MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, September 18th 2018 - 16:07 UTC

Brazilian election increasingly polarized: Lula's support increases and so does far right Bolsonaro

Tuesday, August 21st 2018 - 08:10 UTC
Full article 54 comments

Jailed former president Lula da Silva has increased his support by five percentage points and would win Brazil's October presidential election if he was allowed to run, a poll by CNT/MDA showed on Monday. The survey, which was last taken in May, found that almost half of the leftist leader's supporters would transfer their votes to his running mate Fernando Haddad if Lula is disqualified from Brazil's most uncertain race in decades. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • DemonTree

    It baffles me that 6.2% of would-be Lula voters would switch to Bolsonaro. Don't they stand for opposite things?

    Aug 21st, 2018 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Enrique Massot

    Strange things happen when voters' will is frustrated by maneuvers from the powers that be. Just look at what happened in the US when the witch apprentices of the DNC maneuvered to bar Bernie Sanders.

    In any event, the defiance of Brazilian voters in spite of the odds is quite a lesson in civility and a slap in the face of judges and politicians.

    Aug 22nd, 2018 - 04:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @DT
    “6.2% of would-be Lula voters would switch to Bolsonaro”

    Considering that Brazil has about 145 million registered voters, and that the polls suggest that about 30% are undecided (due to not knowing the candidates’ proposals) or intend to annul their votes, and considering that Lula is supposed to have 37% of voter intentions (which could well change after /if his candidacy is impugned), do the math, 6,2 % isn’t all that much – 2.3 million voters – but it could swing an election.

    But if you ask me why 6.2% would/might migrate to Bolsonaro, I’d say it’s because in a way, Bolsonaro is as, or perhaps a bit less crude than Lula, and although (officially) they are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, he speaks the language of the man on the street, and identifies with him…This goes to show, IMO, that these 6.2% are not concerned with, or being influenced by left, or right ideology, but simply by the man.

    DT, regarding the poll (re which you sent me the link), and which I commented on under “Brazil sending troops to VZ border…”, one of the things that drew my attention was what I saw as the possibility that a lot of the people who were interviewed were not all that decided and quite likely just answering off the top of their heads…


    @EM “Defiance”, as a lesson in civility ? Lula’s defiance of the courts – and all other law enforcement institutions – just shows his lack of civility, or the extent of his insolence…

    Which civilized country would put up with so much chicanery from a convicted, jailed criminal ? Looks like the judiciary that you criticize for puttinhg him away, is allowing him all (the benefits of) this public exposure - something which has never been permitted before, for any other crook....a real circus, in which the people are the clowns...

    Aug 25th, 2018 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
    “just shows his lack of civility, or the extent of his insolence…” Only to those of “low-intelligence ...who has gravitated towards a socially conservative ideology.” Certainly not to the impartial objective opinion of the UNHRC and the rest of the civilised world.

    Aug 25th, 2018 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    The BIGGEST problem with the “Political Jokes” is that MOST of the times, they DO get elected! So why should THIS election be so different?

    Aug 26th, 2018 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @TH
    Sorry Twinkle toes....“low Intelligence”....who are you referring to ? Lula, and yourself ?

    “impartial objective opinion of the UNHRC and the rest of the cilivilized world” ? that's a biiiiig porky, even for you...a commie who alleges he has no ideological leaning....

    Aug 26th, 2018 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    JB
    “who are you referring to...” Yourself, Tweedledumb because it fits your profile perfectly. Who else holds a greater “conservative ideology” than you on this thread? www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html
    “Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found.”
    “even for you...a commie” Ah! You're adopting your Hitler mantel again. No proof, no truth
    “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens

    Aug 27th, 2018 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @TH
    Conservative ideology ? So, is the liberal, progressive crap that you profess, the solution to the world's problems ? we've all seen the good it's done for Latin America....and only the fools insist.....Lula, Maduro, Terry ,

    Hiltler ? when are you going to speak for yourself, i.e., instead of expressing yourself through other people's pieholes ? “Christopher Chickens”.
    Ah, I forgot, commies and liberals don't know what that means, because they only know how to repeat and applaud whatever crap their master's throw at them....

