Chile Constitutional Referendum, September 4th 2022

[Mike88]

October 5th used to be an important day for the old Concertación, they used to have acts every year with all their presidents. Since a few years ago I think they haven't done anything. Everything related to the transition is nowadays seen in a much more negative light, which I think is sad to some extent. Lot of people worked hard for the NO victory and their struggle shouldn't be forgotten, even if the very same people nowadays said that "La Alegría nunca llegó" (the happiness never came, a reference to the famous No jingle)

Why is it seen badly now? The Chilean transition, in my opinion, was a very good one and very orderly, like the Spanish one. I have to disagree with those who say that the "Alegria nunca llégo", because Chile, despite its current problems and because every single country has its own issues, is still one of the richest countries in South America, has a very good standard of living and strong institutions. Many countries in Central and South America would dream to be like Chile, IMO.

I think you’re underestimating a lot the inequality in Chile. It’s no different than any other of its neighbors and the neoliberal policies can make the effects (for the poor at least) be felt even harsher. It’s something visible in Chile and the misery is not just on inequality numbers, it’s actually very visible if you get to know all of Chile.

Actually, Argentina and Uruguay have less inequality than Chile. Peru and Bolivia are more equal too, even if they’re poorer. When you have drastic differences between the rich and the poor, it creates the question where the money actually is and who is really seeing the effects of that wealth and for who those are just bedtime stories.

Brazil’s problem for example, I don’t see it as having to be richer, we’re biggest economy in the continent and at least before the evil devil got into power, we had the biggest proportional growth in LatAm since 1960. However, we have the most wealth gap than any other South American country (even more than Chile!) because we also have the most diverse population and our elites are just as aristocratic-oriented and will attempt to exclude a larger swath of the population from being included as citizens, as active participants on the economy.

And that directly impacts the effects on the potential of the economy. There’s no way to have sustainable and structural growth if people are actively working to exclude a large part of the population from the economy. That’s what I feel like it happens in Brazil (which has the biggest population with African descent in the Americas, who are also most excluded from economy) and Chile (neoliberal policies implemented by Pinochet have natural effect of working to favor in amplifying the gap between the richer segments from the poorer).

This is why places like Brazil are the absolute worst place to apply Chile-like policies btw. Latin America in general, but especially a diverse place like Brazil. Neoliberalism is policy to have when you’re already rich and have very low inequality, like in Europe or something. And even then it will come with some negative side effects.

The way people talk about economy is very incorrect because they act like data necessarily translates into better quality of life for all. You have to take into account how that is redistributed to society as a whole, which segments really benefit from it and who doesn’t, who sustains these gains without seeing the benefits, etc.

Like I said in my post, every country has it is issues. Yes, Chile is a very unequal country, but so is my country for example, and this is not a discussion about neo-liberal policies or other kind of policies, this is a discussion about why, like kaoras said, people think badly about the transition to democracy in the late 80's. Despite all the flaws that Chile has, it is still a very stable country. I mean, since 1989 just look what happened in Brazil, in Argentina, in Peru, in Venezuela, in Columbia and so on. I know that every country that has had a transition to democracy has debates and issues about what happened, my country, again f.e., has huge discussions about the events that followed 1974, but we have to look at the pluses and minuses. The Chile transition was a successful one, IMO, because everything could have gone wrong: Pinochet could have refused defeat, become even more dictatorial, divide the country and make things even worse. But, from what I've read on that transition, the strong civil society and other agents of the country, from businesses to even the army, said Enough and that it was time to change without chaos. The point of my post was this.

[Red Velvet]

There are lots of things I admire about Chile’s transition, especially how they held people from that time accountable (at least in comparison with some other places) after the dictatorship ended.

However, like you said, there are always the pluses and the minuses for every place. I think Portugal identity still holds several and very serious self-esteem problems because of the Salazar regime for example, but overall I still think Portugal is a decent place and does a lot of things better than other places (look at the vaccination program being #1 in the world for example!).

