Welcome To The Dictatorship Of Happiness

[ben]

When Berlusconi started his campaign in 1994, most of the people thought "Why do the richest many of our country needs to step into politics if not to mind his own business?". I wonder why here nobody wonders why a billionaire would make the people's interest and not his.

Nonetheless, Berlusconi was voted (repeatedly) and the only explanation I can find for this is that capitalism sells because at the beginning everybody thinks they could be part of that rich 1%. This happened in the US, as well, and the results are before us.

I don't know Macri or his family, but rumors has it his father was not exactly a man of the law. I hope he will prove himself good.

Legend has it that Macri decided to get involved in politics after his abduction. That makes some sense. It also jives with the way the man talks and behaves.

Regarding the point of this thread, note that when Macri takes a questionable step, everybody expresses concern, including the evil Clarin. The whole argument here is whether the step he took is concerning but justifiable (nuanced view), or that he is attempting to become a dictator (hysterical view). Nobody says "OK, that's cool".

The nuanced view is not difficult to articulate: Macri was elected with a mandate to get things done, not to follow every last traffic law and get nowhere. There is a fine line between ignoring the law and democratic institutions on the one hand, and acting within those limits but pushing them as much as necessary to get things done on the other hand. And with the opposition he faces in the Congress, he will definitely have to push stuff. Knowing that he is willing to use executive power, and will not be a docile lamb, will certainly help advance his agenda with the Congress as well, so that he can get things done with congressional support as well. This is exactly what happened with Vanoli's futures business: first everyone screamed "He's going to default, he's crazy, he doesn't care for institutions!" and two days later, there seems to be a deal done.

To take what he's done here and say "that's concerning, that bears watching", as Queso said so eloquently, is to be rational and fair. To scream, at this point, "OK, it's settled - he's a dictator", is to admit to having a clear agenda, and a willingness to use any facts to fit that narrative.

 

[syngirl]

When Berlusconi started his campaign in 1994, most of the people thought "Why do the richest many of our country needs to step into politics if not to mind his own business?". I wonder why here nobody wonders why a billionaire would make the people's interest and not his.

Nonetheless, Berlusconi was voted (repeatedly) and the only explanation I can find for this is that capitalism sells because at the beginning everybody thinks they could be part of that rich 1%. This happened in the US, as well, and the results are before us.

I don't know Macri or his family, but rumors has it his father was not exactly a man of the law. I hope he will prove himself good.

Actually here a lot of people take the opinion that Macri is already wealthy and isn`t in it for the money. Supposedly he only drew a salary of about 5000 pesos a month when working for the city and donated it. Not sure what will be the case as president.

 

[nicoenarg]

...the only explanation I can find for this is that capitalism sells because at the beginning everybody thinks they could be part of that rich 1%. This happened in the US, as well, and the results are before us.

That's like saying "Socialism works because everybody in the beginning thinks they won't have to work and the government will take care of all their needs...".

I don't know anyone who supported Macri who thinks they can all of a sudden become part of the 1% (probably because its a meaningless term and no one can even define what the heck they mean when they say 1%) or that there's going to be anything resembling capitalism in Argentina. Anyone who's lived in the capital knows that Macri is anything but a "capitalist" or a "right wing" politician (again, whatever the heck those terms mean).

 

[Girino]

Serafina, Macri isn't a billionaire as you've stated a few times. Trump is a billionaire, Macri is a millionaire, at least according to his financial declaration of 2012.
http://www.lanacion....si-us7-millones

This is the first time I ever mention his being a billionaire, someone else did. I don't know nothing about Macri, I don't have television, I barely read (biased) Argentine newspapers and I am not very interested in politics.

 

[Girino]

Actually here a lot of people take the opinion that Macri is already wealthy and isn`t in it for the money. Supposedly he only drew a salary of about 5000 pesos a month when working for the city and donated it. Not sure what will be the case as president.

Definitely politicians don't make their big money by sitting offices.

 

[scotttswan]

I'd be interested to know what Bajo thinks about the judges themselves.

 

[glasgowjohn]

I'd be interested to know what Bajo thinks about the judges themselves.

Even though their CVs look sound , he would not admit it.

A couple of pages ago he said that Gils Carbo was independent....

 

[EdRooney]

I agree with Ejcot: you people seem to misunderstand the site rules. You may choose from either of the following positions:

A. Macri good/CFK bad​

or​

B. CFK good/Macri bad​

Please stop confusing us with doubts viz. ( A ) and ( B ).

 

[EJLarson]

I agree with Ejcot: you people seem to misunderstand the site rules. You may choose from either of the following positions:

A. Macri good/CFK bad​

or​

B. CFK good/Macri bad​

Please stop confusing us with doubts viz. ( A ) and ( B ).

But isn't it true that these rules can be modified by Decree?

(No, what am I saying? That could only happen in a dictatorship. A or B - that's it!)

 

[AmigoArtistico]

I'd be interested to know what Bajo thinks about the judges themselves.

I wouldn't.