    Aug 27th, 2018 - 03:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    JB
    “only the fools insist.....Terry” I follow the evidence, and no less than the qualified opinion of UNHRC hasn't refuted my conclusion.
    Thank you, for further confirming you are in fact a “Low-intelligent adult” who's driven by his obvious limitations.

    Aug 27th, 2018 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    The BEST news for @EM:

    - Lulla's imprisonment won't last to complete the sentence
    - PT won't be alienated & may support a leading candidate and thus [indirectly] be in power.
    - Lulla could be the president in the NEXT election!?!?!?!
    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CrQ8BMyAmrI/Vv2oB4qWsiI/AAAAAAAABxE/GjaK09QOXGcfFob3-q8jjwDMZLiSvXsOA/s400/voto.jpg

    Aug 27th, 2018 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    “I follow the evidence, and no less than the qualified opinion of UNHRC hasn't refuted my conclusion.”......bla,bla,bla.......says Terry, the misguided, commie LIAR

    Aug 27th, 2018 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    JB
    “says Terry, the misguided” In your unqualified opinion, whereas those that are qualified in their field. Would classify you as typically, and more than likely to be a “Low-intelligent adult”
    Whereas, I predicted correctly what opinion the UNHRC, as experts was likely to hold. It certainly doesn't support your flawed version.
    ”the misguided, commie LIARStill engaging in your 'Hitlerisms, no surprise, no proof, no truth. As you've made your political position perfectly clear.
    JB “Your insistence that I'm a fascist”
    Brazil's corruption scandals reach Lula da Silva: ...
    12 Jack Bauer; “..'Military dictatorship', ..history is showing,.. that it was good for Brazil
    50 Jack Bauer; “Military taking over again, ….. they did it to prevent Brazil from being handed over to the communists. ... the Military , I hope, would be there again to save Brazil
    Brazil remembers the 50th anniversary of the coupe…
    15 Jack Bauer; “..Am pretty sure that military are accompanying all this … I hope they DO take over...”

    Aug 27th, 2018 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “he speaks the language of the man on the street, and identifies with him”

    That sounds plausible. I think you're right, they are voting based on the man and not the ideology, picking someone they identify with or who they think understands them. I get the impression some Trump voters were similarly more influenced by his way of speaking (chatty and discursive rather than making a polished speech) than his policies.

    “one of the things that drew my attention was what I saw as the possibility that a lot of the people who were interviewed were not all that decided and quite likely just answering off the top of their heads”

    Also likely true, but when the time comes I wouldn't bank on them not voting off the top of their heads (or on 'gut instinct') the same way they answered the poll.

    “when are you going to speak for yourself, i.e., instead of expressing yourself through other people's pieholes ?”

    That's just TLH. I hope you think that I express myself in my own words, and my liberal and progressive friends do too. They don't just believe whatever they read (or read and repeat only what he already believes, in Terry's case).

    Aug 27th, 2018 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    The typical BRAZILIAN joke - the BEST ever:

    http://en.mercopress.com/2018/08/18/un-human-rights-committee-asks-lula-be-allowed-to-exercise-political-rights

    Aug 28th, 2018 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DT
    “I express myself in my own words” So do I, but when experts reiterate what I state, it makes it conclusive.

    Aug 28th, 2018 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @DT
    “...but when the time comes I wouldn't bank on them not voting off the top of their heads...”
    That's exactly the problem...most voters are not conscious about their choices, they don't bother trying to find out who the candidates really are, reason why the same crap is voted in, election after election.
    I read that 75% of the candidates - for all posts in Congress (Lower House and Senate), State legislatures, Governors - are already in office, so if true, and they being the ones who have had most exposure during the last years, what's the chance of renewal ? not much...
    I have been checking candidates profiles, and there are a few new people, from successful business backgrounds, but who are still relatively unknown...so doesn't look like they'll have much chance in this election...hopefully in the next...for the moment looks like it'll come down to voting for the least bad candidate - that has a chance - to avoid one's vote favouring the ones you can't stand....

