Local Presidential Debate. Leading Candidate Is A No Show.

[AmigoArtistico]

blablablablabla

That's the most reasonable thing you've said in years.

 

[sesamosinsal]

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.

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.

"Reasonable" is also very subjective.

The problem with the term "institutional importance" is that only the Executive Branch can determine what is "institutionally important." The Judicial Branch cannot say what is considered "institutionally important" in another branch of government. This is why the complaint was dismissed in federal court, and thus it's also why CFK's cadenas aren't considered illegal.

You and I might think that they are illegal and that's fine, but we don't make that decision. Congress needs to change the law.

 

[syngirl]

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.

Are you effing kidding me? Outside of Capital many of the Anti-K channels are blocked. You really did drink the K-ool-Aid

 

[Gringoboy]

Matias 98000 - providing entertainment for the whole family since 1636.

 

[TWB103]

This victimisation of the ks is rubbish. The ks have more than enough media presence and propaganda tools. They are not lacking! There was a fierce clarin campaign against CFK et el in the 2011 election and CFK still won by a historic landslide! The world of politics is a boxing ring you dont step into the ring and then constantly cry to the ref and the crowd ' but the other guys trying to hit me! Just get on with it with dignity and let the results do the talking - hence when the econony was growing in 2011 and people felt fairly satisfied Cfk won the elections despite the oppositions attempts to discredit her. The problem with the cfk bolivarian type of politics is that it needs the revolution all the time it needs the the victimisation and antagonism to define and justify itself.

 

[AmigoArtistico]

"Reasonable" is also very subjective.

Look. I like most of your posts, however much they may disagree with my point of view (and I'm often in agreement with them).

But in this case, you're just way off.

Anyway, as I said, I hope she speaks every day until November 22, 24 hours a day.

And that's the last thing I'll say on the subject.

 

[sesamosinsal]

But in this case, you're just way off.

I think we're kind of losing each other a bit here. There is a difference between what we believe is lawful and what is lawful.

What We Believe: If I were president of Argentina, I wouldn't use the cadena. I agree with you that the Executive Branch's definition of what is "institutionally important" is, well, a bit vast. I am not so sure I'd go so far as to call it "illegal," but you're entitled to that opinion, just as I am to mine.

What Is Lawful (judiciary's interpretation): The law clearly states that the the Executive Branch is entitled to use the cadena nacional for reasons of "institutional importance." The Executive Branch, of course, is the institution, and there's no other branch of government that can determine what is institutionally important in Executive Branch of the Argentine government other than the Executive Branch. This is why a federal court (Judge Sebastián Ramos) has ruled that it can't stop the cadenas from happening. If the Judiciary Branch could determine what is institutionally significant at the Executive Branch, then perhaps it would be able to address the "reasonability" of its definition -- but it can't. That would be overstepping the bounds of the so-called "división de poderes," which is quite a hot topic here (especially poder ejecutivo v. poder judicial) as it is in many other countries.

We can have an opinion, but we don't make the laws or determine the Executive's adherence to them. And to be honest (personal opinion alert), I can understand the federal court's decision on this matter. The problem is the law. It's too vague, and it needs to be re-defined.

 

[Gringoboy]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)] "institutional importance.......the fact is that, regardless of your wish to be fair to all sides here Bradly and interpret this as a looseness if you like, what this woman pours from her mouth at each and every cadena nacional, is nothing but political.[/background]
[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]It's an accepted fact [/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)] by those of us who are not paid up members of that awful Campora mob,[/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)] that it's an abuse of power but there's f*ck all we can do about it, except switch the bitch off.[/background]

 

[AmigoArtistico]

I think we're kind of losing each other a bit here. There is a difference between what we believe is lawful and what is lawful.

What We Believe: If I were president of Argentina, I wouldn't use the cadena. I agree with you that the Executive Branch's definition of what is "institutionally important" is, well, a bit vast. I am not so sure I'd go so far as to call it "illegal," but you're entitled to that opinion, just as I am to mine.

What Is Lawful (judiciary's interpretation): The law clearly states that the the Executive Branch is entitled to use the cadena nacional for reasons of "institutional importance." The Executive Branch, of course, is the institution, and there's no other branch of government that can determine what is institutionally important in Executive Branch of the Argentine government other than the Executive Branch. This is why a federal court (Judge Sebastián Ramos) has ruled that it can't stop the cadenas from happening. If the Judiciary Branch could determine what is institutionally significant at the Executive Branch, then perhaps it would be able to address the "reasonability" of its definition -- but it can't. That would be overstepping the bounds of the so-called "división de poderes," which is quite a hot topic here (especially poder ejecutivo v. poder judicial) as it is in many other countries.

We can have an opinion, but we don't make the laws or determine the Executive's adherence to them. And to be honest (personal opinion alert), I can understand the federal court's decision on this matter. The problem is the law. It's too vague, and it needs to be re-defined.

Ok, now I have to say one last thing. Your argument presumes that Argentina is a reasonable, rational country, with a true division of powers, and you and I and everyone else here know that that is simply not true. If I weren't so lazy and had the time, I could site dozens of examples which unequivocally prove this, and I'm sure that you're aware of many of them. Many judges here are bought, or do horse trading with the Executive branch all the time.

Just to site two recent examples (both affecting CFK), look at the recent highly-sensitive rulings of judge Carnicoba Corral, who very suddenly began to make ruling after ruling in the Executive's favor in the Iran case, while, coincidentally, his son was made a judge. Or look at judge Eduardo Freiler, who voted to remove judge Bonadio in the Hotesur scandal and days later bought a mansion across the street from Cristina worth US1.4 million dollars.

Within a day or two, I'm sure I could quote another 20 or 30 of such cases, with sufficient detail to make the point that these are not isolated incidents.

To use a "division of powers" argument in Argentina is disingenuous, and I think you're more than intelligent enough to know that, based on the many posts of yours that I've read.

I'm sure that you've also looked at the content of these Cadenas Nacional, and as a reasonable person, you know that they don't rise to any reasonable standard of "institutionally important," even giving the most generous benefits of doubts. Not even mentioning that she included Scioli, Maximo, and Alicia Kirchner in her recent Cadenas, even during the veda, another clear violation of the law.

Even in countries at war, the president doesn't go before the people and make hours-long speeches 44 times in a year.

There are about 5 people that visit these forums that would buy your argument, and that's because they'd already bought it 8 years ago.

But you might be able to use it to get a guest spot on 6,7,8.

[That's it. Truly no more from me on this.]

 

[thorsten]

The majority of people would not rate the content as "institutionally important", but the issue is that the law is written such that it allows loopholing the system, because there is no clear definition of what constitutes an "institutionally important" fact. Hence, the institution, i.e., the president decides it, which makes it impossible for a judge to get rid of the weekly CFK show. So what's really needed to avoid such abuse is either people with smarter choices (so that a president using the loopholes quickly gets out of office) and/or a change of the law, e.g., clarifying what constitutes cadena-worthy announcements (which might be difficult as you don't want to restrict it only to foreseeable events), limiting the number, stating what clearly is not allowed (e.g., candidates of upcoming elections).