Having ambivalent thoughts about the fact the community (including Coindesk https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/08/14/pro-bitcoin-candidate-javier-milei-unexpectedly-leads-in-presidential-voting-in-argentina/) are so blinded by his crypto stance they completely omit his far-right conservative ideological platform. From a NYT article: "He and his running mate, a lawyer who has defended the country’s past military dictatorship, have suggested they would loosen gun laws, reverse recent policies allowing abortion and even permit the sale of human organs, an example of commerce that Mr. Milei says the government has no business restricting." (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/14/world/americas/argentina-javier-milei-president-primary.html)

While I understand the hype of such news for crypto, I am left wondering whether this one aspect of a political candidate's entire portfolio of stances (and which, still, remains a protest promise to an impoverished nation) should be seen as a redeeming quality to a long list of ones which directly contradict the vision of a freer and happier society. I have seen similar sentiment regarding Kennedy in the American presidential elections – the man who endorsed crypto while also making antisemitic remarks, spreading covid conspiracy theories, and the like. I do not purport to be an expert on either country and while I know this is controversial, I believe politicians should not be endorsed on the basis of a positive crypto attitude if the rest of their platform is regressive.