    TH's bs is unique....have never met such an arrogant idiot – just as well only on the internet, that way I can ignore him when I want to. Not wanting to waste more of my time on him, but at the end of July, we managed to have an 'almost' civil exchange....he made a couple of assertions regarding Lula’s “triprekis”, which weren’t true, so I sent him links explaining the facts…he never replied. They must've made him very unhappy.

    Don't worry, you have nothing in common with TH.

    Have you noticed that NOW, Terry says “but when experts reiterate what I state, bla,bla bla...” ???
    Certainly no modesty from Mr. Arrogant....he thinks he 'states it first', and 'then' the experts reiterate his bullshit......isn't it usually the other way around, i.e., a person repeating something just because an expert says it ? and, doesn't that show a lack of discernment ?

    Aug 28th, 2018 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    JB
    “experts reiterate what I state, ...Certainly no modesty”
    Facts don't encompass ego, they signify what you're in short supply of, irrefutable proof. Which in the end, is all that matters.

    Aug 28th, 2018 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @JB
    Yeah, it's a problem everywhere, but maybe especially in Brazil. People are lazy and it's easier to say all politicians are the same than to do some research and pick the least bad (one who has a chance as you say). 75% being already in office is probably quite low, but you can't replace them all at once, anyway; no one would know what they were doing.

    “Don't worry, you have nothing in common with TH.”

    Except for professing liberal, progressive crap? ;)

    @TH
    “Facts don't encompass ego”

    Yeah, right. That's why you couldn't admit Voice was right about free association after he gave you irrefutable proof, and instead spent 20 posts whining that he didn't give you the link straight away, as if that changed the facts.

    Aug 28th, 2018 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DT
    “That's why you couldn't admit ...” Once more, for the lame and deliberately obtuse. ”Already asked and answered. Like I have previously stated any errors and omissions, are the result of the asserter's evasions, by his failure to provide full citation when requested.” There is no obligation on me when 'sandbagging', is perpetuated.
    sandbagger - “to hide the truth ...so as to gain an advantage over another” Which is fraud by ommission. Commodum Ex Injuria Sua Nemo Habere Debet Latin: a wrongdoer should not be enabled by law to take any advantage from his actions.
    http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/CommodumExInjuriaSuaNemoHabereDebet.aspx

    Aug 28th, 2018 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Thank you for proving my point. Nothing Voice said or did could change the facts. The only advantage his supposed 'wrongdoing' gave him was over you and your ego, which you have just demonstrated is far more important to you than the truth.

    And yet again you resort to using others' words. I guess it's true; imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.

    Speaking of proof, when are you going to post some for what you claimed in the other thread: that the appellant court censored Moro on the basis that Lula had always complied?

    Aug 28th, 2018 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage and traitor
    The true you reverts to type, which is ingratiating yourself with whoever you deem to be apposed to me, regardless of whether they lie or engage in fraud. All you have indicated is your own moral depravity in supporting those that attempt to gain advantage through their dishonesty. I have shown clearly that such behaviour is at variance within the accepted norms of argumentative theory. So once again, “you cannot gain an advantage from your own fraud.”
    “Speaking of proof,..” Where is your facist's buddies proof. ”he who asserts must prove. An assertion is a statement offered as a conclusion without supporting evidence....Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant).” So it his burden, as you well know, and not mine to refute it.

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @DT
    “Except for professing liberal, progressive crap?”
    Everyone has the right to their “opinion”, based on their own experience and knowledge of their surroundings / environment.
    We may not always agree, but nothing wrong with that.


    TH's “...but when experts reiterate what I state, it makes it conclusive” takes the prize...for foolishness....he's not even embarrased for posting such rubbish. It's no surprise he is so secretive, claiming a load of things which are obviously lies ...he can't risk any one deciphering who he is.

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 03:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    JB
    “takes the prize...for foolishness..” In your humble opinion, whereas both parts are true. There was such a study of persons such yourself, that indicated the greater likelihood of a “low-intelligence adult”. I also indicated what conclusion the UNSEC was likely to form, and all the indications are that they unlikely to make a ruling that endorses the treatment of Lula. Based on what they have asked Brazil to allow him over the last year and a half.

