MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, October 4th 2023 - 04:01 UTC



Majority of Brazilians want Lula in prison and would not support a candidate sponsored by him

Thursday, February 1st 2018 - 20:35 UTC
Full article 23 comments

Brazil’s presidential election is up for grabs, according to the latest public opinion poll, with popular ex-president Lula da Silva likely to be barred because of his corruption conviction and half of the electorate responding they want to see him in jail. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Enrique Massot

    What a misleading and distorted headline, MP. Not the slightest attempt to appear balanced. After a quick search, here are headlines that some of your colleagues of the international press chose to do on the same story:

    Brazil's Lula leads presidential poll despite upheld conviction (Reuters)

    Ahead of Brazilian election, former President da Silva leads poll despite conviction (The Japan Times)

    Despite Trial, Lula Still Tops Brazil's Presidential Poll (TeleSUR English)

    Brazil's Lula tops poll despite corruption conviction (Euronews)

    It was interesting that out of 14 paragraphs in the above story, six started thus:

    “If he is allowed to run...”

    “The ruling will likely block him from the Oct. 7 election...” (It's mentioned as an afterthought that Lula is appealing)

    “If Lula cannot run...”

    “If Lula is definitively disqualified...”

    “If Lula is out of the running...”

    “The bad news for Lula’s Workers Party...”

    What a way to write the news. As we say in Argentina, it's done with 'mala leche.'

    Feb 02nd, 2018 - 04:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Mmmm. The article does include all the information, but the part each outlet chose to highlight in their headline seems rather revealing.

    Why do you think this other article was removed from the site soon after it was posted?

    The article appears to be taken from this site, which unfortunately requires a sign up:

    Feb 02nd, 2018 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Enrique Massot

    In today's world, we form our perception of the world through the media--there is no way around it. We get a narrow range of direct experience through our daily life, but few will have the possibility of checking in person what is said at legislative debates, demonstrations, acts of government, conferences, the work of the police, etc.

    As a result, the media has significant power over what for most of us “reality” is.

    A standard newspaper story will convey information through its headline, through the choice of the “lead” or first paragraph. Whose quotes are going to be portrayed high and whose quotes will be posted low in the story?

    There are dozens of devices to slant a newspaper story. Some are subtle, some jump to the eye.

    MP has crudely slanted the above article. Readers should expect better.

    Feb 02nd, 2018 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    “If he is allowed to run, Lula would lead the field with 34% of the vote in a scenario involving the most likely candidates, according to a Datafolha poll published Wednesday”

    The poll that claims “Lula would lead the field with 34%” is misleading and distorted...

    Saw a recent interview with “Datafolha's” director, Mauro Paulino, and not surprisingly he is a rabid 'petista' ; I read some of the questions in one of the very recent ‘datafolha’ polls, and it is clear that Mr. Paulino imprints his political preference in them..

    Just ONE such question:
    Q: In your opinion, ex-president Lula :
    a) knew of the corruption in his presidency and let it happen
    b) knew of the corruption and could do nothing to avoid it
    c) didn't know about the corruption

    This question induces the person interviewed to believe Lula was only convicted because he permitted others to practice acts of corruption during his presidency…the question does not even suggest Lula might be personally involved, and doesn’t even mention Petrobras…It limits the answers and keeps the minds of those interviewed off the real problem – was Lula involved ? - and gets them to answer in line with the desired results.

    Talk of misleading public opinion !

    That’s why I’ve said it before, and I'll say it again, Datafolha is far from reliable.

    Feb 02nd, 2018 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    True. So far as I've seen the 'mainstream media' does not often repeat outright lies, although it does happen. But they definitely slant stories in the way you describe, and that affects people's opinion for sure.

    But you are a journalist, or you used to be. Are you speaking from experience? ;)

    I don't see how you could distort a question that simply asks who you would vote for. I found the study and it actually shows 48% don't know and 19% intend to vote blank or null, presumably because they are disillusioned with politics. Lula's the most popular candidate but still only gets 17%. That 48% could swing the election in any direction.

    The 'would you vote for a candidate supported by this person' section is funny, because they included Temer. No less than 87% of Brazilians would reject a candidate supported by Temer, and only 4% would definitely vote for one. If he does support someone, he better keep his mouth shut for their sake.

