|
I don’t even know why this question matters, Morales called the opposition’s bluff on this when he offered to re-run the election. He knew he would win in a fair election, they knew they would lose, so they were clearly banking on Morales insisting the results were completely legitimate and refusing to budge. Then they could spend a year insisting they were cheated and try to make their intended coup look more like a popular uprising instead of the fascist coup it was. As soon as Morales said he’d accept the OAS’ findings, that wasn’t good enough any more, almost as if the entire thing was just a pretext upon which to hang a coup against Bolivia’s democratically elected government all along. In short, you think there were election irregularities? Fine, whatever, you should be supporting the side that offered to rerun the election to mollify fears. But there’s really no need to dwell on it since we’re about to see what happens when a fascist government rigs an election. Spoiler: it’s gonna turn out the fascists don’t actually care about the integrity of elections after all.
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 07:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:24 |
|
|
Morales is probably going to have a huge popularity boost in Bolivia.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 07:48
|
|
|
Squalid posted:the elections are back on: oh cool the guys who aren't in charge made a law that elections have to happen. that's done, then, no problems 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 08:05
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I don't know why you even care to argue about this. We posted about this before Morales ouster and you said leftists should steal elections or otherwise take and hold power by whatever means is necessary. So it would seem the issue of whether there was actually fraud or not would be irrelevant to you. Democracy is such a subjective value. . . I don't fault you for not wanting all the same things I do like fair elections. You don't have to posture otherwise here. Please quote me saying leftists should steal elections, surely you misunderstood me or are taking me for somebody else. By looking at my post history you can probably also figure out why i bother arguing.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 08:36
|
|
|
Squalid posted:3) That I'm not aware of any reason to believe the OAS is likely to fake election monitoring results. I don't often get involved here because I know I don't know enough to actually speak wisely, but the OAS has always been and is an explicitly US tool to control and main their control in Latin America. Sometimes that can be to their benefit, but more often than not it pushes a very freaking specific agenda. There's nothing inherently weird about that, countries are always going to have different methods of maintaining their sphere of influence, but the OAS is not in any way, shape, or form a neutral arbitrator.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 09:48
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I don't know why you even care to argue about this. We posted about this before Morales ouster and you said leftists should steal elections or otherwise take and hold power by whatever means is necessary. So it would seem the issue of whether there was actually fraud or not would be irrelevant to you. Democracy is such a subjective value. . . I don't fault you for not wanting all the same things I do like fair elections. You don't have to posture otherwise here. "You don't want fair elections" says the guy carrying water for a literal christofascist coup lmao forever.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 10:17
|
|
|
i do wonder what kind of mental cumnastics you have to do to get to that sacred place, where you believe that a fascist coup is actually just a completely cool prelude to "fair and democratic elections"(tm) that will totally happen even though the opposition has been declared illegal and the elected president exiled. yeah, thats uhh. . . . . i mean really you just care a lot about mental democracy that exists in your mindland where there really was no fascist group and it was actually just the elections that need to fairly result in the exile of the democratically elected government and it's actually not fascism is just fairly democratic conservatism. elections
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 11:27
|
|
|
that's not fascism, it's just fair and democratic elections, that i care about
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 11:28
|
|
|
ill have you know that it wasn't a coup it was actually just a press release that the military put out
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 12:12
|
|
|
The military asked Morales to let them
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 12:31
|
|
|
Squalid posted:the elections are back on: Definitely you are included, any source for your claims? E: oh you're still basing it on fraudulent OAS report lmao
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 13:04
