I can't be wrong about something I didn't say. I didn't say it's too bad the constitution doesn't regulate dictators, I said "...there is no system of appointing a temporary dictator in Argentina..".
In fact, even without having read very much of the constitution, I knew there would be no way that it would allow the appointment of a temporary dictator (what I was talking about, a la Rome) and knew as well that the very document itself had restrictions to prevent a dictator. How well that document and its interpretation by the legal class of professionals does to prevent someone like Cristina telling lies and using power and influence to stack the "democratic" decks is an iindication of how strong the institutions of democracy are or aren't in this country. On this we seem to have differing opinions, and I can understand that. You, after all, are a lawyer who makes his living using the law to get what you want, working within the system, with no judgement of whether it's right or wrong, at least professionally. Myself, and many millions of others, are completely at the whim of lawyers and politicians who aren't concerned about esoteric concepts like democracy and justice, but rather what the law can do for them as lady justice peeks under the blindfolds.
And as explained in another post, when you thought I was calling Macri a dictator, I was being tongue-in-cheek about it anyway. Even while understanding and admiring a system where the people in charge (in ancient Rome) could count on giving so much power to one person to fix things and expect them to give it up. All except Caesar - but it only takes one, doesn't it? And even though Caesar wasn't successful for very long in Rome, considering his goals, his great-nephew Octavius (er, pardon, Augustus!) sure was and look how that changed the political landscape of Rome from that point forward. Thank god Maximo (in this time and place) didn't succeed his mother...
While what Cristina did to the economy and the workers of Argentina (to say the least), except for those few she exalted to greater heights than others, may not be considered sufficient for being a traitor, she sure was incompetent (at least for accomplishing her stated goals, such as they were, and as much as she bounced around and reacted instead of planning, without killing growth and keeping people employed by hiring them in the government), though I suppose that's not a crime under high treason articles. We'll see what comes to light in the following months and years of investigations and see if there's anything else she may end up in jail for. Her and the people she surrounded herself with.
As I mentioned in my previous posts, she may not have been a dictator, but she sure was a wanna-be at least.
And until Macri seizes control of the country, until the courts simply bow to everything he does, until congress gives him full powers by voting everything he wants (including a change to the constitution, obviously), neither is Macri a dictator. Wanna-be at most