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “Everyone has the right to their opinion”

    I certainly do agree with that, but remember when you insult 'liberals' you are also insulting me and my friends.

    TH has an ego problem, hence him inventing ridiculous reasons why I disagreed with him, rather than accepting the obvious one: that he's wrong. He can't answer the question of what 'advantage' Voice got from not providing a link straight away, because the only possible answer was that he made Terry look foolish (though in reality Terry did that to himself), and now Terry refuses to admit the truth because he's bitter about it.

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage and traitor
    Didn't you ever learn right from wrong? “He can't answer the question of what 'advantage' Voice got” I don't have explain why, its a sufficiency that society doesn't accept that you can gain an 'unfair advantage over your own wrong doing'. to wit: Fraud by omission; sandbagger - “to hide the truth ...so as to gain an advantage over another'”
    “why I disagreed with him,” One, you're ethically challenged, as you continue to support those persons who are clearly dishonest. Two, you have a personal bias against anyone who exposes them.

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “I don't have explain why”

    I didn't ask you to explain why, I asked you what advantage Voice got. All your bollocks about not getting an unfair advantage is irrelevant unless he actually got one.

    And sure I know right from wrong; are you really such a boludo you think citing a source improperly is some great crime? Not to mention the many times you have done the exact same thing.

    Now why don't you reply on the other thread so I can tell you what I think of the story you linked to? Seems you only care to reply when I argue with you.

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage and traitor
    “All your bollocks..” He certainly did Ollie, its all laid out on the thread. What is it about 'sandbagger' that's a challenge for you to comprehend, or that I would 'presume an adverse inference'.
    “Now why don't you reply ...” Why don't you kiss my ass.

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    As promised, Terry can't answer the question. :)

    Terry, I see you've retreated from 'right and wrong' to 'presuming an adverse inference'. Much more reasonable. For example, right now I am drawing an adverse inference due to your failure to answer a simple question.

    And if you don't reply, then you will never get an answer from me. Enjoy cutting your nose off to spite your face.

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage and traitor
    “I see you've retreated from ...” It's not a retreat it's in addition dipshit. “Terry can't answer the question.” Being free and over twenty I don't orders from anyone, especially the ethically challenged .

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @DT
    “...when you insult 'liberals' you are also insulting me and my friends”.....Don't see how....I am not referring to the person, but to the liberal philosophy which, in 'general terms' I don't agree with....I have a couple of friends who are liberals....although we have different views on a few issues, that doesn't prevent us being good friends. When I wish to insult someone, I leave no doubt.

    It is useless trying to discuss anything with TH....in his “opinion” (the definition of which he has trouble understanding) he is always right - even when he's wrong (quite a lot) - and the moment you disagree with him you are a liar....then he “proves” this by citing other peoples' quotes which, bear in mind, are really the experts reiterating what TH has already stated...he also uses the UNs and/or the UNHRCs (irrelevant) declarations to back up his biased convictions.....after that, his arrogance gets progressively worse, which confirms his despicable personality. The feeble brain in his swollen head must have a hard time keeping up with this perfect (fake) person he has invented..

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @JB
    “When I wish to insult someone, I leave no doubt.”

    I've noticed. ;) I didn't think you were trying to insult me, but this is what I meant:

    “commies and liberals don't know what that means, because they only know how to repeat and applaud whatever crap their master's throw at them....”

    That is definitely referring to the person. If I said right-wingers are all dimwitted mouthbreathers who believe whatever fake news they see on facebook, or repeated Terry's favourite study about prejudice being related to low IQ, would it bother you?

    “It is useless trying to discuss anything with TH”

    I know. For everyone else he insists they must answer because of 'burden of proof', but when I ask him to back up his own claim it's “I don't take orders from anyone”. I wouldn't mind him being such a pedantic twit so much if he would only follow his own rules, but he throws them out the window as soon as they inconvenience him. And on the other thread, he can never keep himself from answering if I insult him, but he won't do it to be helpful, or to have a civil conversation. What does that say about him?

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage and traitor
    “he “proves” this by citing other peoples' quotes”. Yes, it's called proof, which what your supposed to do. Which is preferable to your deliberately lying about every issue. Here's the latest, ”He(Lula) refused to go voluntarily”. So I post report from the Boston Review that flat-out shows you're a liar.

