MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Bolsonaro undergoes further surgery to drain liquid from abdomen
Brazilian extreme right presidential candidate Jain Bolsonaro, who was stabbed during a political rally over a week ago and has since been under intensive care in the Albert Einstein hospital in Sao Paulo, had to undergo another emergency invasive intervention following high fever and accumulation of liquid in his abdomen. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThey said he won't be well enough to campaign, but what happens if he wins the election and is still in hospital when he would be due to take office?
Sep 21st, 2018 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0We will subdue him until he fart!
Sep 21st, 2018 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I thought that he was supposed to “REST IN PISS”?
Sep 21st, 2018 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We are nationalists, christian (not protestant) and democratic. We will never accept different principles of these.
Sep 21st, 2018 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWzJaI2j95o&index=3&list=FLmXPTu1f8AdGlizWNiASx2A
@DT
Sep 21st, 2018 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Presidents-elect take over Jan 02.
(Re “Army Chief...”)
UN alleged Brazil’s A-T law wasn’t precise enough, which in their opinion, allowed a wide interpretation of who could be detained w/o justification. Imo, they wanted its scope/applicability restricted. I’m no expert in US law, far less their A-T laws, but I believe Gitmo is justified. I’ve been to the US dozens of times since 1980, have a lot of friends there, with whom I’ve discussed these issues at length, so I believe I have a reasonable idea.
Those concerned with the Patriot Act are probably those involved in less-than-patriotic acts. Obviously, no 9-11 terrorists survived, but if they had, why put them on trial ?
The US left is not all that peace loving either. They too can resort to violence when their views are challenged…i.e., recent attempts to prevent rightist marches.
I maintain free speech in Brazil (1964-85) was only relatively restricted. See no point harping on this.
Rights only need defending when threatened, but they need to apply equally to all, not only to minorities or to socialists, as if they were special.
In a ‘true’ democracy, short of threats of violence, freedom of speech should prevail, w/o people trying to silence you because ‘they’ think you’re politically incorrect, or yr words might offend someone. Nowadays, free speech seems to bother the left more than it does the right.
“But does that mean you think the ‘right’ does NOT care about free speech, freedom of religion, etc? Do you care?” By ‘right’ d’you mean govts, or conservative people ?
Lula was emphatic…his name had been mentioned in irregularities (L J) ‘n said everyone was out to get him (?), but if they wanted to fight, he would get 'Stedile’s army’ (MST) on the streets to defend him…completely unprovoked.
Gleisi’s words were intended as a threat of (likely) violence if Lula were jailed…the fact no one ‘died’ is irrelevant ; Considering she’s a senator, not a street thug, she was completely out of line.
Re free speech and other rights, I meant do ordinary people who call themselves right-wing care about them. But since you don't object to the (former) restrictions in Brazil, but do object to unrestricted free speech in the US, (calling someone a racist, even if unjustified, is also free speech), it seems you do NOT support it.
Sep 22nd, 2018 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0“why put them on trial ?”
Why have trials for anyone? Maybe the President (Haddad or Bolsonaro(!)) should just decide who is guilty and the appropriate punishment?
If their guilt is obvious the trial won't take long and they can be given the death penalty or life in jail depending on the state. Gitmo was a gift for Al Quaida and IS recruiters, and not only is it almost certain some innocent people were tortured and locked up there for years, but most of the prisoners have now been released to kill again (and if they didn’t hate the 'West' before, they sure do now). How is that preferable in any way?
“Those concerned with the Patriot Act are probably those involved in less-than-patriotic acts.”
No, they are people concerned with what the government might do with their information, and how careful they are likely to be, at keeping private business private. I could as well say that people who oppose requiring licences for guns must be criminals, because anyone law abiding would easily get one. Yet many Americans do oppose them, probably including some of your friends.
“Rights only need defending when threatened, but they need to apply equally to all, not only to minorities or to socialists, as if they were special.”
I agree with that, and think it's worth remembering anyone's rights can be at risk, not just minorities'.
Gleisi was way out of line threatening violence, fortunately the protests seem to have been mostly nonviolent. And Lula never did get Stedile's 'army' out, although he went to jail. Why d'you think that was?
