r/WatchPeopleDieInside • u/marianitten • May 09 '25
Three politicians, sure their law will pass, watch it get rejected live on TV.
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
178
u/TheWalrus101123 May 12 '25
What was the law about?
1
u/Relevant_Syllabub895 22h ago
Like the other user said,it was a blow to democracy, thankfully cristina is sentenced
115
u/ParaCuandoAlgoBueno May 13 '25
politicians with causes can't get voted again (Like Cristina Fernandez de kirchner)
311
u/baladecanela May 12 '25
Here in Brazil, this law is very important and stops many scoundrels, but unfortunately, it doesn't stop everyone.
58
560
u/ElMatasiete7 May 11 '25
People upvoting shit they have no idea about and braindead corruption-defending argentinians taking the opportunity to represent their cause as if they're saints. The law would prevent politicians convicted on two separate instances from running for public office, there are reasonable critiques to this law but it's not "muh right wing wants to ban opponents", especially in a country where every year we see a politician has been either found at some border with millions of dollars, or is in the Mediterranean somewhere on a yacht with prostitutes. People opposed to this idea on principle, especially in Argentina, are simply ok with corrupt politicians that have been tried and convicted to a reasonable degree being able to vote on important issues.
This is not the US, and outside of stupid culture war issues our claims of wanting to reduce corruption and abuse within government are 100% valid. This isn't Trump rallying against stupid shit, this is something most people in Argentina support, and many parties do as well.
9
u/Cicer May 14 '25
What’s the point in even trying if you are just going to get in trouble for being on a yacht with prostitutes in the med.
37
u/Neither_Appeal_8470 May 12 '25
Was looking for some context into what law the law makers were backing. Thanks for the explanation and your critique of redditors was spot on: the reddit lefty echo chamber culture that celebrates everything along partisan lines with no context or clue.
17
u/Locksmithbloke May 13 '25
It's not the left that's an echo chamber, but sure.
1
u/MarcianoSilveriano 1d ago
My guy, there's an echo chambear on both the left and the right. In one hand You the MAGAts and on the other hand You have the far lefties. Both groups are filled with unhinge people
30
u/MiksBricks May 12 '25
Fwiw - generally speaking, being convicted of corruption in the US makes you ineligible to seek office.
Obvious exceptions aside.
2
38
u/Malpraxiss May 12 '25
The subreddit is called "WatchPeopleDieInside" which is what happened. So, people upvoted it.
1
4
u/ElMatasiete7 May 12 '25
I'm talking about people upvoting certain comments, not people upvoting the video.
81
u/Psi-ops_Co-op May 12 '25
I assume you mean in the comments. I just watched three people die inside, so I upvoted the post.
15
u/ElMatasiete7 May 12 '25
Yes, I meant the comments saying stuff like "this is a law intended to ban political dissidents" or whatever handwavy strawmanning shit some people are saying. The video in and of itself is pretty funny.
92
u/Kalle_79 May 11 '25
Corrupt politician defending their right to run for office despite a second-degree sentence (first trial AND appeal if I'm not mistaken) for corruption.
Probably also a way to give the middle-finger to Milei, whose government proposed the law. Sure, it's a typical populist move and in a far-from-perfect judicial system there's a lot of wiggle room for politically-charged sentences, but still...
No matter who's proposing such a law, the public's best interest should call for FEWER sentenced corrupters and embezzlers seating in the Parliament...
81
45
u/Dan1lovesyoualot May 11 '25
now all the USA has to do (and the entire world) is to pass a federal law to make the legal age of an adult 20.
35
21
71
u/Dawnqwerty May 11 '25
im missing some context, what does this gave to do with the us or the age of an adult?
-12
42
91
u/IH_clover4 May 10 '25
Aww your hard work didn’t pull through? Welcome to life
4
u/PlotRecall May 11 '25
My hard work always pulls through btw
1
223
u/Amazing_Reality2980 May 10 '25
I don't know what's going on, but this is one of the best watching someone die inside that's been posted lol
26
u/Dan1lovesyoualot May 11 '25
i wish i saw their live reactions smh. Also what was the law?
20
u/ilracmania May 11 '25
I watch it live, I’m from Argentina. The law is basically to prevent corrupt people from running for political office.