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @JB
    I'm replying to your comment about the survey here since that one is about to close.

    Yeah, this poll doesn't give the raw data like the Data Folha one. It says it takes family income into account, which presumably correlates to social class, and I'm guessing the 2 states they omitted aren't SP and RdJ, but who knows.

    “it implies that they believe Lula will solve all Brazil’s problems... yet between 75-80% see no improvement for 2019”

    Maybe it shows the opposite: they plan to vote for Lula but don't expect him to work miracles and think things will still get worse for a while. Or, perhaps they want to vote for him but don't expect him to win, since he's officially barred from running.

    I assume the 'stimulated' question means those polled are given a list of names to choose from. This could potentially be misleading. The people being interviewed probably expect the polling company to know what they are talking about, and if they include Lula's name, that means he can stand.

    “Less than 25% bothered to look into the history of who they indicated as their candidate, and 55% admitted knowing nothing abt their candidates’ proposals etc”

    “47% get their information on politics from the internet and blogs, which we know are full of fake news.”

    Yeah, none of that is encouraging. Hopefully people consider a bit more carefully before casting their vote than before answering a survey. Hopefully.

    Re the asylum seekers, some countries' benefits are better than others but it's not obvious to me which are the best. However, if the refugees were just trying to flee from danger, they could have stayed in Turkey rather than risk their lives crossing the Med. Having already been forced to leave their homes, they wanted a better life, so I imagine benefits were a factor, along with job and education opportunities, and how welcoming the various countries are.

    @TH
    Was that supposed to be addressed to Jack? I've never said Lula refused to go voluntarily, much less lied on here.

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DT
    Mea culpa, it was a reply for him.

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @DT
    Me: ““it implies that they believe Lula will solve all Brazil’s problems... yet between 75-80% see no improvement for 2019””
    You : “Maybe it shows the opposite”.
    I don’t think so. Given the fact that most of Lula’s supporters are situated in the lower social classes, and that they are not exactly notorious for doing research on whom they vote for, I can’t see them going through any rational, logical process to pick their candidate, based on thinking that he only needs some time to sort things out…aside from the fact it was his way of thinking that screwed Brazil in the first place. So, imo, they will vote for Lula regardless of absolutely just about anything.
    When the poll mentions names, that’s when it is ‘stimulated’. In the spontaneous ones, his voter intention drops to less than half. And at this point, keeping his name as an option on the stimulated poll, is indeed misleading. His would-be voters either don’t know he’s ineligible (according to electoral law) or they don’t care, which either way shows they have no idea what’s going on, or they are fanatics. I don’t think Lula’s would-be voters will change their minds, ‘unless’ his name is left out of the stimulated poll. Until then we’ll have to put up with somewhat meaningless poll results.

    May not be obvious to you which benefits for asylum seekers are the best, because seems that the nominal value is not the only variable to consider, but to a refugee, who is less informed than you are, he will go for whatever he thinks is the best deal…on the other hand, if a refugee is really wanting to work hard and get ahead, the benefit should not be his ultimate goal.

    Re TH's madness, now it's ““he “proves” this by citing other peoples' quotes”. Yes, it's called proof”....so, we must believe that someone's quote is 'proof' ?...of what, other than someone said it ?
    Funny, despite the fact TH lives 1000s of miles away, does not watch Brzln TV, he still knows what I saw or didn't see...must be a wizard.

    Aug 29th, 2018 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    JB
    “he “proves” this by citing other peoples' quotes” Exactly, as my last quote was from the Boston Review which totally refutes your claim ”Moro summoned Lula again. He refused to go voluntarily“ The BR states ”Judge Teori Zavascki came down hard. In light of the illegal wiretapping and leaking, he charged Moro with violating Article 5 of the Constitution, which governs due process. Zavascki also declared some of the taped conversations legally irrelevant and argued that public interest could not justify the illegal release of the taped conversations. The ruling is the gravest judicial setback for Moro since the launch of Lava Jato.” Of cause you don't like quotes as they reveal the truth, and expose you as the liar you are. Proof is a wonderful thing.

