Gringoboy
Registered
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,624
- Likes
- 4,689
Welcome To The Dictatorship Of Happiness
- Thread starter Bajo_cero2
- Start date
Bajo_cero2
Registered
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2010
- Messages
- 7,949
- Likes
- 4,389
My master? This is my master:
Página/12
anterior | siguiente Jueves, 17 de diciembre de 2015 | Hoy
EL PAIS › OPINION
Corrupción ENERO
Por Julio Maier *
No deseo escribir estas líneas como jurista sino como ciudadano de a pie, porque me siento avergonzado de mi profesión de abogado, aunque ya no la ejerzo. Parece que nuestras facultades de Derecho producen especialistas en “chicanas”: artimaña de mala fe para obtener algo que se desea. No voy a descubrir nada si me refiero al gobierno del Sr. Macri, pues su largo gobierno de la CABA ya había puesto de manifiesto la utilización de reglas de aplicación excepcional como procedimientos de uso permanente, siempre antidemocráticos, contrarios al cacareo republicano de la coalición que él preside. Puedo entenderlo a él porque nunca lo creí demasiado informado ni un ejemplo para una república democrática y porque ostenta el título de ingeniero –¿será ingeniero?–, extraño al mundo jurídico. Pero me avergüenzo de sus asesores, funcionarios y prestos a aceptar funciones, que ejercen en la práctica el título de abogado –incluidos en ese colectivo los jueces y otros funcionarios judiciales–, que, como dije, no parecen haber aprendido en nuestras facultades otra cosa que proponer chicanas como soluciones.
Tal comportamiento ya se observaba en la falta de respeto por los parlamentos de nuestros abogados –record Guinness de vetos, cautelares y otras artimañas leguleyas–, pero alcanzó su cenit con aquella demanda que un fiscal y una jueza decidieron para fijar el día y la hora de finalización constitucional del cargo de presidente de la Nación y la necesidad ineludible de que nuestra república viva doce horas según la regla excepcional de la sucesión presidencial, situación que debería repetirse cada vez que un presidente cumpla el período de su mandato (en purismo: hasta cuando es reelegido). Fui consultado desde el extranjero por esa situación extraña, me avergoncé y no supe qué contestar.
Pero no había visto todo lo posible ni lo máximo, digno del record Guinness. Ayer fui consultado nuevamente por esto de los dos jueces de la CSJN designados por decreto y sin acuerdo del Senado, claramente evitado por el Sr. Presidente y sus letrados por razones obvias de cantidad de votos parlamentarios, que no le alcanzan para tornar efectivo sus deseos, y por un sentimiento extraño de necesidad, que sólo ellos pueden explicar. Este procedimiento, extraño a las prácticas democráticas de nuestra Constitución bien entendida, como buen padre de familia, y a nuestras instituciones, me llenó de vergüenza como ciudadano de este país y revivió en mí recuerdos relativos sólo a gobiernos autoritarios, militares, productos de golpes de Estado. Sin embargo, deseo ser sincero, no conozco bien a ninguno de los propuestos –que, se supone, han aceptado el método de nombramiento– y es posible que sólo a uno de ellos lo haya visto y hasta leído anteriormente. El descubrirlo allí me causó profundo dolor, pues, si no me equivoco, él era uno de los discípulos académicos de quien yo considero un verdadero demócrata, ejemplar, a quien respeto sobremanera. El maestro, seguramente, no le enseñó chicanas; dicho en general, tampoco parece haberle abierto del todo los ojos a quienes les regaló su sabiduría.
Eso pasa en ocasiones, algunas veces. La reiteración de episodios de este tipo es lo que yo llamo corrupción de las costumbres.
* Profesor titular consulto de Derecho Penal y Derecho Procesal Penal.
