MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Cristina Fernandez just manages to obtain the most votes in Buenos Aires Province Senate primary
Argentina ex-president Cristina Fernandez group “Citizens' Unity” obtained a significant 34.27% of votes cast in the August 13 PASO primary (open, simultaneous and mandatory) in the province of Buenos Aires to choose Senate candidates for the October 22 midterm election, according to the definitive vote count. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesIt would appear there are more than a handful that haven't learned a thing about CF and how she does things.....
Aug 30th, 2017 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse +2“Cristina Fernandez, who faces several corruption and treason cases”
Aug 30th, 2017 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse +1Treason? WTH Mercopress?
Quite a difference--in fact, a reverse--from the results publicized by the Macri administration on election night. With little recourses, her own new organization and most of the dominant media constantly spreading rumours and fabrications, CFK heated the odds and showed she remains a powerhouse in Argentina politics.
Aug 30th, 2017 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Cristina was the queen of Malvinizar.
Aug 30th, 2017 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Critics of the Argentine government’s strategies and rhetoric toward the islands have coined a new verb – malvinizar – to describe how the claim for and memory of the Malvinas is used simply to divert attention away from more serious domestic socio-economic challenges .
And didn't Cristina call the Falkland Islanders ''squatters'' and doubted that they had ''rights'' ? when she was having one of her many rants against the Islanders?
Falklands – Usurpation & UN Resolutions (single page): https://www.academia.edu/21721198/Falklands_1833_Usurpation_and_UN_Resolutions
Ah well...
It's well known that CFK was proactive in seeking the restitution of Islas Malvinas, whereas current president Mauricio Macri seeks to get cozy with countries such as Britain and the U.S.
Aug 30th, 2017 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -7Thus the hopeful MP headline with the “just” qualifier, the convenient use of the word “corrupt” for the Buenos Aires province (which would explain CFK's win, right?) and the use of plural for what's one single and highly problematic accusation of “treason” to Cristina.
However, it would be risky for Islanders to cheer for Macri, an opportunist if there ever was one, who may change course at any time if he feels it can boost his image with the electors.
So she really has been accused of treason? What is that all about?
Aug 30th, 2017 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +2And I don't think the final result makes much difference, except for propaganda. It was already obvious it could go either way in October and the recount does not change that.
From the islanders' point of view there is probably not much difference between the two; CFK threatened and mostly did not deliver, Macri promised and mostly hasn't delivered. But for myself I would rather have Macri as he is a lot more serious about trade and investment. There would be no chance of any trade deals with Mercosur for either the EU or UK if CFK was still in charge.
Right, the difference is roughly 20 thousand votes. Not a particularly huge margin.
Aug 30th, 2017 - 04:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Reekio,
Aug 30th, 2017 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Quite a difference--in fact, a reverse--from the results publicized by the Macri administration on election night.”
This is what MercoPress said: “At 03: 00 Monday morning with 90% of polling stations counted there was a technical tie with the resurgent ex populist president Cristina Fernandez.” Everything else I saw said that the result was too close to call but it didn't look like CFK was going to have the clear victory she wanted.
Now, can you explain to me why you believe that a victory by a margin of 0.21% is quite different, indeed a reverse from, “a technical tie”? They seem the same to me!
Stop inventing fake facts to fit with your conspiracy theory.
The fact is that CFK didn't win by the several % that she (and you) wanted so you are deflecting with nonsense about the early predictions because you don't like the final result.
Here is a summary of the timeline if it helps you:
Reekie: “CFK is going to win easily”
Macri and the rest of the world: “We think it is going to be close”
Result: It was close.
Reekie: “No, but, no, but, when you said it was going to be close, I wasn't happy and now that this has been confirmed as the final result I am going to pretend that you said something else so I can complain about it because I don't like facts that contradict my irrational beliefs”.
“Macri and the rest of the world.” O-M-G!
Aug 31st, 2017 - 03:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Zaphod has grown a Macri lover!
Fact is, Zaphod, that Cambiemos was celebrating a big win on election night as they counted in such a way as to present seven points advantage at TV prime time, and only later on the results began getting closer and stopped just before parity, leaving a slight advantage to Bullrich for 16 days. For Macri and acolytes, marketing and image is everything and that's why they worked out that ridiculous maneuver--and Argentines know it even if the marketing machine now attempts to minimize Cristina's results as a win for “a handful of votes.”
The other minimizing tactic is to now say this election is “not the good one.”
No matter what anyone says, the “best team of the last 50 years” is pretty much in trouble with a 35 per cent as it heads to the mid-terms. Most other presidencies did over 40 per cent in mid term.
