|
fnox posted:If you didn't get it so wrong, I wouldn't have anything to say. But sure, let's not talk about the largest crisis going on in Latin America in the Latin America thread. You can talk about it. but if you're responding to a post specifically about bolivia and talk only about Venezuela and not at all about Bolivia, that kinda makes it look like you don't want to talk about Bolivia but don't want to admit you don't want to talk about Bolivia.
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
that specific pattern was evaluated by independent academics at the MIT, even discounting previous elections the statistical argument advanced by the OAS doesn't hold up
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 22:11
|
|
|
who gives a single poo poo about alleged irregularities when we're dealing with the actual factual fascist coup that happened 100% for sure.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 22:14
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:who gives a single poo poo about alleged irregularities when we're dealing with the actual factual fascist coup that happened 100% for sure. I've had dipshits argue that it wasn't actually a coup because Evo voluntarily stepped down in the face of public discontent.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 22:22
|
|
|
Is it likely at all for Morales to get back into office now?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Is it likely at all for Morales to get back into office now? It's possible, but every instinct I have says "gently caress no".
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 22:27
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:Honestly I have no idea how people can still harp on supposed 'irregularities' when it's well known that the late reporting polling stations were in known Morales stronghold and the opposition burned down polling stations and boxes of votes because they knew they legitimately lost. wait is this a joke? Or are you literally just repeating the same talking points which were what that entire article was about? V. Illych L. posted:jesus christ you idiot you've yourself admitted that you don't know poo poo about the issue beyond googling for whatever sources suit your preconceptions, *and now you're back to touting that ridiculous regression which you were pretending wasn't that important a couple of posts ago* ah don't be like that. I admit I've always liked your posting going back to LF. It's like someone preserved a cute little Nordic SocDem in amber circa 1970. Maybe I've posted too long in Ask/tell but sometimes I can't help but be adversarial, I really only reply to you so much because i respect you and am interested in your thoughts, even if it seems like i usually disagree  I admit I kinda like it though every time I get people to call me smug.unfortunately if dilettantes couldn't post here this forum would be silent so I'm afraid you'll have to endure. If you want to know what was in the Preliminary Report by to OAS you can read it here. The regression is only one chapter, and it's definitely not their "smoking gun," more like they found a whole smoking arsenal. V. Illych L. posted:that specific pattern was evaluated by independent academics at the MIT, even discounting previous elections the statistical argument advanced by the OAS doesn't hold up No, it was evaluated by 3 activists working for a partisan Washington Think-tank, where it was subjected to no peer review, and the initial report by Weisbrot was even released the day before the OAS released their findings, in an obvious effort to control the media narrative. Their analysis has since been disputed by independent academics working in at least two countries, including by the one who wrote this article, which is specifically a refutation of the CEPR analysis! The OAS mission directly involved 38 experts from 18 countries in the Americas and Europe. Have any of them made statements questioning these conclusions? Guess they're all in on it ow well. Oh also its funny how many Morales allies in the labor movement immediately accepted these findings, I wonder how they felt about it?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 23:17
|
|
|
Squalid posted:wait is this a joke? Or are you literally just repeating the same talking points which were what that entire article was about? what about this leads you to supporting a fascist coup though you smug idiot?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
"the outcome is bad, but the causes, the causes are really good!"
