Elections Argentina’s new Libertarian President Javier Milei

[Sinister]

I may be an skeptical man of science, but i would need to see evidence of it working, because so far we have a 100% success rate in terms of full socialist experiments turning into dystopian autocracies.


Ok, so if its not socialism then its capitalism.

That means capitalism can range from brutal dictatorships to democracies like Nordic countries.

Socialism only has one outcome which is brutal dictatorship.


Funny how you use the term "mixed economy" a few sentences after claiming that anything that has private ownership is capitalism.


Power generates wealth, not the other way around, in autocracies its the military and the intelligence services that decide everything, not capital, capital is subservient to government.

That's why in Russia oligarchs get thrown out of windows, in China they get stripped of their wealth and shamed, meanwhile party members, military and intelligence don't suffer the same fate even when nominally at least they are not wealthy.

What kind of example of it working would you like? I'd propose that its tough to give what you want considering how much meddling happens the millisecond a Country elects a socialist, as there have been global pushes distinctly against communism/socialism from their inception as State systems. Would you ask for a Country who desires socialism to prove to you that their economic model is viable as they're being sanctioned by superpowers for keeping their resources Nationalized? Can we substantiate examples of democratic socialism devolving into dystopian autocracies without meddling? Your question, as well as these, are definitely valid.

I cited the actual definition of capitalism lol. And I did Contend that there ARE capitalist Countries that also have brutal dictatorships, which means capitalism isnt some magic safeguard against authoritarianism. Both systems have the risk of that, and no that's not the only possible outcome of socialism. I've used the term mixed economies previously, before you started replying to me. In fact I pointed to the prevalence of mixed economies as being much more a factor for growth than proponents of capitalism want to admit. Your ideological contentions here demonstrate that. The US isnt pure capitalist and never has been. Same as the Soviet Union was never fully socialist/communist. I'm not making ideological arguments here, you are. I'm saying the subject is nuanced, you're indicating capitalism good, socialism evil. I'm saying capitalists love socialism so long as it bolsters economic hierarchies. Similar to how Libertarians love police and military so long as they're aimed at people they don't like.

Power generates wealth but wealth doesnt generate power? Come on now. There have been PLENTY of militaries that operate at the behest of oligarchs without assuming leadership themselves throughout human History. It doesnt negate the influence of wealth when one group of oligarchs turns on another lol And there arent tons of examples of oligarchs who were powerful first, and wealthy second. Most come from affluent families.

 

[Sinister]

Trump presidency was the result of American right wing becoming braindead thanks to social media, Trump was outspent by Hillary and Trump won the Republican primaries in spite of donors who wanted Jeb Bush.

Wealthy Republicans would rather have a more market friendly candidate that will follow orthodoxy, not a moron like Trump.

Some wealthy Republicans would like that, but they fed the monster for their tax cuts. And the DNC shot themselves in the foot by swaying things to yet again thwart anyone who dares say "socialism" over a lukewarm dynasty appointment in Hillary. Bernie would have been better than both, by far.

 

[Rod1]

What kind of example of it working would you like? I'd propose that its tough to give what you want considering how much meddling happens the millisecond a Country elects a socialist,

Yeah, its the fault of Western countries that socialist experiments fail.

as there have been global pushes distinctly against communism/socialism from their inception as State systems.

No, not always, this is asinine.

There was a lot of fear in the Cold War over the overt hostility of the socialist bloc against the West, but for the most part as long as they were openly neutral, most countries didn't gave much shit about it, at least not more than usual.

Would you ask for a Country who desires socialism to prove to you that their economic model is viable as they're being sanctioned by superpowers for keeping their resources Nationalized? "

If i steal your assets = nationalization
If you steal my assets = sanctions.

Reciprocity is a must in international relations.

Can we substantiate examples of democratic socialism devolving into dystopian autocracies without meddling? Your question, as well as these, are definitely valid.

Venezuela.

 

[Rod1]

I cited the actual definition of capitalism lol.

Which in turn makes virtually all countries capitalist, even Cuba has limited private ownership.

And I did Contend that there ARE capitalist Countries that also have brutal dictatorships,

Yes, but there is no correlation between capitalism and dictatorship, and the more open the markets, the least authoritarian a country is, its almost a direct correlation.

which means capitalism isnt some magic safeguard against authoritarianism.