Same way, there’s some things I admire in Chile but a lot of the Pinochet regime still lived there for a long time, inside the constitution. It’s like, the leader was gone, but his soul was still living there. While other places started from zero with new constitution. There’s a reason why Chile is used as poster country to justify Western intervention in Latin American democracy. “Look at how the dictatorship was so much better for them”. In international imaginary, Pinochet is much more tied to Chile than what other military governments are to their countries.

Partially maybe it’s because what happened in Chile in that time was much more brutal and bloodier than in any other place. But also the underlying perception he still lived there in a way, with more long term impact on shaping the country to this day.

I think transitions from dictatorships are never fully perfect though, so makes more sense to people to focus on what didn’t work and could’ve been improved instead of having these imaginary ideas that other places did it worse. Especially one as traumatic as the Chilean one. I mean, the left still holds some “good guys” goodwill here in my personal circle 35 years later because of the trauma and what happened here looks silly if you compare it to Chile history. I can’t even pretend I understand the exact level on how that era shaped Chilean society, but I know it was much higher than here!

Like, do you measure your personal success based on what you want to achieve or on how others are doing? And how can you really know how others are doing when some stuff is so subjective (they may be doing better on some stuff and worse on others).

That’s why when Chileans say “Happiness did never come”, it shouldn’t be taken THAT literally, they’re talking about their own perspective and expectations, the natural feeling that things could’ve and should’ve gone better (they always can, there’s always room for improvement).

I talk about the problems in my country all the time for example but that focus doesn’t mean I think we are sh**t (I actually am mostly proud of how we dealt with some of the current problem we have with our authoritarian, although I have strong criticism too), just that we focus on the problems when we want to improve. Even people in Scandinavian countries have stuff to complain about, they’re currently concerned about growing income inequality.

But I agree with the vibe of what you say that Chile (and every other country tbh) should sometimes acknowledge some of the positive stuff even if focusing on the negative is always more necessary for improvement. You can’t be too positive neither too negative.

[kaoras]

Well, for one I don't think you can compare the kind of inequality that exist in Portugal with the one in Chile. For example, do a street view of a random street in Antofagasta or Calama. There's a high chance it will look like this:



The Antofagasta region has a PIB per-capita comparable to Norway, it has all the natural resources, it literally should be the Copper Dubai.

The problem with the transition is that there is a feeling, kinda like Red Velvet said, that things should have changed more. The state terror ended, but that was the bare minimum that was expected. The unreformed Army and Pinochet still held a lot of power for years. Pinochet remained at commander in chief of the army, the armed forces still had a lot of power over the civil institutions, they controlled the Senate with unelected members, meaning that they could block any legislation they didn't like. The most egregious authoritarian enclaves only were eliminated in 2005, but we still have Pinochet's constitution that makes it impossible to meaningfully change the political and economic system, thanks to the very high quorums.

Some people were judged, but most of them, and notably Pinochet and most of the higher-ups, were not. The silence pacts about all the disappeared people have never been broken, and all the humans' rights abusers are in fancy prisons.

Even now, in 2021, a TV station get harassed by the right, Piñera, and the businessmen for daring to air a documentary about the coup d'etat.

The education system until Bachelet could be very well be described as apartheid between the different social classes. Public health can still bankrupt you (not as bad as the US but still pretty bad), the current private pension system literally can only exist because the working adults support not just their children but also their parents because the median pension is below the poverty level. The Concertación did stuff, a lot, especially regarding poverty. You can't compare the misery that existed under the dictatorship with the current situation. But the widespread feeling is that the system works against you and only protects the powerful and the rich, and the majority judgment is that the Concertación only administered and perfected that model, and to some extent is true that they gave up on reforming them, save for Bachelet on her second term, which faced a lot of resistance, not least because many in the Concertación looked at the economic growth and thought that everything was fine.  

