Political tensions are increasing more and more as a result of being on the eve of the 2023 presidential elections. In the midst of the hostile environment that exists between the political parties, Elisa Carrió ignited the controversy by comparing Javier Milei with Hitler. The leader of the Civic Coalition also accused him of being a genocide and called on people not to vote for him. In response to Carrió’s insults, the economist came out to defend himself accusing her of “lack of scruples” and that her statements were in order to “recover some political and media centrality”.
“Carrió and a part of Together for Change they resort again to defamatory tools with the aim of dirtying their political adversaries. They did it during PASO 2021 from one of their lists and now one of their referents does it”, said Milei.
“Carrió once again demonstrates his lack of scruples in order to harm and recover some of the political and media centrality that he knew he hadr”, added the deputy for La Libertad Avanza.
“She does not tolerate his lack of prominence in the last three years. She cannot bear to have been reduced to a marginal position in the consideration of society. She maybe she could do some self-criticismsince for 30 years he held public office and did not make any contribution so that we Argentines live better. It is part of the problem”, added the deputy of La Libertad Avanza.
In addition, he stressed that the statements go against the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance), an international treaty to which Argentina is a party and targets the denial and distortion of the Holocaust.
Last year, Milei denounced five journalists who associated him with Nazi practices after a speech in which he pointed out the “aesthetic and moral superiority” of the liberals. Those targeted were Pablo Duggan, Fabián Doman, Paulo Vilouta, Débora Plager and Martín Candalaft.
Before Carrió, the answer would come down to the political arena. Last week, Carrió rejected any possibility that Together for Change could form an alliance with La Libertad Avanza. And it was for more: he argued that voting for the economist would imply supporting “a genocide.”