    Also, according to some of the scenarios they asked about, the impeached former President Fernando Collor de Mello would get 2-3 % of the vote.

    Anyway, I find it hard to believe a survey would be so obviously biased. Where did you see this dubious question? Do you know which survey it was in?

    Feb 02nd, 2018 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    OMG! Who will now look after the thousands of innocent politicians? REF:

    Feb 03rd, 2018 - 02:15 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • golfcronie

    I f the Brazilians vote for a convicted criminal then good luck to them. They will get what they deserve.

    Feb 03rd, 2018 - 08:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Fernando Hideo Lacerda , lawyer
    ”The prosecutor's speech came from a Manichean view that sees the world from a war between the heroes of the justice system allied with the media against the villains represented by the defense and all the critical manifestations of the national and international academic world. There is no serious jurist who defends the legal grounds of the sentence. That is why all the accusation's statements turned the focus to the ideological question. In the post-truth world sponsored by economic interest, matters matter less than beliefs, prejudices, and convictions. In the absence of evidence, the accusatory hypothesis is supported only on irrelevant shaved contracts, news from the newspaper O Globo and the word of an informal informant. In fact, true corruption is extracting statements from a corridor that negotiates premise, by offering illegal benefits related to its freedom. In turn, the Defense was clear in demonstrating the incompetence of the lower court, the suspicion of the magistrate (which was clear from the discomfort shown in the sentence itself by the judge), the lack of correlation between the accusatory hypothesis and the version presented in the conviction , the defense restraint before Tacla Duran's oath ban and the absolute lack of evidence in a process that began with a power point presentation. It is said that “when Peter tells me about Paul, I know more about Peter than about Paul.” It is only in this sense that we can understand the outcome of the intervention of the procurator of the republic, in citing Fyodor Dostoevsky on the existence of “bronze men”. If there is one who in contemporary times must remember that all men are of flesh, this class is composed of the members of the justice system!”

    Feb 03rd, 2018 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • :o))

    It's easier to believe, what we believe in already.

    For example, I believe that all the politicians - all over the world - indulge in some kind of a potential scandal. [to put it as mildly as possible]. Therefore, they always flock together; even though it does not appear to be so.

    In fact, it has almost become a routine to accuse all of them as corrupt, until proven as innocent.

    And invariably, in the end, it gets justifiably proven - one way or the other - that they, after all, ARE innocent!

    Feb 03rd, 2018 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Correction: didn't notice the poll has 'still' to be held - (soon?) provided not impugned by the TSE, based on a petition by Jair Bolsonaro, to have it ruled intentionally misleading.

    Anyway, it's not the questions that are distorted, it’s the result of the poll, as the voter is induced to reply what the interviewer wants him to, by not asking straightforward questions ; have you never heard of questions that are skillfully structured in order to extract a desired response ?- which basically means the question excludes the possibility of getting a reply the pollster does not want, or, a 'wrong' answer.

    Why not ask “Do you think Lula's involved in the PB corruption ? “, or, “d'you believe the 'triplex' was a 'gift' from OAS, in exchange for 'favours' in getting PB contracts ?”…but then the voter would have to reply either yes /no, a risk the pollster doesn't want to take ; thus a distorted result that distracts the public's attention from the truth.

    Another question from the poll :
    Q : are you aware of the “denuncias” against Jair B, involving his illicit accumulation of wealth since he entered politics ? (in colloquial Portuguese, “denuncia” means “been mentioned” (in the context of...) or simply a random ‘accusation’, but in the context of the poll, in judicial terminology, it means “formally charged”…or induces the voter to presume Jair B has been formally charged, when he has not been accused of anything...and, it might even be fake news. If, and when formally charged, different story.

    It goes on :
    Q : referring to the abv Q, would you say :
    a) you are well informed ?
    b) you’ve heard about it but you are poorly informed ?
    c) you’ve heard about it but are only more or less informed ?
    d) you’ve never heard about it ?
    As you can see, the Q induces voters to believe Jair B has been formally charged and the poll only wants to know how aware of it, they are; it does not permit the option of expressing an opinion that Jair B might be innocent.