This country only now is starting to meaningfully change in the way most people thought it would in 1988.

[Mike88]

Well, for one I don't think you can compare the kind of inequality that exist in Portugal with the one in Chile. For example, do a street view of a random street in Antofagasta or Calama. There's a high chance it will look like this:

There are some Lisbon suburbs that are quite problematic, Cova da Moura and Jamaica, for example. (Cova da Moura image from Público newspaper, and Jamaica image from RTP)

But, the "barracas" problems were overall resolved in the 90's with the then PSD government plan of demolishing these kind of neighborhoods and give residents betters houses. Former Lisbon mayor Jorge Sampaio (PS), also was involved in this plan. However, a few still remain and public housing is often criticized for being quite poor and lacking basic quality.

I understand what you say. There are similarities between the transitions on Chile and Spain, as some of the "wounds" of the past are still present. Even in my country, what we got in the 1976 constitution, we spent the next 10 years changing it because it wasn't what the country actually wanted in a democracy (sorry for talking again about Portugal). The TV stuff harass is just stupid, I mean, it's history and we should learn from it. About the health service, is it by insurance?

[Red Velvet]

There are some Lisbon suburbs that are quite problematic, Cova da Moura and Jamaica, for example. (Cova da Moura image from Público newspaper, and Jamaica image from RTP)

These poor neighborhoods is something almost every place has. There’s way more inequality in Chile than just that photo kaoras posted.

Sometimes I have the impression people outside have this impression that Chile looks more like Europe than they look like Latin American neighbors and that just doesn’t match with reality. It’s actually a very wrong idea.

I played enough GeoGuessr to have an idea of how Chile and other neighbors are like and most places there aren’t really that different. If I’m honest, I think Argentina and Uruguay tend to be the ones better well-preserved in South America and even them have some places that look poorer than those pics you’re bringing (I’m thinking just outside of CABA, in the outskirts of Buenos Aires).

And the poverty existing in Chile becomes much harder to understand when you consider they supposedly are richer. Same way US is sold as richest place on Earth (and they are) but they still have some disturbing poor stuff and dystopian reality that don’t even exist even in much poorer places. I get absolutely shocked not only with the healthcare there, but with the growing number of homeless people, drug addicts and dangerous neighborhoods.

Even if the average infrastructure is obviously better (as it should be, considering their money), it still feels very underwhelming considering what you would expect. And that’s effect of inequality, wealth being concentrated between the richest naturally makes the poor be and look poorer. The wealth is not well-distributed and gets to be concentrated in the hands of only some.

Portugal may look poorer in EU context, but it’s small stuff compared to Chile or average American country.



Btw, I had no idea of the inequality data when I was making this post, but I decided to search it and it turns out Argentina and Uruguay really are the lowest in South America! Knew my instinct based on street viewing was right. Turns out wealth distribution and inequality really describes better how majority of people feel regarding their country “wealth” than simple GDP numbers.

I was right about Peru being more equal than Chile too, but I was wrong about Bolivia But honestly, let’s just agree that all the Americas (except Canada) is very unequal continent in comparison to Europe or Asia.

And being Rich and unequal (Chile) sometimes has not that much difference between being Poor and equal (like India according to the map). Depends on who you are. The 10% richest can live like the rich people in Scandinavia and the rest of the 90% live in precarious situation. Who represents more of the country landscape, the rich living all concentrated in some few fancy snob big city neighborhoods or the poor spread all around the country?

Basically, the rich being very rich doesn’t mean the country itself is rich to most people actual experience.