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:I don't often get involved here because I know I don't know enough to actually speak wisely, but the OAS has always been and is an explicitly US tool to control and main their control in Latin America. Sometimes that can be to their benefit, but more often than not it pushes a very freaking specific agenda. There's nothing inherently weird about that, countries are always going to have different methods of maintaining their sphere of influence, but the OAS is not in any way, shape, or form a neutral arbitrator. I am fine with this line of argument. However I have had a hard time finding evidence of past OAS fraud, of times when they manipulated vote monitoring. People keep saying the OAS is an American pawn, so presumably there is some history behind this yes? That would be interesting, show don't tell me that the OAS is unreliable. Given its so self evident the OAS is an illegitimate institution it seems rather surprising that they were able to trick Morales into letting them into the country to scheme against him. bagual posted:Please quote me saying leftists should steal elections, surely you misunderstood me or are taking me for somebody else. oops, you're right. Looks like I was confusing you for the posters Doctor Jeep and plutonis. I got confused remembering a post you made responding to me criticizing plutonis for saying leftist politicians should "play to win" (implying they should cheat or w/e to win elections at all cost), which seemed to implicitly support his position. You were pretty clear about believing in and wanting legitimate courts and institutions though.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 17:39
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:oh cool the guys who aren't in charge made a law that elections have to happen. that's done, then, no problems I'm not sure there's any mechanism by which the President can prevent the elections, once they were called by parliament. If they are blocked anyway it would certainly warrant an international response. I don't know, it might require a Supreme Court ruling to find out. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...t-idUSKBN22D5BB quote:The Bolivian Constitution allows the president of Parliament, MAS member Eva Copa, to enact a law if it is determined the executive branch rejects it without solid arguments.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I am fine with this line of argument. However I have had a hard time finding evidence of past OAS fraud, of times when they manipulated vote monitoring. People keep saying the OAS is an American pawn, so presumably there is some history behind this yes? That would be interesting, show don't tell me that the OAS is unreliable. How about you abide by your own advice and "follow the money" on Luis Almagro?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I'm not sure there's any mechanism by which the President can prevent the elections, once they were called by parliament. If they are blocked anyway it would certainly warrant an international response. I don't know, it might require a Supreme Court ruling to find out. The tweet that started this conversation was Anez rejecting the parliamentary motion in the Reuters article, so I presume her next step will be going 'no, gently caress off, this election is illegitimate and a threat to public health, and I have the army and police on my side to shut it down'. Remember that the political tendency she's part of sees the MAS government and their constitution as an invalid, criminal imposition on the country, so they've never been particularly concerned with the existing rule of law.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I'm not sure there's any mechanism by which the President can prevent the elections, once they were called by parliament. If they are blocked anyway it would certainly warrant an international response. I don't know, it might require a Supreme Court ruling to find out. Tell me more about how the government that couped itself into power is totally bound to respect the letter of the law lmao.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I'm not sure there's any mechanism by which the President can prevent the elections, once they were called by parliament. If they are blocked anyway it would certainly warrant an international response. I don't know, it might require a Supreme Court ruling to find out. I appreciate you coming back to let us all know that the reality of the past seven months hasn't changed your opinion one bit. Surely this right wing coup government is the best way to restore* democracy. *Didn't need restoration
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:The tweet that started this conversation was Anez rejecting the parliamentary motion in the Reuters article, so I presume her next step will be going 'no, gently caress off, this election is illegitimate and a threat to public health, and I have the army and police on my side to shut it down'. Remember that the political tendency she's part of sees the MAS government and their constitution as an invalid, criminal imposition on the country, so they've never been particularly concerned with the existing rule of law. I don't know that she does have the army and police on her side. I suppose we'll have to wait and see though, I hope she doesn't. Remember the opposition to the MAS is extremely divided, and many of them were pushing for Anez neither to stand for this election, nor to delay the election during coronavirus. Plus the army and police have generally avoided taking an active participation. Remember during the coup both just went back to their barracks and let angry mobs do the work of overthrowing Morales. I suspect Anez will have a hard time scraping up another mob for this.