This is really bad and you are doubling down on being wrong.deaddmwalking wrote:When you change the rules and apply it to your successor, things tend to go well. When you change the rules and apply it to yourself, they tend not to.Kaelik wrote: Every time a moron says "you can't CHANGE THE RULES whole you are in office!" It demonstrates a total ignorance of bolivia where the MAS ran on a platform of changing the rules and then did it.
That just happens to be a matter of historical fact. Bolivia happens to be one more example of that playing out.
I'm not claiming that the coup is justified or justifiable. But it definitely happened and I think that changes in term limits contributed. If nothing else it makes other people suspicious of the motives of the people eliminating the term limits. Since it is so often associated with an authoritarian anti-democratic turn, it sidelines support from pro-democracy groups. Example A - this thread. Example B - actual events.
They ran in 2005! on a platform of changing the rules. They changed the rules AS SOON AS THEY GOT IN OFFICE in 2006. None of those rules were only to be applied to successors in the 2009 elections. Bolivia somehow managed to struggle along with "the rules changed but applied to the current people in power" for TEN YEARS. A decade. It was the best decade Bolivia has ever had.
If Morales "applied the rules to his successors" then HE WOULD HAVE NO TERM LIMITS BECAUSE HE WON OFFICE WHEN THERE WERE NO TERM LIMITS.
Everything you say demonstrates that you know literally nothing about the situation in Bolivia.
You are literally complaining that Nelson Mandela should have kept ruling under the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act of 1983 with separate houses representing white, coloured and Indian people but without representation for black people because it would be wrong for him to "change the rules for himself" instead of his successors.
This is a non starter. But also, even as non starters, Evo would have HAD NO TERM LIMITS under the old constitution because there were no term limits for the fake president during the military dictatorship from the 1960s and 70s when that constitution was written and used to justify the military dictatorship in Bolivia.
There were, and I cannot stress this enough NEVER ANY TERM LIMITS. There were no term limits before Evo took power. There were no term limits after Evo took power. No one was unable to run for election in Bolivia because of Term limits ANY TIME SINCE BEFORE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT PASSED IN THE US.deaddmwalking wrote:But it definitely happened and I think that changes in term limits contributed.
Pro democracy groups are always opposed to socialists and it has nothing to do with term limits because they are CIA funded implements of american economic exploitation.deaddmwalking wrote:it sidelines support from pro-democracy groups.
The OAS which said "actually we found some errors and we think Evo cheated in the election (but also we agree that he DEFINITELY GETS TO RUN BECAUSE THERE ARE NO TERM LIMITS)" gets 70% of it's funding from the United States of America and was created to serve US interests of anti socialist influence during the cold war. It ALSO supported the coup on Allende (a democratically elected socialist who was not facing any term limits) and supported Pinochet's murderous regime as a democracy.
