Far Right Presidential Candidate Wins in Argentina

[Dark_Ansem]

That’s why talking to you is, in my estimation, a waste of time. Don’t bother, we’re not going to have a debate.

that's been well established with you, years ago. Amazing how being a mod means you're free to ignore your own rules.

Three different people from three different countries and three different walks of life read what you had to say and all three walked away thinking you said something different.

"That's No Reason To Cry. One Cries Because One Is Sad. For Example, I Cry Because Others Are Stupid And It Makes Me Sad." (cit) Three people eh? if the "quality" of said people matches yours, it adds to X <1.

He can call his government a unicorn for all the difference it makes

The "Romeo and Juliet point", indeed. Or the "if it walks like duck" one, in any case, most argentinians are in for a rude awakening. The ones who voted for him fully consciously despite the crazy antics like thinking a dog to be the reincarnation of a 2000 lost child, I'm sure, will be delighted.

 

[Foxi4]

*Big bowl of carbonara*

You can stop responding to me now. We literally had a separate conversation trying to figure out what you meant. I don’t plan on using a Rosetta Stone every time you post something. I’ll answer the question for you - what @RetroGen meant was the anti-vaccine mandate sentiment of the drivers, among other things he listed as misinformed. He answered the question he was asked and specified what he meant. The moment has passed, it’s clear you didn’t understand the question, unlike everybody else in the thread.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

You can stop responding to me now.

You can add me to your ignore list, if it bothers you so much.

*coping and seething*

I understood it perfectly and gave a correct answer, but your usual self moved the goalposts. You didn't think it was useful, tough luck for you. as I said, it was absolutely clear what the truck drivers were about, as it had not been a secret in worldwide news. Maybe you don't read, but others do. Now please stop derailing the thread and stick to answering questions addressing you directly.

 

[Foxi4]

You can add me to your ignore list, if it bothers you so much.

I understood it perfectly and gave a correct answer, but your usual self moved the goalposts. as I said, it was absolutely clear what the truck drivers were about. Maybe you don't read, but others do. Now please stop derailing the thread and stick to answering questions addressing you directly.

Unfortunately, reading your posts is part of my job. I don’t have the luxury of ignoring you. I do suggest using your scroll wheel, reading what you had to say and reflecting on how you phrase things. The Dunning-Kruger effect might be hitting you a little hard.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

*projection and self-titillation*

Medice, cura te ipsum.

 

[Foxi4]

That's why reasonable people can agree that power shouldn't be concentrated into the hands of just a select few, nor should political power be wielded without oversight. Cutting government down to just himself and a few of his closest buddies is like advertising with a neon sign that he plans to engage in corruption.

Point, counterpoint. From what I understand, Milei is not interested in seizing more power by shutting down certain ministries, which is what your post seems to suggest. You say he’s “concentrating power in fewer hands”, but that’s not his intention. The whole point of “afuera” is not that he wants to have jurisdiction over everything those ministries currently govern and oversee, the point is that he believes the government has no business getting involved in any of those facets of life. That’s a textbook small government libertarian position.

 

[tabzer]

I'm really amused by the idea that mods like veho and gay twink foreva are going to cut me off for this. Maybe they do care.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

@Xzi mind if I join the conversation, whnever Milei does something immoral, unconstitutional or illiterate? Asking to avoid hurting the fragile sensitivity of some other users

 

[Foxi4]

I'm really amused by the idea that mods like veho and gay twink foreva are going to cut me off for this.

Admittedly we went a little off-topic for about one page, but mostly due to the unexpected mass confusion causing some brain fog rather than due to something you’ve said. I think you’re safe in this instance, if anything, that page might get eventually nuked now that we’ve drilled down to the core of the issue and discovered what the purported misinformation was. At this stage there’s no point in doing further call-backs to that subject unless @sarkwalvein has something to add. As far as I’m concerned, it’s generally good to counteract the negative effects of a health crisis, however doing so by violating people’s bodily integrity is antithetical to the concept of liberty. The government can encourage healthy life choices, but it shouldn’t coerce its citizens to take them - that’s authoritarianism. People aren’t cattle, they have the freedom to make choices regarding their own health, including bad ones. We can safely return to discussing Argentina, Milei and maybe even circle back to Macri (whom we’ve already discussed a few pages back, but *some* users missed it).