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 05:19
|
|
|
I mean, Morales was stupid and pushed his luck too far after having been skating on thin ice since the last bout of civil unrest in certain part of the country. That doesn't mean the coup was cool and good. And I would still say that there is plenty of stuff out there putting widespread fraud into serious doubt. Even what you linked squalid states that even the effect they claimed to find helped at the margins and at most changed an outright win into a run-off.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 05:45
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Oh also its funny how many Morales allies in the labor movement immediately accepted these findings, I wonder how they felt about it?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 08:10
|
|
|
Squalid posted:wait is this a joke? Or are you literally just repeating the same talking points which were what that entire article was about? curiel and williams work at the MIT election lab ( they're both here :https://electionlab.mit.edu/about ) the CEPR comissioned them to do a study but i can't find any affiliation beyond accepting that commission and defending their conclusion
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 08:55
|
|
|
to be absolutely explicit what i'm talking about is this report, which was indeed comissioned by the think-tank but which has the names if two guys working for the american government via the MIT and a disclaimer that they're speaking their own words: https://cepr.net/report/analysis-of-the-2019-bolivia-election/ now, the issue becomes that if civil society organisations are inherently suspect to the degree that anything commissioned by them must be disregarded, we only really have official state institutions or privately owned media to rely on. this has obvious problems even beyond the outright imperial affiliation of most such institutions - because people who know about injustice often organise against it, one is effectively discounting anyone who knows and is motivated by the situation from speaking about it. it's a situation that NHS medics find themselves in a lot of the time, where they organise a protest or spontaneously confront some conservative politician and are immediately dragged in the press for being 'labour activists' - most people who have an ideological commitment to the NHS to the extent where they'll risk making public fools of themselves will tend to be in the labour party because the conservatives are ideologically opposed to it! the effect, then, is a complete discrediting of people who know and care about the issue while those who hide their affiliations go free. it's a recipe for public dishonesty the paper linked presents the data with a 'this looks fishy!' reasoning rather than actual statistical analysis. that is qualitatively not a valid way to criticise a statistical analysis! it is a guy saying something looks fishy for what might well be good and informed reasons, but it's not properly addressing the formal points made by the original paper or explaining why those points are irrelevant - rather it's restating the OAS case, that this looks fishy because of the curvature of the graph or w/e. it's also factually wrong in expecting elections in may 2020, but one supposes that some emergency occurring to postpone the election was entirely unpredictable to reasonable people V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 09:33 on May 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 09:09
|
|
|
that's a thing tho, why shouldn't we have another Venezuela thread? PPJ closed the last one, sure, but he was a Nazi
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 14:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Vinncent/status/1258415196818767873
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 17:02
|
|
|
Venomous posted:that's a thing tho, why shouldn't we have another Venezuela thread? PPJ closed the last one, sure, but he was a Nazi Agree
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 17:11
|
|
|
It would be fascinating to find out who knew about this and greenlit it. Did Silvercorp get an official endorsement? Did they assume they had an endorsement and bumble on in? Did they have CIA backing, or was this a private op by Trump/Bolton/Pompeo? The US command structure has crumbled so badly that we really can't assume anything here.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 17:20
|
|
|
Venomous posted:PPJ closed the last one, sure, but he was a Nazi
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
he knew what they didn't eat because maduro has hoarded every empanada in venezuela
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 21:55
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:to be absolutely explicit what i'm talking about is this report, which was indeed comissioned by the think-tank but which has the names if two guys working for the american government via the MIT and a disclaimer that they're speaking their own words: I hope I haven't given the impression of dismissing the CEPR. Far from it, I feel I've put an inordinate effort into engaging with their arguments and tried to defer to them in areas of their expertise. This is why instead I've tried to emphasize that they have only contested a small part of the total evidence. I also sought to correct people like uninterupted who were citing them but obviously had not actually read the articles, and became confused into believing they had said things they didn't by the headlines. I have also pointed out that their conclusions are contested by other persons equally qualified, although I acknowledge I am not myself equipped to do so myself. Here's a review of the final CEPR article produced by the two MIT scholars by another economist: https://vozyvoto.com.mx/LeerBlog/32El-analisis-estadistico-de-las-elecciones-de-Bolivia-Una-orientacion-al-debate quote:On 12 March 2020, Professor Rodrigo Salazar Elena, researcher at the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences in Mexico, wrote an article in Voz y Voto magazine in which he compares and discusses the claims and evidence shown in the OAS and two CEPR studies. [97] In it, he states that the 27 February report is "except in a few details, a replica of the same analysis", referring to the earlier CEPR study, and that lack of statistical knowledge led commentators to be guided by the prestige of MIT and Washington Post and take the conclusions of the CEPR for granted. With regard to the OAS audit, he states that the statistical analysis rests on the "continuity assumption" that, even with different voting groups, change in vote trend should not exhibit large discontinuities around a single point in time and they use a "duly justified analysis technique". He states that "a rebuttal of the OAS analysis would have to mention which feature clearly distinguishes voters on either side of the threshold, to account for the jump of about 10%." He claims that such methods are available and describes CEPR-MIT's insistence on concentrating on group differences as "somewhat frustrating". With regard to simulations done by CEPR-MIT, he states no objections to their "highly sophisticated" method, but notes that it rests on the assumption that voting patterns are geographically contiguous "despite the fact that they are different in terms of reporting the votes to TREP". On this assumption, he provides two possible objections. Firstly, that geographic contiguity is less plausible than the "continuity assumption" made by the OAS and, secondly, that the pattern of stations voting before and after the TREP cutoff are not due to chance. In conclusion, he states that "If you read a headline like "Simulations from MIT specialists show Evo won in the first round," it sounds as if they are launching rockets into space. Not so, not even close. On the one hand, the OAS analysis has not been properly refuted. On the other hand, the CEPR-MIT analysis is valid only if one is willing to believe in an assumption that is at least as difficult to sustain as that of the OAS audit."