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I don't know that she does have the army and police on her side. I suppose we'll have to wait and see though, I hope she doesn't. Remember the opposition to the MAS is extremely divided, and many of them were pushing for Anez neither to stand for this election, nor to delay the election during coronavirus. Plus the army and police have generally avoided taking an active participation. Remember during the coup both just went back to their barracks and let angry mobs do the work of overthrowing Morales. I suspect Anez will have a hard time scraping up another mob for this. That's as maybe, but that's apparently the approach she's taking whether it works or not. The global COVID-19 death toll will likely be a useful rhetorical cudgel, at least - it's just a question of whether it scares enough people enough to let them overlook her government's barely-existent legitimacy. Darth Walrus fucked around with this message at 19:58 on May 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I am fine with this line of argument. However I have had a hard time finding evidence of past OAS fraud, of times when they manipulated vote monitoring. People keep saying the OAS is an American pawn, so presumably there is some history behind this yes? That would be interesting, show don't tell me that the OAS is unreliable. I wouldn't call it illegitimate but it's very much in the service of the US government. A cursory search on Wikipedia leads to the Council of Foreign Affairs website (who I'll admit I'm not sure who that is) which writes: quote:The OAS’s 2019 budget [PDF] allocates almost $83 million to the regular fund, to which the United States is required to provide [PDF] nearly $51 million, or about 60 percent. Between January and September 2019, the United States also voluntarily gave [PDF] more than $18 million to the specific fund, accounting for about 40 percent of contributions in that period. The OAS is located in DC was created by DC and serves its interests. I wouldn't know enough to say it's genuinely corrupt, but they know on which side their bread is buttered, so regarding the election results of a President the US decidedly dislikes I wouldn't trust them to be all that objective, or more generously, you can count on them to report it as favorably to their camp as possible.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 19:52
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I am fine with this line of argument. However I have had a hard time finding evidence of past OAS fraud, of times when they manipulated vote monitoring. People keep saying the OAS is an American pawn, so presumably there is some history behind this yes? That would be interesting, show don't tell me that the OAS is unreliable. The OAS was founded by the US to formalize the Monroe Doctrine and create an anti-communist alliance in the Western Hemisphere. Pan-Americanism was a convenient excuse to plant a "No Communism Allowed" sign in under the guise of mutual defense and non-interventionism. It's no surprise that NATO was founded less than a year after the OAS. While this was not explicitly spelled out in the OAS's original founding documents, it was made quite clear the year that the OAS revoked Cuba's right to participate: [url posted:https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/intam17.asp[/url]] You won't see much evidence of OAS vote fraud because they usually didn't need to. Typically, the fraud would be committed by right-wing parties or aspiring military dictators with the help of the CIA, and then the OAS would come in to certify that everything looked fine and great and above-board, pretending not to notice as the corpses of socialist leaders are dragged through the streets behind them. The fact that the OAS now has to take a more active role is due to its weakening power in the 80s, the shifting of its international role in the wake of the Cold War, and the recent revitalization of capitalist interventionism in the US.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 20:02
|
|
|
Squalid posted:However I have had a hard time finding evidence of past OAS fraud, of times when they manipulated vote monitoring. Then you haven’t looked. Haiti.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 20:14
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:I don’t even know why this question matters, Morales called the opposition’s bluff on this when he offered to re-run the election. And this is really the kicker. Whatever irregularities were there, minor major whatever, Morales was good for it. He played their game and they broke his knees, dunked, the ball, and then went home.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
OAS: "The election was illegitimate. This was not real democracy." Morales: "OK, let's redo it with independent observers." OAS: "Haha, no. Get the gently caress out of the country so the Christian fascists can run it as an autocracy."
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:You won't see much evidence of OAS vote fraud because they usually didn't need to. Typically, the fraud would be committed by right-wing parties or aspiring military dictators with the help of the CIA, and then the OAS would come in to certify that everything looked fine and great and above-board, pretending not to notice as the corpses of socialist leaders are dragged through the streets behind them. The fact that the OAS now has to take a more active role is due to its weakening power in the 80s, the shifting of its international role in the wake of the Cold War, and the recent revitalization of capitalist interventionism in the US. I would just like to see any. Do you have any specific elections or events in mind? Historically OAS election monitors have been real pains for several right-wing governments. For example in 2017, when they