Some points about Bolivia that should be obvious:

1. Anyone whose take includes the phrases "judges" or "term limits" is just changing the subject. The court decision striking down term limits happened years ago. Morales was removed *now* because (contra the OAS' evidence-free assertion) he won democratic re-election.

(And, being real about this, because of his refusal to allow private extraction of Bolivia's lithium reserves. I don't expect anyone 65 years in the future to find that connection any more mysterious than we find the one between the United Fruit Company and the Arbenz coup.)

2. That a massive chunk of the population was organically opposed to Morales--not the massive chunk that seems to have won the election, but a massive chunk nevertheless--is not a disanalogy to e.g. the Allende coup in Chile in 1973.

3. Neither is the fact that some labor unions aligned with the opposition.

That shouldn't be surprising. These are massively complicated, deeply divided societies.

4. The hypocrisy of Reasonable Centrists in the United States saying legal means couldn't be pursued there because the high court there is full of Morales loyalists, etc., is off the charts. I'll leave that one, as they say in academic papers, "as an exercise for the reader."

5. Morales is flawed. Guess what? So's Bernie Sanders, and if you can't imagine what a "well it's complicated" take might look like after a coup against a President Sanders, you don't have much imagination.