Who said that?

Both systems have the risk of that, and no that's not the only possible outcome of socialism. I

Capitalism as per your definition isn't even a system, it was not invented by anyone and has existed since antiquity.

Also there is a direct correlation between economic freedom and social freedoms.

The more open the markets, the freer the political institution tends to be if you look at the ease of doing business and economic freedom indicators, democracies will always be on top and dictatorships will always be on the bottom.

've used the term mixed economies previously, before you started replying to me. In fact I pointed to the prevalence of mixed economies as being much more a factor for growth than proponents of capitalism want to admit. Your ideological contentions here demonstrate that. The US isnt pure capitalist and never has been. Same as the Soviet Union was never fully socialist/communist. I'm not making ideological arguments here, you are. I'm saying the subject is nuanced, you're indicating capitalism good, socialism evil. I'm saying capitalists love socialism so long as it bolsters economic hierarchies. Similar to how Libertarians love police and military so long as they're aimed at people they don't like.

"ideological contentions"

What exactly are my ideological contentions when the false dichotomy is presented by you?

Capitalism vs Socialism is a dichotomy invented by communists, the term capitalism itself was invented by a socialist as a foil to their ideology.

Socialism is a system, capitalism is not, capitalism exists naturally, nobody invented it, which is why we use the term market economies, which every country in the world is to some degree.

Countries that have tried to abolish markets have only generated misery to the level of the worst wars and natural disasters ever to happen and eventually adopt market economies to a point because otherwise they would cease to exist.

 

[Rod1]

Power generates wealth but wealth doesnt generate power? Come on now. There have been PLENTY of militaries that operate at the behest of oligarchs without assuming leadership themselves throughout human History. It doesnt negate the influence of wealth when one group of oligarchs turns on another lol And there arent tons of examples of oligarchs who were powerful first, and wealthy second. Most come from affluent families.

Wealth only generates as much power as the military/political power decides to.

That's why billionaires can be stripped of their wealth of thrown out of their windows.

 

[Sinister]

Yeah, its the fault of Western countries that socialist experiments fail.


No, not always, this is asinine.

There was a lot of fear in the Cold War over the overt hostility of the socialist bloc against the West, but for the most part as long as they were openly neutral, most countries didn't gave much shit about it, at least not more than usual.


If i steal your assets = nationalization
If you steal my assets = sanctions.

Reciprocity is a must in international relations.



Venezuela.

Meddling is meddling. No sense in denying that geopolitics effects domestic climates.

There was so much fear during the Cold War that I had to do "nuclear strike drills" as a child. Anti-Soviet sentiment was built into the American identity, but yeah sure, no one gave a f*ck. Lol NATO continued just so everyone could keep holding hands and singing.

When I said Nationalixation I meant not granting foreign corporations rights to control resources in foreign Countries. The US has overthrown more than one Government over this.

Venezuela wasnt meddled with you say? Talk about asinine:

Venezuela coup linked to Bush team

Specialists in the 'dirty wars' of the Eighties encouraged the plotters who tried to topple President Chavez.

www.theguardian.com

Wealth only generates as much power as the military/political power decides to.

That's why billionaires can be stripped of their wealth of thrown out of their windows.

At the behest of other billionaires Bro.

 

[Rod1]

Meddling is meddling. No sense in denying that geopolitics effects domestic climates.

You are moving the goalpost, the original claim was that all socialist failures are the result of Western sabotage which is not true.

There was so much fear during the Cold War that I had to do "nuclear strike drills" as a child. Anti-Soviet sentiment was built into the American identity, but yeah sure, no one gave a f*ck. Lol NATO continued just so everyone could keep holding hands and singing.

Exactly, but your claim was the the West sabotaged socialism because of socialism.

This isn't true, Mexico and Peru had socialist governments without meddling because they decided to remain neutral.

When I said Nationalixation I meant not granting foreign corporations rights to control resources in foreign Countries. The US has overthrown more than one Government over this.

And yet when America "nationalizes" the assets of a foreign country that becomes openly hostile, it stops being called nationalization.

You can't expect to expropiate assets without compensation and expect other countries not to respond in kind.

Venezuela wasnt meddled with you say? Talk about asinine:

US did not recognized the Carmona govermnent bro, the fuck are you talking about?