called for new elections in Honduras after uncovering evidence of fraud. The US did not care and basically ignored these issues. Presumably if the OAS was acting in their stead it would have contributed to the cover-up. Also, taken from one book on the role of the OAS in bringing down the anti-communist dictatorship of Alberto Fujimori:   It's a lovely neoliberal book but if you want you can preview it here uninterrupted posted:Then you haven’t looked. Ah yes I was hoping someone would bring that up. See I've heard it thrown around recently but I was having trouble finding an actual description of the OAS's role in Haiti. Maybe you have an article you could share? Or a book? See I figure out where people on twitter were getting this, and it apparently traces back to a CEPR (that same Washington Thinktank we were discussing earlier, what a surprise to see them again!), but I'm having trouble understanding their point. Their main criticism of the OAS in Haiti in 2009 was apparently that the OAS certified the elections despite low turnout? i don't know, maybe I missed something. It seems like there might be real issues here but its a little different from actively colluding with the opposition to reverse an election result they didn't like. Also, why did Morales so clueless as to the behavior of OAS? If its so obvious, seems like a real oversight on his part yes?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I don't know that she does have the army and police on her side. I suppose we'll have to wait and see though, I hope she doesn't. Remember the opposition to the MAS is extremely divided, and many of them were pushing for Anez neither to stand for this election, nor to delay the election during coronavirus. Plus the army and police have generally avoided taking an active participation. Remember during the coup both just went back to their barracks and let angry mobs do the work of overthrowing Morales. I suspect Anez will have a hard time scraping up another mob for this. the army chief literally ordered him to step down and the police and army were both in the streets suppressing anyone that was protesting what the gently caress are you talking about with no active participation nonsense
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 22:45
|
|
|
lol 11% turnout is just a little issue definitely not indicative of systematic voter suppression but a slight discontinuity for a party that was already winning the election is indicative of MASSIVE, SYSTEMIC fraud, even when there's evidence that it absolutely wasn't by independent groups. but please, keep attacking the CEPR. its not like they then asked MIT to do analysis confirming what they were saying, which MIT did and indeed did confirm what they were saying. clearly its just the evil, fake news CEPR lol.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:lol 11% turnout is just a little issue definitely not indicative of systematic voter suppression but a slight discontinuity for a party that was already winning the election is indicative of MASSIVE, SYSTEMIC fraud, even when there's evidence that it absolutely wasn't by independent groups. but please, keep attacking the CEPR. its not like they then asked MIT to do analysis confirming what they were saying, which MIT did and indeed did confirm what they were saying. clearly its just the evil, fake news CEPR lol. yes, this is why I keep asking people to please explain what happened, because its obvious something really complex was going on and I don't understand the OAS role very well. CEPR, and almost all of it is specifically written by Mark Weisbrot. I'd like to know if anybody other than him and his org called attention to this at the time. LIke have you actually looked at their report on the Haiti election? It has 10 references, and 6 of them are to other articles published by CEPR! That's not how you write a serious article, you can't just point to yourself all the time to back up all your statements. Surely there must be some other contemporary records of the election and the surrounding issues, it can't just be this one guy. Also they didn't "ask MIT" do do anything. MIT was not involved in their subsequent analysis. They just two guys who work at MIT to moonlight for them. THis isn't an occasion where you get to bask in the prestige of the host university. And they just recycled the same simplistic statistical analysis that the OAS had already addressed when they released the full report, about which I just posted a long form, illustrated rebuttal? Maybe someone has heard anecdotes about how the OAS pulled this off? Some articles about what the scheme was?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
literally your whole argument is lol cant trust fake news cepr
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 01:00
|
|
|
you keep on ignoring which precincts were uncounted at the cut offs and how that would impact the vote. in fact, the entire so called change in trend can be explain by that fact. beyond even that, the oas rebuttal also claims that morales didnt have a 10 point lead at the 95% mark - when in reality, at that point it was 46.8% to 36.7%. the entire argument is just completely absurd and requires that you assume that morales must have rigged the election. it is of course no surprise that you response to haiti is oh well it must have been very complex and who can say what the oas role in it was whereas your response to bolivia is to instantly take the side of the white supremacists and defend the literal military coup. really goes to show where your priorities are. hey so the military just went into its barracks right? its not like the military killed dozens of people, yknow obviously inside their barracks while they were peacefully taking absolutely no side. what an absolute loving joke you are.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 01:21
