Welcome To The Dictatorship Of Happiness

The clap clap thing is the new hellooooooooo.

The K rulebook seems to require some kind of jeering device: see my previous post regarding subtlety in K fashion.

The example of a non-engineer overseeing engineers, who produce world-class engineering, seems to have gone over bajo's head - but completely so.

Of course, it is important to have good lawyers. Which lawyering is, by bajo's admission on numerous occasions including on this thread, inextricably linked to politics. So the prospect of having at the helm of the organization a non-lawyer with common sense and advised by a staff of qualified lawyers is perfectly reasonable.

But yeah, let's make a BFD of that anywas: that fits bajo's general attitude to treating law as a sort of alchemy, propped up by the supposed huge difference between common law and civil law. (Which differences obviously do exist, and are indeed huge, but have little bearing to the point bajo makes. See his attempt to use the difference between civil and common law to highjack the NC with regard to the presidential transition).

Speaking of democracy and institutions, the BA province K group banded together to deny Vidal her budget. By the admission of their own people, "it's hard for us to get used to being the opposition". You don't say.

The K hubris is evident in the very name of their party. Which party doesn't want victory? But they believe themselves entitled to it, by any means necessary. And bajo would like to see the blackmailing, anything-but-democratic tactics of the FpV extended to the national scene. Paralyzing the government, then crowing that the government couldn't govern.

This is why people on this board are willing to take a wait-and-see attitude to Macri's hardball tactics. Because everybody here who isn't (pretending to be) deaf and dumb, understands that with these people, hardball is the only way to play ball - as they've proven and continue to prove, time and time again.
 
Little kickback: Sabbatella

http://www.iprofesional.com/notas/225306-El-partido-de-Sabbatella-recaudaba-280000-mensuales-de-la-AFSCA
 
I'm not sure on what grounds Marijuan is asking for the case to be reopened though. 130 people were contributing 8% of their salaries, supposedly voluntarily. which was why the case was closed originally. Is he thinking it wasn't voluntary after all?

Of course, the article states that those 130 employees were contributing $283,131 monthly, but also states that the total from AFSCA was $3,680,703 to Nuevo Encuentro this year, which actually leaves about $283,131 unaccounted for, which isn't very much money in the scheme of things. I.e., I don't see where there's a lot of room for a bunch of people whose money was taken without authorization.

Or maybe those salaries were higher than they are supposed to be and that extra 8% was given to them so it could be given to Nuevo Encuentro...
 
I'm not sure on what grounds Marijuan is asking for the case to be reopened though. 130 people were contributing 8% of their salaries, supposedly voluntarily. which was why the case was closed originally. Is he thinking it wasn't voluntary after all?

Of course, the article states that those 130 employees were contributing $283,131 monthly, but also states that the total from AFSCA was $3,680,703 to Nuevo Encuentro this year, which actually leaves about $283,131 unaccounted for, which isn't very much money in the scheme of things. I.e., I don't see where there's a lot of room for a bunch of people whose money was taken without authorization.

Or maybe those salaries were higher than they are supposed to be and that extra 8% was given to them so it could be given to Nuevo Encuentro...
Aha! I misunderstood. I thought it had been established that the contributions were non-voluntary (they likely weren't voluntary, but if it can't be proved ...).
 
Aha! I misunderstood. I thought it had been established that the contributions were non-voluntary (they likely weren't, but if it can't be proved ...).

Did any of the other employee's send 8% of their wage to a political party? Is that a common thing in Argentina where people give 8% of their wage away to the political party they "support"? How many employee's do AFSCA have? etc etc
 
Did any of the other employee's send 8% of their wage to a political party? Is that a common thing in Argentina where people give 8% of their wage away to the political party they "support"? How many employee's do AFSCA have? etc etc
I'm not familiar with how these things work, but it smells very much like a condition of employment: I give you a job, you kick back 8%. Except of course that these were all k's, and they don't do those sorts of things (what was I thinking?).

Now Macri, on the other hand, .....
 
I agree that the whole things smacks of impropriety. Just asking the question though why the original prosecutor or judge (don't remember which it was) closed the case due to it supposedly being voluntary, and if Marijuan actually found something new to reopen the case, or is just feeling like us, that there must be something going on and if that's enough grounds to reopen the case.

I don't trust any of them as far as I could throw them...
 
Back
Top