 

[Rod1]

@Sinister

About the 2002 coup, another funny thing is that if it had succeeded, Chavez would be beatified by the far left, he would the Saint Chavez and join the pantheon of failed socialists along with Allende among others.

The fact that Venezuela was let to run its course as the "democratic socialism" experiment, and of course it ended as usual, with a military dictatorship and the worst human crisis of the Western hemisphere with a refugee population that rivals that of Syrian civil war.

 

[Sinister]

You are moving the goalpost, the original claim was that all socialist failures are the result of Western sabotage which is not true.


Exactly, but your claim was the the West sabotaged socialism because of socialism.

This isn't true, Mexico and Peru had socialist governments without meddling because they decided to remain neutral.


And yet when America "nationalizes" the assets of a foreign country that becomes openly hostile, it stops being called nationalization.

You can't expect to expropiate assets without compensation and expect other countries not to respond in kind.



US did not recognized the Carmona govermnent bro, the fuck are you talking about?

The original contention is that socialist Governments get invaded, politically meddled with, and/or sanctioned by capitalist Countries. This is part of how geo-politics works.

The Soviet Union was meddled-with so deeply that it was dissolved illegally:

"In order to dismantle the Soviet Union from a legal point of view, it was necessary to follow the procedures prescribed by the law "On the Procedure for Resolving Issues Related to the Secession of the Union Republic from the USSR." It states that the decision to withdraw the union republic from the USSR is considered valid only "through a referendum if at least two-thirds of the citizens of the USSR permanently residing in the republic at the time the question of its withdrawal from the USSR is raised, vote for it".

In fact, none of the former republics had a referendum on secession, although it was guaranteed by the Constitution of the USSR, and for the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the Belorussian SSR - also by the UN Charter. Legally, the signing of the trilateral Agreement on the establishment of the CIS in Belovezhskaya Pushcha and the announcement that the USSR no longer exists did not comply with the legislation in force at that time and contradicted the will of the people expressed in the All-Union referendum. Such a referendum was held on March 17, 1991, and almost 80 percent of citizens voted for the preservation of the USSR."

So much democracy.

Peru was not meddled with? First of all the right winger who lost to Castillo refused to concede the election (sounds familiar) and there was US involvement all over the place:

"Just before the election, the U.S. sent former CIA agent Lisa Kenna as its ambassador to Lima. She met Peru’s Minister of Defense Gustavo Bobbio on Dec. 6 and sent a denunciatory tweet against Castillo’s move to dissolve congress the next day (on December 8, the U.S. government—through Ambassador Kenna—recognized Peru’s new government after Castillo’s removal).

A key figure in the pressure campaign appears to have been Mariano Alvarado, operations officer of the Military Assistance and Advisory Group, who functions effectively as the U.S. defense attaché."

Although Im sure this is also on behalf of democracy. The right wingers here are suggesting Military forces to Mexico over the cartels. You know, the same right wingers who say sending troops to Ukraine or wherever else is a bad move. That large capitalist powers meddle in the affairs of Countries that are resource-rich who elect socialists is as much Historical fact as socialism not working out. In fact they seem predictably linked.

How can the US Nationalize the assets of another Country? We can Nationalize our own resources, which we dont do, because we love multinational corporations.

And uh, yes we did:

"Most Latin American governments quickly condemned the coup, although relatively few demanded Mr. Chavez' return to power. The Bush administration initially acknowledged a change of government in Venezuela, and did not condemn the coup until it had collapsed."

Former US Official Denies Role in 2002 Venezuela Coup

Former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Otto Reich, testifies on Capitol Hill

www.google.com

We denied it when it was convenient to us, and when the fact that Bush officials had met with Carmona came out.

Like I said, I dont perpetuate the notion that any single ideology works, but the pro capitalist stance on this is just preposterous.

 

[Sinister]

@Sinister

About the 2002 coup, another funny thing is that if it had succeeded, Chavez would be beatified by the far left, he would the Saint Chavez and join the pantheon of failed socialists along with Allende among others.

The fact that Venezuela was let to run its course as the "democratic socialism" experiment, and of course it ended as usual, with a military dictatorship and the worst human crisis of the Western hemisphere with a refugee population that rivals that of Syrian civil war.