@DT
Sep 22nd, 2018 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Btwn 64/85, speech restrictions existed for a reason, 'n people could either accept it - if they knew what was good for them - or be outspoken 'n run the inherent risks....that doesn't mean I 'approved' it. Simple fact is it made no difference to me. Naturally, I support free speech (under normal circumstances), but not when it's used to promote social unrest / encourage violence. If someone wants to call me a racist, go ahead, but be prepared to listen to what they perhaps don't want to. I'm not particulary religious, and other people's religious beliefs don't bother me. And, the fact I believe in harsh punishment for criminal acts (violent or otherwise) does not make me right-wing, but conservative.
”“why put them on trial ?”....seems you believe the 9-11 (and other) terrorists, and someone who is accused of commiting a crime re which there might be reasonable doubt as to their guilt, or some mitigating factor, should be treated equally...I don't. Aren't sentences of criminal offenses based on their seriousness ? and using common sense to decide ?
Re Gitmo, I doubt there are innocents, or only 'relatively' guilty (terrorists) there...the fact that some have been released 'n been known to re-joined terrorist groups, if caught again, imo should be executed. Terrorists fit into a category all of their own.
Patriot Act : While personal information shoud be kept private from the general public, why should above-board citizens be 'worried' abt 'what govt might do with their information' ? Did it target innocents ? Re guns, I support the idea of licenses, after strict background checks...If you don't buy a gun with the intent to kill, what's the problem ?...you can't generalize, each situation has its peculiarities. Most of my US friends (some ex-military) have guns...they all favor keeping guns out of the hands of nut cases, as well as checks.
Altho the MST did cause trouble to defend Lula, his threats were probably aimed at trying to gain political leverage.
“Simple fact is it made no difference to me.”
Sep 23rd, 2018 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So you are only interested in defending free speech when it agrees with yours?
Have you really been called a racist just for criticising Obama, or anything similar?
“Aren't sentences of criminal offenses based on their seriousness ? and using common sense to decide ?”
Yeah, they are, and we have lawyers and judges trained to determine them. So why not use them for terrorists, too? What's the point of treating them differently to other criminals? If the terrorists in Gitmo had been convicted and jailed, they wouldn't be out killing people again now. And it's very likely a few of them were innocent, the CIA aren't infallible and no evidence was required to lock them up. Also, if terrorists are so different from ordinary criminals, why couldn't the Brazilian government have made a law that only targeted them?
“why should above-board citizens be 'worried' abt 'what govt might do with their information' ?”
There have been some famous cases here where government employees left people's data (millions of records) on the train, or it was hacked, allowing criminals to get hold of it. But I should think the real worry is that the police/government might use it to harass people who they don't like. Eg Black Lives Matter protesters or members of neo-nazi groups, or maybe people campaigning to legalise marijuana. In Brazil the law could perhaps be used against groups like the MST, or members of certain political parties.
You don't object to gun licences, but you're not American. Would your friends there support a law requiring anyone who wants a gun to get a licence from the Federal government?
Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.
Sep 23rd, 2018 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@DT
Sep 24th, 2018 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“So you are only interested in defending free speech when it agrees with yours? ” With all due respect, don't put words in my mouth...such as “when it agrees with yours? ”
In the late 60's/70's, the last thing I was concerned about was free-speech....whether for others, OR for myself....the lack of it, as far as it could've, but didn't affect me, or others, was not on my list of priorities.
We'll have to disagree on equal treatment for terrorists/common criminals.
“why couldn't the Brazilian government have made a law that only targeted them? ” and who said that the Brazilian (A-T) law has targeted anyone other than terrorists (or potential ones) ?
Hacking of sensitive information and using it illegally is not the same as the govt's collecting information on, or monitoring suspicious individuals.....how may terrorist attacks have been prevented in this manner ? Perhaps you'd prefer the attacks occurred , in the name of privacy ? If the government ends up using it to 'harass' someone, that's one of the setbacks, but what's the alternative ? prohibit collecting information alltogether, or to make sure it's used correctly ? The system needs perfecting, but cannot be discarded.
