Local Presidential Debate. Leading Candidate Is A No Show.

Gringoboy; Everything you say is true.However,I DIDN'T say that inflation ONLY affected the poor.I SAID that they are the MOST affected.This is true because they have low and limited incomes.Many live from day to day on "changas"-"odd jobs".The vast majority of them have no access to hard currency and almost NEVER travel anywhere.To conclude,the K people like it and plan to keep it that way because the poor are their main constituency.
 
Also, who gets the money first, gets the most advantage from newly-printed money. The poor are the last to get it, except for the trickles that come in the form of their subsidies (I mean the direct subsidies like receiving money for kids) but even then I don't see the government raising the value of those subsidies with the rate of inflation. While everyone is affected by it, the poor are being devastated by it.

But it could be argued, perhaps, that portions of the middle class are almost equally affected by inflation as well. After all, it is they who are joining the ranks of the poor as they too get hit by inflation, that is, those who are not employed by the government or have a nice, cushy job with a union - i.e., someone to make things "equal" for them. The poor are used to making do with little, are indeed seeing their rents and food costs rise and such as their income doesn't come close to keeping up, but they have relatively little to begin with. The middle class, however, have more to maintain, more to lose, and more difficulty keeping up the same standard of living.
 
It's incredibly difficult to keep up and ends up as a vicious circle.
I haven't put up my computer repair prices as aggressively as others because I need the work, but the prices of computer components mean that building a new one requires very deep pockets.
This 500gb SSD is US$162 on Amazon with the same being sold on Mercadolibre at ARS$4000 and upwards.
 
She is not breaking the law, and the Wikipedia article is actually incorrect. Article 75 of Law 26,522 states:



So, the Executive Branch -- that is, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner -- can, "in situations of grave, excepcional or institutional importance," use the cadena nacional. It's not just for "exceptional circumstances." So, how do you define "institutional importance"? Ask the Executive Branch.


I dont support Cadenas Nacionales. Really. But I definitely understand them. The abuse comes from a disadvantage situation, where clearly the majority of the media, that includes the Clarin empire but not only them (also the three others most read newspapers), sistematically attack her. So its pretty much defensive its use, to tell people some realities, numbers, new policies, plans, credits, etc. It is indeed, to inform the people from her voice and not from some vile journalist.
 
The abuse comes from a disadvantage situation, where clearly the majority of the media, that includes the Clarin empire but not only them (also the three others most read newspapers), sistematically attack her. So its pretty much defensive its use, to tell people some realities, numbers, new policies, plans, credits, etc. It is indeed, to inform the people from her voice and not from some vile journalist.

bullshit they control more local news channels on the tv than anyone.
 
She is not breaking the law, and the Wikipedia article is actually incorrect. Article 75 of Law 26,522 states:



So, the Executive Branch -- that is, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner -- can, "in situations of grave, excepcional or institutional importance," use the cadena nacional. It's not just for "exceptional circumstances." So, how do you define "institutional importance"? Ask the Executive Branch.

Exactly. She's breaking the law. Punto final.
 
I dont support Cadenas Nacionales. Really. But I definitely understand them. The abuse comes from a disadvantage situation, where clearly the majority of the media, that includes the Clarin empire but not only them (also the three others most read newspapers), sistematically attack her. So its pretty much defensive its use, to tell people some realities, numbers, new policies, plans, credits, etc. It is indeed, to inform the people from her voice and not from some vile journalist.

You just get worse and worse.
 
She is not breaking the law, and the Wikipedia article is actually incorrect. Article 75 of Law 26,522 states:



So, the Executive Branch -- that is, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner -- can, "in situations of grave, excepcional or institutional importance," use the cadena nacional. It's not just for "exceptional circumstances." So, how do you define "institutional importance"? Ask the Executive Branch.

Let me make a more rational, legal, less hot-headed argument.

Since you have quoted the specifics of the law, how do we determine, in this case, what constitutes "situations of grave, exceptional or institutional importance?" The common way in law to make such judgments is to use a "reasonableness" test such as the "reasonable person" test used in tort and criminal law.

From the legal dictionary of thefreedictionary.com:


Reasonable Person

A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.

The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person.


By this, or any rational equivalent standard, Cristina Kirchner has been breaking the law for a very long time, and the vast majority know it. This is good, because by doing so, she has greatly helped the cause of the opposition, and we'll likely soon be rid of her.

In any case, what you don't do is install a thug as the head of the AFSCA, and then let him turn around and say that what she is doing is all perfectly legal. That has simply added fuel to the fire and alienated even more voters. That's more good news. And one final bit of joy; Sabbatella, too, will likely soon be gone.
 
Back
Top