@ Demon Tree
Aug 31st, 2017 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +1http://en.mercopress.com/2015/01/15/argentine-president-accused-of-covering-up-iran-s-role-in-buenos-aires-deadly-attack
Oh, so the 'treason' was the Nisman thing? What do you think about that, Malvinense?
Aug 31st, 2017 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -1@DT
Aug 31st, 2017 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -2The “treason” accusation is based on Central Bank decision during the CFK government to fix a value to the “dolar future” that did not anticipate a devaluation.
Once the Macri government was in place, it proceed to devalue by about 40 per cent by letting the dollar float, which made the state lose a large sum of money. Judge Claudio Bonadio estimated that, although the Central Bank operated at arms length, CFK must've been involved in the dollar future decision, hence the accusation of “treason.”
CFK has said in her defense that her government could not have anticipated a devaluation. In the final stages of his campaign, Macri emphatically denied he was planning a devaluation. For the dollar future decision by the CFK government to hurt the country, therefore, a decision to devalue was required--which Macri did.
Once the investigation started, however, it hit a roadblock: those who made significant profits from the dollar future scheme were officials of the Macri government, as well as corporations such as the Clarin Group. So far, we haven't heard about any CFK government official having made money that way and Cristina has called for investigators to find out about it.
That is why this process is being kept on the back burner just to keep alive the notion that “CFK would have committed treason” and at the same time won't advance to a stage where those who made big bucks with the operation are called to testify in court.
A shrewd move by a “useful” judge.
@EM
Aug 31st, 2017 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +2I found Argentina's constitution in English here: http://www.biblioteca.jus.gov.ar/argentina-constitution.pdf and it says:
“Section 119.- Treason against the Nation shall only consist in rising in arms against it, or in joining its enemies, supplying them with aid and assistance.”
And then there is some stuff about the penalty. I'm pretty sure overvaluing dollar futures does not qualify as treason. If her own friends and family had made money from it, then it might be ordinary corruption, but that does not seem to be the case. This charge seems to be a frivolous one, since 'making bad decisions as President' is not and shouldn't be a crime.
The deal with Iran seems much closer to the definition, but has she actually been charged with anything?
“The deal with Iran seems much closer to the definition, but has she actually been charged with anything?”
Aug 31st, 2017 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Ignore Kamerad/Komrade Rique's lame attempt to deflect away from the real issue. If you'll recall, she had the prosecutor assassinated the night before he was to present the indictment against her over the collusion with Iran...
http://www.thebubble.com/cristina-implicated-in-leaked-audio-clips-bad-mouthing-massa-stolbizer/
Note that she and her intelligence chief both agree that Nisman's assassination is the most serious thing facing them...and she has never been charged. Hardly the words of innocent individuals.
@Reekie
Aug 31st, 2017 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“With little recourses, her own new organization and most of the dominant media constantly spreading rumours and fabrications,...”
Presume you mean “resources”....something I doubt she has 'little' of, after all the millions she stole.....what she does have little of, if any at all, is honesty and decency... But according to you, it's all fabrications by the press....just like her 'pal' Lula...the most honest man Brazil has ever known. All the same crap.
But keep on supporting her, seems you want Argentina to sink further. As long as she's around, her followers will keep on sabotaging any attempt to get the country back on track.
@DT
Sep 01st, 2017 - 06:39 am - Link - Report abuse -4I respect your pursuit of multiple sources, which has allowed you get closer to frame CFK's “treason case.”
I respect you because even if you stated your preference for president Macri over CKF--you keep your intellectual honesty.
I can't say the same of IY and JB, who have let anger get the best of them, losing every little piece of common sense they may have left before the election results finally came out.
”The millions (CFK) stole,“ parrots our esteemed JB. Well, I think JB gives a bit too much credit to Clarin or similar garbage press, leaving on the way considerations about the principle of 'innocent 'till proven guilty.” JB may not know that Cristina has some legal cases open by not-Kirchnerist judges, but evidence has yet to be found (even after they brought excavators to look for the bounty).
And then comes imoyaro, who very “courageously” attributes to CFK the assassination of a man whose death was labelled “suspicious” but where the investigation over 2.5 years has been unable to either rule out suicide or establish murder.
Talk is cheap.
@Reekie
Sep 01st, 2017 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Esteemed EM, please note anger hasn't got any part of me, far less the best. The election results have nothing to do with CFK having stolen millions.....how do you think she and her cross-eyed hubbie became rich ? it wasn't because they were nice, honest people, but because they took advantage of nice, honest and unlucky people.