If the Federal police monitors phone calls (as they probably do) of some of the MST leaders (which is no longer a legitimate and simple movement wanting land to farm) or of criminals using illegal mobile phones from inside prisons to communicate with their gangs on the outside, to order attacks (as the one a few days ago, when they blew up the prison gates to release members of their gang, and dozens of others), how is 'intelligence' meant to work ?
All my friends in the US - those who had/have guns - all had/have licences....what IS the problem with a background check, unless you have something to hide ? and that is exactly the reason why they exist...
As you see, I don't object....so what is your point ?
“With all due respect, don't put words in my mouth...such as “when it agrees with yours? ””
Sep 24th, 2018 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Okay, but you say you weren't interested in defending free speech then. Are you now, or is it still not a priority?
”who said that the Brazilian (A-T) law has targeted anyone other than terrorists (or potential ones) ?”
It wasn't passed that long ago, I don't think it's been used much so far. I did find some dubious cases from other countries with similarly broad laws, but that doesn't mean Brazil will be the same. We'll have to wait and see if the UN are right.
Re the Patriot act, I have no idea how many terrorist acts it has prevented, it's not the sort of the thing the government talks about. But the proposals I have seen would simply have limited it to terrorism cases, rather than allowing the police to use it against anybody suspected of anything. However, Obama renewed it's provisions towards the end of his term, so it will continuing as it is for another few years.
As for the guns, I know there are many Americans who object to any restrictions at all on them, whether it's licences, background checks, or banning more powerful weapons that increase the body count and cause more serious injuries during shootings. I thought your American friends might fall into this group, as they seem to be very anti-Obama. My point is that these people may be paranoid, but they generally aren't criminals, any more than those who object to the Patriot act. However, if your friends don't have any objections to gun control then it won't help to convince you.
If the Federal police want to tap phones of criminals, they should be able to do so without resorting to an anti-terrorism law. Surely that was already legal? And if the MST are not committing any crime then their phones should not be tapped. If they suspect they are, then get a warrant based on that.
@DT
Sep 25th, 2018 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Put it this way – on principle I defend free-speech. Am not against it…but in the 60s, given that the restrictions didn’t affect me, why would I (actively) “defend” something, the lack of which made no difference to me ? in the same way, I was not against those who felt the need to exercise that right – of “speech”, well understood – at their own risk.
“Are you now (‘interested in defending free speech’), or is it still not a priority?” You yourself said rights only need defending when/if threatened…so if here, today, it is not being threatened, why would it be a ‘priority’ ?
So far, Brazil’s been lucky to stay off the radar of terrorist groups, although the triple frontier is said to be full of sleeper cells. Few months ago, a naturalized Brazilian (Lebanese origin) was invited to a dinner offered by the Gov of SP (Marcio França), to the Lebanese business community, and has been identified by the US Treasury as Sheik Bilal Wehbe, Hezbollah’s leader in South America ; last week, Feds arrested a Lebanese Paraguayan, Assad Barakat, in Foz do Iguaçu, accused by the US treasury of financing the Hezbollah’s terrorist activities. If Brazil were to antagonize their interests for how long do you think the ‘peace’ would last ?
The Bzln A-T law hasn’t been used yet, but it might need to be.
Re the Patriot Act, exactly, you don’t hear about it…and what cases d’you know of it being used incorrectly ? and if BO renewed its provisions for a few more years, then can’t be all that bad…right ?
Regardless of what some USA citizens may think of gun licenses, background checks etc, I am in favor of them. My friends are republicans, and are all pretty respectable citizens…no radicals.
But who said the Feds (Brazil) used the A-T law against common criminals ?
Wiretapping’s always been legal, provided authorized by a judge.
If the MST has become a political movement, whose only objective is to create chaos (when called upon by the PT), why not keep an eye on them ?
”why would I (actively) “defend” something, the lack of which made no difference to me ?“
Sep 25th, 2018 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Because IMO free speech leads to a better society, even though it allows people to say things you personally object to. I think the US has got this right; Americans believe in their constitution and rights, at least to some extent even when it goes against their own short term interests. And I think that is one the major reasons their government has been stable and survived for nearly 250 years, and they are still using their original constitution, while Brazil is on its seventh.