    Feb 04th, 2018 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • :o))

    REF: THE Poll:

    Accurate or not; cooked-up or not; the votes - besides being rigged - ARE bought/sold. A vast majority simply is TOTALLY unaware of this FACT.

    Feb 05th, 2018 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Certainly seems biased, and I can't find a list of the questions online, which doesn't inspire confidence (though it's not so easy for me to search in a foreign language, maybe I just haven't found it).

    I looked it up and apparently the only 'denuncias' against Bolsonaro were those published by FdSP; makes you wonder if this was a bit of additional market research or even advertising for the paper, finding out how many people had heard of their stories. The Lula one certainly seems lacking in some options in the list of responses.

    It would be nice to know what else they asked as well, and in what order. Questions about who you would vote for seem a little harder to bias, but it depends if the leading questions were asked before or after.

    Feb 05th, 2018 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    The FdSP (same group as Datafolha) is notoriously left-wing, so their attempts to smear Bolsonaro's image (despite what people might already believe) is their way of defending Lula...the insinuation that the 'right' is also crooked (and probably is), makes Lula's crimes look less serious... “after all, if they're all crooked, why is only Lula being persecuted ?”

    According to quite a few political analysts, if the “Datafolha” didn’t habitually put the questions relating to Lula’s conviction only at the end of the (stimulated) polls - after many of those interviewed have already declared their intention to vote for him - those that think he should be imprisioned, would be more than half of the population.

    All poll specialists know that people tend to try to be logical when answering a sequence of questions, and because of this can answer the opposite of what they really think, in order to not be caught in a contradiction.

    Referring to a previous post on Lula’s “career” (unable to reply as comments ‘closed’), as a factory worker, then union leader - unless corrupt, like most of the latter - Lula's income would have been nowhere near anything to get rich on. As congressman and as president, if he invested most of his salary, he’d earn around 5% year (SELIC less inflation) ; his last tax return (2017) indicated his (official) assets at R$ 15 million…on only his salary, and for 12 years, impossible. His late wife, although also from a piss-poor family, died a millionaire, as has become apparent in the division of her estate between her children, who now to, are all millionaires - a trend that started after Lula became president - but of course, we must believe in miracles.
    Despite his high standard of living, he still attacks the ‘elite’, (the 1%) of which he is now part. Not bad for a semi-illiterate buffoon.

    Feb 06th, 2018 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Heh, so you think a substantial number of people believe Lula should be in prison but would still vote for him? I can't decide if that's funny or sad. Perhaps he can run Brazil from his prison cell like those crime bosses continue to run their gangs.

    Data Folha should try doing separate polls so the other questions can't influence people, and find out if it's true. Aren't there other polling companies in Brazil anyway?

    Our former PM Tony Blair is also doing pretty well for himself, he's been earning millions from speaking engagements and owns a bunch of properties in London (no one can afford to live there any more because all the houses have been bought as 'investments'). Have all Lula's tax returns been published, or only the most recent? I'd like to see when he made his money (how much before, during, and after his presidency) and where it is supposed to have come from. AFAIK Blair has made a lot more since he stopped being PM than while he had the job.

    Feb 06th, 2018 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    NO, not 'exactly'...the way the poll is conducted is meant to 'confuse' people into believing that. Datafolha gets the result (it sets out to) by manipulating the questions in such a way that answers allow a certain leeway in how they can be interpreted ; IF the questions were direct, and addressed the real issues, the result 'would' then show that half the population thinks Lula should be imprisoned.
    Another thing, the polls never divulge 'where' they were held - datafolha just mentions in 'x' locations and responded to by 'y' amount of people. Obviously, the region where held will influence the result , eg., if in the NE - highly favourable to Lula due to the BF ; plus the fact that being the most backward region in Brazil, makes voter manipulation relatively easy. Not that voters from other regions can't be fooled as well.
    IBOPE is another big polling company, but have heard relatively little from them.