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 22:37
|
|
|
Weird how horrible corrupt authoritarian Cuba instills this kind of loyalty in its starving peons Condiv posted:he knew what they didn't eat because maduro has hoarded every empanada in venezuela This looting of the proletariat will not stand. Empanadas for all
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 22:40
|
|
|
What I want now is for a set of screenshots of Trump's Twitter DMs to come out showing he was chatting with these mercenaries and saying how great the plan and operation was.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 23:02
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I hope I haven't given the impression of dismissing the CEPR. Far from it, I feel I've put an inordinate effort into engaging with their arguments and tried to defer to them in areas of their expertise. This is why instead I've tried to emphasize that they have only contested a small part of the total evidence. I also sought to correct people like uninterupted who were citing them but obviously had not actually read the articles, and became confused into believing they had said things they didn't by the headlines. I have also pointed out that their conclusions are contested by other persons equally qualified, although I acknowledge I am not myself equipped to do so myself. Here's a review of the final CEPR article produced by the two MIT scholars by another economist: the MIT guys make a very specific point: that the regression argument of the OAS is not statistically rigorous and that the final result is within reasonable expectations given the prior movement of the polls before the halting of the quick count. they don't talk poll security or subset at all, which i think is a strength of their analysis given how contentious this sort of thing is bound to be (local tampering is always going to happen in countries like bolivia, where the law is far away and often distrusted anyway - in sum, this tampering probably benefited the MAS since their power base is in the most remote regions, but the opposition will have been doing this as well). on the one hand this means that their analysis cannot be used to explain away procedural irregularities such as burnt ballot boxes or voting machine security, but on the other it means that if one objects to the conclusions one has to have a formal answer ready, which has not yet been produced to my knowledge. simply pointing to the curvature of the graph doesn't cut it - there exist plausible explanations for a late increase in morales' support, many of which have been advanced in this very thread. considering that the balance of things here - that there was a no-poo poo actual military coup on the basis of what must be seen as a fairly speculative preliminary report - the benefit of the doubt should go to the guy promising a do-over of the election rather than the people whose power base are paramilitary organisations and who have been criminally prosecuting anyone belonging to the previous government that they could get their hands on. the former just seems to have more democratic instincts, considering. of course, then one has to consider the OAS, on whose credibility as an impartial arbiter the coup was legitimised in much of the west. considering their history (i was only cursorily familiar with the haiti fracas, but that's hardly the only time they've covered themselves in yankee glory) and their funding, one should be very suspicious of their motives indeed V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 23:10 on May 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Joao_Bx/status/1258508505599733760
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
but... its your bosses brown moses my deaer
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I hope I haven't given the impression of dismissing the CEPR. Narrator: But he had. Squalid posted:there's only one analysis that says the OAS is lying, and I'm not sure it is independent. It's also really lovely. All of it comes from The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), a Washington based think-tank. I tried to look up their funding source but couldn't find it. I'm not sure if it is possible to find it, but it would be nice to follow the money. Squalid posted:We are comparing CEPR with Heritage. This is a fair comparison because they are both explicitly partisan Washington Think-tanks. They are not an academic source of anything. This is obvious from the fact that this really lovely analysis was published without peer review.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 00:26
|
|
|
report: local man destroyed by evidence and receipts
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 01:31
|
|
|
you know I'm beginning to suspect the guy carrying water for literal, sieg-heiling, we-must-purge-our-country-of-the-animals-that-pretend-at-being-men fascists may be doing so for reasons other than an earnest desire to see just and equitable outcomes
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 06:55
|
|
|