From most equal to most unequal:

Argentina, Uruguay, Nicaragua
-
 Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, El Salvador, DR
-
Chile, Brazil, Paraguay, Panama, Costa Rica
-
Colombia, Bolivia, Guatemala, Honduras, Haiti

[kaoras]

Well, for one I don't think you can compare the kind of inequality that exist in Portugal with the one in Chile. For example, do a street view of a random street in Antofagasta or Calama. There's a high chance it will look like this:

There are some Lisbon suburbs that are quite problematic, Cova da Moura and Jamaica, for example. (Cova da Moura image from Público newspaper, and Jamaica image from RTP)

But, the "barracas" problems were overall resolved in the 90's with the then PSD government plan of demolishing these kind of neighborhoods and give residents betters houses. Former Lisbon mayor Jorge Sampaio (PS), also was involved in this plan. However, a few still remain and public housing is often criticized for being quite poor and lacking basic quality.

I understand what you say. There are similarities between the transitions on Chile and Spain, as some of the "wounds" of the past are still present. Even in my country, what we got in the 1976 constitution, we spent the next 10 years changing it because it wasn't what the country actually wanted in a democracy (sorry for talking again about Portugal). The TV stuff harass is just stupid, I mean, it's history and we should learn from it. About the health service, is it by insurance?

Yes, the health system is by insurance. You are either affiliated to public insurance FONASA or to a private one (ISAPRE). Honestly both are trash,like, my family could afford to pay for ISAPRE but it doesn't really give you any significant beneffit. FONASA also has 4 tiers depending on your income, each with a different fixed % of copay which with expensive treatments can bankrupt you. Only some illnesses and treatments are guaranteed to be free (those covered by a thing called AUGE), but some of them have long waiting lists. Public Hospitals, despite being state-run, still charge you money by the way. The thing is, if you have money, you can afford the private clinics that have lower waiting times and not literally die waiting for attention in the public system.

[Mike88]

There are some Lisbon suburbs that are quite problematic, Cova da Moura and Jamaica, for example. (Cova da Moura image from Público newspaper, and Jamaica image from RTP)

These poor neighborhoods is something almost every place has. There’s way more inequality in Chile than just that photo kaoras posted.

Indeed, like I said in my post, that problem is almost resolved, it was done in the 90's, but housing, and more specifically, the quality of housing in Portugal is quite poor as houses have very low energy efficiency. As an architect, I'm faced with this problem almost daily.

Now, enough of Portugal. (there is the Portuguese thread for that)

The equality numbers are surprising as I thought that Chile was higher. Uruguay I already knew, but Argentina, I was surprised because of the big debt and financial issues Argentina has had.

Yes, the health system is by insurance. You are either affiliated to public insurance FONASA or to a private one (ISAPRE). Honestly both are trash,like, my family could afford to pay for ISAPRE but it doesn't really give you any significant beneffit. FONASA also has 4 tiers depending on your income, each with a different fixed % of copay which with expensive treatments can bankrupt you. Only some illnesses and treatments are guaranteed to be free (those covered by a thing called AUGE), but some of them have long waiting lists. Public Hospitals, despite being state-run, still charge you money by the way. The thing is, if you have money, you can afford the private clinics that have lower waiting times and not literally die waiting for attention in the public system.

I see. But there aren't any smaller insurance companies that compete with ISAPRE or AUGE? It's a monopoly then? In a public hospital, you are charge a fee, normal, but by your description it seems expensive and with no exemptions, right?

[kaoras]

I see. But there aren't any smaller insurance companies that compete with ISAPRE or AUGE? It's a monopoly then? In a public hospital, you are charge a fee, normal, but by your description it seems expensive and with no exemptions, right?

Ah, ISAPRES are the private insurance companies, is not a monopoly, there are several of them but very few people choose to be on them since unless you are really rich you are no better than at FONASA. They also have several problems like vertical integration with clinics (which means fewer options are more expensive care for the patients) and something very stupid: Each year, the ISAPRES do a price hike for their health plans unilaterally and without justification. This is illegal and if you sue them, the courts nullify the price hike. But they still do the hike for everyone that doesn't sue them, and due to complicated legal technicalities related to the constitution, the nullities only apply to the individual level and you can't sue them colectively. (And neither the regulation office does something about it).