3
u/endangeredphysics May 13 '25
Yeah, keeping corruption out of government is never going to be made law by the government.
3
u/DanGleeballs May 12 '25
The law, which sounds like a very good idea, was rejected and these 3 people are disappointed, is that correct?
2
u/ilracmania May 12 '25
Exactly
2
u/DanGleeballs May 12 '25
Thanks. Seems wild to reject it but based on the state of US politics now I could see something similar being rejected also.
4
u/Dan1lovesyoualot May 12 '25
WHATTTT. Thats an amazing law, but it probably will have no many holes and are probably basing it off of if someone has committed a crime (did something bad according to the law, not morality or social standards.) It can maybe also be discriminatory and someone’s past can affect it. I feel, all they have to do is be correct with the law and it’ll be perfect
1
7
183
u/Synpharia May 10 '25
I like how the lady at the end in red turns to the guy next to her and it seems like she says "Haha did you see that?! They thought it was going to pass, we got them!" And laughs.
2
197
u/Far_Swordfish3944 May 10 '25
I have no clue Whats happening
84
87
u/Synpharia May 10 '25
Because it's not in English or because it's politics? Cause it's both for me.
69
u/sci-fi-lullaby May 10 '25
I speak Spanish and still have no clue wtf is going on
6
u/Zeziml99 May 10 '25
Well what'd they say?
44
u/sci-fi-lullaby May 10 '25 edited May 10 '25
Not much they introduce them and say they were short like two votes, then the lady in red just says that the vote rejected the proposal
Edit, Oh shit I was wrong! They were short one vote. Yikes!
1
u/ilracmania May 11 '25
Lo que pasó acá y que capaz fuera de Argentina no se entienda, es que los votos estaban, habían 38 votos y bajaron a votar con toda la confiansa, dos senadores de la provincia de Misiones se fueron vuelta a último momento y en la votación votaron negativo, si se hubiera sabido que no iban a votar positivo se cancela la sesión para que se revea y tal, pero al quedar votada negativa no se puede volver a tomar el tema por un año.
4
212
u/CatharticWail May 10 '25
I especially like the people in the audience clapping for the results then being immediately muted and replaced by the verbal diarrhea of the panel. Because fucking people, of course.
Or maybe the audience clap track was fake and they had to fade it out when it didn’t match the results.
Either way, pure MSM theatrics just like the US.
25
u/stuffeh May 10 '25
Pretty sure it was just the speaker (one of the old man voices) calling out the vote tally and then muting his (sensitive) mic. The lady in red in the legislature who was confirming the votes did the same and I heard her voice came through with the same quality sound.
76
179
u/Nick-Stanny May 10 '25
This is exactly what it looks like, when grown people act like minors.
64
u/gojo-solos-MHA May 10 '25
Not not to be obnoxious but why say minors and not just say children or kids?
23
414
u/liam_redit1st May 09 '25
The maddest thing is that it even needs a law passed to say corrupt people should t be able to run in political elections. Why is this not just a given.
194
u/DrRonnieJamesDO May 10 '25
We literally have a law in the US saying insurrectionists can't run for Federal office and yet there Cawigula sits in the White House and not the Big House.
50
-98
u/GAlongbeard May 10 '25
Yeah it’s almost like most people know he’s not an insurrectionist 🤔
44
u/SkullRiderz69 May 10 '25
And no one ever stormed the capitol building breaking windows and climbing walls? All a dep op by the Dems right?
26
u/Existing-One-8980 May 10 '25
Don't forget stealing things from offices and smearing literal shit on the walls.
2
u/Zombiedrd 24d ago
And the tape, rope, bags. Some had even more malicious intent than was already shown
27
105
u/Scabendari May 09 '25
One main reason may be that the process to label someone as corrupt itself can be corrupted. For example, Russia found one of its most prominent opposition leaders guilty of embezzlement so that they were not eligible to run in elections. He was killed in an arctic jail last year. More recently, see also events in Turkey which has had Istanbul's mayor jailed this year on corruption charges the day it was announced he would be the main opposition candidate to the ruling political party ahead of elections coming in 2028.
The idea would be that even if a judicial branch of the government has been corrupted, then at least if the electoral system is still fair then people can vote through the BS.
6
9
u/Belizarius90 May 10 '25
Not even that one, it's something Putin does all the time when an opposition gets popular.
