Speaker of the House Mike Johnson as an example of what's wrong with evangelicalism

[Bartato]

Here is a video about Congressman Mile Johnson working to stop a bill that would have ended abortion in Louisiana. It is a bill he said he believed in, but ultimately worked hard to stop for entirely pragmatic political reasons. He says he believes the unborn are human and deserve equal protection, but is afraid that passing a law defending their lives would hurt the Republican party in the elections.

This is the false religion of pragmatism, a form of functional atheism. The religion of "evangelical churchianity" is full of it, and even genuine Christian churches are deeply infected and greatly harmed by it. Men fear men rather than God. Men put their hope in the strength of their own hands, rather than in the power of God.

Mike Johnson was not alone in his functional atheism on this issue. He was joined by a multitude of pro-life organizations (National and Louisiana Right To Life), churches, and pastors, including the Louisiana Baptist convention (Johnson is a Southern Baptist) and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I'm a member of a Southern Baptist church and I'm furious, but not at all surprised. I've run in to functional atheism before when I brought up the issue of polygamy with pastors. They cannot refute the fact that the Bible permits polygyny, but refuse to admit it for reasons that are probably almost entirely pragmatic.

 

[Bartato]

The sad thing is that Mike Johnson is probably one of the better people in Congress.

 

[Bartato]

The sad thing is that Mike Johnson is probably one of the better people in Congress.

Actually the sad thing is that many "church leaders" are primarily just pragmatic politicians.

Nevertheless, Christ will build and purity His Church. The Bride of the Lamb will overcome. She will be pure and will be clothed in spotless white garments at the wedding feast of the Lamb.

Many "church leaders" will not be there on that day.

 

[Bartato]

This is also a reminder that we need to pray for our leaders, that they be given faith and courage to do the right thing even in the face of much opposition.

Mike Johnson (and others like him) might be regenerate believers. If so, they need to start acting like it.

 

[Bartato]

I am thankful that Johnson released the Jan 6th videos. Once again we see that the "official narrative" is almost always wrong.

 

[MemeFan]

Really is only tiny minority (like 1%) in US wants laws with zero allowable abortions. Which also implies that most Christians are OK with some abortions as law.

Anyway, good politicians stay in touch with beliefs of people. That's how they stay in power.

 

[steve]

That’s the problem with politics.
If he was who you would want him to be, he wouldn’t have been able to win that election.

 

[MemeFan]

If he was who you would want him to be, he wouldn’t have been able to win that election.

That's totally unrrealistic.

He is who he is. No point in pretending in hoping he is something else.

 

[steve]

That's totally unrrealistic.

He is who he is. No point in pretending in hoping he is something else.

As my exwife would say, have it your own wrong way.

 

[Bartato]

Really is only tiny minority (like 1%) in US wants laws with zero allowable abortions. Which also implies that most Christians are OK with some abortions as law.

Anyway, good politicians stay in touch with beliefs of people. That's how they stay in power.

That’s the problem with politics.
If he was who you would want him to be, he wouldn’t have been able to win that election.

That the thing isn't it? Pragmatism, we are all deeply infected with it. We are like fish swimming in an ocean of functional atheism.

We have men and women on the Left, that boldly and openly hate God. On the Right (in the church and the state) we have a mix of shortsighted opportunists, and somewhat decent people who halfway believe in, and halfway follow God.

No wonder we have been losing lately.

Few realize and really believe that the Son of Man truly rose from the dead, was already presented before the Ancient of Days, given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away (Daniel 7).

The Seed of the woman has crushed the serpent's head (Genesis 3:15).

Men everywhere are now commanded to repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matthew 3:12, 4:17, Mark 1:15).

The Stone cut by no human hand has smashed the the kingdoms of this world and is now becoming the Mountain that fills the whole Earth (Daniel 2)

Christ has already been given all authority in Heaven and Earth, and now men everywhere must learn to follow Him (Matthew 28:18-20), and sooner or later they absolutely will.

Psalm 110 is happening right now. The LORD has seated our Lord at His right hand and is in the process of making His enemies a footstool for His feet. He is ruling, and will increasingly rule in the presence of His enemies.