[Libertas Vel Mors]

There are some Lisbon suburbs that are quite problematic, Cova da Moura and Jamaica, for example. (Cova da Moura image from Público newspaper, and Jamaica image from RTP)

These poor neighborhoods is something almost every place has. There’s way more inequality in Chile than just that photo kaoras posted.

Sometimes I have the impression people outside have this impression that Chile looks more like Europe than they look like Latin American neighbors and that just doesn’t match with reality. It’s actually a very wrong idea.

I played enough GeoGuessr to have an idea of how Chile and other neighbors are like and most places there aren’t really that different. If I’m honest, I think Argentina and Uruguay tend to be the ones better well-preserved in South America and even them have some places that look poorer than those pics you’re bringing (I’m thinking just outside of CABA, in the outskirts of Buenos Aires).

And the poverty existing in Chile becomes much harder to understand when you consider they supposedly are richer. Same way US is sold as richest place on Earth (and they are) but they still have some disturbing poor stuff and dystopian reality that don’t even exist even in much poorer places. I get absolutely shocked not only with the healthcare there, but with the growing number of homeless people, drug addicts and dangerous neighborhoods.

Even if the average infrastructure is obviously better (as it should be, considering their money), it still feels very underwhelming considering what you would expect. And that’s effect of inequality, wealth being concentrated between the richest naturally makes the poor be and look poorer. The wealth is not well-distributed and gets to be concentrated in the hands of only some.

Portugal may look poorer in EU context, but it’s small stuff compared to Chile or average American country.



Btw, I had no idea of the inequality data when I was making this post, but I decided to search it and it turns out Argentina and Uruguay really are the lowest in South America! Knew my instinct based on street viewing was right. Turns out wealth distribution and inequality really describes better how majority of people feel regarding their country “wealth” than simple GDP numbers.

I was right about Peru being more equal than Chile too, but I was wrong about Bolivia But honestly, let’s just agree that all the Americas (except Canada) is very unequal continent in comparison to Europe or Asia.

And being Rich and unequal (Chile) sometimes has not that much difference between being Poor and equal (like India according to the map). Depends on who you are. The 10% richest can live like the rich people in Scandinavia and the rest of the 90% live in precarious situation. Who represents more of the country landscape, the rich living all concentrated in some few fancy snob big city neighborhoods or the poor spread all around the country?

Basically, the rich being very rich doesn’t mean the country itself is rich to most people actual experience.

From most equal to most unequal:

Argentina, Uruguay, Nicaragua
-
 Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, El Salvador, DR
-
Chile, Brazil, Paraguay, Panama, Costa Rica
-
Colombia, Bolivia, Guatemala, Honduras, Haiti

To this comment and other comments in this thread:

Yes, averages may not always represent a situation perfectly, but Chile is still the second wealthiest country in Latin America by median income (after Uruguay, which has a very different historical/economic situation). Obviously, there are many internal issues with the health system etc, but the data is clear that Chile has substantially benefitted since the end of the dictatorship, or, if we're looking at a more macro level, since the introduction of a free market system. Poverty is just a quarter of what it was 20 years ago (36% in 2000, 8.6% in 2017), incomes have risen (hard to find year by year median income data, but average incomes have gone up and median incomes are some of the highest in Latin America), and the GDP has grown. Of course there is more to do -- there always is -- but it is clear that there Chile has achieved substantial progress, and that those improvements have benefitted the population as a whole.

[xelas81]

Is there any polling for the legislature?
I would guess that it is almost certain that no alliance win a majority.

[kaoras]

Is there any polling for the legislature?
I would guess that it is almost certain that no alliance win a majority.

