigging-in-favor-of-morales-was-overwhelming-oas-final-report

 

Link to the full report.

http://www.oas.org/es/sap/deco/Informe-Bolivia-2019/

 

This audit consist of a team of dozens of professionals. 

It seems like a pretty straight forward case that Evo Morales tried to rig an election.

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by spartan max2

[SHaYap]

8 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

This audit consist of a team of dozens of professionals. 

It seems like a pretty straight forward case that Evo Morales tried to rig an election.

Actually, it sounds like leaving your daughter alone with Jeffery Epstein because he's said to be a "good guy" and telling Harvey Weinstein to keep an eye on them because you know him well... 

Quote

Congress also has held hearings to examine U.S. policy toward the OAS. On November 30, 2017, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing to consider President Trump’s nomination of Carlos Trujillo to be the U.S. Permanent Representative to the OAS. The committee reported the nomination favorably, but Trujillo has yet to receive a confirmation vote from the full Senate. On February 14, 2018, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, held a hearing on “Advancing U.S. Interests through the Organization of American States.”

US "interests"

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42639.html

~

[spartan max2]

10 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Actually, it sounds like leaving your daughter alone with Jeffery Epstein because he's said to be a "good guy" and telling Harvey Weinstein to keep an eye on them because you know him well... 

US "interests"

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42639.html

~

About the OAS:

It's not a U.S ran institution. Each state only has one vote.

Quote

The General Assembly is the principal policymaking organ of the OAS. It meets annually to debate current issues, approve the organization's budget, and set policies to govern the other OAS bodies.⁹ The General Assembly is composed of the delegations of each of the 34 participating member states, with each state having a single vote. 

And there's some other bodies in there.

Quote

The current Secretary General of the OAS is Luis Almagro, a former foreign minister of Uruguay. He was elected in March 2015 and took office on May 26, 2015. He succeeded José Miguel Insulza of Chile, who served two terms as Secretary General.

If the OAS faked an entire audit as some conspiracy then it would be a conspiracy done by all of Latin America lol.

Edited December 5, 2019 by spartan max2

[Golden Duck]

12 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

About the OAS:

It's not a U.S ran institution. Each state only has one vote.

And there's some other bodies in there.

If the OAS faked an entire audit as some conspiracy then it would be a conspiracy done by all of Latin America lol.

Mexico is a member state that is calling the resignation a coup.

Morales term was supposed to end 22 January.  Why not accept the offer of fresh elections; instead of forcing a resignation?

[SHaYap]

16 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

If the OAS faked an entire audit as some conspiracy then it would be a conspiracy done by all of Latin America lol

You're missing the point, and avoiding the principal problem of the question... 

Never mind... You Just made a right  turn to the left

~

Quote

 

 

[00.03:03]

~

No surprises... 

~

[spartan max2]

8 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Mexico is a member state that is calling the resignation a coup.

Morales term was supposed to end 22 January.  Why not accept the offer of fresh elections; instead of forcing a resignation?

I know, I was just adding information to OAS to show that it's a more complicated orginization then was  being impressed upon. So if it was a conspiracy it wouldn't be simple to do. And there is no evidence for OAS making a fraudulent report.

As for the second part, the dude rigged an election. You don't want him in power to try and rig the next one. Even if you don't believe it, that would be the logic behind it.

IMHO there are two narratives here and one seems like a logical progression, while the other one seems a little tin foil hat.

The first one: Evo ignore a referendum to limit his terms and proceeds to run for a fourth consecutive five year term. Causing some resentment.

Election day, they start the poll counting. They unexplain stop for 24 hours, midway, and then start again. After it starts again Evo wins enough to not have to do a runoff election, which he was expected to lose in.

Mass protest start, people take to the streets. 

A few days later OAS releases their preliminary report of irregularities and corruption, claiming original ballot tallies were burned, Evo "winning 100 percent" in places, etc.

After a few more days unions, police, and some key Evo allies turn and join the protesters. 

Evo is asked to resign by the head of the military. The new interium president takes over and promises elections in 90 days. 

Evo's party is free to run someone on the election, just not him. Someone new.

 

Which to me all sounds like a very logical progression.

Vs the U.S coup narrative of events:

The U S utililizeses past resentment over a referendum to cause a coup because the U.S wants to buy lithium from Bolivia

The U.S either planted, bribed, or threatened everyone on the OAS audit team in Bolivia to make a false report on election rigging.

The U.S trained and planted the head of the military, who was appointed by Evo, was seen as a loyal supporter, and who then got replaced by the interim president.

It seems more tinfoil hat and there's not really any proof for it other then speculation on connections. 

Edited December 5, 2019 by spartan max2

[Golden Duck]

1 minute ago, spartan max2 said:

I know, I was just adding information to OAS to show that it's a more complicated orginization then was was being impressed upon. So if it was a conspiracy it wouldn't be simple to do. And there is no evidence for OAS making a fraudulent report.