    Not sure, but presume that tax returns are confidential documents and cannot be readily divulged to the public by the IRS, unless they become part of an ogoing investigation, and that would explain why only the contents of his last return have been made public.
    All presidents (and Congressmen, SC Justices etc) are supposed to submit their returns when they take office, and in 2003, Lula proudly announced he only owned one flat, valued at roughly US$ 100,000, plus a small savings account..
    According to Emilio and Marcelo Odebrecht, 90% of all Lula's speaking engagements were set up by them, only as an excuse to pay him R$ 200,000 to R$ 300,000 each time, to allow him to have a 'cozy retirement'. They admitted that most were fictitious, and never occurred, as testified by executives from several companies where Lula claims to have spoken, but in fact, did not.
    And quite frankly, what could the semi-illiterate Lula teach them, other than how to go through life without working, or how to steal ?

    Feb 07th, 2018 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    I found this PDF on Data Folha's website, there are tables where they break down the answers by region, and also by sex, education level etc:

    It looks like they've weighted the answers, presumably according to the percentage of voters in each category, which would be the proper way to do it. You could look up the number of eligible voters for each region and check the percentages match if you wanted to and can be bothered.

    Anyway, it's obvious from the breakdown that Lula is most popular in the NE, followed by the N. Unsurprisingly, he's also more popular with people having less education. What's interesting to me is that it's the people with more education who are planning to vote null or blank. Perhaps they are most cynical about there being anyone worth voting for, but they are still throwing their vote away.

    I'm guessing the money in Lula's tax return was money he earned officially, probably with these speaking engagements.

    He could teach those executives how to become President of Brazil, and at the time a very popular and admired one. But seriously, I think most of the reason people hire former leaders to speak is the celebrity aspect rather than the speech itself. At any rate, they can certainly earn more than enough to make them millionaires:

    Of course, if Lula was paid but never actually gave the speech, that is something else entirely.

    Feb 07th, 2018 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Enrique Massot

    Ah Jack, Jack.

    If polls show overwhelming support for Lula, it's because the questions have been tailored to get responses supporting Lula.

    And guess what? Voters can be fooled as well! Jack tells you that.

    Lula, on the other hand, has become filthy rich. Funny how most popular presidents have consistently been accused of same. When a wealthy person becomes president, not one asks whether they have increased their fortune two-fold, three-fold or 500 times; they were rich, they keep being rich or richer, and all is right.

    Now, we all know Lula came from humble origins, having to quit school after second grade.

    One could conclude that Lula must be an exceptional human being because with such little educational baggage he became one of Brazil's most popular presidents of all time.

    In that regard, Jack's writing is revealing. Lula, according to him, is a “semi-illiterate buffoon.” So typical of those who will only accept democratic results if they are in tune with their reactionary views. Putting down Lula for his lack of formal education, Jack shows us that, in his view, only some chosen ones, that is, those belonging to the dominant classes, should be in power. The others, such as the “backward nordestinos,” must be kept at their place.

    Nothing original there, Jack. But revealing.

    Feb 08th, 2018 - 05:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Indeed, it confirms Lula’s popularity in the regions where the people are less-educated, (or ‘ignorant’). No surprise there.
    But the poll mentions 2,826 people interviewed, in ‘174 locations'…In which “municípios” (municipalities) specifically ? this is a very relevant factor, as interviewing the same number of people in 174 locations in São Paulo, v. the NE region, or even just different 'zones' in São Paulo, would produce very different results.
    So, not divulging the States and Municipalities in which the poll was held, and to project numbers prevalent in the NE (or wherever Lula has a majority), to the rest of Brazil, is not exactly 'transparent'.
    Regarding those who claim (now) that they’ll vote null or blank, we’ll only know how many did, after the election, however, many change their opinions when push comes to shove.

    The money in Lula’s tax return does very likely refer to his speaking engagements, but after Odebrecht’s admission that they were ‘arranged’ in order to dissimulate the receipt of bribes, plus testimony of executives that many speaking engagements never occurred, despite figuring as ‘given’ in LILS accounts, allows anyone, even with half-a-brain, to conclude they were just a way to pass money to Lula officially.
    Sure, Lula could talk about his experience, but to ‘teach’ anyone, anything other than how to be a smart-ass, I doubt it.