So the coup governement has massacred protestors, managed to let all public projects that helped the unwanted poor and indigenous people fall into a state of disrepair or outright cancel them, looted the state companies and budget for their failsons and daughters and nephews and uncles, banned the concept of free media, created a law under cover of Corona disinformation protection that the even the HRW warned would be used to just jail opposition voices (and is now jailing people for running pro-MAS whatsapp group as cyber terrorists), keep arresting MAS candidates on complete BS charges, do all of this with nice kangaroo court TV sessions by the remaining media (because no independent television is allowed to exist anymore) but this thread has to argue the validity of the OAS report with another few totally good faith idiots? I could fill several pages with all the "totally just an interim government backed by popular demand" poo poo the fascists did... The OAS report doesn't need to be contrasted to the CEPR or any MIT professors writings, it disqualifies itself by being hilariously open about its biases, hell they consistently conflate the quick count with the actual count knowing full well that the quick count has no influence on the actual election results, the "statistical analysis" is not actually documented exactly for those claims that matter, and their "graphs" are hand painted MS Paint BS (that is still being quoted in this very thread). Spice World War II fucked around with this message at 10:27 on May 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 10:23
|
|
|
JJ Rendón admitting he signed the contract to hire this clownshow is pretty amazing. Take a good, long look through that dude's Wikipedia page.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 10:25
|
|
|
Spice World War II posted:So the coup governement has massacred protestors, managed to let all public projects that helped the unwanted poor and indigenous people fall into a state of disrepair or outright cancel them, looted the state companies and budget for their failsons and daughters and nephews and daughters, banned the concept of free media, created a law under cover of Corona disinformation protection that the even the HRW warned would be used to just jail opposition voices (and is now jailing people for running pro-MAS whatsapp group as cyber terrorists), keep arresting MAS candidates on complete BS charges, do all of this with nice kangaroo court TV sessions by the remaining media (because no independent television is allowed to exist anymore) but this thread has to argue the validity of the OAS report with another few totally good faith idiots? I could fill several pages with all the "totally just an interim government backed by popular demand" poo poo the fascists did... Maybe you should, then? This thread is really short on domestic Bolivian news.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 10:26
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Maybe you should, then? This thread is really short on domestic Bolivian news. I did post a few updates in the first weeks of the coup, but honestly it just got extremely depressing to keep doing so in the face of just a constant stream of big and small atrocities... I'll try to make an effort post write up, but it'll take a while
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 10:32
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:you know I'm beginning to suspect the guy carrying water for literal, sieg-heiling, we-must-purge-our-country-of-the-animals-that-pretend-at-being-men fascists may be doing so for reasons other than an earnest desire to see just and equitable outcomes Personally, I thought that the guy writing insanely long and boring walls of text attempting to obfuscate and argue other posters down to the very concepts of 'just,' 'asking,' and 'questions' whenever asked to address substantive points on the state of Bolivia or the coup was actually an excellent read.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 10:42
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:JJ Rendón admitting he signed the contract to hire this clownshow is pretty amazing. Take a good, long look through that dude's Wikipedia page. quote:Bad title Okay so this link works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JJ_Rendon
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
What also scares me about the Bolívia situation (other than everything) is that the same playbook would have been played in Brazil if PT had won; Bolsonaro was already saying he would refuse to recognize an election result that wouldn't give him victory and to this day throws smoke curtains about election fraud.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
So I'm trying to understand the Venezuela operation: they were going to get in, nab Maduro somehow, take him to some U.S. base so Trump could parade him in Fox News. Afterwards, Guaido was going to just waltz into the presidential office, and all the military people that he couldn't sway to his side the first time would just go "welp, nothing we can do, he's the new boss". Did I understand correctly or did I miss some other, more complex parts of that operation?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2020 05:16