Página/12
anterior | siguiente Jueves, 17 de diciembre de 2015 | Hoy
EL PAIS › OPINION
Corrupción ENERO
Por Julio Maier *
No deseo escribir estas líneas como jurista sino como ciudadano de a pie, porque me siento avergonzado de mi profesión de abogado, aunque ya no la ejerzo. Parece que nuestras facultades de Derecho producen especialistas en “chicanas”: artimaña de mala fe para obtener algo que se desea. No voy a descubrir nada si me refiero al gobierno del Sr. Macri, pues su largo gobierno de la CABA ya había puesto de manifiesto la utilización de reglas de aplicación excepcional como procedimientos de uso permanente, siempre antidemocráticos, contrarios al cacareo republicano de la coalición que él preside. Puedo entenderlo a él porque nunca lo creí demasiado informado ni un ejemplo para una república democrática y porque ostenta el título de ingeniero –¿será ingeniero?–, extraño al mundo jurídico. Pero me avergüenzo de sus asesores, funcionarios y prestos a aceptar funciones, que ejercen en la práctica el título de abogado –incluidos en ese colectivo los jueces y otros funcionarios judiciales–, que, como dije, no parecen haber aprendido en nuestras facultades otra cosa que proponer chicanas como soluciones.
Tal comportamiento ya se observaba en la falta de respeto por los parlamentos de nuestros abogados –record Guinness de vetos, cautelares y otras artimañas leguleyas–, pero alcanzó su cenit con aquella demanda que un fiscal y una jueza decidieron para fijar el día y la hora de finalización constitucional del cargo de presidente de la Nación y la necesidad ineludible de que nuestra república viva doce horas según la regla excepcional de la sucesión presidencial, situación que debería repetirse cada vez que un presidente cumpla el período de su mandato (en purismo: hasta cuando es reelegido). Fui consultado desde el extranjero por esa situación extraña, me avergoncé y no supe qué contestar.
Pero no había visto todo lo posible ni lo máximo, digno del record Guinness. Ayer fui consultado nuevamente por esto de los dos jueces de la CSJN designados por decreto y sin acuerdo del Senado, claramente evitado por el Sr. Presidente y sus letrados por razones obvias de cantidad de votos parlamentarios, que no le alcanzan para tornar efectivo sus deseos, y por un sentimiento extraño de necesidad, que sólo ellos pueden explicar. Este procedimiento, extraño a las prácticas democráticas de nuestra Constitución bien entendida, como buen padre de familia, y a nuestras instituciones, me llenó de vergüenza como ciudadano de este país y revivió en mí recuerdos relativos sólo a gobiernos autoritarios, militares, productos de golpes de Estado. Sin embargo, deseo ser sincero, no conozco bien a ninguno de los propuestos –que, se supone, han aceptado el método de nombramiento– y es posible que sólo a uno de ellos lo haya visto y hasta leído anteriormente. El descubrirlo allí me causó profundo dolor, pues, si no me equivoco, él era uno de los discípulos académicos de quien yo considero un verdadero demócrata, ejemplar, a quien respeto sobremanera. El maestro, seguramente, no le enseñó chicanas; dicho en general, tampoco parece haberle abierto del todo los ojos a quienes les regaló su sabiduría.
Eso pasa en ocasiones, algunas veces. La reiteración de episodios de este tipo es lo que yo llamo corrupción de las costumbres.
* Profesor titular consulto de Derecho Penal y Derecho Procesal Penal.
Bajo_cero2
Registered
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2010
- Messages
- 7,949
- Likes
- 4,389
Julio Maier is very respected, not only for his outstanding academic work, because he was a federal criminal judge when the coup of Videla stormed.
He received an habeas corpus and he decided and order to free the person who was arrested without the order of a judge. He saved his life.
Immediately he got a call of the Minister of internal affairs who was yelling him wtf he was doing. He replied, what i m doing as a federal criminal judge is to finish this phone call you made because there is nothing to talk with the executive power.
One hour later his home was bombed by the "officialism" and he had to exile for defending the republic separation of powers. So, i m very proud that he is my master.
You are so blind clapping Macri that you cannot see that he is attacking the republican and democratic institution in the same way but with less violence than the dictators we had in the past.
Here you have more "ultra KK" press (as you see the critizism), the BA Herald:
Sunday, December 6, 2015
Judicial vandalism escalates
By Sebastián Lacunza
Editor-in-Chief
Mauricio Macri is ready to give a stellar launch to his presidency by removing Attorney General Alejandra Gils Carbó, but this effort will face predictable hurdles, unless some phantoms that can usually be found near the courts take action.