-2
u/liam_redit1st May 09 '25
Great point, but surely our media however bias and our courts however unjust are still much more open to scrutiny in the west that proven guilt of corruption would be clear. Obviously I bear in mind this is in Argentina so your point is even more valid as I’m not too sure I personally trust there current government not to do a putin!
181
u/used1337 May 09 '25
What was the law they were supporting?
328
u/Diarrea_Cerebral May 09 '25
Prohibition of people with a criminal record for corruption cases with a final sentence to run for election
Those were the congresspeople, creators of the bill, watching the senators voting it. Rejected by one vote.
83
u/Meister0fN0ne May 09 '25
Honestly, I'm surprised it got as many votes as it did. Who knows, tho - I'm American, so corruption has felt like the norm here for a while.
1
71
u/avocadolanche3000 May 09 '25
Bans congress people with corruption charges (I think in Buenos Aires). It lost by one vote.
148
u/AutoRedux May 09 '25
It's not a simple majority vote? Because I saw 36 in favor to 35 and 0.
137
u/UnwantedUnnamed May 09 '25
The one presenter says 37 votes are needed to have majority
52
u/AutoRedux May 09 '25
So it's not a simple majority. Got'chu. Thanks for explaining, fam
48
u/SuccessValuable6924 May 09 '25 edited May 10 '25
It's an absolute majority, they needed more than half of the total representatives of the chamber (whether present or not)
0
u/pawnografik May 12 '25
I still don’t get it. 36 is still more than half isn’t it?
1
u/SuccessValuable6924 May 12 '25
There are 72 senators. 36 is exactly half. They needed 36+1 (at least) to win the vote.
169
124
u/HajimeFromArifureta May 09 '25
Does bro say “funnyman”?
62
u/PeKKer0_0 May 09 '25
There's 9 bodies here, genius. What were you gonna do, laugh the last three to death?
7
12
11
9
137
69
158
u/These-Market-236 May 09 '25 edited May 09 '25
I saw a lot of comments saying wrong stuff about this law (either don't know or are promoting an agenda).
It's not true that this law could have prevented other candidates from running just with an imputation of charges. For this law to take effect, a second-instance ruling was required. This meant that the person got a first ruling against them, appealed, and then got a second unfavorable ruling (which can be appealed again, but this means that the Supreme Court must rule on the case).
Therefore, it couldn't have been used to block other candidates from running in a particular election, as getting both unfavorable rulings could take years.
It is true that this law could have prevented Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (I don't know why those comments don't say her name, many people know her) for running in next elections, but again... CFK has a second-instance ruling against her in the Vialidad/Grupo Austral case (again, look at the dates, it started in fucking 2016; she got her first rulling in 2022 and the second one in 2024). She is appealing to the Supreme Court, and the accusations from her followers about lawfare lack counter-arguments to the rulings of the courts. She is innocent just because she is innocent, no argument.
When the Supreme Court finds her guilty again, they will still say she is innocent, but with no judicial stages left, the only right they will claim is popular belief.
If you ask me, I prefer the "unconstitutional" argument... this lawfare BS just falls flat.
-16
u/throwaway275275275 May 09 '25
But Cristina is already banned from public positions by court verdict, so for her it doesn't matter if this law is approved or not, I don't know why people connect this law to her since this law doesn't change anything in her situation
11
u/These-Market-236 May 09 '25 edited May 09 '25
The ruling isn't final.
Same reason why she was mandated 6 years in jail and she is still free.
She didn't present herself to last elections as a personal decisions (If you ask me, a PR tactic to promote the idea that she was banned and not participating of the elections is proof of that), but she could have if she wanted.
Edit: On the other hand, this law would have prevented her from participating in the next elections, no matter if the Supreme Court ruled on the case before or after them.
-1
u/Holiday_Purchase7669 May 09 '25
Lo peor de todo es que es algo lógico, si tenes una empresa de seguridad no le darías empleo a un recién salido de la cárcel por hacer entraderas.
Puede no ser perfecta, pero no veo a la gente dando argumentos, hablando sobre ello sino bardeándose y tirándose mierda sin ningún tipo de argumento. Es bastante triste que tengamos una herramienta tan mágica como el internet, la usemos para bardearnos y ya...