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Some users did notice Macri was discussed some users also noticed, and said, that Macri's disasters were whitewashed/downright re-interpreted since some *other* users argued Macri didn't go far enough with his disastrous policies.

 

[Foxi4]

@Xzi mind if I join the conversation, whnever Milei does something immoral, unconstitutional or illiterate? Asking to avoid hurting the fragile sensitivity of some other users

You misunderstand the point of contention (again). You’re welcome to comment on anything you like. You can’t answer questions on behalf of other users. Allow me to explain with an example.

When someone says “apples aren’t very healthy”, that’s a general statement. You can roll straight in and give a counterpoint - “actually, apples are full of vitamin C, they’re high in fiber and contain anti-oxidants, so I think they’re rather healthy”. What you *can’t* do is respond to a question directed at somebody else. If someone asks “hey John, what do you think about apples?”, you can’t step in on John’s behalf and say that apples are great. The reason you can’t do that is because you’re not John and you don’t know what John thinks about apples. You can *speculate*, but that’s a guess on your part, and it disrupts the flow of conversation because now John has to answer the question *and* address whatever it is you imagined about him. Do you understand?

You don’t need anyone’s permission to participate in the discussion, and never did. You just need to follow basic standards of communication so that people understand what you’re trying to convey. I hope that tied a bow on this entire misunderstanding.

Some users did notice Macri was discussed some users also noticed, and said, that Macri's disasters were whitewashed/downright re-interpreted since some *other* users argued Macri didn't go far enough with his disastrous policies.

You didn’t notice. In fact, you explicitly said nobody brought it up. I can quote it.

It is interesting how no one has mentioned that the financial and economic crisis of argentina was not, in fact, a fault of progressive governments, but a fault of Macri's administration. so why argentinians thought someone even more deranged and further on right could fix it, is in fact a mystery.

You’re now backtracking because you did as I asked and scrolled up. I appreciate that, you’re now caught up. Let’s continue talking about Argentina going forward.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

You can’t answer questions on behalf of other users

"Hole in one" (cit).

I was just testing your (unfounded) assertion that I am so incomprehensible or unreasonable to speak with. But lo and behold, you did so, and with moderate tone too!

You didn’t notice. In fact, you explicitly said nobody brought it up.

What I said was that nobody brought up that the current mess was/is his fault - it was brought up that somehow 20 years of socialist policies were instead to blame. I am free to disagree, am I not? Minority view clearly but even so.

You don’t need anyone’s permission to participate in the discussion, and never did. You just need to follow basic standards of communication so that people understand what you’re trying to convey. I hope that tied a bow on this entire misunderstanding.

I appreciate your apology, as you said we can move back to discussing Argentina, even if my question about Canada still needs an answer.

 

[Foxi4]

"Hole in one" (cit).

I was just testing your (unfounded) assertion that I am so incomprehensible or unreasonable to speak with. But lo and behold, you did so, and with moderate

Whether you participate in the discussion or not is not for him to decide. I’m not answering on his behalf - he is yet to tell you whether he personally minds you joining in or not. I can’t answer that because I’m not him. I can only alleviate some of the confusion which still seems to linger, not sure why.

What I said was that nobody brought up that the current mess was/is his fault - it was brought up that somehow 20 years of socialist policies were instead to blame. I am free to disagree, am I not? Minority view clearly but even so.

Thank you for clarifying, your post made it seem like you completely ignored a large section of this discussion. I’ll assume you haven’t as you claim and pay a little good will forward. Most people would argue that Argentina has been in a sorry state for many years, decades even. Putting the blame squarely on one government is counterproductive. Some things done by Macri caused a measurable improvement, for instance lifting capital controls. Other measures were ineffective or caused negative effects. The bigger point here is that the boat’s been sinking for a while, and Macri didn’t drill the hole - he was trying to patch it, with limited success.

I appreciate your apology, as you said we can move back to discussing Argentina, even if my question about Canada still needs an answer.