Venezuela was not "let to run its course." Lol There were more coup attempts, election meddling, sanctions, blockading, etc. But I dont want to make this all about Venezuela alone, even if ONE socialist experiment failed without meddling what would that prove? Capitalist countries have massively failed as well.

 

[Sinister]

Which in turn makes virtually all countries capitalist, even Cuba has limited private ownership.


Yes, but there is no correlation between capitalism and dictatorship, and the more open the markets, the least authoritarian a country is, its almost a direct correlation.



Who said that?


Capitalism as per your definition isn't even a system, it was not invented by anyone and has existed since antiquity.

Also there is a direct correlation between economic freedom and social freedoms.

The more open the markets, the freer the political institution tends to be if you look at the ease of doing business and economic freedom indicators, democracies will always be on top and dictatorships will always be on the bottom.



"ideological contentions"

What exactly are my ideological contentions when the false dichotomy is presented by you?

Capitalism vs Socialism is a dichotomy invented by communists, the term capitalism itself was invented by a socialist as a foil to their ideology.

Socialism is a system, capitalism is not, capitalism exists naturally, nobody invented it, which is why we use the term market economies, which every country in the world is to some degree.

Countries that have tried to abolish markets have only generated misery to the level of the worst wars and natural disasters ever to happen and eventually adopt market economies to a point because otherwise they would cease to exist.

Sorry I didnt see this reply because we are quoting each other in numerous posts.

My contention from the beginning of this is that there have been no purely capitalist or socialist Countries to speak of. That most (if not all) Countries have a mix of both. I've been saying that consistently. Where we oppose each other is the inherent evil of one or the other.

The more open markets are the more free people are socially...social and economic freedoms coexist? Yes I'm sure that's why we had chattel slavery. I'm sure that's why we had the aforementioned Company towns. I'm sure that's why people calling for "economic freedom" in the US are attempting to roll back protections against child labor, social assistance for the elderly, eradication of the Administrative State, all the things they rail against as "authoritarian" when irs quite obvious the goal is bolstering the labor force in a Country where the wealthy consistently panic about population numbers. Oh and who espouse culture war nonsense where education is attacked. There are plenty of authoritarian places with ease of doing business, hence how easy it is for brutally authoritarian Countries to engage in sports-washing their images. It just depends on the industry.

Your ideological contention is clear: socialism is evil, capitalism is not. Don't run away from it. I didn't ask you to respond to me when I was having a conversation with someone else. You took exception to me saying socialism/communism arent synonymous with authoritarianism, you say they are and absolutely MUST be. I don't think its that simple. Authoritarians can use either system to acquire power, socialism is a good way to apply populism. Capitalism can be, but its trickier. Capitalists who pursue power tend to do so either by bribing State mechanism to work for them, or for the undoing of them so they can legally subjugate the working class.

If we are going to argue that capitalism isn't a system then that's also going to disqualify socialism from being labeled a system. Socialism exists naturally as well, people pool resources when they need to and divide them. In fact it's a most basic tribal act. The term was used before Blanc or Marx. Those are modern interpretations of the term born out of attempts to understand the value of labor.

I'm not a proponent of abolishing markets completely, so the last bit we agree on.

 

[Rod1]

The original contention is that socialist Governments get invaded, politically meddled with, and/or sanctioned by capitalist Countries. This is part of how geo-politics works.

The Soviet Union was meddled-with so deeply that it was dissolved illegally:

So does every other country in the world, you are however attributing the failures of socialist economists to Western influence which is ridiculous.

In order to dismantle the Soviet Union from a legal point of view, it was necessary to follow the procedures prescribed by the law "On the Procedure for Resolving Issues Related to the Secession of the Union Republic from the USSR." It states that the decision to withdraw the union republic from the USSR is considered valid only "through a referendum if at least two-thirds of the citizens of the USSR permanently residing in the republic at the time the question of its withdrawal from the USSR is raised, vote for it".

Really man? you are going to claim that the Russian Empire that was the Soviet Union was destroyed by the West?

All those nations were incorporated by force, IMPERIALISM, and now you are being picky about its dissolution.

Peru was not meddled with? First of all the right winger who lost to Castillo refused to concede the election (sounds familiar) and there was US involvement all over the place:

Im talking about Juan Velasco Alvarado, he was anti-West, anti-Capitalist but he was his own brand of socialism so he was left alone

Also are you seriously supporting Castillo attempts at seizing dictatorial powers? its funny how you cry wolf all the time about right wing fascism yet openly support left wing authoritarians.