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Ok, I get it that you worship the Boston Review etc...it is more than obvious.
    The wiretapping was not illegal...oops (time for a 'mea culpa' ?) ...illegal perhaps, only to have released it ...Moro got a rap on the knuckles for releasing the damning phone conversation between Dilma and Lula - as Zavascki had no alternative but to do so - but in view of its contents, fully justified...whether you, the UN and the Boston Review like it or not. Anyway, if Dilma and Lula believed they had nothing to hide, why were they so upset ? Don't bother answering, just a rhetorical question.

    I have nothing against quotes Numb Nuts, only when they are incessantly used (by idiots) to justify their biased views. Proof is indeed a wonderful thing, when it is used to put crooks like Lula behind bars.

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 02:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    JB
    “quotes only when they are incessantly used to justify their biased views.”
    My quotes were to maintain the historic record accurately, and to prevent people like you, with an agenda, from sullying it. It has achieved that purpose since in spite of all your blathering you can no longer maintain your fiction.
    “Proof is indeed a wonderful thing, when it is used to put crooks like Lula behind bars.” “Moro accuses Lula of owning. But there is no evidence of Lula’s ownership,..” Boston Review.

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 03:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    Does ANYBODY see “IT” coming?:
    https://i0.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Martirio-no-STF.jpg?resize=580%2C379&ssl=1

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    It's interesting that the 'stimulated' question has such different results to the 'unstimulated', for all candidates. Impossible to believe that those polled have forgotten who they wanted to vote for, so I'd guess that those who gave an answer without a list have already made up their minds, whereas the others just picked whoever they liked best from the options.

    The PT's strategy seems to be to keep Lula's name in the race as long as possible, and then get people to transfer their votes to Haddad. I suppose that's their best option as the later is not personally popular.

    Re the refugees, they are arriving in Greece and Italy, but many of the natives of those countries already had to move to Germany to get jobs, so for migrants it makes sense to go there too. I just can't see benefits being the main motivation, 1st because few people aspire to a life scraping by on benefits, and 2nd because all kinds of people had to leave Syria due to the war, including well educated people with good jobs, and they'd be much better off working. My own experience is that people in work generally don't want to give it up and go on benefits because it would mean a lower standard of living and less (self)respect, but if on benefits for too long they sometimes give up and decide it's easier to stay on them. So it will be very bad for Germany if they leave their new immigrants in limbo; they should either send them home or get them into jobs asap.

    Re insulting people, perhaps I should have asked if you would be offended on behalf of your friends if I said Brexit voters are uneducated idiots who think they know better than the experts and avoided learning any facts in case they don't agree with what they want to be true.

    And TH just doesn't understand what proof or evidence is. He's like someone who's learned a bunch of grammar rules but can't speak the language, so keeps quibbling over whether it's “Jack and me”, or “Jack and I”, and ignoring what the person is trying to say.

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DT
    “TH just doesn't understand...” I understand very well what proof of evidence is, as I've been presenting it on behalf of myself, and others successfully. A wonderful piece of abject fawning, I'm sure JB appreciates it. That for sure going to allow you to ingratiate yourself further. I can't think of two more deserving of one another, although neither one of you would qualify as anything like upstanding.

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    @DT
    “Impossible to believe that those polled have forgotten who they wanted to vote for…”…quite likely, but perhaps those have already realized Lula is out.
    You’re right, that is exactly the PT’s strategy, which they make no secret of.

    It’s hard to know a refugees’ main motivation, presumably ‘after’ getting out of where he is ; But how well informed do you believe refugees are, as far as (1) distinguishing countries with better work opportunities goes, (2) knowing what benefits await them?
    OK, I’m inclined to agree that the refugees’ prior job situation, and not wanting to lower their standard of living, has a lot to do with their attitude.

