Talk:Evo Morales
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
Issues[edit]
This article reads like a communist propaganda leaflet because it's so blatantly pro morales and anti American. Is this desirable or no. EK (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Why is the article portraying Morales as a poor victim of teh evil US imperialism? He was in the wrong by trying to perpetuate himself in power like Castro and Chávez/Maduro, and he deserved to be taken out.--Alfa913 (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- not really. Oddly you can replace bad with worse sometimes. But this article praises him way too much and contains several unfounded claims based on conspiracy theories. EK (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- "Taken out." Ok then. Let's lay our cards on the table. I don't like Morales because he's a sexist and a homophobe. However, compared to other Pink Tide candidates such as Chavez, and to the US itself, he isn't and wasn't very authoritarian. You seem to dislike him because um... "TV say Morales is bad man", or so it seems. Side note, if you want to give the impression of neutrality or open mindedness, don't use jargon for assassination. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Excuse me for not having a good opinion of socialism, particularly of the Castro/Chávez-Maduro/Morales, and more especially because of my country currently being governed by someone who adores them and has turned it into a hellhole. By "taken out" I just meant "removed from power". Still, there's no proof the "coup" was perpetrated by teh evil US imperialism as the article currently says. Jacobin is also far from being a trustworthy source, it's no different from Breitbart but left-wing, and just because Añez made some questionable comments doesn't mean she's a "Christian supremacist" or a "anti-indigenous bigot". Last I checked, the majority of Bolivians are better off without Morales and socialism, which I thought was as criticized as Right-wing fundamentalism around here. Not sorry about what I think, sorry.--Alfa913 (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ah. So you don't care what's true, only what is politically convenient for you. Enjoy gaining nothing then. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Again, where's the proof Morales was removed due to "imperialist interests" and that there was no fraud? That just reads like moonbattery. Enjoy defending socialism, and no, Añez's government is not "authoritarian", in fact, the candidate for Morales's party is freely campaigning to be president. But whatever, not changing my mind, fuck socialism! --Alfa913 (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- See, that right there is your problem. You see "socialism" and then see red. Morales' actual implemented policies weren't socialist. They were Social Democrat. Different ideas. One is the workers owning the means of production and dismantling capitalism, the other is increased protections for workers and the lower classes under a capitalist framework. You also fall into the "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic, which makes you double down when i or others point out that Morales' "successor" isn't all that great. Also, for the record, she wasn't on the disputed ticket. At all. They had to go through five or so people to get to where she was in the chain of command. This would be analogous to someone deposing Trump tomorrow and some out of favor nobody ending up in the oval office. That's hinky. That reeks of foul play. But like I said, you don't care as long as "socialism" is hurt. Your childishly simplistic worldview does much more harm than good. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- You have yet to prove Morales was deposed due to "American imperialist interests because he wanted to nationalize lithium" or that Añez's government is "authoritarian" when the candidate for Morales's party is freely campaigning and is likely to be the next president. I removed it because there is no proof but no one seems to care, or they think is the right thing to stand up for the left when people at large in Bolivia were sick of it and simply didn't want the guy to go the way of Maduro. Again, Jacobin is a shitty source and they call anything that they don't agree with "far-right", which Añez, again, is NOT.--Alfa913 (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- "You have yet to prove Morales was deposed due to "American imperialist interests because he wanted to nationalize lithium" No I haven't. Have you perchance considered that I don't believe that? My position is that an internal coup occurred, possibly with American financial assistance, possibly not, I wouldn't be surprised either way, and that the military put a far-right, theocratic (theocracy or rule by religion is an inherently far-right position, and is a form of authoritarianism) mildly authoritarian (Just because there's an opposition party running doesn't mean the sitting government isn't authoritarian, for example, Russia) party in charge rather say... holding an emergency election and letting the people decide who the new president should be. If I did a coup, my first major acts would be to hold an emergency election but bar the previous administration from running. Anyone else can run, but not them. This is where I stand. I also don't view "coup" as a negative term the way you do, it is descriptive, not prescriptive. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- As for proof, we offered it. You disputed the validity and reliability of said proof. That is different from said proof not existing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- "You have yet to prove Morales was deposed due to "American imperialist interests because he wanted to nationalize lithium" No I haven't. Have you perchance considered that I don't believe that? My position is that an internal coup occurred, possibly with American financial assistance, possibly not, I wouldn't be surprised either way, and that the military put a far-right, theocratic (theocracy or rule by religion is an inherently far-right position, and is a form of authoritarianism) mildly authoritarian (Just because there's an opposition party running doesn't mean the sitting government isn't authoritarian, for example, Russia) party in charge rather say... holding an emergency election and letting the people decide who the new president should be. If I did a coup, my first major acts would be to hold an emergency election but bar the previous administration from running. Anyone else can run, but not them. This is where I stand. I also don't view "coup" as a negative term the way you do, it is descriptive, not prescriptive. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- You have yet to prove Morales was deposed due to "American imperialist interests because he wanted to nationalize lithium" or that Añez's government is "authoritarian" when the candidate for Morales's party is freely campaigning and is likely to be the next president. I removed it because there is no proof but no one seems to care, or they think is the right thing to stand up for the left when people at large in Bolivia were sick of it and simply didn't want the guy to go the way of Maduro. Again, Jacobin is a shitty source and they call anything that they don't agree with "far-right", which Añez, again, is NOT.