Regarding Nisman's death, it was under extremely suspicious conditions, and the only person who had any interest in silencing him was CFK...and wouldn't put it above CFK, as president, to obstruct the investigation from behind the scenes and have evidence destroyed ....so while it seems that now no-one can prove she's guilty, neither can she prove she's innocent...and luckily for her, she doesn't have to.
Personally I think it's highly unlikely that CFK ordered Nisman's death, although obviously SOMETHING dodgy was going on there.
Sep 01st, 2017 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +1As for the corruption cases, we'll have to wait and see what evidence they can find. CFK standing for the senate should have given them a reason to hurry them up, but nothing seems to have happened so far.
@JB
Sep 02nd, 2017 - 06:39 am - Link - Report abuse -3Pretty low-style to use physical shortcomings to attack a politician.
And your argument that the Kirchners become rich therefore they must've stolen is irremediably amateurish, you probably know it, but you are obviously not afraid of being a lousy accuser.
As for Nisman, Cristina was the last person to want him dead; on the contrary, she was very interested to see him supporting his lousy accusation in front a Congressional committee.
The ones who needed Nisman dead were his friends, who desperately wanted to mud Cristina any way they could and were the last ones to profusely call the poor prosecutor the day before his dead body was found.
Now you can say this is all speculation and that is true--however, my speculation is at least as good as yours.
And unfortunately, the justice system hasn't produced any answers until this day because the most probable conclusion is not liked by those in power.
Reekio,
Sep 02nd, 2017 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“my speculation is at least as good as yours”
That is not true. Let us compare the speculation:
Jack Bauer: “...the only person who had any interest in silencing him was CFK”
You: “Cristina was the last person to want him dead; ...The ones who needed Nisman dead were his friends”
The fact is, Nisman was about to present his case against CFK. So Jack's explanation is both reasonable and simple. Your explanation is both more convoluted and less reasonable. You are actually claiming that Nisman's friends wanted him dead!
The principle of Ocam's razor shows that Jack's speculation is simpler than yours and is therefore a better explanation.
Add in the fact that Jack's one step is inherently more believable that either of your two steps and your speculation is clearly not as good as his.
Occam's razor can also be applied to other theories. Which of these do you think is the simplest explanation?
Argentina's historically poor economy is due to:
1. A track record of poor government and corruption, or
2. A combination of a conspiracy of the rest of the world against Argentina, bad luck, poor weather, Macri, the Falklands, Jeremy Clarkson, Donald Drumpf, Andrew Lloyd Webber, good weather, MercoPress, Theresa May, WW2, a failure to worship CFK, friends killing Nisman, early election result reporting,... etc. (we could go through your messages and pull out your list of excuses if we could be bothered)?
Seriously, the simplest explanations are usually the best.
@EM
Sep 02nd, 2017 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My heart bleeds for Mr. Kirchner….Having been a public figure, he is open to all sorts of attacks…and his “physical shortcomings” don’t seem to have hampered his or his beloved wife’s capacity to steal. What is “irremediable”, is my conviction that the K couple were/are crooks.
As for Nisman’s death, she sure put on a good act – managed to convince the not-too-bright that she preferred to see him accuse her in front of a Congressional committee – and after his death, who’s going to prove the contrary ? And you think his friends wanted him dead ? nice conspiracy theory.
Just one more crime that will go unsolved, and CFK gets the benefit of the doubt.
“the only person who had any interest in silencing him was CFK”
Sep 03rd, 2017 - 12:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is clearly not true. Whoever really carried out the Amia bombing, as well as anyone who doesn't want the truth to come out, had an interest in silencing the man investigating it. And for someone who wants to hide the truth, having Nisman accuse a powerful public figure and then making sure he is not around to back up his accusations both stops the investigation now and massively clouds the issue going forward. If the people concerned are also opposed to CFK then throwing suspicion on her is just a bonus.
From what I have seen, Nisman's case against CFK was really not very convincing, which is what makes me doubt that the most obvious explanation is true.
@JB
“Having been a public figure, he is open to all sorts of attacks”
Sure he is, but his eyes are irrelevant to how good a job he did as President or whether he and his wife were stealing. If you object to things he did then criticise him for that. I seriously doubt you would care about his 'physical shortcomings' if you thought he was a good president, so why bring it up?
@DT
Sep 03rd, 2017 - 04:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let's put it this way : “she may not have been the only one, but she was one of those that wanted Nisman silenced”...which means, there was just as much chance that she ordered the hit, as someone else...what seems to be hard to believe is that she was not involved ....and I'm not buying the the suicide theory. By what I read, Nisman had enough evidence to make CFK uncomfortable.