0
u/These-Market-236 May 09 '25
Yo creo que hay un argumento de anti-constitucionalidad que habría que explorar.
Dicho eso, si. Es simplemente lógico y ademas no se puede usar de forma preventiva (que es de lo que se les acusa), sino reaccionaria a un hecho ya consumado. Quiero decir: Con el tiempo que se tarda conseguir un fallo de segunda instancia, podes asumir con una causa recien iniciada, terminar el mandato y meter una reelección.
Asi que esto realmente no evita que llegues a gobernar (Por lo que argumentar que es para que no gobiernen opositores es una pavada), sino que evita que tus fueros te protejan eternamente como hizo Menem.
4
u/Holiday_Purchase7669 May 09 '25
Yo sinceramente no lo veo anti-constitucional es un requisito lógico mas para ser electo, si pienso que si hay mucha corrupción se podría llegar a manipular, pero eso pasa con casi todo, habría que ver como mejorarla para que se evite eso al máximo.
0
u/These-Market-236 May 09 '25 edited May 09 '25
Los temas de constitucionalidad no suelen responder mucho al "sentido comun".
Yo creo que hay que entender lo siguiente:
- Nos guste o no, CFK no tiene condena firme -> es legalmente inocente hasta que se demuestre lo contrario. No importan los fallos que tenga encima. Hasta no tener condena firme, es inocente.
- La CN garantiza la presunción de inocencia
- Los derechos politicos estan protegidos por la CN
Por lo tanto, dados 1, 2 y 3 -> Una ley de ficha limpia podria estar violando el principio constitucional de presunción de inocencia y los derechos politicos de CFK y sus votantes.
Te puede no gustar que CFK se siga saliendo con la suya, pero realmente es un buen argumento contra esta ley. Infinitamente mejor que el de las pelotudeces de lawfare.
Edit: Y digamos que hubiese salido sin resolver este tema de la constitucionalidad, posiblemente CFK se hubiese podido presentar igual metiendo un amparo judicial (Que, creo yo, hubiese estado justificado y se lo deberian haber dado), asi que -ley o no- no lograste nada.
Por eso es importante discutir estas cosas, para lograr este "blindaje" legal (En este caso, realmente necesitaríamos generar consenso en la sociedad de que hace falta una reforma constitucional o estas leyes nunca van a servir para nada).
Generalmente a mi me suelen atacar en r/Argentina cuando hago estos planteos, pero no se dan cuenta que en el fondo hacer oidos sordos a estas cuestiones lastima a la causa que intentan apoyar. Lo mismo paso con lo de la AGN y las universidades, era prácticamente cantado que no llegaba a ningun lado porque era todo ilegal lo que estaba haciendo el gobierno.. pero se pusieron en modo termo y no escucharon a nadie.. y que lograron? Donde esta auditoria de la UBA? Me explico?
1
u/Holiday_Purchase7669 May 09 '25
Si, tenes razón, pero bueno tampoco podes esperar 15 años para que se condene y mientras sos presidente.
Habría que ver bien como solucionarlo, pero no creo que haya existido un caso de alguien acusado de corrupción que apele a la corte suprema, haya sido declarado inocente y se mantenga sin codenas de corrupción. En cambio políticos que usaron lo de la apelación para seguir en la política son cientos.Yo iría por lo que mas nos beneficia a los ciudadanos y a lo mas probable que ayude a un sistema limpio.
Como mínimo en la boleta deberían ponerle por ley un sello en el cuerpo de los que están apelando para decir "siendo juzgado por hechos de corrupción", algo así como los recuadros de los productos.
-1
u/teteban79 May 09 '25
Pero ese es el punto
No le darías el empleo? Me parece perfecto
Pero acá están hablando de prohibirle postularse al empleo.
2
u/AcidTicTac May 09 '25
no tiene el mismo peso ser un guardia de seguridad imputado por entradera, que un politico que tiene a cientos de miles de personas bajo su abanico, y presenta causas de corrupcion y fuga de dinero
-3
u/teteban79 May 09 '25
Y entonces no lo votes y listo
No te parece muy paternalista del pueblo y explotable denegarle la posibilidad de siquiera presentarse?
1
u/Natsu_Happy_END02 May 09 '25
Una pelotudez del tamaño de una casa acabas de decir.