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Narrator: But he had. don't get me wrong. The CEPR reports are real bad. In particular there are major issues in the references. For example how the MAJORITY of references in the report on the Haitian election were to other CEPR publications. Not a good practice. It is also written in a manner that seem to encourage people to interpret their work to mean more than it does, which explains how people like uninterupted became confused about what was in it. I'm not going to take issue though with their conclusions, or at least I believe their work is worth taking seriously. If I had to say something I would say my impression has been the same as Dr. Salazar's. By that I mean it requires certain assumptions to hold true that we are not sure of. I think those of you who have criticized the OAS for drawing conclusions from simplistic regressions will agree with me that it is easy to lie with statistics. That's why it's important to look at multiple models and check different assumptions, and not rely too much on a single source. Ideally we would like to look for empirical support for our inferences as well. One thing people forget is that the OAS wasn't the first organization to allege there had been problems with the election. That actually came from the computer security firm that had been contracted to oversee the election by the Morales government. You can read their conclusions here. Of course because that is a private company I already suspect it will be immediately dismissed as an invalid source by some. I don't think that is a very good argument though, since presumably the incentive to fudge in favor of the governments paying them. Just generally it requires that we expand the scope of the conspiracy to discredit the election, which makes it less probable.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2020 05:40
|
|
|
I mean, by those standards we should have boots on the ground seizing the Democratic National Convention.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2020 07:47
|
|
|
Anyone still arguing about the legitimacy of the OAS report is wasting their time; even if you accept the legitimacy of the OAS "report", the coup was never legitimate, at the time the military stepped in and put Añez in power (who represents single digits of the vote), Morales had already agreed to new elections before the end of his current constitutional term at the time, so before the end of January. The Añez coup government then delayed new elections further and further, until the Corona outbreak now gave them cover to delay them indefinitely again, and have instead focused on rolling back as many of the Morales government policies and projects as possible as fast as possible. They are absolutely blatant in everything they are doing; while they sold the fairy tale of the socialist turned authoritarian to the international media, they never even gave lip service to anything else than absolute authoritarianism; they massacred protesters right away in the first big counter protests, they have been closing down all major opposition media, they are jailing individual opposition voices at an alarming rate... Luis Fernando Camacho, the leader of the totally-an-environmental-protest-and-not-christo-fascists Santa Cruz Civic Committees (and former leader of the openly fascist youth organisation of the same committees), has been bragging on video post-coup that they had secured the backing of the military and police long before the day it happened, thanks to the connections of the new secretary of defense and his own daddy. Oh, and the person acting as the pretty face liaison for international media during the run-up to the coup, Jhanisse Vaca Daza, was set to talk on a symposium on peaceful regime change to democracy at this years SXSW before it got cancelled due to Corona. Spice World War II fucked around with this message at 08:36 on May 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2020 08:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
Spice World War II posted:Anyone still arguing about the legitimacy of the OAS report is wasting their time; even if you accept the legitimacy of the OAS "report", the coup was never legitimate, at the time the military stepped in and put Añez in power (who represents single digits of the vote), Morales had already agreed to new elections before the end of his current constitutional term at the time, so before the end of January. I mean the point is anyone still arguing the OAS report is valid full on supports the fascist coup, which is why they continue arguing about it. The Bolivian opposition literally burned ballot boxes, Morales supporters did not, that’s all the evidence you need, full stop. Hence the argument about minutia and D&Ding massive posts about statistics they don’t understand, its argument by obfuscation. Same way people endlessly argued that the Venezuelan border invasion wasn’t an invasion and an attempt at inventing causi belli. That just got irrefutably proven by the US PMC that got captured being at the first attempted border invasion; normal people realized it when there was video of the “opposition” “protesters” lighting their own trucks on fire. Their whole point is trying to  up a controversy out of the ether.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2020 13:28
|
|