Look I’m all for abolishing the electoral college, but seeing as how Trump has been President the last three years this is a really silly point to make.
2 Likes
Pivoting from advocating practical solutions to saying the dem’s strategy worked because they won the popular vote is kinda dumb. If the strategy worked Hillary would be president.
Obviously it didn’t work work, but our universe is one There But For The Grace Of Comey Goes Hillary away from the universe where she won.
I at least see why people could be drawn to the idea of running it back one more time.
That’s not even what I look at as the number one reason. That’s just weakness number whatever of the 30 or so things that I would place before policy for reasons she lost.
1 Like
Warren supports the Bolivia coup and recognizes the “interim leadership”.
Can’t wait for imperialists to explain how this is a good thing actually.
1 Like
Translating “calling for elections” to “supporting a coup” doesn’t seem like a bit of a stretch?
In other news today, here’s Warren’s plan to fight white supremacy.
I know this forum isn’t big on foreign policy so you may not have noticed, but they already had elections.
I am aware of the basics of what is going on. What I heard is that the elections they had were not exactly free and fair. Seems like one obvious way to fix that is to do it over properly and conclusively. Whether you support the legitimacy of the coup or not, they have the power as of now. That’s just the reality. So if you think the solution is to redo the election and not fuck it up, then they are the only ones who have the power to make that happen, and they are the ones you have to appeal to, even if you don’t think they are legitimate.
Seems no different than saying “Hey evil dictator, your people are people who have rights. Stop committing genocide.” Saying that in no way suggest you support that dictator or their legitimacy. You’re just admitting the reality that they currently hold power, and therefore they must be the target of your appeal.
1 Like
Good point, Latin American elections should only count if the US says so. That’s always goes great. I’m sure the US only has Bolivia’s best interests at heart, unlike the literal dozens of times we’ve done this in the past. I sure the “interim leadership” will pause their massacre of indigenous people long enough to hold some very free elections. And pushing the rightful president into exile is a great way to ensure elections are fair.
From what I understand they had their normal elections pre-coup in October. There were many days of protesting by Bolivians who were disputing the validity of those elections. It has nothing to do with the US says so. The Bolivians themselves were disputing the election. The coup came a month later. If you believe in democracy, you believe that they need to have undisputed elections. The coup, non-democratic and invalid as it is, currently holds power, and therefore is the group that can conduct another election. What other good path forward is there?
Irregularities in the original election results are not why this is being called a Coup. Its a coup because political violence and the threat of it was used to crumble support around Morales.
Morales had explicitly invited the Organization of American States for an election audit, accepted their ruling that the election was annulled and personally called for a new election with a separate election tribunal to oversee the new results.
Then despite that political opposition called for him to be barred from office, kidnappings and house attacks for his political supporters in office occurred. Both the head of the Bolivian Police and Military suggested he resign and then he was on a plane out of the country minutes later. He announced his resignation in air en route to Mexico.
All of which smacks of Coup. https://www.thenation.com/article/bolivia-coup-morales/
Did anyone say it was?
While true, what does the rest of your comment have to do with anything in this discussion?
The point in question is whether calling on the current people in power to hold new elections to replace themselves translates to support for those same people. I don’t see it. We call on the Trump administration to do shit constantly, that doesn’t mean we support it, back it, or recognize its legitimacy.
Apologies. I read into your statement and have been reading a lot of “Its not a coup” nonsense online.
Not every protest is legitimate, not everyone calling an election illegitimate should be listened to. You were alive in 2008, no?
The organization most responsible for pushing the fraud narrative is the OAS, which is headquartered in and largely funded by the US. They actually haven’t provided real evidence that fraud happened, just that there were technological vulnerabilities that may or may not have been exploited, and a surge for Morales later in the election. An analysis of the final vote by CEPR found no irregularities in the actual vote counts. “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.” Morales had a surge in the end because many of his supporters are in rural areas, where votes are counted later. This is expected and in line with what the early count showed.
You don’t get to keep redoing elections until to get the result you want.
Refusing to use the word “coup” is a tacit endorsement.
1 Like
Regardless of whether fraud happened or not, even if it was a manufactured idea, the people of Bolivia believed it. They were the ones protesting the election results.
Uh, no.
If you just want to criticize Warren, go back to the “We need ICE” comment. Then you don’t need to build up any straw men or put words in anyone’s mouth.
Which people of Bolivia?
Those ones.
What makes them more legitimate than the people who are protesting currently against the coup government? What makes them representative of the nation?
Nothing. There was a large enough non-stop uprising against the results of the original election from Bolivian citizens that it was a huge problem. People were not going to accept the results of the original election. The coup came in response to that. The coup is not any more legitimate than the election. The obvious democratic solution to all this seems to be to have a fair and free election that the people will accept the results of. That is what Warren is calling for. Doing so in no way suggests she supports the coup.
Why do you put words in people’s mouths and intentionally misconstrue their statements to criticize them when there are plenty of other dumb things they have said that you can criticize?
The coup used the protests as cover, yes. That doesn’t make them legitimate, nor does it make the election illegitimate.
This isn’t a matter you can be neutral on, especially given the way the media is talking about it. Not explicitly denouncing the “interim leadership” as illegitimate is a failing. And I also criticize the other dumb things she says, though not always here. As the primary gets closer, discussing politics outside of leftist spaces gets more and more draining.