Let’s Change’s aides have announced they’re preparing a decree to remove Gils Carbó and to appoint someone they can trust.
If the threat becomes a reality, recent jurisprudence issued by the Supreme Court could help to predict what will happen.
As the governor of Santa Cruz, Néstor Kirchner decided in 1995 to get rid of a provincial Attorney General who was not of his liking. The late Patagonian did it in a little more subtle way than the one likely to be chosen by the president-elect. The provincial Lower House approved a bill to split the office of the Attorney General between the prosecutor before Santa Cruz’s highest tribunal and Ombudsman for the poor, absent and insane. Eduardo Sosa, hitherto Attorney General, lost his position, so he decided to go to the courts.
After a judicial tour of several years, the Supreme Court ordered that Sosa be reinstated in 2001. The Santa Cruz government claimed that the ruling was unenforceable because Sosa’s replacement had been appointed in accordance with the new legislation. Eight years later, the Supreme Court upheld the decision and ordered the provincial government to implement the sentence, with stern warnings to the governor. Further delays took place until Sosa accepted in 2013 the economic compensation offered by the provincial authorities and withdrew his complaint, which had already reached international courts.
The Supreme Court in 2009 was composed of mostly the justices appointed by Kirchner during his early years as president, when a refreshing renewal of the judiciary took place (only for a while). Six out of seven justices voted in favour of Sosa. Among them, the four who still occupy their seats in the highest tribunal: Ricardo Lorenzetti, Carlos Fayt (who retires on Thursday, shortly before turning 98), Elena Highton de Nolasco and Juan Carlos Maqueda.
The National Constitution grants independence and stability to the Attorney General. A complementary law established that the position expires when the prosecutor turns 75, resignation or by an impeachment process, which requires two-thirds of the accusatory chamber (Lower House) and the judging chamber (Senate). That is, the same mechanism required for members of the Supreme Court.
In its ruling of 2009, Lorenzetti, Highton and Maqueda ratified “the irremovability of the plaintiff (Sosa)” and aimed to “ensure the preservation of the republican system.” As such it seems that there is no room for different principles to remove an attorney general by decree, an extreme which would result in every prosecutor becoming utterly vulnerable.
Another option suggested by Let’s Change’s spokesmen is a law amending the appointment (currently, a two-third majority in the Senate is required) and dismissal of the attorney general. “The mechanism can be amended, but it would apply for the next attorney general, not the current one. There is case law on that,” Andrea Pochak said to the Herald, who on behalf of the Centre for Legal and Social Studies (CELS) represented Sosa since 2007 and is today a legal secretary for the attorney general.
During the last 12 years, the Kirchners took advantage of pacts with judges and prosecutors, disrupted watchdog institutions, tried to introduce initiatives by way of brute force and made significant contributions to the swamp that is the Magistrates Council. On the other hand, they also backed healthy reforms, but many of them faced strong resistance in a conservative, endogamic judiciary and fell to the procedural clumsiness that Kirchnerism seems to carry in its DNA.
Macri arrives at the Casa Rosada with the promise to rebuild institutional sanity. As a problematic kick off, he names the leader of the insult-happy and quick-to-denounce sector of the PRO party to head the Anti-Corruption Office. A seat supposed to monitor an administration that she staunchly supports. Meanwhile, one of the judges that epitomizes the ill-conceived sector of the federal courts raids the AFSCA media watchdog to collect information that is available on its website.
All right then. One thing is a judge appointed during the Menem-era using his office to take aim at a government with which he broke once-close ties and another is to act in line with the incoming resident of the Casa Rosada.
Judicial vandalism escalates to a new tenor.
@sebalacunza
He received an habeas corpus and he decided and order to free the person who was arrested without the order of a judge. He saved his life.
Immediately he got a call of the Minister of internal affairs who was yelling him wtf he was doing. He replied, what i m doing as a federal criminal judge is to finish this phone call you made because there is nothing to talk with the executive power.
One hour later his home was bombed by the "officialism" and he had to exile for defending the republic separation of powers. So, i m very proud that he is my master.
You are so blind clapping Macri that you cannot see that he is attacking the republican and democratic institution in the same way but with less violence than the dictators we had in the past.