Regarding Mr. Kirchner, I agree, his eyes are irrelevant to his stealing - and I never said they were - and I don't think he was a good president. As to why I brought it up, it's because I felt like it....I am not particularly interested in being politically correct, especially with people I don't respect.
Reekie, As you are soooo clever how did the Kirchners make sooo much money? You know and I know that to get on in Argentina you have to take bribes and the population know it and it is accepted as being part of the system.
Sep 03rd, 2017 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I am not particularly interested in being politically correct”
Sep 03rd, 2017 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I can tell. I am, and I do it for the people I DO respect. Because there are plenty of innocent people who are cross eyed or whatever, and picking on someone I hate for that reason is the same as picking on them. They may or may not care, but I don't want to insult someone I respect. If I'm going to insult someone, I want them to know I mean it and I want them to know exactly what I object to. ;)
Anyway, from what I saw, Nisman's evidence was not all that convincing. For example, he said CFK agreed with the Iranians to remove the Interpol red notices in exchange for trade deals, but according to Interpol they were never asked to remove them. And there were a lot of wiretaps that seemed pretty ambiguous. It seems unlikely he would have a serious chance of convicting her, and his death only increased the publicity the accusations got, so how did she benefit?
I wasn't expecting you to think Nestor Kirchner was a good president. Was it just the stealing or did he do other things you objected to?
@DT
Sep 03rd, 2017 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Political correctness, interesting topic. People have different degrees of sensitivity, quite normal...but being politically correct, to avoid offending those who are sensitive to almost anything, sounds like it's better to tell a lie than speak one's mind, or that it's ok to be a fraud and pretend you believe in/ agree with something you don't...am not advocating being rude to someone's face for no reason at all. IMO, a lot of the problem stems from the fact that the world has become so full of crap, that PC, which didn't exist years ago, has become the standard.
In certain situations, being sensible is recommended, but when you change who you are to a point of masking what you think, just because someone may not agree with you, makes little sense to me...what’s the point of serious discussion then ? Then there’re people who resort to attacking those who aren't necessarily PC, as if the way they expressed themselves invalidates the argument. By your positions, I’d risk saying you were brought up in the age of PC...I wasn't, so I think slightly differently ; If I ever had the displeasure of running into Lula, I’d tell him straight to his face that he’s a brazen-faced, “9-fingered” crook….Two years I met up again with the current governor of SP, and let him know I had always supported him but that I didn’t like his party’s politics...inhouse fights, lack of firm decisions etc.
Well, as what Nisman had up his sleeve never came to light, we won’t know will we ? but if we can agree that suicide is off the table, then we agree someone, or some group wanted him dead…who and why ?
Quite right I don’t appreciate Kirchner - he was a ‘peronista’, did what Lula did later on in Brazil (swap the IMF loans for internal debt), causing inflation (conveniently masked by INDEC), and besides accusations of corruption (never properly investigated), he did nothing worthy of note…except elect his even more corrupt wife.
“I’d risk saying you were brought up in the age of PC”
Sep 04th, 2017 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes I was. But I don't think it's always a good thing; if you want to reduce racism, or any kind of -ism, then the important thing is to change what people think; what they say will follow. If you focus on language then maybe you can stop people talking about it, but they are basically lying. What good is it if they still think exactly the same as before?
On the other hand, sometimes people say or do things that offend others without realising it, and without even meaning to. Reading old books and seeing how thoughtlessly dismissive people could be, not to mention the awful things they believed, has kind of made me appreciate modern political correctness. Of course it can go too far, there is always someone who gets offended at the slightest thing, but that's what common sense is for.
Anyway, you say you're not advocating being rude to someone's face for no reason; is it okay to be rude behind their back?
Nisman's death could have been suicide, but then someone might have threatened him into doing it. However, if he had something up his sleeve why didn't he make sure there was a copy somewhere safe? He was working with people from the SIDE, and also the FBI and US Embassy, and they surely had their own plans and axes to grind. Here's a couple of interesting articles but nothing conclusive:
http://www.thebubble.com/terrible-tragedy-ripped-fabric-argentina/
www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/death-of-a-prosecutor
As for Nestor, I don't know as much about him as CFK, and maybe you don't either? 'Peronist' doesn't mean all that much; the guy himself never had a coherent philosophy, and there are people with completely different views calling themselves Peronists now. I believe the 'issues' with Indec came later, and the economy did do pretty well during Nestor's presidency, after starting from a VERY low point. Considering some of the other presidents Argentina has had, he really doesn't look that bad.