How can the US Nationalize the assets of another Country? We can Nationalize our own resources, which we dont do, because we love multinational corporations.

Same way other countries do it, by taking property under your name and expropriating it.

We denied it when it was convenient to us, and when the fact that Bush officials had met with Carmona came out.

The US knew a coup was coming most likely but there is zero involvement or planning by the US in that one.

Venezuela was not "let to run its course." Lol There were more coup attempts, election meddling, sanctions, blockading, etc. But I dont want to make this all about Venezuela alone, even if ONE socialist experiment failed without meddling what would that prove?

Yeah, all those shit was done by CHAVISTAS, ergo why they are in power right now.

Capitalist countries have massively failed as well.

But they don't fail because of capitalism, socialist countries do fail over socialism, which is why ALL, literall ALL of them dropped it.

Except maybe North Korea, which would rather keep population dying from starvation.

 

[Rod1]

My contention from the beginning of this is that there have been no purely capitalist or socialist Countries to speak of. That most (if not all) Countries have a mix of both. I've been saying that consistently. Where we oppose each other is the inherent evil of one or the other.

Because capitalism/socialim is a false dichotomy created by socialists, in the field of economics there is orthodoxy and then there is pseudoscience.

Trying to equate socialism which is a political ideology with orthodox economics which is a science is like trying to equate vax and anti-vax.

The more open markets are the more free people are socially...social and economic freedoms coexist? Yes I'm sure that's why we had chattel slavery.

You mean the slavery that was enforced by government and needed the creation of a political entity created to enforce it? that one?

I'm sure that's why we had the aforementioned Company towns. I'm sure that's why people calling for "economic freedom" in the US are attempting to roll back protections against child labor, social assistance for the elderly, eradication of the Administrative State, all the things they rail against as "authoritarian" when irs quite obvious the goal is bolstering the labor force in a Country where the wealthy consistently panic about population numbers. Oh and who espouse culture war nonsense where education is attacked. There are plenty of authoritarian places with ease of doing business, hence how easy it is for brutally authoritarian Countries to engage in sports-washing their images. It just depends on the industry.

Weird that you consider a company town, which has an absolute monopoly as an example of a free market.

Your ideological contention is clear: socialism is evil, capitalism is not. Don't run away from it. I didn't ask you to respond to me when I was having a conversation with someone else.

Socialism is evil, capitalism as a political ideology doesn't exists.

You took exception to me saying socialism/communism arent synonymous with authoritarianism, you say they are and absolutely MUST be. I don't think its that simple. Authoritarians can use either system to acquire power, socialism is a good way to apply populism. Capitalism can be, but its trickier. Capitalists who pursue power tend to do so either by bribing State mechanism to work for them, or for the undoing of them so they can legally subjugate the working class.

If we are going to argue that capitalism isn't a system then that's also going to disqualify socialism from being labeled a system.

If it wasn't a system, it wouldn't require a dictatorship to be implemented, it would be adopted naturally in a politically free country.

Socialism exists naturally as well, people pool resources when they need to and divide them. In fact it's a most basic tribal act. The term was used before Blanc or Marx. Those are modern interpretations of the term born out of attempts to understand the value of labor.

Socialism as in the abolition of markets, isn't naturally occurring, if you want to call coops "socialism" then go ahead and do it.

When i say socialism i talk about the political ideology.

I'm not a proponent of abolishing markets completely, so the last bit we agree on.

Then you are not a socialist, simple.

 

[Mr. Shickadance]

How’s he working out for them?

Argentina's poverty levels hit 57% of population, a 20-year high in January, study finds

A study has found more than 57% of Argentina's people are considered poor, the worst poverty level in 20 years.

apnews.com

 

[Fox by the Sea]

was watching an interview with a young argentinian, let's say in his thirties, who said he's completely broke - this was a guy that looked like he'd work in some financial firm, polished, good clothes. it felt unreal, and it was of course in the context of what Milei is doing.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

What a beautiful moment

 

[Mr. Shickadance]

What a beautiful moment

So you think 57% unemployment is a good thing?