Here you have more "ultra KK" press (as you see the critizism), the BA Herald:
Sunday, December 6, 2015
Judicial vandalism escalates
By Sebastián Lacunza
Editor-in-Chief
Mauricio Macri is ready to give a stellar launch to his presidency by removing Attorney General Alejandra Gils Carbó, but this effort will face predictable hurdles, unless some phantoms that can usually be found near the courts take action.
Let’s Change’s aides have announced they’re preparing a decree to remove Gils Carbó and to appoint someone they can trust.
If the threat becomes a reality, recent jurisprudence issued by the Supreme Court could help to predict what will happen.
As the governor of Santa Cruz, Néstor Kirchner decided in 1995 to get rid of a provincial Attorney General who was not of his liking. The late Patagonian did it in a little more subtle way than the one likely to be chosen by the president-elect. The provincial Lower House approved a bill to split the office of the Attorney General between the prosecutor before Santa Cruz’s highest tribunal and Ombudsman for the poor, absent and insane. Eduardo Sosa, hitherto Attorney General, lost his position, so he decided to go to the courts.
After a judicial tour of several years, the Supreme Court ordered that Sosa be reinstated in 2001. The Santa Cruz government claimed that the ruling was unenforceable because Sosa’s replacement had been appointed in accordance with the new legislation. Eight years later, the Supreme Court upheld the decision and ordered the provincial government to implement the sentence, with stern warnings to the governor. Further delays took place until Sosa accepted in 2013 the economic compensation offered by the provincial authorities and withdrew his complaint, which had already reached international courts.
The Supreme Court in 2009 was composed of mostly the justices appointed by Kirchner during his early years as president, when a refreshing renewal of the judiciary took place (only for a while). Six out of seven justices voted in favour of Sosa. Among them, the four who still occupy their seats in the highest tribunal: Ricardo Lorenzetti, Carlos Fayt (who retires on Thursday, shortly before turning 98), Elena Highton de Nolasco and Juan Carlos Maqueda.
The National Constitution grants independence and stability to the Attorney General. A complementary law established that the position expires when the prosecutor turns 75, resignation or by an impeachment process, which requires two-thirds of the accusatory chamber (Lower House) and the judging chamber (Senate). That is, the same mechanism required for members of the Supreme Court.
In its ruling of 2009, Lorenzetti, Highton and Maqueda ratified “the irremovability of the plaintiff (Sosa)” and aimed to “ensure the preservation of the republican system.” As such it seems that there is no room for different principles to remove an attorney general by decree, an extreme which would result in every prosecutor becoming utterly vulnerable.
Another option suggested by Let’s Change’s spokesmen is a law amending the appointment (currently, a two-third majority in the Senate is required) and dismissal of the attorney general. “The mechanism can be amended, but it would apply for the next attorney general, not the current one. There is case law on that,” Andrea Pochak said to the Herald, who on behalf of the Centre for Legal and Social Studies (CELS) represented Sosa since 2007 and is today a legal secretary for the attorney general.
During the last 12 years, the Kirchners took advantage of pacts with judges and prosecutors, disrupted watchdog institutions, tried to introduce initiatives by way of brute force and made significant contributions to the swamp that is the Magistrates Council. On the other hand, they also backed healthy reforms, but many of them faced strong resistance in a conservative, endogamic judiciary and fell to the procedural clumsiness that Kirchnerism seems to carry in its DNA.
Macri arrives at the Casa Rosada with the promise to rebuild institutional sanity. As a problematic kick off, he names the leader of the insult-happy and quick-to-denounce sector of the PRO party to head the Anti-Corruption Office. A seat supposed to monitor an administration that she staunchly supports. Meanwhile, one of the judges that epitomizes the ill-conceived sector of the federal courts raids the AFSCA media watchdog to collect information that is available on its website.
All right then. One thing is a judge appointed during the Menem-era using his office to take aim at a government with which he broke once-close ties and another is to act in line with the incoming resident of the Casa Rosada.
Judicial vandalism escalates to a new tenor.