@DT
Sep 04th, 2017 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You mention racism…if I judge someone, it’s because of their opinions ‘n actions…their color /religion are just mere details which shouldn’t cloud one's judgment. But criticize someone publicly, and if by chance, they are black, you're immediately labelled a racist, and any attempt to clarify becomes irrelevant… absurd, especially because that’s the usual attitude of those who preach tolerance…you’re ok as long as you agree with them ; I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s virtually useless trying to change people’s way of thinking, just based on language…and you have to question the motives, so the question is, what are people trying to change, ‘n why ? is it to attend some minority whose revindications aren’t reasonable ? or is it perhaps to correct some prejudice that has no real basis ? anyway, racism is a two way street, no one race is innocent.
Sure, it’s unfortunate when you make a mistake and offend someone without realizing it, but more than common sense, sometimes a bit of prior information, can avoid such moments. I think that, in general, PC has been taken too far, being used as an excuse to attack people far beyond the measure of their ‘presumed’ offense.
“is it okay to be rude behind their back?”….C’mon DT, you know what I mean….anyway, being rude behind their back won’t have the desired effect, so why bother ?
So you believe Nisman could’ve been “coerced” into killing himself ??? Sounds pretty ludicrous. If there were copies or not of his notes, or whether they were found ‘n destroyed, at this point is all speculation, which leaves us with only our opinions. Both articles too, are just opinions, but if they are nearer to the truth than the rumours at the time, then why was AMIA bombed ?
To someone who saw “peronism’ is its heyday, it means a lot, and a bad lot…a personal cult to Gen. Juan Domingos Peron, a populist buffoon that was the first of a line of disasters which screwed Argentina into being what it is today.
Don't think I have ever been accused like that myself, but I have seen people throw accusations of racism around with little to no evidence, and I think it's stupid for many reasons, not least because it prevents further conversation. On the other hand, I have spoken to people who I honestly believe were being racist, so should I say so in order to be honest, or keep quiet to avoid offending them?
Sep 04th, 2017 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I suppose what people are trying to change is actual racism and other prejudices, but focusing on language is more likely to change the appearance than the reality. Nearly all these things are a lot better now than in the past, but there are certain groups on the left who have become more interested in policing others than doing anything useful; I try to stay away from them.
As for being rude behind people's back, I've heard plenty of people say things, or tell jokes about various minorities, which they wouldn't do if one was in the room. Maybe I have even done it myself. So it's a serious question: if you wouldn't make some comment to a person's face, is it okay to make it when they aren't there?
Nisman had already submitted his accusation before he died, I think with the evidence attached. There's a copy here in English: http://albertonisman.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Nisman_Denuncia_English_.pdf but it's 289 pages. If he had any other evidence, why wouldn't he include it? And I don't know who carried out the AMIA bombing, it certainly could have been Hezbollah on Iran's orders, but there were other terrorist groups around at the time weren't there? What I'd like to know is why the investigation at the time was screwed up so badly, it can't have been simple incompetence.
Honestly, I don't understand why Peronism is still so popular. But I'm not convinced Peron was the first disaster to afflict Argentina. They'd already had a military coup in 1930 and that's not a sign of a stable government. You're only old enough to remember his second
presidency right?
@DT
Sep 05th, 2017 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“…have spoken to people who I believe were racist, so should I say so in order to be honest, or…? “ If u disagree, tell ‘em…why be afraid to offend them ? if you don’t like their beliefs, why care about them ? obviously, if at some important function, someone said something you considered racist, I believe discretion might be the better part of valour.
Being able to speak “openly” abt prejudices or what used to be taboo, tends to open people’s eyes, and could change how they see things, but it’s got to be civil...no violent outbreaks from nuts who preach tolerance, then act anything but…Agree best thing’s to stay away. Wouldn’t be too worried about policing yourself to the extent that all you do is try to be ‘PC’…who hasn’t told / laughed at a joke involving minorities, or even non-minorities ? what abt the English taking the piss out of the Irish ? the Americans, w/ the Polish? or the Brazilians, w/ the Portuguese ? The problem is when you systematically harp on the same theme, and to a certain extent, lose control over what you blurt out…Re gossip, or speaking badly of others, think it depends whether the reason is to hurt a person or if it’s just the incapacity to keep your mouth shut abt what doesn’t really concern you. Mostly, it boils down to common sense.
We’ll never know what Nisman might have divulged at the Congressional meeting, and rgdg the AMIA bombing, while it probably was the Hezbollah, the question is why, and who inside the government, supported it.