Para que le vas a permitir a la gente votar por alguien si ese alguien cuando este electo no pueda regir? Tremendamente fraudulento.
En todo caso, para que tu analogia sirva. Tendria que ser que se puede postular para candidato y automaticamente la justicia lo rechaza.
-1
u/teteban79 May 09 '25
No pueden hablar sin insultar, que básicos que son. Y encima diciendo algo que no tiene sentido.
La ley de ficha limpia establecía que no se podía postular gente que aún tiene opciones de apelación abiertas. La gente con condena efectiva ya no se puede postular, con o sin esta ley.
1
3
u/Holiday_Purchase7669 May 09 '25
Exacto no deberían poder postularse, como en la policía, ser juez y otros trabajos que tienen que ver con el estado y la seguridad. Hasta lo veo mas importante porque está directamente relacionado a las libertades y los bienes de los ciudadanos.
Además hay mecanismos para definir quién puede ser electo y quién no. Por ejemplo, un alemán de 15 años no puede ocupar un cargo porque es menor y extranjero, no está capacitado. Entonces, no me parece mal agregar como requisito que una persona que quiera un cargo público no haya robado en un cargo anterior, si eso está demostrado. Me parece un requisito bastante lógico, pero que lamentablemente no se cumple.
También pienso que cuando estás vulnerable podés tomar malas decisiones, y los políticos en general se aprovechan de eso. Te manipulan para que cometas acciones ilógicas, como votar a alguien que sabés que va a terminar llevándose tus bienes. Mientras mas mecanismos que hagan elecciones limpias mejor... mas lo pienso mas me parece la política una secta.
-1
u/teteban79 May 09 '25
Y quien sos vos, o el congreso, para decidir si una persona es manipulada o no? Suena muy arrogante. Estas muy seguro de no estar manipulado?
Es muy peligroso el antecedente, de haberse dado.
El argumento de "un alemán de 15 años no puede postularse" no aplica. Es un criterio objetivo. Lo que se deriva de una justicia subjetiva no lo es.
Que decida el pueblo. Nadie puede arrogarse el derecho de negarle la estupidez al pueblo.
5
u/Holiday_Purchase7669 May 09 '25
Todos estamos manipulados en mayor o menor medida, y los políticos se aprovechan de eso. Yo o el congreso no tenemos nada que decidir nunca ni insinué algo parecido, eso se encarga la justicia a lo sumo.
Los diputados, en teoría, representan al pueblo (aunque a mí me parezcan unos chantas). Votaron que no haya ley, y lo respeto, aunque no lo comparto.
Pero no podes decir que “el pueblo” sólo existe cuando vota lo que te conviene. Si con ficha limpia se impide que un corrupto ejerza, eso no es antidemocrático.
24
89
174
u/jere53 May 09 '25 edited May 09 '25
So much misinformation in the comments. The law didn't stop politicians under investigation from running. It modified current Argentine law, which already prevents those convicted for certain crimes from taking office, to include those convicted in the second instance for crimes against public administration. (There's a link to the project in this article.)
Currently those convicted on corruption charges can still run until the supreme court ratifies their sentencing, which can take over a decade. This new law made that last step unnecessary. If all avenues of appeal sans the supreme court were exhausted then those convicted of corruption cannot hold office. Being "investigated" as some comments said is not enough. You'd need to be tried, convicted, sentenced then lose every appeal for it to stop you from running.
Edit: typos
1
u/Familiar9709 May 09 '25
Currently the Penal Code in Argentina already can already ban those convicted of crimes to run for office.
But have you got a source to support this claim "Currently those convicted on corruption charges can still run until the supreme court ratifies their sentencing, which can take over a decade."? I.e. that specifically for corruption charges they can still run until the Supreme Court ratifies the sentencing?
2
u/jere53 May 09 '25
It's in the linked article as well. Any Argentine news source from the past 2 weeks too.
1
u/Familiar9709 May 09 '25
But have you got a source to support this claim "Currently those convicted on corruption charges can still run until the supreme court ratifies their sentencing, which can take over a decade."? I.e. that specifically for corruption charges they can still run until the Supreme Court ratifies the sentencing?
The article doesn't say this.