@sebalacunza
Bajo, I would agree with you in much of what you say about the law itself, separation of powers, etc, except for the fact that you clap as wildly for Cristina and her henchmen, who did many of the same things, albeit with more congressional and judicial support, since she was able to stack the books in her favor in so many cases - hardly democratic or just for the people who had no voice thanks to her - but in her world the rich and middle class, who were detrimentally affected by her policies, it's OK to screw them over. After all, they are dictators and supporters of dictators, no?
Her and her husband twisted things so badly that there is little of any separation left with which to work. Wasn't it she who yanked, as an example, the former head of AFIP to replace him with her own creature when the previous head refused to cook the books the way she wanted or replaced the head of the central bank so he would implement her monetary policies? You have often excused her actions on the slimmest of legal fictions at best, including things that have a large amount of evidence behind them (corruption like Hotesur). That is what, in my eyes, takes away much of any sense you make and throws it out the window along with Cristina's crap.
Macri is not a dictator until he ignores all separations of power in rulings made against him (or those working with him) and makes changes by force. He may be a wanna-be dictator, but isn't an actual dictator until the courts stand aside and grant him whatever he wants (like they did with Cristina), or he takes it by force of arms in a coup. Particularly, given that the courts are still heavily influenced by Cristina, I can't see that happening. Macri tries to make a change, it's found illegal, he can't go forward with it unless he seizes the government itself, which I'm not seeing. Given the fact that various injunctions have been leveled against Macri's attempts to remove kirchnerism from the government, I don't see how you can count him as a dictator - yet.
Therefore, your arguments come off as propaganda, another seal clapping for its master, no matter who you claim is your actual master.
You may not like his policies or the way he goes about it, but gee - welcome to the club. Welcome to being on the losing side of "democracy".
And BTW, in English, I think you would be better off using the term "mentor" (if you worked or trained under him) or "hero" or "example [to live up to]" (if you admire his work and dedication) instead of "master" for Julio Maier. I can understand why you would admire him and want to uphold similar principles (given what you say about the man, at least, without me having researched the man, because you are a wild clapper for Cristina and it makes many of your judgements, in my eyes, suspect). But "master" denotes a degree of control imposed by those would be the master, over their disciples (or slaves or servants, yet other English connotations for those who have a master), whereas the other words indicate an admiration and a desire to uphold the same views and values as those of the person you are extolling, without necessarily being controlled by them.
And yet I wonder if he is such a fan of Cristina and her adorers that he would hold her up as an example of good government and one who upheld rigorously the separation of powers (as you seem to). You show that he doesn't uphold Macri's approach, but that doesn't mean he upholds Cristina's. Or is he another lawyer who only sits in opposition when he is opposed to those he doesn't agree with?
You and the BA Herald should have been decrying the same things against Cristina that you and they are now decrying related to Macri, if you all were really interested in justice and fair play for all, with no margin for pushing things up to the very, or past the, limits of legality, ethics and morals. But no, it seems that you all fight for bad government when it suits you, and look the other way and excuse much when you like the person in government.
Her and her husband twisted things so badly that there is little of any separation left with which to work. Wasn't it she who yanked, as an example, the former head of AFIP to replace him with her own creature when the previous head refused to cook the books the way she wanted or replaced the head of the central bank so he would implement her monetary policies? You have often excused her actions on the slimmest of legal fictions at best, including things that have a large amount of evidence behind them (corruption like Hotesur). That is what, in my eyes, takes away much of any sense you make and throws it out the window along with Cristina's crap.
Macri is not a dictator until he ignores all separations of power in rulings made against him (or those working with him) and makes changes by force. He may be a wanna-be dictator, but isn't an actual dictator until the courts stand aside and grant him whatever he wants (like they did with Cristina), or he takes it by force of arms in a coup. Particularly, given that the courts are still heavily influenced by Cristina, I can't see that happening. Macri tries to make a change, it's found illegal, he can't go forward with it unless he seizes the government itself, which I'm not seeing. Given the fact that various injunctions have been leveled against Macri's attempts to remove kirchnerism from the government, I don't see how you can count him as a dictator - yet.
Therefore, your arguments come off as propaganda, another seal clapping for its master, no matter who you claim is your actual master.
You may not like his policies or the way he goes about it, but gee - welcome to the club. Welcome to being on the losing side of "democracy".