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:you keep on ignoring which precincts were uncounted at the cut offs and how that would impact the vote. in fact, the entire so called change in trend can be explain by that fact. beyond even that, the oas rebuttal also claims that morales didnt have a 10 point lead at the 95% mark - when in reality, at that point it was 46.8% to 36.7%. the entire argument is just completely absurd and requires that you assume that morales must have rigged the election. I just went through the CEPR report on Haiti and they don't present any evidence of fraud on the part of OAS election observers. In fact they are only able to do their analysis because of OAS transparency, publishing their intentions, methods and data. Here is critique of the OAS, and the basis for the argument that they have a history of fraud: https://cepr.net/documents/publications/haiti-oas-2011-10.pdf quote:The two biggest flaws in the OAS Mission’s report were that (1) it did not use any statistical inference from the sample of 919 tally sheets that it had examined, in order to draw a conclusion about the whole set of tally sheets, and most importantly, (2) it did not take into account the 1053 tally sheets, or 9.5 percent of the total, that were missing. That's it. It's a technical criticism of how the OAS accounted for fraudulent ballots. I dunno maybe it was a serious issue? But there's no accusation that the OAS lied or that it faked results. This can't be the whole issue can it?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 01:41
|
|
|
Squalid posted:yes, this is why I keep asking people to please explain what happened, because its obvious something really complex was going on and I don't understand the OAS role very well. CEPR, and almost all of it is specifically written by Mark Weisbrot. I'd like to know if anybody other than him and his org called attention to this at the time. LIke have you actually looked at their report on the Haiti election? It has 10 references, and 6 of them are to other articles published by CEPR! That's not how you write a serious article, you can't just point to yourself all the time to back up all your statements. Surely there must be some other contemporary records of the election and the surrounding issues, it can't just be this one guy. What we do know is that the OAS claims are questionable at best and that a fascist coup occurred.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I just went through the CEPR report on Haiti and they don't present any evidence of fraud on the part of OAS election observers. In fact they are only able to do their analysis because of OAS transparency, publishing their intentions, methods and data. Here is critique of the OAS, and the basis for the argument that they have a history of fraud: did you read literally anything else from the document. they did indeed lie and did indeed distort the truth in order to support the two right wing candidates in the election.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 02:01
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:did you read literally anything else from the document. they did indeed lie and did indeed distort the truth in order to support the two right wing candidates in the election. alright maybe you can quote that for me? I didn't see it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 03:51
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I would just like to see any. Do you have any specific elections or events in mind? Historically OAS election monitors have been real pains for several right-wing governments. For example in 2017, when they called for new elections in Honduras after uncovering evidence of fraud. The US did not care and basically ignored these issues. Presumably if the OAS was acting in their stead it would have contributed to the cover-up. It's unusual to talk about the OAS's role in taking down Fujimori, given that it didn't actually do anything...except, of course, exploit the power vacuum after Fujimori's fall to exert its influence on the transitional government. Sure, it condemned irregularities in the 2000 vote, but it also condemned Fujimori's 1992 coup - and in both cases, the OAS stopped at nothing more than empty condemnation and offers to mediate between Fujimori and his opponents. Of course, the latter actually left them in a great position to influence the country's future when a leading government official who had recently pissed off the CIA learned that some unknown person had stolen some very incriminating videos of him and given them to the press, leading to Fujimori's loss of support. Funny how that works. Squalid posted:I just went through the CEPR report on Haiti and they don't present any evidence of fraud on the part of OAS election observers. In fact they are only able to do their analysis because of OAS transparency, publishing their intentions, methods and data. Here is critique of the OAS, and the basis for the argument that they have a history of fraud: If the OAS conducted their analysis with faulty methodology or incorrect data, then their results are severely tainted and cannot be taken as reliable or truthful. If they did that on purpose, then it's fraud (and if they didn't, then it's severe negligence and incompetence).