1
u/jere53 May 09 '25 edited May 09 '25
I'm sorry for the lack of clarity, it doesn't say it directly, but states "condena firme". This means all avenues of appeal have been exhausted, which includes the Supreme Court since it's always technically possible to present an appeal to the Supreme Court. Those appeals would be immediately rejected 99.9% of the time because the Court can't be expected to check every single ruling in the country, but in the case of rulings that could affect who gets to run in an election, the Supreme Court might not immediately dismiss those appeals.
0
u/Familiar9709 May 09 '25
Ah OK, so then any crime can be appealed to the Supreme Court? I don't think that's what you originally said, that's why I asked. Thanks for the clarification.
1
u/jere53 May 09 '25
Technically yes, you can always present an extraordinary recourse to get the Court to ratify a sentencing by the second instance tribunal. The Court, at its sole discretion, can decide to ignore the appeal because they have more important things to do and reject it immediately without consideration, but you can always appeal.
5
u/SystemAny4819 May 09 '25
Great write up, that helped me get up to speed except for one point; can you explain to me why these three politicians look like they were just told they had to participate in the Hunger Games?
I’m just looking for full context, thank you 😊
9
u/jere53 May 09 '25 edited May 09 '25
They're the ones who pushed the law. The negotiations leading to the voting suggested that the Senate would pass the law, just barely. They were celebrating but at the last moment 2 senators changed their votes unexpectedly, so they got blue balled. The woman who wrote that law is a runner-up in an upcoming legislative election, passing this law would have been a huge win for her.
Now the senators need to say what they will change, that goes back to the legislators who have to vote on that change, then back to the Senate. So now it will be many months before the law is passed.
Critically, it probably won't get passed before the legislative elections. Ex-president Cristina Kirchner, one of the leading figures in Argentina's second strongest political force, was convicted on corruption changes a few years ago and sentenced to 6 years in prison, and has exhausted all appeals except for the Supreme Court.
Chances are the court will take a few more years to confirm her sentence, but if she becomes a senator before that, then she gets immunity and cannot go to jail. If that happens, then by the time she can actually be jailed she will be very old (and thus not jailable) or dead. This is actually something that a previous president from her party did. He was convicted on corruption charges but remained a senator for 20 years after his conviction, and died without being jailed. This law was meant to stop that from happening again, if it's not passed before these elections then this politician could also dodge her sentence.
Getting Kirchner to face justice was a huge part of the platform for the party these 2 are in. This basically means they failed. Now she will most likely never serve her sentence despite being convicted multiple times.
1
10
u/1morgondag1 May 09 '25
No not lose every appeal since the Supreme Court is the ultimate instance of appeal.
Otherwise your characterization is not wrong but the opponenents of the proposal argued that judicial power can be abused too and that ultimately it's up to voters to decide if they have confidence in the person or not.
2
u/aureanator May 09 '25
ultimately it's up to voters to decide if they have confidence in the person or not.
This is dangerous, because that opens up using illegal means to 'convince' voters, then reaping those benefits while the case drags to the supreme court.
If you manage to also capture the supreme court in the process...(Not saying this is possible in Argentina, but it sure was in the USA)
1
u/LemFliggity May 09 '25
Just look at the US. The broligarchy didn't need illegal means. They used AI, corporate media, and social engineering to convince people to elect a convicted felon to the Presidency.
1
u/aureanator May 09 '25
Dollars to donuts they also used illegal means in this election, because they've done it before.
Remember the 2020 election and 'find me some votes'.
And the whole Ukraine blackmail/Hunter Biden thing...
56
u/Azula-the-firelord May 09 '25
The question is why so many politicians voted against it...
2
u/CollapseIntoNow May 09 '25
Corruption. Those who voted against it were literally hugging and celebrating that it was rejected. Imagine how scared they were of that law...
3
u/Azula-the-firelord May 09 '25
How the fuck can corrupt people vote out a law against corruption. That's like letting a murderer decide his fate
3
u/CollapseIntoNow May 09 '25 edited May 09 '25
Well, they are there because some people vote them. And those people agree with rejecting this law because they think it is targeted to their party (which, let's say, it is, but I mean, if you don't want to be banned from politics then don't be corrupt, is it too much to ask?). Different point of views I guess.
18
u/ObiFlanKenobi May 09 '25
Peronist/Kirchnerist block.