At the end of WWII, Arg had huge credits with the British, and while Peron, who admired Mussolini’s dictatorship, actually made improvements in social & labour areas, in a populist move he nationalized railroads, telephone, electric & oil companies, the concessions of which would have expired shortly. Accdg to family that remained in BA after 1950, and from my own experience when visiting, I could see that things were falling apart at the seams, but many only remembered the good times.
“why be afraid to offend them”
Sep 05th, 2017 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Because it doesn't do any good. They just deny it, and it makes you sound oversensitive. People can always find some other way to justify their beliefs, so you can't prove it anyway.
I'm curious though. If Nestor was black, would you have written “she and her black hubbie”, or is that too non-PC even for you?
As for those jokes, what do the Irish, the Polish and the Portuguese think about it? And would you tell them in front of them?
Also, Brazilians really tell jokes about the Portuguese? That's weird, it seems a bit like telling jokes about your own parents. I wanted to see some but couldn't find any; I did find some jokes about Brazil though which you might like:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Brazil/comments/27afnu/jokes_about_brazil/
I don't know why Hezbollah did anything, or why they'd target Argentina. There have been IS attacks in Germany and Sweden though, and they haven't been bombing Syria or Iraq as far as I know. How much of a reason do they need?
What was falling apart under Peron? I guess the people he helped with labour reforms liked him, but why do others hate him so much?
DT
Sep 05th, 2017 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Let them deny it…if they insist, just leave them alone - no point in getting pissed off over what someone else believes, especially if you aren’t gonna change them, and if what they believe doesn’t affect you. Maybe when you've been around more, you won’t be so concerned with what people may think if you don’t agree with them. If Nestor was black, I wouldn't have mentioned his color because it 'd be irrelevant. Like Obama, when he was elected, I liked him, but I gradually started to dislike him, and it had nothing to do with his color. If he were cross-eyed, and I made some derogatory remark about it, I suppose it would be considered racist, even though it wasn’t…is that it ? for me, that would be people going to extremes, just interpreting whatever suits them - their problem, not mine.
The Irish, Polish and Portuguese ‘sometimes’ don’t like it…it’s rare, but they know it’s not personal, in the same way when someone jokes about you…take it in your stride and it goes away. Don’t know why, but whenever someone here tells a story of someone not-too-bright, their name is Manuel, Joaquim, or some other traditional Portuguese name…you must have watched ‘Faulty Towers’…the Spanish waiter ? And, just fyi, the Portuguese also tell jokes about Brazilians, and I’ve never seen anyone get upset over it. People have got to loosen up. Although I’ve heard many of the jokes before, they are still damned funny…only some sourpuss wouldn’t think so.
I remember Peron’s legacy well…my uncles and relatives complaining about power cuts, a useless telephone system, the railroads going to ruin soon after they were nationalized…torn seats, broken windows, never on time, dirty, overcrowded…and when I visited, I saw it first-hand. Presume that’s why many didn’t like him, or his wife, Evita. One of my uncles was president of a large tobacco company, and two others directors in multinationals, and they all hated Peron. As far as they were concerned, nothing good to say about him
It's not so much that I'm worried about what people think, but I don't want to turn a discussion or even an argument into a slanging match; it's pointless and tedious and no one wins.
Sep 06th, 2017 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“If Nestor was black, I wouldn't have mentioned his color because it'd be irrelevant.”
That's exactly what I thought about his eyes. As for Obama, after so much hype he could hardly fail to be disappointing, but the hatred directed at him was completely out of proportion to any reasons people gave, and the amount of conspiracy theories ludicrous. No doubt there was a lot of bullshit being spread about him by his political enemies but why were people so ready to believe it?
I've heard a joke similar to the one about heads of state taking a cut before, but it's about the EU:
http://www.eamonn.com/2015/01/26/greek-eu-joke/
Can you tell one of the Portuguese jokes since I couldn't find any?
If your relatives were directors of multinationals, not surprising they didn't like Peron. Were the problems with power, phones etc due to nationalisation? That's pretty quick for it to go downhill if so.
@DT
Sep 06th, 2017 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It only becomes nasty if you stay and play their game. Walking away avoids the displeasure of engaging in such crap, and sends a clear message that you're not interested.
Regarding K’s eyes, just like Marty Feldman's, it's just joking about a public figure, and nothing else...while CFK was still president, didn’t people ridicule the size of her (botoxed) lips ? don’t see why people get so uptight about it.
