3 ms·

The power of foreign governments wax and wane, a permanent president is eventually a dictator and has all the necessary local resources to stay put. It is unfo

The power of foreign governments wax and wane, a permanent president is eventually a dictator and has all the necessary local resources to stay put. It is unfortunate for other countries that the precedents haven't been severe. I don't think Putin, Erdogan or Morales can reasonably regret not taking their standard ex-President package.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
So democracy doesn't really mean much to you, people making the "wrong" choice need their betters to step in and correct that choice.
- foolmeonce 6y ago
  Democracy is important to me, and therefore republics that have limits to maintain it. If killing a leader who increases his power within a republic is a problem for you then you value a world where democracy for one generation can choose dictators for the next. That is a world that can't maintain democracy.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    A foreign coup to overthrow a popularly elected president is the antithesis of democracy, even if you worry the person may be gathering too much power. It's the right of the governed to decide their government, and sacrificing democracy for this generation does not help democracy in future generations. And this all ignores that it is ridiculous to claim this coup had anything to do with Morales bring president too long. We have no problems associating with open dictatorships.
    - foolmeonce 6y ago
      Right, and to mirror your stance, I must claim you are against republics limiting the will of a people, so you are pro-genocide?
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        Yep, genocide and having another term in office are completely equivalent. Neither government nor people should have the right to kill, outside interference to save someone's life is completely different from outside interference to undue a democratic vote. Out of curiosity, do you regret that the USSR did not launch a coup to stop FDR's third term?
        foolmeonce 6y ago
        Yes Stalin was the perfect person to enforce non-existent civil rights. But I think not wanting the 22nd amendment to come to pass and restrict the majority's essential right to self ungoverning, was your position? It would be great to have spent my whole life living in fear of the Reagan youth. Don't forget to eat your ketchup!
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        The US does not have a track record that gives them the right to "enforce civil rights" in South America either, yet you don't fault their interference. And if you don't object to it as FDR technically broke no law why do you object to what either Morales or Putin did?
        foolmeonce 6y ago
        > FDR technically broke no law In the same sense that this comment technically broke no law. There was no law to break. You keep coming back to whataboutism. Any leader who disables a check like term limits is a worse eventual problem than the urgent aspects of any environment. The will to ignore that threat and focus on external threats is a social flaw they are well aware of. Show me a leader who did that and then stepped down without an external force? I don't think the CIA or Morales got what they wanted from the 2020 election, I think the people of Bolivia got the best outcome which is usually blocked in representative democracies. I.e. in 2019 you couldn't vote socialist without voting against term limits, which I think left you to pick your cancer: leftist dictator track Morales today or CIA friendly right wing looking to establish a dictatorship tomorrow.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

So democracy doesn't really mean much to you, people making the "wrong" choice need their betters to step in and correct that choice.

foolmeonce 6y ago
Democracy is important to me, and therefore republics that have limits to maintain it. If killing a leader who increases his power within a republic is a problem for you then you value a world where democracy for one generation can choose dictators for the next. That is a world that can't maintain democracy.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  A foreign coup to overthrow a popularly elected president is the antithesis of democracy, even if you worry the person may be gathering too much power. It's the right of the governed to decide their government, and sacrificing democracy for this generation does not help democracy in future generations. And this all ignores that it is ridiculous to claim this coup had anything to do with Morales bring president too long. We have no problems associating with open dictatorships.
  - foolmeonce 6y ago
    Right, and to mirror your stance, I must claim you are against republics limiting the will of a people, so you are pro-genocide?
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      Yep, genocide and having another term in office are completely equivalent. Neither government nor people should have the right to kill, outside interference to save someone's life is completely different from outside interference to undue a democratic vote. Out of curiosity, do you regret that the USSR did not launch a coup to stop FDR's third term?
      - foolmeonce 6y ago
        Yes Stalin was the perfect person to enforce non-existent civil rights. But I think not wanting the 22nd amendment to come to pass and restrict the majority's essential right to self ungoverning, was your position? It would be great to have spent my whole life living in fear of the Reagan youth. Don't forget to eat your ketchup!
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        The US does not have a track record that gives them the right to "enforce civil rights" in South America either, yet you don't fault their interference. And if you don't object to it as FDR technically broke no law why do you object to what either Morales or Putin did?
        foolmeonce 6y ago
        > FDR technically broke no law In the same sense that this comment technically broke no law. There was no law to break. You keep coming back to whataboutism. Any leader who disables a check like term limits is a worse eventual problem than the urgent aspects of any environment. The will to ignore that threat and focus on external threats is a social flaw they are well aware of. Show me a leader who did that and then stepped down without an external force? I don't think the CIA or Morales got what they wanted from the 2020 election, I think the people of Bolivia got the best outcome which is usually blocked in representative democracies. I.e. in 2019 you couldn't vote socialist without voting against term limits, which I think left you to pick your cancer: leftist dictator track Morales today or CIA friendly right wing looking to establish a dictatorship tomorrow.