Posted on 12/27/2016 8:53:08 PM PST by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
Bolivian President Evo Morales was left red-faced when his mobile phone suddenly blasted out of the sound of a woman sexually moaning.
The humiliating moment was caught on camera as President Morales glanced at his phone during in the almost silent courtroom.
In shock, the Bolivian juggled his phone attempted to silence it, but sends it flying, forcing him to jump up from his seat and grab the phone – still playing the video – from the floor.
President Morales embarrassing moment sent the otherwise quiet courtroom into raptures of laughter as he scrambled to stop the “porn” playing aloud.
The 57-year-old has been in charge of the South American nation since 2006, and is currently battling the demise of left-wing populism on the continent.
President Morales is attempting to buck the trend by announcing his intention to seek an unprecedented fourth term as president.
Fifty two per cent of Bolivians voted against extending the presidential term limits in a national referendum in February and the Catholic Chuch said the move could “widen schisms in Bolivian society” and “generate violence”.
However, his plans have been heavy criticism from the left-wing government in Venezuela, despite Latin American countries being traditionally adverse to appearing to interfere in one another’s domestic affairs.
(Excerpt) Read more at express.co.uk ...
Bunga bunga, baby!
DANG!
Too funny. Dude was watching it during the meeting and accidentally un-muted it. D’oh!
Doncha just h8 it when dat chit happen bruh?
“It’s part of the [Hispanic] culture, which you are evidently ignorant of.”
It’s actually part of almost every culture.
And I know plenty of Hispanics who, because they are Christian, reject the modern societal acceptance of adultery.
It seems peculiar that you assume someone is an adulterer because they are Hispanic.
Even if some nationalities and ethnicities statistically do something more or less than others, this is not a legitimate basis for assuming that an individual is guilty of such things.
“10 out of 9 times”
I don’t know if you meant this part in humor or transposed the order by mistake. Either way, it’s pretty funny. It boggles the brain to ponder how to do something ten times out of nine. :-)
I heard it in a film. The bad guy was counting a dead person. LOL.
As for what you find "peculiar," you only do so because I involved Ted Cruz in it.
“you only do so because I involved Ted Cruz in it.”
No, not really.
Whether you cited him or some other Hispanic individual as anecdotal evidence, your position still seems odd.
But since you mentioned it, it is also odd that some people still seem butt-hurt over Cruz giving Trump a run for his money. While I did initially support and vote for Cruz in the primary, I am quite glad that Trump got the nomination and won. My biggest concern over Trump was that he might not do what he said. So far he has proven that he intends to govern conservatively and keep his promises.
I don’t agree that Cruz comes from a Hispanic culture. He has a Hispanic / Cuban, Canadian, American, and Texan heritage. Spanish is not even his first language.
Again, judging individuals based on their race / heritage is unreasonable and unfair. People should be judged based on the facts of what they have done, not what they might do or through guilt by association.
At the most, such a broad brush is only useful to profile a suspect for a specific, known crime. It is not particularly helpful when sizing up individuals because it does not take into account their individuality as human beings.
Oh. And I am totally lifting that tens times out of nine line. That’s worth the price of admission all by itself.
I saw that guy on the A train.
Cruz lost almost the entirety of the South, which should have been his strongest region. He should have dropped out then, before he lost all his goodwill in Colorado and the "Trump is creating violence, making all these leftists riot!" thing.
The reality is that Cruz almost won in a quite competitive field.
It would be interesting to speculate what if’s.
If Trump had not run, would Cruz have won the nomination? Would he have won the presidency?
I think his odds of beating Hillary would have closely resembled Trump.
Both appealed to conservatives, and those tired of the status quo and business as usual.
Trump had a stronger nationalist appeal. He brought out people who do not ordinarily vote. He had massive enthusiasm like no other politician ever.
However, I doubt Cruz would have won the nomination without Trump running. Trump provided cover for Cruz for a long while. The worst of the media attacks AND GOPe attacks were directed at Trump. He was the game changer. Without Trump providing cover, Cruz would have faced an onslaught of negative publicity from the anti-conservatives in both parties and the media. Trump weathered this. No other politician has ever done so.
That being said, Cruz, in spite of his flaws, was a pretty good candidate (especially compared to the others) and is still a fairly reliable conservative vote in the Senate. He will be an asset there to get Trump’s conservative agenda passed.
A lot of Trump supporters are still bitter at Cruz because he was the biggest challenge to Trump winning. But Cruz was mostly just doing his job as a candidate. There are certainly some choices he made that I disagree with, particularly his choice to not defend Trump against media accusations of Trump inciting violence (as you pointed out). And I do not agree with all of his positions. The only way we can realistically avoid this is to run for office ourselves.
Cruz should have endorsed Trump at the convention. He promised to do so and didn’t. He later came around, which is good. Cruz’s mistake was to take the mudslinging personally. Unfortunately, some around here continue to make the same mistake in their animosity toward Cruz.
Cruz was realistically finished after he lost the south, and should have bowed out then, like any ordinary candidate would have. He made an attempt to steal the election via delegates and denying Trump the number he needed, but it was and always had been a long shot that, if it had succeeded, would have only resulted in Hillary's victory. Cruz was already incredibly unlikable to begin with for most ordinary people (he would never have won PA, Wisconsin, or Minnesota), but he would have pissed off millions of Trump voters who would have been very upset at his theft of delegates and the RNC screwing Trump.
We dodged a bullet when Trump ran for the nomination. Cruz probably would have beaten Jeb, as that's not hard to do, and the media would not have started to attack Cruz until after he won the nomination. This was specifically a part of their plans per Wikileaks. Trump as well, but that backfired pretty hard on them.
In my opinion, Cruz’s worst mistake was to snub Trump on the possibility of being his VP. That was probably his best chance to eventually be president.
Wasn’t meant to be. And, as a former Cruz supporter turned Trump supporter, I am perfectly fine with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.