    Ah Reekie, Reekie, how condescending of you…but you have the right to your opinion. Calling Lula a semi-illiterate buffoon is not meant to offend, as he himself proudly announces to anyone who is willing to listen to him, that his mother was born ‘illiterate’ (really, how strange) and that he never liked to read, as it's overestimated, and “muito cansativo”…
    And you’re right, nothing original about Lula…just the usual - a common crook with access to the cookie jar.

    Feb 08th, 2018 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    If you find the table 'Perfil de Amostra' on page 9 of the PDF and look at the figures on the bottom left, you can see that they didn't interview people only in the NE. There were 685 interviewed there and 1106 in the SE, and less in the other 3 regions.

    Those other figures, 'Base ponderada', must be how they have weighted them. Basically, you use the census and other estimates (which my previous employer used to sell, but I don't have access anymore), to work out how many eligible voters are in each region, and you multiply your samples by a factor to make sure the percentage in each region matches.

    As a simple example, let's suppose Brazil had only two regions. I interview 50 people in each and get these results:

    Region Lula Bolso Total
    A 40 10 50
    B 20 30 50
    Total 60 40 100

    Looks like Lula is winning 60%-40%. Then I find out 80% of voters live in region B, so I scale it like so:

    Region Lula Bolso Total
    A 16 4 20
    B 32 48 80
    Total 48 52 100

    Now I can announce my result, Bolsonaro is just ahead with 52% of the vote.

    But in reality, it's much more complicated. They don't list the exact municipios, but most of the differences between them will be covered by things they did take into account: family income, educational level, age, economically active or not, occupation, size of municipality.

    RE Lula's tax return, evidently people are willing to pay ex-leaders lots of money, though I can't say I'd be any more thrilled to attend a speech by, say, David Cameron, than you would one by Lula. But I think you underestimate him. I've read plenty and got a good education, but there are other things I am pretty bad at, and Lula is obviously very good at those things. So long as he can get good advice from people he trusts, and he actually DOES listen to them, it's not necessary that he know all the details of everything himself to be a good leader. Dilma was surely better read and more educated, and a worse president.

    Feb 08th, 2018 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Tks for clarifying. Digging deeper, the numbers confirm his popularity amongst the lower, less educated classes, and in the N & NE. If the poll were held in the suburbs of S. Paulo's eastern (or southern) zone, where the majority of the 'nordestinos' (1/3 of the population) in São Paulo live, you'd see large support for Lula, one reason being that most still have familiy in the NE, where the BF is concentrated. Also, outside of the N & NE, the preference of the voters is more split up between all the other parties, giving no-one a clear lead. And again, the proportion of voters who support a candidate in one region can be misleading when the number of voters in each of the other regions, is vastly different. The mechanics followed may be correct, however that still leaves how the questions are presented to the voters.

    I'm not denying that generally speaking, most ex-leaders have something interesting to pass on to people, either college students or business executives, but in Brazil this wasn't at all common. FHC gave lectures every now and again, but what he had to share was probably worthwhile listening to - his experience in Chile (as an exile), as a university professor (in Chile and Brazil), and as the person behind the 'plano Real'. In Lula's case, one has to think hard...what possibly could he pass on that is constructive, and that people would pay big bucks to listen to ? his experience as a (corrupt) union leader ? And even then, you come back to the admission by Odebrecht's owners, they were the ones who advised Lula to open LILS (the company to 'manage') the speaking engagements (many phony) in order to dissimulate the receipt of the bribes...and the testimony by several executives that LILS was paid for engagements that never took place ? If not obvious, very suspicious.
    No doubt Lula is cunning, but he surrounded himself with crooks like himself, many now condemned and in prison. Mere coincidence ? Otherwise the scheme wouldn't work.

    Feb 09th, 2018 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Enrique Massot


    Who are you trying to fool?

    “Calling Lula a semi-illiterate buffoon is not meant to offend.”

    (Merrian Webster's definition of buffoon: a gross and usually ill-educated or stupid person).

    Come on, Jack. You may have a different opinion than mine--that's fine. However, have a real argument. You are not taking MP readers seriously when you write that above sentence and then pretend you meant something else.

    In reality, you do despise Lula and call him an 'illiterate buffon' because he came from a humble origin, rose to presidency, and this, in your elitist way of thinking, is anathema.