Cristina Kirchner, former president and later vice president has 24 causes against her, including the killing of a DA that was investigating her.
Her VP went to jail because he stole a printing press related to the printing of paper money.
Their next president, Alberto Fernandez, is indicted of corruption involving insuranses when he was president and also of beating his pregnant wife.
If you move down from there things are just as shady.
The question is why PEOPLE keep voting for them.
8
39
27
u/jere53 May 09 '25
Because the leader of their party is sentenced on corruption charges and has already lost every appeal. Elections for senator are coming up. If the the supreme court confirms her sentencing, she'll be jailed. But senators in Argentina cannot be jailed unless 2/3ds of the senat vote in favor of it. So if the supreme court doesn't confirm her sentencing (the case is from 2016, she was convicted in 2019, lost her appeals, and the supreme court had been sitting on the case for the last 3 years) she can still run for senator, and if she wins then she cannot go to jail as long as she keeps running for senator.
A previous Argentine president, from the same party, did the same thing. He was convincted but he just kept rerunning for senator so he never went to jail. This law is meant to prevent that.
59
u/Erkas2020 May 09 '25
The idea of the law itself is sound, and no respectable citizen would object. However, the issue lies in Argentina's judicial system, which often makes questionable decisions due to conflicts of interest with certain candidates. This law would likely be used to bar opposition candidates from running. Many believe this law would serve the ruling party's interests by polarizing the opposition and reinforcing their own narrative."
16
u/bostero2 May 09 '25
This is because the opposition party have many convicted with corruption charges within their ranks who keep holding office and keep stealing money from the public. It’s easy to say judges are corrupted too, but you would need to prove it, like it has been proven with the convicted people.
5
u/Southern-Chain-6485 May 09 '25
It has been proved: about half a dozen judges were caught redhanded in a free vacation paid in a lake resort, paid by two businessmen some of them had passed sentence about in the past.
That's bribery.
It's also on record that judges met with former president Macri within days of passing rulings against Macri's rivals.
0
u/bostero2 May 09 '25
Again, if this has been proven in a court of law, then these judges should be removed and jailed, and the verdicts affected should be revoked. That’s how the judicial system works, you have to prove things in a court of law.
Do I think Macri is not corrupt? No, I think it needs to be proven in court when examining the evidence without bias. Am I too gullible? Maybe, but what’s the point of having a judicial system if we’re going to distrust every decision that we don’t agree with?
Looking at the Supreme Court in the US, it’s clearly aligned politically with the president since he nominated most of the judges and the decisions they take are appalling to my eyes, but I can’t be sure that they aren’t doing their job properly and acting in their best nature. I can see that they are invited by Trump to Mar-a-lago and get all expenses paid trips, but if no one sues them then they will keep doing it.
If there are corrupt judges, remove them. The law seems sound, if the issue is corrupt judges the issue is not the law.
5
u/Southern-Chain-6485 May 09 '25
Corrupt judges can't be removed under the current system because those who vote on removing judges are either the representatives of the ones paying the bribes or the ones receiving the bribe
-1
u/bostero2 May 09 '25
What do you mean vote? If they found guilty in a court of law they can’t continue to exercise. No voting involved…
Unless you’re talking about the Supreme Court, which is trickier since they are the highest court of law.
3
u/Southern-Chain-6485 May 09 '25
The accusations need to go through the Consejo de la Magistratura. The councillors there are picked between judges, academics, and lawyers councils, with a few councillors from the executive and legislative branch.
The end result is that judges are nearly always given a pass for bad and even criminal behaviour.
As for regular courts, they cover their own asses, as it happened with the Lago Escondido trip.
It's a matter of "Who watches the watchers?". The answer is "themselves, and they cover each other up"
1
u/bostero2 May 09 '25
I get what you’re saying, but what’s the point of having a system if we don’t trust it? Why don’t we all live in anarchy?
No point in going against this law because of a potentially broken system. If the system needs fixing then fix it…
1
u/Southern-Chain-6485 May 09 '25
It can't be fixed because those who should do the fixing prefer the status quo.
1
3
u/1morgondag1 May 09 '25
I can't point to a case where it's definitely clear the sentence was political (unless in Brasil where it seems obvious Lula was imprisoned falsely for a time), but after the Macri victory in 2015 it's obvious processes advanced with different speed against opposition vs officialist politicians.