Psalm 2 is happening. The nations rage, people plot a vain thing, kings set themselves, and rulers take counsel together against YAHWEH and against His Christ. God is right now laughing at them, and Christ will break them with a rod of iron, dashing them to pieces like a pot. Now is the time to kiss the Son, and submit to His authority. Now is the time to serve God with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

Those who refuse will perish. God raises up rulers and casts them aside as He pleases.

This universe is no democracy. It is a monarchy. According to Romans 13, political leaders aren't accountable to voters. They are accountable to the Son of God. Those who serve Him faithfully will be blessed, and the rebels will be destroyed.

Men like Mike Johnson (and each of us) have decisions to make. Will we trust God, conquer His foes, by His power, promote righteousness, and enter the promised land like Joshua and Caleb?

Will we instead tremble in fear before the enemies of God, die in the desert, and be thrown into the dustbin of history like the ten faithless spies?

Christ has already won, is now winning, and will ultimately win. It's high time to jump off all the sinking ships

 

[MemeFan]

That the thing isn't it? Pragmatism, we are all deeply infected with it. We are like fish swimming in an ocean of functional atheism.

We have men and women on the Left, that boldly and openly hate God. On the Right (in the church and the state) we have a mix of shortsighted opportunists, and somewhat decent people who halfway believe in, and halfway follow God.

No wonder we have been losing lately.

Few realize and really believe that the Son of Man truly rose from the dead, was already presented before the Ancient of Days, given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away (Daniel 7).

The Seed of the woman has crushed the serpent's head (Genesis 3:15).

Men everywhere are now commanded to repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matthew 3:12, 4:17, Mark 1:15).

The Stone cut by no human hand has smashed the the kingdoms of this world and is now becoming the Mountain that fills the whole Earth (Daniel 2)

Christ has already been given all authority in Heaven and Earth, and now men everywhere must learn to follow Him (Matthew 28:18-20), and sooner or later they absolutely will.

Psalm 110 is happening right now. The LORD has seated our Lord at His right hand and is in the process of making His enemies a footstool for His feet. He is ruling, and will increasingly rule in the presence of His enemies.

Psalm 2 is happening. The nations rage, people plot a vain thing, kings set themselves, and rulers take counsel together against YAHWEH and against His Christ. God is right now laughing at them, and Christ will break them with a rod of iron, dashing them to pieces like a pot. Now is the time to kiss the Son, and submit to His authority. Now is the time to serve God with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

Those who refuse will perish. God raises up rulers and casts them aside as He pleases.

This universe is no democracy. It is a monarchy. According to Romans 13, political leaders aren't accountable to voters. They are accountable to the Son of God. Those who serve Him faithfully will be blessed, and the rebels will be destroyed.

Men like Mike Johnson (and each of us) have decisions to make. Will we trust God, conquer His foes, by His power, promote righteousness, and enter the promised land like Joshua and Caleb?

Will we instead tremble in fear before the enemies of God, die in the desert, and be thrown into the dustbin of history like the ten faithless spies?

Christ has already won, is now winning, and will ultimately win. It's high time to jump off all the sinking ships

This forum is unbeliveable.

Lord this very weekend provided not one, but two victories* and you are dooming. Yes, your last several paragrafs are variant of "We are losing, run to Lord".

It's simple why abortion ban is impossible and unwise. Cultural war isn't won. Without such victory it will only serve to mobilize opponents and provide even more resistance. You can't have laws out of Overton window without populace rebellion. Same thing happened with Covid.

Additionally, problem is forcing all policies on Federal level which directly strengthens Federal government and causes all sort of issues. This is why abortion fight is soo hard.**Instead of moving action to country and state level where things can actually be achieved, you are wasting time complaining about Federales.

Making sense of politics and even trying to see things from other perspectives is too much for most of this forum.

** It's simple. People who like abortion won't be left alone if abortion is forbidden on federal level. That's why they will fight so hard. Additionally, you lose any amount of persuasion and showing why out lifestyle is better.

Also, more things are done on federal level, the more important control of federal government becomes which creates more instability in society etc...

*First one is board of directors suiciding OpenAl. Fans of more government control over AI and AI doomers just killed best US company in field. 80B valuation gone. Now these maniacs will lose status and be listened way less.

Second one is Milei victory in Argentina. So we have first ever anarchist as president. Point is that radical liberty and "good culture" messaging can win elections.

Don't forgot, Satan for his plans requires institution of state. Only state can threathen and bribe people enough for abortion to be popular. Think a little. Popular abortion is small clannish society is extinction culture, so no way it would get "selected".