I don’t know how you read that as an apology, but if it helps you stay civil then sure, knock yourself out. If you have any other pending queries I’m sure they’ll be answered in due course.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I don’t know how you read that as an apology, but if it helps you stay civil then sure, knock yourself out.

You should, it's the same way you read some of my posts

The bigger point here is that the boat’s been sinking for a while, and Macri didn’t drill the hole - he was trying to patch it, with limited success.

This is where we differ (in this instance): in my view he didn't patch, but made the hole worse. Whether he meant to, as usual economic vandalism of the right, or was just inadequate, only he knows.

 

[Foxi4]

You should, it's the same way you read some of my posts

This is where we differ (in this instance): in my view he didn't patch, but made the hole worse. Whether he meant to, as usual economic vandalism of the right, or was just inadequate, only he knows.

I have an article by one of your favourite think tanks discussing just this very issue.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/lessons-learned-from-the-argentine-economy-under-macri/

Lifting controls was by far the most successful element of the plan and caused the peso to stabilise. Argentina failed to implement effective long-term disinflation strategies - their program was halted in 2018 after showing significant promise, and they reversed course. They’ve also amassed debt since Macri’s departure, so the same approach probably wouldn’t work now even more so than in the past, or at least not as well. According to the article, Macri didn’t go far enough with the policies he initially pursued (which is what I said).

EDIT: Before we get into another “muh think tank” debacle, as we tend to do, Brookings is characterised as non-partisan and *my* side considers them left-leaning.

 

[RetroGen]

I appreciate your apology, as you said we can move back to discussing Argentina, even if my question about Canada still needs an answer.

Been an NDP supporter for most of my life. My province has an NDP government. NDP is center-left, and has implemented a number of laws/policies that help regular citizens rather than cater to the wealthy and corporations, though capitalism remains very much alive here. What we don't see is the legislated marginalization of LGBTQ+ people like in other provinces. Still, they are merely the nearest party to my personal values, not a perfect fit. Jack Layton came closest to winning federally in 2011, but died shortly thereafter; the NDP has never formed a federal government, though they do have a significant impact on the current minority parliament and have been responsible for things like implementing universal dental care. Provincially, NDP governments have historically been more fiscally responsible than rightwing governments (e.g. provincial debt). Blame Canada!

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Before we get into another “muh think tank” debacle, as we tend to do, Brookings is characterised as non-partisan and *my* side considers them left-leaning.

I'm well aware, but isn't the author of that article the guy in charge of the central bank of Argentina during Macri rule? Heck the author of the report that was summarised?

I had rately heard of them and they seem to be really super partes.

Blame Canada!

Thank you, but... why?

 

[RetroGen]

Thank you, but... why?

We're really sorry. Just blame us. I apologize on behalf of Canada.

Now, let's get back to turning Argentina into a Austrian school playground!

 

[Foxi4]

I'm well aware, but isn't the author of that article the guy in charge of the central bank of Argentina during Macri rule?

It’s a summary of a paper written by the former Governor of Argentina’s Central Bank. By reversing course mid-way through recovery, Macri’s government went directly against the Central Bank’s recommendations. They shouldn’t have done that, and the paper lists that as one of the failures of the administration. Had they stayed the course and powered through, the results would’ve been very different.

 

[RetroGen]

You are afraid of the outcome of standing up for liberty? It's possible that conservatives are trying to leverage it, but it feels like you've surrendered.

Liberty is complex, not singular. There are all sorts of possible liberties. A nation with freedom from vaccine mandates, along with the criminalization of abortion and/or homosexuality and/or the banning of teaching evolution and climate science in schools, might be a rightwing paradise, but not anywhere I want to live. Pick your poison, hill to die on, etc.... Generally speaking, rightwing parties reduce civil liberties, except for the religious and other privileged groups. Vaccine mandates are not the hill I'm willing to die on, not considering all of the deleterious effects of the people who are against them running the country, people who are generally either ignorant of, or dismissive of, science and critical thinking.

Post automatically merged: Dec 17, 2023

Sorry for another sidetrack, but this is too good not to share....