No, unfortunately, we don't do that here. I think the first plurality will be for Apruebo Dignidad (Boric's coalitions), followed by Chile Podemos (Sichel's)+ and then Nuevo Pacto Social in a distant third (Provoste's)

BTW, today there is another debate and Sichel continues to collapse in the new polls. Cadem even has him in fourth place behind Provoste and with Kast (18%) getting close to Boric (21%)

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I don’t recall Sichel ever receiving any sort of major scrutiny during the primaries, am I wrong?

[kaoras]

I don’t recall Sichel ever receiving any sort of major scrutiny during the primaries, am I wrong?

Not really. The press mostly focussed on his life story and Lavín was too busy attacking Jadue (lmao). Only Desbordes attacked him, but nobody was paying much attention to Desbordes. This could also be a problem for JAK going forwards, his platform has many insane bits, including a literal Operación Condor 2.0 agains "leftist extremists". Considering that the standard format of the debates in Chile is the journalists grilling the candidates, is very likely that his more extremist views come to the spotlight again.

[Red Velvet]

Most recent Chilean polls:

Cadem/Plaza poll for 1st round
Boric - 29% (-1)
Kast - 25% (+4)
Provoste - 18% (+1)
Sichel - 14% (-3)

Panel Ciudadano poll for 1st round
Boric - 30% (+4)
Kast - 24% (+9)
Sichel - 18% (-6)
Provoste - 13%

Panel Ciudadano runoff scenarios
Boric 56% vs Kast 44%
Boric 59% vs Sichel 41%

Criteria poll for 1st round
Boric - 33% (-)
Kast - 21% (+10)
Sichel - 19% (-6)
Provoste - 14%

The Cadem poll is an update in regards the previous poll kaoras posted. We once again keep seeing a Kast non-stop trend of growth, while Sichel keeps going downwards and finally has fallen to 4th place now, behind Provoste.

It’s also a big eye opener that Kast performs better than Sichel against Boric in the runoff poll from Panel Ciudadano but it was something I was already somewhat thinking it could happen. Despite Bolsonaro’s unpopularity in Brazil for example, PSDB performs worse in the runoff against Lula.

Basically, there are a small but not insignificant amount of populist far-right voters who would rather vote for a leftist instead of a moderate right-winger, in the style of the Melenchón-Le Pen voters. While the “moderate” right-winger is more ideologically loyal and will just fall in line with whoever is the right-wing option.

OR, if these far-right voters aren’t actually voting for Boric in the Boric vs Sichel scenario, it still means they aren’t voting for any of the options. Meaning that the far-right doesn’t see the “moderate right” as better than the left.

Left-Right spectrum is becoming outdated in some ways. Divide appears to become more about people who want strong meaningful change (regardless of what it is lol) and people who doesn’t.

[H. Ross Peron]

I don’t recall Sichel ever receiving any sort of major scrutiny during the primaries, am I wrong?

Not really. The press mostly focussed on his life story and Lavín was too busy attacking Jadue (lmao). Only Desbordes attacked him, but nobody was paying much attention to Desbordes. This could also be a problem for JAK going forwards, his platform has many insane bits, including a literal Operación Condor 2.0 agains "leftist extremists". Considering that the standard format of the debates in Chile is the journalists grilling the candidates, is very likely that his more extremist views come to the spotlight again.

So Kast's actually running on the "helicopter" meme that far-right individuals in the US and elsewhere constantly fantasize about. JFC.

[Lumine]

Debate tonight! Pretty much do or die for Sichel, whereas Boric and JAK just need to successfully play defence. Ominami is showing up this time, so it will be interesting to see who he decides to go against.

I don’t recall Sichel ever receiving any sort of major scrutiny during the primaries, am I wrong?

Not really. The press mostly focussed on his life story and Lavín was too busy attacking Jadue (lmao). Only Desbordes attacked him, but nobody was paying much attention to Desbordes. This could also be a problem for JAK going forwards, his platform has many insane bits, including a literal Operación Condor 2.0 agains "leftist extremists". Considering that the standard format of the debates in Chile is the journalists grilling the candidates, is very likely that his more extremist views come to the spotlight again.