 

[Bartato]

This forum is unbeliveable.

Lord this very weekend provided not one, but two victories* and you are dooming. Yes, your last several paragrafs are variant of "We are losing, run to Lord".

It's simple why abortion ban is impossible and unwise. Cultural war isn't won. Without such victory it will only serve to mobilize opponents and provide even more resistance. You can't have laws out of Overton window without populace rebellion. Same thing happened with Covid.

Additionally, problem is forcing all policies on Federal level which directly strengthens Federal government and causes all sort of issues. This is why abortion fight is soo hard.**Instead of moving action to country and state level where things can actually be achieved, you are wasting time complaining about Federales.

Making sense of politics and even trying to see things from other perspectives is too much for most of this forum.

** It's simple. People who like abortion won't be left alone if abortion is forbidden on federal level. That's why they will fight so hard. Additionally, you lose any amount of persuasion and showing why out lifestyle is better.

Also, more things are done on federal level, the more important control of federal government becomes which creates more instability in society etc...

*First one is board of directors suiciding OpenAl. Fans of more government control over AI and AI doomers just killed best US company in field. 80B valuation gone. Now these maniacs will lose status and be listened way less.

Second one is Milei victory in Argentina. So we have first ever anarchist as president. Point is that radical liberty and "good culture" messaging can win elections.

Don't forgot, Satan for his plans requires institution of state. Only state can threathen and bribe people enough for abortion to be popular. Think a little. Popular abortion is small clannish society is extinction culture, so no way it would get "selected".

I'm absolutely not "dooming"! How could I possibly"doom"? Christ has already overcome the world, the devil, and even the grave. All authority in heaven and earth is now His. All we have to do is believe Him, and do what He told us. Ultimate success is guaranteed.

We may suffer and die in the process, to be raised by Christ in the future, or we might even succeed in our generation.

Only the pragmatic functional atheist "Christian" will really fail.

You apparently missed the point of the initial post Memefan. This was a proposed law in the state of Louisiana. A fairly conservative state like Oklahoma, Missouri, or Louisiana, could and should pass a ban on abortion. It's clearly not possible right now on the Federal level.

Mike Johnson a Federal Congressman from Louisiana (now Speaker of the House) bullied the conservatives in the State legislature of Louisiana out of passing a state law protecting children and he will answer for it to the King.

Anarchism is a utopian fantasy. The real universe has a King.

I am glad that Milei defeated the Peronists in Argentina. That is a big step in a better direction.

 

[MeganC]

Second one is Milei victory in Argentina. So we have first ever anarchist as president.

From Wiki:

Politically, Milei has been variously described as populist, right-wing libertarian, ultraconservative, far-right, and ultraliberal, while he identifies as a liberal libertarian, aligning specifically with minarchist and anarcho-capitalist principles.

His beliefs are a smorgasbord of philosophies with a bit of this and a bit of that borrowed from different dogmas. I'd say he's more the overall libertarian than an anarchist.

 

[The Revolting Man]

From Wiki:


His beliefs are a smorgasbord of philosophies with a bit of this and a bit of that borrowed from different dogmas. I'd say he's more the overall libertarian than an anarchist.

Whatever else he is, he is fun!

 

[Bartato]

From Wiki:


His beliefs are a smorgasbord of philosophies with a bit of this and a bit of that borrowed from different dogmas. I'd say he's more the overall libertarian than an anarchist.

Far right, ultraconservative, populist, and right-wing libertarian are encouraging things to hear. He should throw in a little Christian nationalism.

 

[FollowingHim]

Second one is Milei victory in Argentina. So we have first ever anarchist as president. Point is that radical liberty and "good culture" messaging can win elections.

I honestly don't trust the guy. Now, his libertarianism itself is a good thing, don't get me wrong. But he's not just a libertarian - he's looking to shift Argentina wholesale into the Western economic system, which is NOT libertarian, but corporate / mercantile. The big thing that happens when a socialist country is taken over by such interests (as happened in New Zealand in the 1980s) is that state assets get sold at bargain prices to international investors. It's called "privatisation" and dressed up in nice fancy words about efficiency and all that, things which you struggle to argue against. Governments really are inefficient, and are not the right people to run power plants and so forth. These things are better run by private companies.