As for the second part, the dude rigged an election. You don't want him in power to try and rig the next one. Even if you don't believe it, that would be the logic behind it.

IMHO there are two narratives here and one seems like a logical progression, while the other one seems a little tin foil hat.

The first one: Evo ignore a referendum to limit his terms and proceeds to run for a fourth consecutive five year term. Causing some resentment.

Election day, they start the poll counting. They stop for 24 hours  Midway and then start again. After it starts again Evo wins enough to not have to do a runoff election, which he was expected to lose in.

Mass protest start, people take to the streets. 

A few days later OAS releases their pulminary report of irregularities and corruption, claiming original ballot tallies were burned, Evo "winning 100 percent" in places, etc.

After a few more days unions, police, and some key Evo allies turn and join the protesters. 

Evo is asked to resign by the head of the military. The new interium president takes over and promises elections in 90 days. 

 

Which to me all sounds like a very logical progression.

Vs the U.S coup narrative of events:

The U S utililizeses past resentment over a referendum to cause a coup because the U.S wants to buy lithium from Bolivia

The U.S either planted, bribed, or threatened everyone on the OAS audit team in Bolivia to make a false report on election rigging.

The U.S trained and planted the head of the military, who was appointed by Evo, was seen as a loyal supporter, and who then got replaced by the interim president.

It seems more tinfoil hat and there's not really any proof for it other then speculation on connections. 

Tendentious really.

The guy was forced to resign before the end of a legitimate term and after offering fresh elections.

As for the election.... you add more data and you get closer to the expected value just like Bernoulli says.

[spartan max2]

42 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Tendentious really.

The guy was forced to resign before the end of a legitimate term and after offering fresh elections.

As for the election.... you add more data and you get closer to the expected value just like Bernoulli says.

If someone rigs an election you don't let him finish his terms and schedule the next one. Often you go to jail lol.

And yeah, I'm not a statitican, though I am aware other organizations have stated what you did. However it's more the other allegations of election fraud behavior that is concerning to me.

Evo invited OAS into the country. And OAS has overseen the last few elections.

It sounds like they just did their job. 

Edited December 5, 2019 by spartan max2

[RoofGardener]

Hmm.. I'm confused. I thought the whole basis of Morales re-election was rendered illegal when the high court nullified the law he passed stating that the president could serve BEYOND two terms ? 

[Golden Duck]

2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

If someone rigs an election you don't let him finish his terms and schedule the next one. Often you go to jail lol.

And yeah, I'm not a statitican, though I am aware other organizations have stated what you did. However it's more the other allegations of election fraud behavior that is concerning to me.

Evo invited OAS into the country. And OAS has overseen the last few elections.

It sound like they just did their job. 

Like I said before, the agenda of the OAS has clearly changed since the last election.

[spartan max2]

41 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. I'm confused. I thought the whole basis of Morales re-election was rendered illegal when the high court nullified the law he passed stating that the president could serve BEYOND two terms ? 

You have it a little off. The people voted no. The courts overruled them to change the Constitution.

There was a referendum that voted a president could not serve pass two terms. The Constitution stated a president can't since 2009 but then Evo's party put a referendum on the ballot in 2016 to try and change that. 

The people voted it down.

But then Bolivia's version of the Supreme Court overturned the referendum results and argued that limiting Evo would be a violation of his human rights lol.

So people are mad because they felt Evo's lackeys in the Supreme Court abused their power by denying the referendum

Quote

In September 2017, the Movement for Socialism applied to the Plurinational Constitutional Tribunal to abolish term limits. In November the court ruled in favour of their abolition, citing the American Convention on Human Rights.^[16] The ruling allowed Morales to run for re-election in the 2019 elections.^[17

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Bolivian_constitutional_referendum

Edited December 5, 2019 by spartan max2

[RoofGardener]

Now I'm even more confused ? There was a national referendum on the constitutional change (to allow Morales to run for a third (and fourth) term), but it was rejected by the populace albeit by a narrow majority. 

This was in 2015. So the constitutional court - in 2019 - effectively overthrew the constitution WITHOUT  (and actually in SPITE of) a national vote on the issue ? 

That sounds INCREDIBLY corrupt to me ? I'm not surprised that the Bolivians are revolting. 

 

[Phaeton80]

2 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

I know, I was just adding information to OAS to show that it's a more complicated orginization then was  being impressed upon. So if it was a conspiracy it wouldn't be simple to do. And there is no evidence for OAS making a fraudulent report.

 

Again:

Statistical analysis of election returns and tally sheets from Bolivia’s October 20 elections shows no evidence that irregularities or fraud affected the official result that gave President Evo Morales a first-round victory, researchers and analysts at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) say. Contrary to a postelection narrative that was supported, without evidence, by the OAS Electoral Observation Mission, statistical analysis shows that it was predictable that Morales would obtain a first-round win, based on the results of the first 83.85 percent of votes in a rapid count that showed Morales leading runner-up Carlos Mesa by less than 10 points.