    Re insulting people, I’m sure there were a lot of ‘uneducated idiots’, voting in favour of, and against Brexit. It does not mean they are all ‘uneducated idiots’…I reckon that most, or many, on both sides, thought it out and voted for what they thought would be best for ‘them’…so if someone chooses to label one side or the other, as idiots, that is their opinion, and doesn’t affect me in the least.
    Again, why should we believe the ‘experts’ always ‘know better’, ‘n have the (one and ‘only’) right answer ? Many have known to be wrong.
    And are you sure the ‘experts’ will analyze the situation with total impartiality, in that they won’t let their personal preferences interfere ? which in a way, is a silly question, as they will always fight for what they believe in…and I’m pretty sure there were experts with opposing opinions…so who’s right ?

    TH is propped up on quotes and a pretty unrealistic view of reality and human nature…in the ‘real’ world he probably didn’t get very far. Reason why he is so 'sour', and why he is so limited in his thoughts ; Must stay locked up at home, where no one can threaten his notion of superiority.
    Can just imagine him trying to convince a superior of his, using the logic of “because I say so”…

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    JB
    “because I say so” is your modus operand, that's why you're called “Proof-less and Truth-less.” I'm the guy who provides support for what ever I'm advocating, you provide none. If this was otherwise you'd be able show where you have ever provided such evidence. Whats that old saying about people in glass-houses again?

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    TH
    give it up....your comments are so childish....

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    JB
    “give it up” Thanks for confirming your living up to your adage of “Proof-less and Truth-less”

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Presume whatever you want, Twinkle Toes.

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    JB
    “Presume whatever you want...”
    My quotes were to maintain the historic record accurately, and to prevent people like you, with an agenda, from sullying it. It has achieved that purpose since in spite of all of your blathering you can no longer maintain your fiction. ”He(Lula) refused to go voluntarily”. So I'm well satisfied, Tweedledum.

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    TH
    “My quotes were to maintain the historic record accurately”....historic record, accurately ?
    What have you been sniffing Tinker Bell ? Careful to not crash in your fantasy world...

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    @JB
    “how well informed do you believe refugees are”

    It's pretty well known that Germany is richer and doing better than Italy, and even moreso Greece. Which implies both more jobs and better benefits. And I daresay a lot of refugees just follow along with others, if they seem to know what they are doing.

    RE Brexit, I think the majority didn't think it out at all; many voted to stay because they wanted to keep the status quo rather than risk changing things, and many voted to leave because they saw the EU as something foreign and it was an easy target of blame for their problems after 8 years of austerity. But it's a fact that the more educated a person is, the more likely they were to vote remain. The great majority of Brexiters I've spoken to clearly didn't understand too much about the EU, so it's impossible to believe they made an informed decision.

    As for the experts, they're not always right, but it's a decent bet you should listen to them. If I wanted advice on shipping, would I be better off asking you or a random person on the street? If two experts disagree then you can look at their arguments and see which is more convincing, but that isn't what was happening. The slogan was 'people are tired of experts', which basically meant they didn't like what they were saying and decided to ignore them.

    “are you sure the ‘experts’ will analyze the situation with total impartiality”

    No, they won't, and I said the same about judges already. It's also true of journalists both in the US and in Brazil. Everyone is affected by their biases even if they don't want to be. So sure, you want to check who is paying your experts, and in some cases who their friends are and what causes they support.

    @TH
    You think facts are whatever is written in a book, nothing but a child's understanding of the subject.

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DT
    “You think facts are whatever is written in a book,...”
    “A fact is a statement that can be proven true, while an opinion is a statement that cannot be proven true. Facts can be confirmed by checking books or reliable internet sources” http://www.education.com/lesson-plan/can-you-prove-it-facts-and-opinions/
    What ever supported facts I have so indicated, you've been unable to refute them.

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    I say he has a child's understanding and he links to a lesson plan for 3rd graders. All you've proven is that I'm right, Terry.

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DT
    “I say he has a child's understanding ....” Opinions, opinions things that cannot be proved. I know what are facts and how prove them, apparently very successfully since you've been unable to refute anything I have proffered. Unless you show the following is untrue, then it stands.
    “Facts can be confirmed by checking books or reliable internet sources”

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    No point having the same circular discussion again. Rational arguments are wasted on you.

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DT
    “Rational arguments are wasted on you...” In your humble unprovable opinion. Stick to what you best ingratiating.

    Aug 30th, 2018 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!