    Lula should be living in a favela and busy himself with surviving instead of sticking his nose (how dares he!) in government and trying to make Brazil a bit more equal which is badly needed.

    (For a good explanation of how human qualities in a president may be more determinant than his/her relative education, refer to DT's posting above, last paragraph).

    In any event, Jack, I have to thank you. In your laborious attempt to demonstrate how Lula's support may come from ”the regions where the people are less-educated, (or ‘ignorant’)” as you wrote above illustrates well your deep aversion for the 'unwashed' and Lula's efforts on their behalf.

    You demonstrate better than I could the mindset of Latin America's ultra wealthy and their apologists, which wants to keep the poor at their place in a semi-feudal rather than capitalist system.

    Also, by focusing on Lula's case and failing to mention the many corruption cases against president Temer, you show blatant bias. You are not worried about corruption--you are only willing to look at Lula's corruption.

    In my view, the nordestinos' support for Lula, if confirmed, would speak volumes about who Lula really was as Brazil's president.

    Feb 09th, 2018 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • DemonTree

    I hope that wasn't too basic, or confusing (I see Mercopress messed up my formatting, but hopefully it's still readable). I don't know how much you already knew, and it's really too complicated to explain in 2000 characters, but what they have done seems legitimate to me. You're right about all the things that could affect the results, but they seem to have taken them into account, and you can see that the percentages in each region are quite different, eg for the 2nd round question Lula vs Alckmin, Lula is ahead 39-37 in the SE, but 72-15 in the NE, a huge difference. Then for people with the lowest family income, Lula leads 60-24, but for the richest group, Alckmin leads with 40% to Lula's 34%. You'd get a result much more to your liking if those poor people could move up into the middle class.

    And if people from the NE live in SP then they will be voting in SP, so it's correct to include them in that group. If DF wanted to rig the poll then no doubt they could, but it looks like they have gone to some lengths not to rig it, and getting correct results is kind of their job. After all, the election will not be decided by DF's results. Maybe some of the other questions are designed to make Lula look better, and Bolsonaro worse, but asking who you would vote for is pretty straightforward and they did list the questions above the tables.

    I think Lula would have something interesting to say, and a very different experience and viewpoint to most of the executives and even students he'd be talking to. Did he ever give talks outside Brazil? I suppose there'd be less demand as he'd need a translator, but CFK gave a talk to students at Harvard while she was still President.

    As for Lula surrounding himself with crooks, Temer seems to have done the same, judging by this recent article and looking at his allies in congress:

    Feb 10th, 2018 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Straightforward questions will clearly produce more reliable results. You’re right about getting a result more to my liking IF people ‘could really’ move up the ladder, but the Brazilian governments, while pretending to do a lot for education, do the bare minimum and then the rest is just propaganda. Just like public health services. Propaganda has an enormous budget. One thing that keeps Lula in the spotlight, is that many see him as a hero, refusing to concede he stole even a penny. It’s hard to fight ignorance.

    The journalists who covered the speaking engagements that did occur, were unanimous in that he always and only talked about how the poor boy defeated all odds to become a ‘statesman’ (his words)…of course there was a section dedicated to ‘his’ creation of the BF, that the PT always cooperated with opposition governments before coming to power – which we know is a lie. Basically the talks were meant to build up his personal cult.

    All presidents have surrounded themselves with ministers of dubious character, some more than others…the only reason many are still around and keep popping up in all governments, is because the STF takes over 10 years to take a decision, and by then their crimes prescribe…

    @EM Websters definition of buffoon suits Lula down to a ‘t’. Lula is an illiterate buffoon not because of circumstance, but becos of personal choice…as he himself has made very clear on more than one occasion.
    EM, if you lived here and had accompanied Lula’s antics for over 40 years, your opinion of him would be more credible. Your knowledge of Lula is let’s say, as uninformed as mine is of Jeremy Corbin in the UK…I don’t listen to his speeches, don't read much about him, so I prefer to keep quiet.
    If you have ‘it in’ for those that are wealthy, that’s ‘your’ problem, not mine. I have said many times that Temer too, is corrupt, and that after he serves out his mandate, I hope he’s punished accordingly. D’you have trouble remembering things ?

    Feb 10th, 2018 - 08:53 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!