Don't be naive, i don't need a master. Anybody who is not a clapper seal of Macri can see the same.
And Macri confirms it every day.
English translation: I know you are but what am I? (neener-neener optional)
Marijuan is a Macri's activist. Simple.
Seems that there are more chains of favors:
http://m.diarioregis...zan-el-18f.html
That's right. Let's discuss the prosecutor rather than the act. In English, known as 'shooting the messenger'.
So bajo has no comment on what some may consider to be an issue of some importance in this saga, namely whether the 8% withheld from (all?) employees of AFSCA was appropriate. Of what relevance is Marijuan's activism, if he's right?
And on that, there's no comment from bajo. I'm not conversant with the facts of the case, but if it is true that 8% were withheld from employees, does that not seem prima facie to have an involuntary element? Normally, donations are actively made, not withheld; mandatory contributions such as taxes are withheld.
Ben, to play "hard ball"? Really? He is attacking the institutions of the Republic.
He barely won the Presidency but he has no power at the Congress. What do you expect from the opposition? To behave like officialism?
So, we're going to be invoking the 'barely won the Presidency' thing for a long time, it seems. That said, the point is correct. The Congress and the Executive are not of the same party. This is called 'divided government'.
Divided government is not necessarily a bad thing at all. It is the very point of separation of powers.
What that means in a normal country - for example, the US during the 90's - is that everybody understands they don't run the show, and the only options are to shut down the government or get deals done. They tried the former, it backfired on the Congress in public opinion, so they went for the latter, not without some success.
What it means is that unless there is some point of huge contention, everybody respects that they don't own the party, and move along. We have not heard of any coherent reason to stop the budget, so this appears to be simply an extension of the spiteful politics which saw CFK do big stuff like boycott a successor's inaugural, appoint untold numbers of ambassadors and make multibillion-dollar decisions etc in the final days of her presidency, little stuff like keep the presidential Twitter account for herself, and behave in general so as to make the incoming guys' life as difficult as she could.
That should not be mistaken for responsible divided government, in which the sides set some reasonable red lines for each other and then move ahead with life - respecting the government's prerogative to, you know, govern. To refuse to do so means to not respect your country's institutions. And ordering your bloc to
boycott your successor's inaugural, among the numerous provocative actions that took place from 22 November until 9 December and beyond, does not bode well for respect of those institutions about which you claim to care. And thus the reports that the cluster###k in BA province happened on CFK's personal orders sound eminently believable.
So in the face of prima facie evidence - plenty of it - that the FpV will not be playing nice, where nice refers to the least bit of professional cordialness, or respect for the country's institutions - a government has two options: roll over and die, or push as hard as a robust judicial branch will allow it to. We are clear on which you would prefer. Most people here disagree.
You analisys of "victory" in the name of the party FPV is wrong. It is historically related to the resistance if the peronismo during the 18 years of proscription of Peron.
So you're trying to say that the FpV's name has no generic meaning, that it only refers to a victory which had occured 30 years prior to the FpV's founding. Tenuous at best.
The links you provide don't actually refer to the FpV at all.
And the feeling of entitlement to victory is definitely on display.
