4 ms·

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 proble

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
        >You keep coming back to whataboutism Yeah, I'd say that started with the ridiculous genocide comment. All my comments about how overthrowing an elected president is not supporting democracy have been ignored. >Show me a leader who did that and then stepped down without an external force? Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Álvaro Uribe, Nawaz Sharif(external force debatable), Carlos Menem. >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 There was nothing stopping another leftist from running, and calling his opponent CIA backed isn't fair as the coup did not result in him coming to power. >I think the people of Bolivia got the best outcome which is usually blocked in representative democracies. What you think is the best outcome is meaningless, they voted for Morales and they should be in charge of their government. Why should your opinion matter at all?

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
        >You keep coming back to whataboutism Yeah, I'd say that started with the ridiculous genocide comment. All my comments about how overthrowing an elected president is not supporting democracy have been ignored. >Show me a leader who did that and then stepped down without an external force? Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Álvaro Uribe, Nawaz Sharif(external force debatable), Carlos Menem. >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 There was nothing stopping another leftist from running, and calling his opponent CIA backed isn't fair as the coup did not result in him coming to power. >I think the people of Bolivia got the best outcome which is usually blocked in representative democracies. What you think is the best outcome is meaningless, they voted for Morales and they should be in charge of their government. Why should your opinion matter at all?