So Kast's actually running on the "helicopter" meme that far-right individuals in the US and elsewhere constantly fantasize about. JFC.

As a matter of fact, one of his platform's proposals would even strenghten the "state of emergency" (which the President can declare without congressional appoval, needing it only to extend it beyond a few days) to turn into a "state of siege" de facto, thus by-passing Congress to take some really harsh measures for a few days. Obviously nothing he can get through any concievable Congress, but it's stuff like that that has me resigned to voting null if it indeed becomes Kast vs. Boric.

OR, if these far-right voters aren’t actually voting for Boric in the Boric vs Sichel scenario, it still means they aren’t voting for any of the options. Meaning that the far-right doesn’t see the “moderate right” as better than the left.

Left-Right spectrum is becoming outdated in some ways. Divide appears to become more about people who want strong meaningful change (regardless of what it is lol) and people who doesn’t.

This seems like a reasonable interpretation of the current scenario. A lot of right-wing or even center-right voters are just about done and fed up with Piñera, and Sichel being so determined to play to the center without trying to hold the base has allowed many to see him as an unappealing choice. I've certainly heard of a few Kast voters not planning to vote Sichel in a runoff because of them percieving him as "more of the same".

Ever since 2009, there's been a not insignificant part of the electorate that has voted for the "change" option even if that means switching between candidates one believes should be incompatible. There was a Ominami (left) to Piñera (center-right) crossover vote in 2009, and to this day I believe a few of Beatriz Sanchez (FA, left) voters went for Piñera in 2017 because their vote was a non-ideological one for some sort of "change" in the first place. If anything, Boric should benefit from that in a second round against Sichel, but with polls suggesting Kast is managing to somewhat soften his image and broaden his appeal, it's not impossible he rallies a few voters as a "change" candidate.

[kaoras]

That's it, I'm voting Artés, every single word that comes out of his mouth is 100% based.

I was literally writing that I thought everybody ranges from meh to fine, no breakout performances yet. But everybody is attacking Kast (with limited success I might add), which again, does not help Sichel, since it consolidates Kast's position. But just as I was writing that Provoste murdered Sichel in the cross-questions. RIP

(Well, maybe I'm overreacting, but repeating like a broken clock, literally 10 times, "I'm proud of being a lawyer" at the question if he was a lobbyist for the gas companies investigated for collusion,wasn't a good look at all)

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Was vaguely paying attention but then they kept saying “zanja” and I had to look it up. Does Kast really want to build a moat around Chile?

[kaoras]

Was vaguely paying attention but then they kept saying “zanja” and I had to look it up. Does KAST really want to build a moat around Chile?

Of course he does, why wouldn't he.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Was vaguely paying attention but then they kept saying “zanja” and I had to look it up. Does KAST really want to build a moat around Chile?

Of course he does, why wouldn't he.

I suppose I shouldn’t have expected originality from the founder of the Republican Party.

[kaoras]

Boric basically called Kast a nazi (his father was literally a nazi) and a tax evader (He has offshore accounts in Panamá) and Kast absolutely lost his mind. This is the best debate ever.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

“I sent you a book explaining how my father* was not a Nazi.”

*fought in the German army from 1944-5

[PSOL]

What is Artes saying?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The items that seemed to have most resonance on the internet in the immediate aftermath: the Kast-Boric spat about Kast’s father and the Panama Papers, Kast’s big moat, and the total absence of Sichel (maybe with an honorable mention of how dirty Provoste did him).

[Red Velvet]

Boric basically called Kast a nazi (his father was literally a nazi) and a tax evader (He has offshore accounts in Panamá) and Kast absolutely lost his mind. This is the best debate ever.

Omg do you have links?

The runoff between these two will probably be a bigger explosive event than Keiko Fujimori vs Pedro Castillo.