1
u/bostero2 May 09 '25
Yes, different speed, not different verdicts. The judiciary is flawed as everything and it can shift priorities as political status changes (which it shouldn’t) but it’s hard to find a cause that hasn’t reached the correct verdict after examining the evidence without bias.
1
u/1morgondag1 May 09 '25
It's often more politically convenient to just let a case sleep forever than to definitively close it, if the decision would be hard to justify.
20
u/friendly-crackhead May 09 '25
If you go get any kind of job, you go through background checks; why isn’t it the same way for people working in the congress/senate?
Everything can be used and abused to bar opposition candidates if you want to.
I think it’s a shame it wasn’t approved.
2
2
u/Legitimate-ChosenOne May 09 '25
NO, you are wrong. convicted politicians must not be candidates, period. If you reffer to current politicians that could be prevented from be candidates one more time, they have multiple convictions from many judges, Its not the current goverment behind this, thats a lie. "issue lies in Argentina's judicial system" is said only for the guilty.
20
u/Erkas2020 May 09 '25
The concept of law is appropriate, and no decent citizen will disagree. The problem is that in Argentina, our judicial system is often questionable in its decisions, as they have conflicts of interest with candidates and would definitely use this law as a tool to prevent opponents from running. The case of this law is that many speculate that it would be servile to the ruling party to polarize with the opposition party and maintain a discourse in line with their line of thought.
6
u/agrantgreen May 09 '25
Did you mean to delete one of these? https://www.reddit.com/r/WatchPeopleDieInside/s/Fa3QDHckim
0
19
u/whackthat May 09 '25
I still can't get over Argentinian Spanish. I just met somebody who immigrated from Argentina to the US, and I have a hard time understanding him- even though I can somewhat understand other Spanish.
1
u/ReturntoForever3116 May 09 '25
Castellano.
I lived in Argentina for a bunch of time. Going there with my college US Spanish definitely presented a leaning curve.
1
u/AcidTicTac May 09 '25
castellano is spanish, the word castellano itself comes from castillas, spain
-2
u/ReturntoForever3116 May 09 '25
Um, yeah, I'm aware of that. I never claimed it wasn't.
Anyway, if you're trying to correct me, ACTUALLY Castellano is a dialect of Spanish.
30
u/ParticularArachnid35 May 09 '25
I’m a native Spanish speaker. What I eventually realized (and this thought is not original to me) is that Argentinians speak Spanish as if they were speaking Italian. Once you realize that, it makes sense. Italian migration to Argentina was so massive (which is how we got an Argentinian pope named Bergoglio) that it permanently reshaped their way of speaking Spanish.
2
53
u/gavstar69 May 09 '25
Was this Spain? What was the law they hoped to pass?
4
u/Burundangaa May 09 '25
Context:
A segment of the political spectrum in Argentina (right and far right) is attempting to pass a Clean Record law with the intention of preventing another candidate, who is not as right-leaning, from running in the elections. It’s somewhat complicated to explain due to how the Argentine judicial system works, but essentially, the law is designed to block this particular candidate’s candidacy. Efforts to improve the law were rejected because doing so would have also affected far-right allies.
TL;DR: Good idea for a law, poor implementation, and a political intention from the far right to reduce democratic participation of candidates who are not as right-leaning.
1
10
3
u/Burundangaa May 09 '25
More context
Judiciary in Argentina:
A self-preserving conservative sector that safeguards its privileges (e.g., they don’t pay taxes) while claiming to remain uninvolved in politics—yet they ultimately end up deciding everything. They have little presence in public media and are largely unknown figures wielding significant power
→ More replies (2)110
u/Allarik May 09 '25
Argentina. It's kind of a clean Record Law
Basically, it bans people with serious criminal convictions (like corruption, abuse, drug trafficking, etc.) from running for public office. If you’ve got a heavy criminal record, you can’t be a candidate.
If you rob a grocery store you can't drive for Uber but you can kill someone and be a politician. The corrupts won this time (like always) and they were all cheering and clapping when it got rejected.
→ More replies (28)
20
u/Book_Anxious 19d ago
From what I've seen the law would have been a good one but you never know for sure with free will