But the thing that is forgotten is that the people of the country paid taxes over many decades to build this infrastructure. They own this infrastructure. And then they don't any more, and find it's now owned by a group of faceless international financiers. Who then shut it down when it's no longer profitable.

In New Zealand, we had a socialist government back in the 1970s which invested in a series of major projects called "Think Big" - hydroelectric dams, irrigation schemes, the oil industry etc. Then in the 1980s, we had a more free-market government that privatised a lot of it. As one example, the sole oil refinery in the country, which was built using taxpayers money, was sold off to a private company. It kept running for years and all seemed ok.

But a couple of years ago the owners decided it was no longer profitable, and decided to shut it down. And when they shut it down, they poured concrete into the underground pipes to intentionally destroy it so it could never be made to run again - committing economic sabotage for whatever profit-driven reason they saw (they owned it and were legally free to do so).

Now the country has no oil refining capacity at all. We are entirely dependent not only on imported petrol and diesel, but even bitumen for the roads, dry ice, and a thousand other products you never think about which are also produced by a refinery. And this is a major strategic problem. The government built that refinery not just for economic reasons, but so that in the event of war or other shocks we could be self-sufficient. Now we cannot be self-sufficient, and it would take an enormous expense to become self-sufficient again.

As Henry Hazlitt points out in his excellent introductory free-market economics text "economics in one lesson", government subsidies make no sense except in one situation - to maintain infrastructure that would be needed in war, if it is uneconomic to operate in peacetime. Had the government kept ownership of that refinery, or at least sufficient control to ensure it could not be destroyed, they could have subsidised it to get through the brief blip of it being unprofitable - and now, when the whole world is suffering a shortage in refining capacity, we'd be ok rather than dependent on expensive imports. And if there is a war we'd still have that critical infrastructure.

That's just one little example. The amount of infrastructure and land that has been sold off to large corporate interests over the past few decades, and the impact of that on the country, is probably incalculable. This example is just simple enough that the implications are clear to see.

See the risk here? Argentina has been socialist for so long that the government will own an enormous amount of the infrastructure that is crucial to run the country. Milei's instinct will be to sell off the family jewels to temporarily improve the country's finances. And he will do a lot of good with that money, people will love him for it in the short term. But there's a hidden cost here, that will come back to bite them later on, when times get tough again and the people find they no longer own their own country.

The people lose their assets, while the oligarchs and banksters walk away with it all and rub their hands in glee.

A middle ground is possible, where libertarianism for individuals is introduced without the people's assets being strip-mined by international banksters. But Milei does not represent a middle ground. He's a radical.

Note that he came out of nowhere, which most likely means someone with deep pockets financed his campaign. Someone who expected his win to be highly profitable for them. So who expects to make money off Milei?

But this is still true:

Whatever else he is, he is fun!

 

[MemeFan]

His beliefs are a smorgasbord of philosophies with a bit of this and a bit of that borrowed from different dogmas. I'd say he's more the overall libertarian than an anarchist.

Nope. He is pakeolibertarian ancap. No state plus classical cultural conservative values (family good, lqbt bad). He will rule as classical liberal.

I honestly don't trust the guy. Now, his libertarianism itself is a good thing, don't get me wrong. But he's not just a libertarian - he's looking to shift Argentina wholesale into the Western economic system, which is NOT libertarian, but corporate / mercantile. The big thing that happens when a socialist country is taken over by such interests (as happened in New Zealand in the 1980s) is that state assets get sold at bargain prices to international investors. It's called "privatisation" and dressed up in nice fancy words about efficiency and all that, things which you struggle to argue against. Governments really are inefficient, and are not the right people to run power plants and so forth. These things are better run by private companies.

But the thing that is forgotten is that the people of the country paid taxes over many decades to build this infrastructure. They own this infrastructure. And then they don't any more, and find it's now owned by a group of faceless international financiers. Who then shut it down when it's no longer profitable.

In New Zealand, we had a socialist government back in the 1970s which invested in a series of major projects called "Think Big" - hydroelectric dams, irrigation schemes, the oil industry etc. Then in the 1980s, we had a more free-market government that privatised a lot of it. As one example, the sole oil refinery in the country, which was built using taxpayers money, was sold off to a private company. It kept running for years and all seemed ok.