In the same way Obama was attacked, sometimes unfairly, there was plenty he got away with…no matter how good his approval rating might've been, some will always dislike, or hate, him… “but why were people so ready to believe it?”…usually, because “people” are not too intelligent....even if an accusation sounds reasonable, depending upon where it came from, maybe it should be checked….especially nowadays, with so much fake news flying around…but if people choose to believe it, it’s a ‘fait accompli’…
Jokes : Joaquim (Portuguese name) was driving along the Rio/SP highway when he heard on the radio that a madman was driving the wrong way….he looked up and saw hundreds heading his way, then said, “only one ? look at them all !” Try googling “Brazilian jokes about the Portuguese”, then translate them.
One commonly accepted reason why Brazilians joke about the Portuguese, goes back to post-colonial days - Brazilians, trying to create a national identity, went about it by denigrating the image of the Portuguese, as being slow in the upper-story. It's not true, but...
In the jokes you sent, it’s clear Brazilians have no problem joking about themselves, or emphasizing the not-so-nice things about Brazil…
Peron's nationalization of such companies, using them to employ his friends and supporters - quite a common practice - and the consequent inefficiency, was the cause of public services going downhill. Didn’t Lula’s nationalization and political use of PB destroy it, in only 3 years ? That's what usually happens.
Heh, if you don't think it's a good idea to stick around and engage in insults, why did you keep replying to Terence Hill?
Sep 06th, 2017 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And botox doesn't make lips bigger, they inject something in there to do that. It's something she did to herself though, and I wonder how much appearance affects someone's chances of being elected? They do say politics is show business for ugly people, but I've also heard that the taller candidate has won nearly every US election.
What do you think Obama got away with? And I think people were ready to believe conspiracy theories because they already stopped trusting real news sources and started getting their info from talk radio and self-interested demagogues. But also, a lot of these theories played into their prejudices that he was not 'one of them'; claiming that he wasn't born in the US, that he's not a Christian, that he was a black panther, that he refused to say the pledge of allegiance, refused to lay a wreath on Memorial Day, and any number of other supposedly unamerican things. Things that they were ready to believe because they didn't think he was a real American.
I'm glad our former colonies didn't all decide to make fun of us to get an identity, thought they do each have stereotypes. I tried to find some jokes about Britain but they were mostly unfunny or about the England football team, which sucks. It's nice Brazilians have no problem joking about themselves, anyway.
Speaking of jokes, I wonder where :o)) has got to? I kind of miss his cartoons, even if it was a pain to translate them.
“Didn’t Lula’s nationalization and political use of PB destroy it, in only 3 years ?”
Did it? I only know it's involved in the current corruption cases, but not how good it was in the past. I did just find out it owns a Lula oilfield in Brazil though, rofl.
@DT
Sep 07th, 2017 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A good point, but 1) it wasn't face-to-face...unfortunately, and 2) decided I wasn't going to stand by and allow him to misinform other readers. Felt sorry for him...a supercilious sourpuss, with no friends.
Well, whatever botox does or doesn't do isn't the point...the point is that people - including me - singled out this physical feature to ridicule her ; no one was offended...not even Reekie.
A few things re which I think BO got off lightly : you mention the birther issue - So why didn't he simply prove his accusers wrong by producing a legitimate birth certificate ? instead he chose to fart around and allow further speculation ; his radical defence of Islam, praising it at every opportunity (as if Christianity didn't exist, or was irrelevant), his refusal to condemn “islamic terrorism”, for what it was - the closest he allowed himself to the truth was when he mentioned a terrorist attack and conceded, “they happened to be islamic”...the time he bowed really low to the Saudi king....he chose to ignore the fact that terrorism and extreme Islam go hand in hand ; his orders to CBP to disobey the law, and to allow hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied minors into the country illegally - plus a few other occasions in which he sneakily bypassed Congress to get what he wanted ; the Benghazi fiasco (admitedly, in good part Hillary's doing) in which 4 Americans were killed, including the ambassador ; He never clarified these issues satisfactorily, and people eventually let him off the hook.
:o)) travelling ?
In 2006, PB was controlled (51%) by the private sector and doing well (big dividends)...in 2007, Lula nationalized it, and put his 'plan' into action (using Odebrecht to funnel bribes through PB contracts, to himself, the PT and his allies)...in 2010/11, due to corruption, and mainly mismanagement (Pasadena Refinery purchase just one ex.), the cracks started to appear, 'n PB lost 85% of its market value; The “lavajato” has only confirmed this.
“Felt sorry for him”
Sep 07th, 2017 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Heh, sure you did. Disagreeing with him once makes sense, but it's clearly pointless to continue, especially on such an idiotic subject.