And maybe it's not threatened in Brazil. That journalist Lula tried to throw out was an isolated incident? It is in the UK, by the new hate speech laws, and previously was limited by the unreasonable libel laws, which were finally reformed in 2013.
”The Bzln A-T law hasn’t been used yet“
It was used in 2016, on a bunch of IS sympathisers who authorities described as 'amateur' and 'disorganised':
https://www.dw.com/en/eight-brazilians-sentenced-for-plotting-jihadist-attacks-ahead-of-rio-2016-olympics/a-38706490
Don't know if they've been using the law against common citizens too, only that it's written in such a way that they could. I think laws should be clear and limited to their intended purpose, rather than having to trust the authorities never to abuse them. And isn't that especially true in Brazil, where politicians and government workers are not exactly trustworthy?
I expect you're right that Brazil hasn't seen much terrorism due to not antagonising the radical Muslim groups. There's a reasonable sized community of Arab origin there, right?
”if BO renewed its provisions for a few more years, then can’t be all that bad”
Doesn't prove anything. Obama only looks good on human rights because the Republicans are so terrible. And that's why I assumed your friends would be opposed to gun laws, since most Republicans seem to be pretty radical these days.
@DT
Sep 26th, 2018 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0REF: And isn't that especially true in Brazil, where politicians and government workers are not exactly trustworthy?
https://intpolicydigest.org/2018/09/23/corruption-runs-deep-in-brazilian-politics/
@DT
Sep 26th, 2018 - 05:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is becoming a matter of semantics…”support, defend, in favor of” etc…I agree with yr “IMO free speech leads to a better society” etc, 'n I’ve made it clear I was in favor of it, but because I didn’t “defend” it does not mean I was “against” it…and how should I have gone abt “defending” it, other than ‘just’ supporting it ? perhaps by carrying a placard on the Av. Paulista ?
What’s so difficult to understand that because the relative lack of it did not affect me, I had no reason to “protest” ? If the govt were to impose taxes on fortunes over $ 10 million, it won’t affect me, so why protest ?
You familiar with the phrase “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend your right to say it” ? well, I agree with it.
Just fyi, I too think that the US got its Constitution right, despite complaints, and I have never praised the Brazilian one….I know damned well Brazil’s is backward in many aspects, reason why I’ve always said you can’t compare Bzl to the UK, US...it is different, and not necessarily for the better.
Re the Bzln A-T law, (applied 2016): does the fact the group was “absolutely amateur” ‘n “disorganized”, plus the fact it failed in its attempt to buy weapons in Paraguay, make their intent any less dangerous ? the fact they had no ties to the IS that could be proved, other than its praise of IS, isn’t reason enough to set them free…the fact they were caught before they could do anything, is irrelevant. You can complain if/when it’s used incorrectly.
“laws should be clear, limited to their intended purpose, rather than having to trust authorities never to abuse them”…but if it’s the ‘authorities” that apply the law, what’re you gonna do ? In SPaulo there’s a big Arab community...and well integrated.
Re BO, just kidding you, since you seem to have supported him. But right, the fact he renewed it doesn’t prove anything, but I still think it’s necessary.
“Most republicans seem to be pretty radical these days”… well, “that” sounds radical...
I am familiar with the quote, and it's actually:
Sep 26th, 2018 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
That's hardly ambiguous, and certainly a long way from saying you have no reason to protest if it doesn't affect you. That's what I don't understand; I disagreed with the Iraq war, and I took part in the protest against it and voted for the only party that opposed it, though it didn't affect me directly. When I vote in elections, I consider what would be good for the country and not just what would benefit me personally. If the government decided to put all Muslims in concentration camps, it wouldn't affect you, but I presume you would protest *that*?
Re constitutions, I think they did a good job writing the US one, but if I could snap my fingers and give it to Brazil, I don't believe it would change anything. IMO it's the widespread respect for their constitution that makes the difference in America, not the details of what's in it. Admittedly, part of that respect is exactly because it has survived so many years, but that's certainly not all there is to it.