But a couple of years ago the owners decided it was no longer profitable, and decided to shut it down. And when they shut it down, they poured concrete into the underground pipes to intentionally destroy it so it could never be made to run again - committing economic sabotage for whatever profit-driven reason they saw (they owned it and were legally free to do so).

Now the country has no oil refining capacity at all. We are entirely dependent not only on imported petrol and diesel, but even bitumen for the roads, dry ice, and a thousand other products you never think about which are also produced by a refinery. And this is a major strategic problem. The government built that refinery not just for economic reasons, but so that in the event of war or other shocks we could be self-sufficient. Now we cannot be self-sufficient, and it would take an enormous expense to become self-sufficient again.

As Henry Hazlitt points out in his excellent introductory free-market economics text "economics in one lesson", government subsidies make no sense except in one situation - to maintain infrastructure that would be needed in war, if it is uneconomic to operate in peacetime. Had the government kept ownership of that refinery, or at least sufficient control to ensure it could not be destroyed, they could have subsidised it to get through the brief blip of it being unprofitable - and now, when the whole world is suffering a shortage in refining capacity, we'd be ok rather than dependent on expensive imports. And if there is a war we'd still have that critical infrastructure.

That's just one little example. The amount of infrastructure and land that has been sold off to large corporate interests over the past few decades, and the impact of that on the country, is probably incalculable. This example is just simple enough that the implications are clear to see.

See the risk here? Argentina has been socialist for so long that the government will own an enormous amount of the infrastructure that is crucial to run the country. Milei's instinct will be to sell off the family jewels to temporarily improve the country's finances. And he will do a lot of good with that money, people will love him for it in the short term. But there's a hidden cost here, that will come back to bite them later on, when times get tough again and the people find they no longer own their own country.

The people lose their assets, while the oligarchs and banksters walk away with it all and rub their hands in glee.

A middle ground is possible, where libertarianism for individuals is introduced without the people's assets being strip-mined by international banksters. But Milei does not represent a middle ground. He's a radical.

Note that he came out of nowhere, which most likely means someone with deep pockets financed his campaign. Someone who expected his win to be highly profitable for them. So who expects to make money off Milei?

But this is still true:

You are confusing neoliberalism with Milei. Neoliberalism is only privatisation plus protectionism for favoured people (done by laws). Milei will go for both privatisation plus regulatory removal. His real problem is control of only executive powers, so hard reforms will be problematic, nevermind socialists/state institutions resistance.

I'm certain NZ refinery was closed due to enviromental protection laws. Also reason none was opened.

 

[MemeFan]

I'm absolutely not "dooming"! How could I possibly"doom"? Christ has already overcome the world, the devil, and even the grave. All authority in heaven and earth is now His. All we have to do is believe Him, and do what He told us. Ultimate success is guaranteed.

It's this sentence, Sir:

No wonder we have been losing lately.

Trend is opposite. We are winning. Minor setback is no cause for concern.

Only the pragmatic functional atheist "Christian" will really fail.

Winners will be one willing to live in reality. Problems are "pragmatics" prefering social approval over truth. It's this guys moving right toward left over time and accepting left's assumptions.

Anarchism is a utopian fantasy. The real universe has a King.

It applies only to human-human relationships, not Lord-human. It's basic, simple, neccesary, morally right and practiced in 90+% of time rule. Only allowable usage of force is in self-defence.

Only problem is anarchists insistence on absolutism of rule. So no, BS excuse, I'm right to take your property or order you something.

 

[FollowingHim]

You are confusing neoliberalism with Milei. Neoliberalism is only privatisation plus protectionism for favoured people (done by laws). Milei will go for both privatisation plus regulatory removal.

There is still the same danger present in privatisation. It means selling assets because of a philosophical belief that those assets should have been built by somebody else. Think about that at a personal / family level.

Let's say you have a philosophical disagreement with coalmining - you genuinely believe it will kill the environment. But Grandad had a coalmining business. So when you inherit the family fortune, you immediately sell that business at a firesale price because you disagree with it philosophically. Then spend the cash to improve your family living situation in the short term - your kids have better clothes to wear. But then when they grow up, and want to have a prosperous life, they have missed a large opportunity to do so, because the family business no longer exists.

Or you have a philosophical disagreement with pig farming - you are Hebrew Roots and don't eat pork. Grandad dies and you sell the pig farm at a firesale price, spend the cash on food and clothing for the kids. And the kids once again have far fewer opportunities to prosper.