About CFK, probably Enrique thought it was pointless to say anything, but I think it's more legit to point out something a person chose to do, than something they cannot help. Even so it has nothing to do with her abilities (or lack thereof) as President.
As for BO, he published his birth certificate during his campaign, way back in 2008, and as you can see it did not stop the accusations at all. The conspiracy theorists didn't want to believe it, and insisted on the 'long form' version, which Hawaii does not usually provide. So in 2011 Obama requested the Hawaii State Department of Health to release the long form version, and put it up on the WH website. Did it stop the conspiracy? No. In 2009 Hawaii's health director declared that she had seen the original record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health. It made no difference. What the hell else was Obama supposed to do? These people are not interested in the evidence, they are interested in proving their theory, and anything that disagrees with them is simply ignored.
And about the Islam thing, I don't think he got off lightly at all. His opponents were constantly criticising and harassing him about it, and many people did not agree with his reasoning (which was simply to not lump all Muslims as terrorists, and reach out and persuade ordinary Muslims that America is not their enemy). And do you have a link to him saying the 'happened to be Islamic', because I don't remember that, and can't find anything similar.
Not sure what you mean about Obama ordering CBP to disobey the law? And what did you want him to say, or do, about the Benghazi incident? It sounds like a cock up but those do happen and there isn't always one person to blame. And they definitely did not let Hillary off the hook for it.
No room left to talk about Petrobras...
@DT
Sep 08th, 2017 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Agree. TH is irrelevant.
Since ridiculing public figures, especially politicians, has long been normal - see political cartoons - I don't see why a simple comment generates so much discussion.
Re BO, if he presented the certificate during the campaign, why did it become such an issue afterwards ? some allege the birth certificate he presented 'later on', already well into his presidency, was a forgery....they say they checked the hospital's records in Hawaii, and found nothing...even his grandmother said he was born in Kenya...if the so-called “evidence” he presented was legitimate and conclusive, suspicions would've gone away....I personally think he never 'proved' anything.
When I say he got off lightly on the accusation of being a secret muslim, it was because he was never forced to adress the problem openly, and his reluctance to condemn “radical” Islam, just fueled the accusation. If he saw the obvious distinction between normal muslims, and radicalized ones, why be afraid to condemn the latter and refer to them for what they were ? islamic terrorists ....
His comment “they happen to be Islamic” was on the televised news...never bothered looking for it on the internet.
We all know the US has tough immigration laws...try appearing at JFK without a visa...anyway, the fact he instructed the CBP to turn a blind eye to these rules, is notorious...saw videos in USA news bulletins (on the internet) where CBP officers are interviewed, saying they are pissed-off because they are not being allowed to do their job...besides hearing similar stories from friends of mine who work in different Port Authorities, in California and Texas.
Re Benghazi, the Embassy personnel asked for help and BO /Hillary didn't heed it for what it was, allowing it to escalate into murder...don't you remember the hearings held later on, and after listening to BO's version, full of contradictions, still nothing happened ? Hillary sure did get off...nothing happened to her.
“Re BO, if he presented the certificate during the campaign, why did it become such an issue afterwards”
Sep 08th, 2017 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's the question... Why are you asking in 2017 why he didn't publish his birth cert, when he did do so, back in 2008? Because some people made sure it was an issue, and they weren't too honest about it either. If they had been, you'd have known that he did release it at the time.
It's naive to say that if the evidence was legit and conclusive, suspicions would have gone away. The people spreading the rumour had axes to grind, and they were never going to admit they were wrong. And as I said, some people wanted to believe it, because it fit their prejudices. They 'felt' he was foreign, so he couldn't be a real American.
Personally, I think it's a stupid law. Why should someone brought to the US as a 1 year old, who lived there all their life, not be eligible to be President, but someone who happens to be born in the US, but is brought up in another country, is?
Not much point him addressing the accusation of being a secret Muslim after having so little success dissuading the birthers. It probably would just have made things worse, and most people thought it was ridiculous anyway. You clearly don't hang out with US liberals, because they mostly thought his actions WRT Islam perfectly reasonable, and were not looking for any secret motivation. The point is to avoid implying that all Muslims are potential terrorists. Would it be a good idea for the UK PM to call IRA bombers 'Irish terrorists'? Their cause was a united Ireland, after all.
Whether his attempts to reach out to Muslims did any good is something I'm not convinced of, but I do understand why he would do it.
I looked on youtube and couldn't find anything on the CBP; must be buried under all the fake news clickbait about Trump and Obama. I don't need a visa for the US (there's a visa waiver program), but their immigration people were pretty awful when I visited - treated everyone like a criminal.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!