--Alfa913 (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- See, that right there is your problem. You see "socialism" and then see red. Morales' actual implemented policies weren't socialist. They were Social Democrat. Different ideas. One is the workers owning the means of production and dismantling capitalism, the other is increased protections for workers and the lower classes under a capitalist framework. You also fall into the "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic, which makes you double down when i or others point out that Morales' "successor" isn't all that great. Also, for the record, she wasn't on the disputed ticket. At all. They had to go through five or so people to get to where she was in the chain of command. This would be analogous to someone deposing Trump tomorrow and some out of favor nobody ending up in the oval office. That's hinky. That reeks of foul play. But like I said, you don't care as long as "socialism" is hurt. Your childishly simplistic worldview does much more harm than good. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Again, where's the proof Morales was removed due to "imperialist interests" and that there was no fraud? That just reads like moonbattery. Enjoy defending socialism, and no, Añez's government is not "authoritarian", in fact, the candidate for Morales's party is freely campaigning to be president. But whatever, not changing my mind, fuck socialism! --Alfa913 (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ah. So you don't care what's true, only what is politically convenient for you. Enjoy gaining nothing then. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Excuse me for not having a good opinion of socialism, particularly of the Castro/Chávez-Maduro/Morales, and more especially because of my country currently being governed by someone who adores them and has turned it into a hellhole. By "taken out" I just meant "removed from power". Still, there's no proof the "coup" was perpetrated by teh evil US imperialism as the article currently says. Jacobin is also far from being a trustworthy source, it's no different from Breitbart but left-wing, and just because Añez made some questionable comments doesn't mean she's a "Christian supremacist" or a "anti-indigenous bigot". Last I checked, the majority of Bolivians are better off without Morales and socialism, which I thought was as criticized as Right-wing fundamentalism around here. Not sorry about what I think, sorry.--Alfa913 (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- "Taken out." Ok then. Let's lay our cards on the table. I don't like Morales because he's a sexist and a homophobe. However, compared to other Pink Tide candidates such as Chavez, and to the US itself, he isn't and wasn't very authoritarian. You seem to dislike him because um... "TV say Morales is bad man", or so it seems. Side note, if you want to give the impression of neutrality or open mindedness, don't use jargon for assassination. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- not really. Oddly you can replace bad with worse sometimes. But this article praises him way too much and contains several unfounded claims based on conspiracy theories. EK (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Um, no. The part that claims Morales was removed by "American imperialist interests" is unsourced and no one has proved that happened. Yes, IIRC Morales was barred from participating in the next election, but not his MAS party, where again, its candidate is freely campaigning and Añez hasn't shown any, not even mild, sign of being authoritarian. Jacobin calls anything they don't like "far-right", thus is not much of a valid source. --Alfa913 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- All post "event" evidence has found that the election went entirely legitimately, and then a coup happened with american backing. I'm aching for the alternative narrative that accounts for that series of events.
- Also without going into details that could be considered doxing, your username seems to be associated with a brand management organization. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Ikanreed Well that is interesting... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Final point which I know will be ignored by the challenger since they ignored my previous posts where I explicitly stated disagreement with parts of the article. If an election is disputed, you A) have a recount or B) do the election over from scratch. You do not have the military seize power over the government and put someone into office that was not even on the ballot! That is a major red flag that something has gone horribly wrong. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Ikanreed Well that is interesting... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
| Called it |
|---|
|
Um no, the election went as follows: 1- Carlos Mesa was taking advantage over Morales and it seemed the election was going to a second round. 2- The system goes down for hours, as it happened in my country back in 1988. 3- When it comes back, Morales now has an improbably high lead which allows him to be the indesputed winner of the election, and thus over a million people who don't want more socialism protest against him. 4- Morales resigns, and thus Añez by her position is picked as interim president. The "coup" is entirely justified. There is NO PROOF the reason why Morales was deposed was because "teh evul US empire was angery that Morales wanted to nationalize lithium". I understand Bolivia's peasants were always going to support him, but he was clearly intending to perpetuate himself in power indefinitely, even when he said he wouldn't run for another term. However "benevolent" you think Morales was, dictatorships are bad, moreso if they're of the red variety. Our president actually gave Morales asylum and refused to recognize Añez as the legitimate president, and this piece of shit who wants to be our next president even threatened our Congress to give money to Morales so he could live his luxury life here (thank goodness he later went to Argentina). Again, Añez's government is not "theocratic, authoritarian and far-right", she doesn't resemble any of that, she's no Pinochet, Panzer or even Bolsonaro. That specific line, which remains unsourced, MUST be removed from the article because there is no proof. Jacobin is a place where any politician who is not their god Bernie Sanders is "far-right". Also, for Ikanreed, why are you trying to "expose" me? Do you think I'm some sort of US government employee or some lobbyist who receives money from Añez by defending her? LOL. My username comes from a radio station in my hometown, nothing more, nothing less, and it's not relevant to the argument. I'm not sorry for my beliefs whatsoever. --Alfa913 (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC) |
- It would probably help your case if your posts weren't interchangeable with each other. For example, Before I said "No I haven't. Have you perchance considered that I don't believe that?" you stated "You have yet to prove Morales was deposed due to "American imperialist interests because he wanted to nationalize lithium" or that Añez's government is "authoritarian"". After said post by me your wrote, "Um, no. The part that claims Morales was removed by "American imperialist interests" is unsourced and no one has proved that happened.". Your arguemnts are repetitive, offer no sources, and do not offer any explanation as to why we should believe them. So, as before, you are overly reliant on argumentum ad nauseam and argument by assertion. If I can quote your arguments out of context in an interchangeable manner, you're debating poorly. This might give the impression that you are following a script or otherwise unable to change your lingual patterns for similar reasons. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)