And BTW, in English, I think you would be better off using the term "mentor" (if you worked or trained under him) or "hero" or "example [to live up to]" (if you admire his work and dedication) instead of "master" for Julio Maier. I can understand why you would admire him and want to uphold similar principles (given what you say about the man, at least, without me having researched the man, because you are a wild clapper for Cristina and it makes many of your judgements, in my eyes, suspect). But "master" denotes a degree of control imposed by those would be the master, over their disciples (or slaves or servants, yet other English connotations for those who have a master), whereas the other words indicate an admiration and a desire to uphold the same views and values as those of the person you are extolling, without necessarily being controlled by them.
And yet I wonder if he is such a fan of Cristina and her adorers that he would hold her up as an example of good government and one who upheld rigorously the separation of powers (as you seem to). You show that he doesn't uphold Macri's approach, but that doesn't mean he upholds Cristina's. Or is he another lawyer who only sits in opposition when he is opposed to those he doesn't agree with?
You and the BA Herald should have been decrying the same things against Cristina that you and they are now decrying related to Macri, if you all were really interested in justice and fair play for all, with no margin for pushing things up to the very, or past the, limits of legality, ethics and morals. But no, it seems that you all fight for bad government when it suits you, and look the other way and excuse much when you like the person in government.
Bajo_cero2
Registered
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2010
- Messages
- 7,949
- Likes
- 4,389
Elqueso, the former President proposed 3 candidates for the SC and she failed at the Congress.
The SC decided against her many times.
She tried to dismiss the Prosecutor Campagnolli for starting illigally the Hotesur case (he had no competency) and she failed at the dismissal trial.
You are missing the point. There is not a natural right regarding to remove k from the other powers of the State because, then, he is attacking the Republic. He is doing political persecution...it doesn't sound very democratic.
The changes I critize are regarding to change the Republic by a autocracy: dictatorship. If you read Fontevechia today at Perfil, he call it monarchy.
You complain about people with no voice? Well, you need to win elections for having it. Now they won but he doesn't want to have a voice, instead, he tryied to abolish laws by decree???????
Courts influenced by her? Really? You say that because judges are stopping the DNU all around the country? Well, they are influenced by the National Constitution.
This is the big confusion you have because you see criticism to what Macri is doing like blind K support.
The SC decided against her many times.
She tried to dismiss the Prosecutor Campagnolli for starting illigally the Hotesur case (he had no competency) and she failed at the dismissal trial.
You are missing the point. There is not a natural right regarding to remove k from the other powers of the State because, then, he is attacking the Republic. He is doing political persecution...it doesn't sound very democratic.
The changes I critize are regarding to change the Republic by a autocracy: dictatorship. If you read Fontevechia today at Perfil, he call it monarchy.
You complain about people with no voice? Well, you need to win elections for having it. Now they won but he doesn't want to have a voice, instead, he tryied to abolish laws by decree???????
Courts influenced by her? Really? You say that because judges are stopping the DNU all around the country? Well, they are influenced by the National Constitution.
This is the big confusion you have because you see criticism to what Macri is doing like blind K support.
wineguy999
Registered
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,310
- Likes
- 1,802
El Queso: You didn't really expect intelligent, balanced discourse, did you?
Bajo, you were missing my point. I don't say that Macri is right in the legal sense. I'm not even sure if he's right in the moral sense, and probably he's not ethically (when discussing purely the law, at any rate).
Cristina has a strong hand in the judicial review organization. At least one judge was removed from her corruption case earlier this year and last year a judge was punished by the judicial council for investigating her - if I recall correctly via her party's majority on the judicial council. A programmer was set upon by AFIP for talking about his worries about the balloting system. She didn't talk to the press (it's not her decision to make whether or not she likes what the press says), she never worried about talking and working with anyone who wasn't within her ideology or opposed her in any way (including many Peronistas, supposedly of which hers was "the representative" branch, throwing away supporters like Massa because even they knew she was going too far). She refused to honor contracts with foreign investors, making up reasons not to pay them instead of being honest and saying "we can't pay and continue to do the stupid things we want to do, so screw you." She was not a voice of democracy, though she was using the tools of democracy to achieve her ends.