What's even worse is if the kids decide they have to buy back the family business, and are forced to pay far more for it than you sold it for. (This actually happened in NZ - the railways were privatised, run down by the new owners, and then bought back by the government for more money but in a more decrepit state).

Wisdom would not throw away the asset in the first place. It would find a way to either retain the asset or exchange it for an asset of equivalent value which you preferred.

And if that is wisdom on a family level, it is also wisdom on a national level.

Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with thinking that Grandad would have been better off doing something different than coalmining or pigfarming. Or that it would have been better if someone else had started those businesses. Just as there's nothing wrong at a national level with thinking that the government should not have built schools, but should have let private businesses & charities do education. But that doesn't mean you should now sell all the school properties to private businesses - you have to deal with the reality at hand, the fact that the people bought these properties with their own money for their own benefit and have entrusted the government with safeguarding those assets. So maybe you lease them out, maybe you sell some and invest the money in different assets, and so forth. But to throw away the assets of the people on a philosophical whim would be foolish (Edit: worse than that, arguably theft). Yet that is what privatisation does.

Who are the oligarchs of Russia / Ukraine etc? The businessmen who managed to acquire the state assets of the Soviet Union at pennies on the dollar, further impoverishing the people while enriching themselves. This is the opportunity the rich will be slathering at the mouth over with Milei's win.

 

[MemeFan]

There is still the same danger present in privatisation. It means selling assets because of a philosophical belief that those assets should have been built by somebody else. Think about that at a personal / family level.

It's not the same. Bad national business won't be liquated, but saved with infusion of tax money. This fact enables them to become worse than otherwise.

Let's say you have a philosophical disagreement with coalmining - you genuinely believe it will kill the environment. But Grandad had a coalmining business. So when you inherit the family fortune, you immediately sell that business at a firesale price because you disagree with it philosophically. Then spend the cash to improve your family living situation in the short term - your kids have better clothes to wear. But then when they grow up, and want to have a prosperous life, they have missed a large opportunity to do so, because the family business no longer exists.

Assumption: ex family business isn't money loser.

(This actually happened in NZ - the railways were privatised, run down by the new owners, and then bought back by the government for more money but in a more decrepit state).

This is real problem here. Mindset that something should be operating must because it exists no matter the cost on rest of society.

Similar things happened in Britain with railways. Real problem - state regulations.

There are two forms of socialism. One when state own directly and second it private owner, stare tells you everything. In both cases state has direct control and you zero. Whole point of private property is you having direct control which enables property usage for your goals.

Wisdom would not throw away the asset in the first place. It would find a way to either retain the asset or exchange it for an asset of equivalent value which you preferred.

And if that is wisdom on a family level, it is also wisdom on a national level.

Very possibly wrong due to scale effect. Something needs to be in charge on family levels, isn't reason for somebody to be in charge on national or world level. There is no need for national/world premier/presidente etc..

Some things work precisely because nobody is in charge.

Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with thinking that Grandad would have been better off doing something different than coalmining or pigfarming. Or that it would have been better if someone else had started those businesses. Just as there's nothing wrong at a national level with thinking that the government should not have built schools, but should have let private businesses & charities do education. But that doesn't mean you should now sell all the school properties to private businesses - you have to deal with the reality at hand, the fact that the people bought these properties with their own money for their own benefit and have entrusted the government with safeguarding those assets.

People didn't do anything. Only actors were politicians which due things for political purposes pretending it's done for people.

Who are the oligarchs of Russia / Ukraine etc? The businessmen who managed to acquire the state assets of the Soviet Union at pennies on the dollar, further impoverishing the people while enriching themselves. This is the opportunity the rich will be slathering at the mouth over with Milei's win.

Because Russia/Ukraine have done social democracy. Strange how in Eastern Europe ex-commies were most comfortable with new "best possible system". Maybe, because there aren't big difference.

It's simple. In Commie land commies take your property and tell you everything you must do. In social democracy due to social reasons commies still tell you everything you must do. Plus of social democracy is false belief you are still in charge.

If state argentine's business get firesaled there are only two possible reasons. First is they are crap, so are sold for crap. Second is gigantic deficit causes ex-government. Grandad has way overspend and left trouble.

And current biggest problem is deficit of state solved by money printing which causes world championship in inflation. Argentina's economy is dying.