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 06:18
|
|
|
Squalid posted:oops, you're right. Looks like I was confusing you for the posters Doctor Jeep and plutonis. I got confused remembering a post you made responding to me criticizing plutonis for saying leftist politicians should "play to win" (implying they should cheat or w/e to win elections at all cost), which seemed to implicitly support his position. You were pretty clear about believing in and wanting legitimate courts and institutions though. Please get your poo poo together before calling someone out for posturing next time, tia.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 15:19
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's unusual to talk about the OAS's role in taking down Fujimori, given that it didn't actually do anything...except, of course, exploit the power vacuum after Fujimori's fall to exert its influence on the transitional government. Sure, it condemned irregularities in the 2000 vote, but it also condemned Fujimori's 1992 coup - and in both cases, the OAS stopped at nothing more than empty condemnation and offers to mediate between Fujimori and his opponents. Does the OAS actually have the power to do anything besides offer empty condemnations or mediate negotiations? Because I don't think it does. In fact, that's all it did in Bolivia. Weisbrot is not criticizing the OAS for conducting an "analysis," nor does he criticize them for the use of incorrect data. Maybe a little more context is due: following the election in 2010 there were wide spread accusations of fraud and voter intimidation on all sides. As no candidate won a majority in the first round, a second round was scheduled between the 1st and 2nd highest vote getters. However the 2nd and 3rd place candidates were extremely close in the vote total. There then followed two months of chaotic political maneuvering and street violence. This is the context in which the Haitian candidates agreed to accept an OAS decision, under substantial foreign pressure from the United States among other nations. The OAS was tasked with trying to account for blatant fraud in the vote. As part of this they ended up not counting ballots from places where fraud was rampant and they could not be confident of their legitimacy. The result was the two opposition candidates advanced to the second round, while the incumbent party placed 3rd. Weisbrot takes issue with this on several points, but most of them are rather vague and not grounded in direct evidence. He quibbles over the exclusion of some ballots but has no evidence of any manipulation. Instead he puts a lot of effort into simulating excluded ballots and estimating their effect on the election outcomes. He believes they these simulated ballots would be enough to put the incumbent party candidate, Célestin, into the second round. He then criticizes the OAS for recommending the election continue to the second round, rather than anulling it and starting over, or compromising and allowing the three highest vote getters to all advance to the final round. Is he right, or is the OAS right? Well. . . I mean it seems kinda fuzzy. The OAS's methodology is simple and transparent. The election data is bad but that's not really the OAS's fault. I'm not sure there even is a right answer for how to handle these issues. It's definitely not a shocking indictment of the OAS as an institution. It's also radically different from what people believe they did in Bolivia. Maybe people have some other evidence of OAS fraud and deceit they'd like to offer though? There's no doubt the OAS is heavily connected to the US government. But it also clearly isn't taking direct orders from the CIA. There's plenty of examples of OAS election monitors coming to conclusion the US was sure to hate. See for example U.S. Warned Not to Meddle in Nicaragua Election bagual posted:Please get your poo poo together before calling someone out for posturing next time, tia. Sorry, but tbh I kind of the respect the people who are completely against liberal democracy more than the people burying their heads in the sand. I might disagree with Doctor Jeep but at least he isn't lying to himself, and I can even have a conversation with someone like that without starting to feel schizophrenic. It's the people who would brush a mountain of evidence under the carpet because its inconvenient for whom I save my contempt.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Sorry, but tbh I kind of the respect the people who are completely against liberal democracy People like you?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
if we accept the oas report as making the election illegitimate, poor countries cannot have legitimate elections and apparently are most legitimately governed by the military none of the irregularities there were exceptional in any way, and i remember pointing this out at the time
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:24 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:if we accept the oas report as making the election illegitimate, poor countries cannot have legitimate elections and apparently are most legitimately governed by the military "if we accept the oas report as making the election illegitimate, poor countries cannot have legitimate elections" how does that make any sense? The OAS has endorsed many Bolivian elections in the past, as they did in 2014, and in Venezuela in 2004. I remember you saying these irregularities were not exception at the time. You were wrong though at the time, and you are even more wrong right now, given the information that we have gained since. Like do you really think this is normal? You think this happened in 2014? quote:When the system recommenced operating the following day, a hidden server appeared that was undeclared and controlled neither by the audit company nor by the technical staff of the electoral body. The remaining TREP information, amounting to more than 1400 tally sheets, was processed through this server. The second server did not appear in any report until the OAS audit discovered it through expert analysis. I'm not an expert in election security so help me out. Do you know of any other elections where similar security irregularities were observed and it didn't cause a crisis? VitalSigns posted:People like you? They are like me, in that they know who they are and don't try and force the world into something its not. I often feel posters like Panzeh, who I disagree with me on a lot of issues, are the most similar to me in their worldview. While I am some sort of liberal institutionalist or market socialist and Doctor Jeep is a more orthodox Marxist, at least we know where we stand with one another.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 22:58
|
|