The new paper, “What Happened in Bolivia’s 2019 Vote Count? The Role of the OAS Electoral Observation Mission,” presents a step-by-step breakdown of what happened with Bolivia’s vote counts (both the unofficial quick count, and the slower official count), seeking to dispel confusion over the process. The report includes the results of 500 simulations that show that Morales’s first-round victory was not just possible, but probable, based on the results of the initial 83.85 percent of votes in the quick count.

“There is simply no statistical or evidentiary basis to dispute the vote count results showing that Evo Morales won in the first round,” CEPR Senior Policy Analyst, and coauthor of the paper, Guillaume Long said. “In the end, the official count, which is legally binding and completely transparent, with the tally sheets available online, closely matched the rapid count results.”

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

[SHaYap]

The polls supports the count, Evo 's supporters pulled together when it mattered, the more the opposition tried to push him out, the harder the indigenous people backed up and pushed back. 

It was when things turned violent and the mutiny of the military and police that forced Evo to run, he would have been killed/assasinated outright if he had not escaped. 

I'm not into politics and all that, but let's just call this what it is for what it was, a mutiny, a coup. 

Calling this a victory for democracy just insults the very foundation of the very principle of the idea of the democratic process. 

~

[spartan max2]

1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:

Again:

Statistical analysis of election returns and tally sheets from Bolivia’s October 20 elections shows no evidence that irregularities or fraud affected the official result that gave President Evo Morales a first-round victory, researchers and analysts at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) say. Contrary to a postelection narrative that was supported, without evidence, by the OAS Electoral Observation Mission, statistical analysis shows that it was predictable that Morales would obtain a first-round win, based on the results of the first 83.85 percent of votes in a rapid count that showed Morales leading runner-up Carlos Mesa by less than 10 points.

The new paper, “What Happened in Bolivia’s 2019 Vote Count? The Role of the OAS Electoral Observation Mission,” presents a step-by-step breakdown of what happened with Bolivia’s vote counts (both the unofficial quick count, and the slower official count), seeking to dispel confusion over the process. The report includes the results of 500 simulations that show that Morales’s first-round victory was not just possible, but probable, based on the results of the initial 83.85 percent of votes in the quick count.

“There is simply no statistical or evidentiary basis to dispute the vote count results showing that Evo Morales won in the first round,” CEPR Senior Policy Analyst, and coauthor of the paper, Guillaume Long said. “In the end, the official count, which is legally binding and completely transparent, with the tally sheets available online, closely matched the rapid count results.”

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

Just to clarify, the allegations are that the votes were rigged so that he would win just enough to avoid the part two runoff election.

He was expected to win the first round, when there were 4 candidates, and then lose on the runoff when there would only be the top two candidates.

The allegations are not about him winning the first round, it's about it being rigged to avoid the runoff where he was expected to lose.

Which your paper also argues is probable, but just to clarify to you because I'm not sure if you understood the allegations fully.

Also, going in existing data from the past elections, that Evo won, is irrelevant. The problem is that due to the destruction of ballots, lack of proper back-up drives, etc. That the OAS said it was impossible to actually verify the election.

Because of tampering there is no way to get the actual numbers and no way to trust the current numbers. 

That's why they are going to have a fair election instead. Where Evo's party can still run, just someone new.

Edited December 5, 2019 by spartan max2

[spartan max2]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Now I'm even more confused ? There was a national referendum on the constitutional change (to allow Morales to run for a third (and fourth) term), but it was rejected by the populace albeit by a narrow majority. 

This was in 2015. So the constitutional court - in 2019 - effectively overthrew the constitution WITHOUT  (and actually in SPITE of) a national vote on the issue ? 

That sounds INCREDIBLY corrupt to me ? I'm not surprised that the Bolivians are revolting. 

 

The court ruling was in 2017 technically, but yeah other then that you are correct.

It looks like obvious corruption to me.

Instead of his party just running another guy in Evo's place, they went for a referendum that they lost, and then instead of calling it a day and chosing a successor, they went to the Supreme Court and overturned the Constitution.

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by spartan max2

[Phaeton80]

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

Just to clarify, the allegations are that the votes were rigged so that he would win just enough to avoid the part two runoff election.

He was expected to win the first round, when there were 4 candidates, and then lose on the runoff when there would only be the top two candidates.

The allegations are not about him winning the first round, it's about it being rigged to avoid the runoff where he was expected to lose.

Which your paper also argues is probable, but just to clarify to you because I'm not sure if you understood the allegations fully.

Also, going in existing data from the past elections, that Evo won, is irrelevant. The problem is that due to the destruction of ballots, lack of proper back-up drives, etc. That the OAS said it was impossible to actually verify the election.

Because of tampering there is no way to get the actual numbers and no way to trust the current numbers. 

That's why they are going to have a fair election instead. Where Evo's party can still run, just someone new.

Yes, and those allegations are based on the (politicized) OAS report, which is refuted by the (independent) CEPR report. If you have additional grounds for these allegations, please forward them..

Who 'expected him to lose on the runoff', and on what grounds?