You're going to tell me that Cristina didn't "politically persecute" anyone? Please.
I stand by my opinion that you clap for everything she did and oppose Macri for trying to force things his way. I'm not saying you're wrong about Macri, I'm saying you are being utterly ingenuous about Cristina, blind the same way you accuse many here of being about Macri. And she didn't run the country well, according to my opinion and a majority of Argentinos.
I simply think that Macri's policies are more correct for a balance than Cristina's, and I agree that they are probably not being as democratically pursued as they should be. But we're in Argentina where someone can say something with a clear exp<b></b>ression of innocence, even though everyone "knows" it's not true, including people talking about the strength of the separation of powers. I'm not excusing Macri for anything - my eyes are wide open. I happen to think his policies are going to be beneficial for more people, including the poor and ignorant, than Cristina's were. We can discuss those at length and without rencor - it's the incessant defending of her means by yourself while slamming Macri for similar politics that makes the whole thing illogical if not farcical.
But I'm a realist. You are a blind follower of Cristina, or so it appears, because you have no words of criticism for how she handled her presidency, even if she had remained completely within the law - and as to the latter, time will tell now that she doesn't have immunity. We'll see how some of these abuse of power and corruption charges go, hopefully once her influence is toned down in the judicial council and other places.
So if you want to argue, quit saying we're blind "clappers", unless you include yourself in that set of people, though for the opposition. Argue like a real lawyer should, dispassionately, against both sides, don't take sides and claim your side is as pure as the driven snow while only the other side is dirty.
Cristina has a strong hand in the judicial review organization. At least one judge was removed from her corruption case earlier this year and last year a judge was punished by the judicial council for investigating her - if I recall correctly via her party's majority on the judicial council. A programmer was set upon by AFIP for talking about his worries about the balloting system. She didn't talk to the press (it's not her decision to make whether or not she likes what the press says), she never worried about talking and working with anyone who wasn't within her ideology or opposed her in any way (including many Peronistas, supposedly of which hers was "the representative" branch, throwing away supporters like Massa because even they knew she was going too far). She refused to honor contracts with foreign investors, making up reasons not to pay them instead of being honest and saying "we can't pay and continue to do the stupid things we want to do, so screw you." She was not a voice of democracy, though she was using the tools of democracy to achieve her ends.
You're going to tell me that Cristina didn't "politically persecute" anyone? Please.
I stand by my opinion that you clap for everything she did and oppose Macri for trying to force things his way. I'm not saying you're wrong about Macri, I'm saying you are being utterly ingenuous about Cristina, blind the same way you accuse many here of being about Macri. And she didn't run the country well, according to my opinion and a majority of Argentinos.
I simply think that Macri's policies are more correct for a balance than Cristina's, and I agree that they are probably not being as democratically pursued as they should be. But we're in Argentina where someone can say something with a clear exp<b></b>ression of innocence, even though everyone "knows" it's not true, including people talking about the strength of the separation of powers. I'm not excusing Macri for anything - my eyes are wide open. I happen to think his policies are going to be beneficial for more people, including the poor and ignorant, than Cristina's were. We can discuss those at length and without rencor - it's the incessant defending of her means by yourself while slamming Macri for similar politics that makes the whole thing illogical if not farcical.
But I'm a realist. You are a blind follower of Cristina, or so it appears, because you have no words of criticism for how she handled her presidency, even if she had remained completely within the law - and as to the latter, time will tell now that she doesn't have immunity. We'll see how some of these abuse of power and corruption charges go, hopefully once her influence is toned down in the judicial council and other places.
So if you want to argue, quit saying we're blind "clappers", unless you include yourself in that set of people, though for the opposition. Argue like a real lawyer should, dispassionately, against both sides, don't take sides and claim your side is as pure as the driven snow while only the other side is dirty.
Pensador
Registered
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,762
- Likes
- 1,104
Bajos mind is gone the propaganda has taken full effect he is incapable of any serious analytical processing. He perceives deception as truth, corruption as righteousness and worse there is little hope anything will ever improve his condition.
scotttswan
Registered
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2010
- Messages
- 3,715
- Likes
- 3,542