 

[Helden]

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/poverty-argentina-hits-20-year-high-574-study-says-2024-02-18/

BUENOS AIRES, Feb 18 (Reuters) - Poverty levels in Argentina hit 57.4% in January, the highest in at least 20 years, according to a report by the Catholic University of Argentina (UCA) cited by local media on Sunday.
According to the report, the devaluation of the peso currency carried out by President Javier Milei shortly after his inauguration in early December - and the price hikes caused by it - exacerbated poverty levels, which closed the year at 49.5%.

In December, his government rolled out sweeping economic reforms, primarily a 54% peso devaluation against the U.S. dollar, causing Argentines' incomes to collapse as prices shot up.

So much winning

 

[steveflynn]

What a beautiful moment

Um, not really ….if trump is such a libertarian, why did he add nearly 10trillion in debt, increase the age to 21 to purchase tobacco, increase the trade deficit and also setting government spending records every year he was in office ?? Not too mention add tens of billions of dollars in tariffs (which increased taxes) which absolutely ruined many farmers ??

 

[LeonardoBjj]

Argentina’s Milei takes his chainsaw to the state, cutting 15,000 jobs and spurring protests​

BY ISABEL DEBRE
Updated 6:04 PM BRT, April 3, 2024

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — Argentina said Wednesday that it had cut 15,000 state jobs as part of President Javier Milei’s aggressive campaign to slash spending, the latest in a series of painful economic measures that have put the libertarian government on a collision course with angry protesters and powerful trade unions.

Presidential spokesperson Manuel Adorni announced the job cuts in a news conference, describing them as key to Milei’s promised shake-up of Argentina’s bloated public sector.

“It’s part of the work we are doing to reduce state expenses,” he told reporters.

The dismissed workers “perhaps did not have a very defined job,” he added. “Their salaries were being supported by a taxpayer.”

Hundreds of defiant employees — some notified of their termination last week and others before that — stormed their workplaces in Buenos Aires and nearby cities on Wednesday, beating drums, decrying their dismissal as unjust and demanding their reinstatement.

Despite the rain, crowds wearing the green T-shirts of the country’s biggest union, The Association of State Workers, or ATE, swelled outside national ministries. In some cases, scuffles erupted as police struggled to evict protesters from government buildings.

Workers at ministries that Mileli has vowed to close, such as the National Institute Against Discrimination, along with a range of state agencies — including the ministries for the economy, energy and social security — received the latest layoff notices.

“These layoffs have a face, they have a family, they have real needs in this context of great change and great poverty in Argentina,” Mercedes Cabezas, a secretary-general of ATE, told The Associated Press outside the Ministry of Labor as protesters pumped their fists and chanted around her.

“The impact runs very deep because it’s combined with the reduction of social programs, so what we end up with is increasing poverty,” she said.

Milei campaigned for president while brandishing a chainsaw — promising to fix Argentina’s long-troubled economy by chopping down the size of the state. Determined to balance the country’s budget, he has slashed energy and transportation subsidies, halted public works, cut payments to provincial governments and devalued the peso by over 50% to close the gap between the official exchange rate and the black market rate.

However, that has hiked inflation, making it even harder for struggling Argentines to make ends meet.

Even before last week, when 41-year-old Hernán Silva still had his job at the National Road Safety Agency that paid a basic monthly salary of $250, he was stressed about not having enough money “for anything” as the prices of fuel, meat and medication surged.

“I was barely making it to the end of the month,” he said. After 14 years at the road safety agency, his boss called last Wednesday to tell him — and 20 of his colleagues — it was their final day.

Silva and his colleagues tried to force their way into their office on Wednesday — the first day back at work after a holiday week in Argentina — but gave up when managers threatened to call the police.

“My only plan right now is to fight for my job because this is unfair,” he said. Neither he nor his colleagues had received official termination notices.

Despite limited tussles with officers, Wednesday’s protests were largely peaceful. Police were out in force downtown, a reminder of the government’s wider pledge to curb demonstrations that turn disruptive.

Those who burst into public buildings, spokesperson Adorni warned, “will suffer the consequences.”

Argentina’s trade unions — among the sectors most hurt by Milei’s overhaul — appeared undeterred. Union officials pledged a mass general strike. Fired workers vowed to keep showing up at their offices.

“We will continue mobilizing” said Cabezas. “Our fight is just starting.”

https://apnews.com/article/milei-ec...te-argentina-6b9b41603dcc2b9cbcf23e5654bd4e30