As for the Brazilian would-be terrorists, certainly their incompetence makes them less dangerous, but doesn't change their intent. I would have preferred the police let them take some more definite steps, in order to get better evidence, but obviously they wouldn't want to let them get too far in their plans. In any case, they clearly fall within the intended scope of the law, so are not an example of it being used incorrectly.
Re the Republicans, consider their policies from a British point of view: abolish the NHS and let poor people to die of cancer, ban abortion and proper sex education, remove most or all restrictions on deadly weapons. Eliminate benefits and protection for workers, protections for the environment, severely cut back social security, and also government spending on anything except the military. None of those are remotely mainstream in the UK.
DT
Sep 27th, 2018 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tks for the quote. I’ve disagreed w/ things before, but the fact you may do nothing concrete to show yr disapproval, does not mean you're OK with it, or that you couldn’t care less how it might affect others…just that it is not your fight, or not worth your while.
When I see a worthwhile cause, I get behind it. Voting against those whose proposals you don’t approve of is natural, but does not taking any action other than voting against them, mean you approve their proposals ? Of course not.
“When I vote in elections…”. Pretty obvious – given that (usually) what’s good for country is good for its citizens, you vote accordingly.
Of course I don't agree with yr example of Muslims being sent to prison camps (indiscriminately, like the Japanese in the US, WWII) just because of their religion. If asked my opinion, I’d express my disagreement, but to protest publicly, not so sure. Anyway, it’s pointless using one example to try to establish a pattern, every situation has its own specific considerations. What's yr point with all this ? It’s leading nowhere.
Re Constitutions, “…and give it to Brazil, I don't believe it would change anything”…at last looks like you're starting to see Brazilians for what they are.
Regarding the terrorists, afaic, their intent was as serious as if they had succeeded. The fact the police acted when they did, nipping their plan in the bud, was because they probably did have enough evidence.
Even if the specific A-T law didn’t exist, they got what they deserved. Who knows how many they’d have killed ?
“Re the Republicans, consider their policies from a British point of view”…No…instead, ‘consider their policies from a “US” point of view’…what’s the point in comparing two different situations and expecting them to be the same, if the circumstances in which they exist are different ?
Looks like the leftist’s propaganda (a lot of it fake) on how terrible the Republicans are, and how wonderful the Dems are, has convinced you.
I was thinking about this today, and I guess if you did see the point in protesting about things that don't affect you, then you'd be a liberal too. I don't really understand your mindset and I guess you don't understand mine, so I'll try and explain:
Sep 27th, 2018 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“it won’t affect me, so why protest ?”
Because I think society is better if we follow certain principles such as free speech, so I would defend them even if I'm not directly affected; I live in that society so it affects me indirectly. Because if we decide it's okay to treat some people badly, I could be next. And because I care what happens to other people, like that researcher said.
And when I gave the example of Muslims in concentration camps, I was thinking of what the Nazis did, not the Americans. But I guess most people at the time didn't do anything, and were probably in denial about what was happening. It's a scary thought.
“at last looks like you're starting to see Brazilians for what they are.”
Not 'we are'? You don't seem to have much respect for the Brazilian constitution either.
“consider their policies from a “US” point of view”
The left-wing Americans think they're terrible too, that's why I've heard so much about them. But if it's all propaganda and fake, which bits are wrong?
DT
Sep 27th, 2018 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I don't really understand your mindset and I guess you don't understand mine...” It's pretty obvious, during your lifetime you have not experienced extremes, or chaos, while in mine, I've learned, first look after yourself, second, the others....reality makes you decide what your priorities are and when to stick your neck out.
Being in denial can take on two forms : one, you simply choose to think it's not true, or, to know it is, but decide to ignore it...for whatever reason.
The Brazilian constitution of '88 was drawn up by who, mainly ? the lefies coming back from exile, and those who had remained here, keeping a low profile....so much for the “REdemocratization” of Brazil.....the Consititution was not a 'communist' thing, but it carried a lot of resentment against what the lefties considered wrong. Today, there it is, for better or worse, and the extreme left is already trying to call for a new one, no doubt trying to do what Maduro did in VZ.
The American left is full of extremists....just look at at the names I mentioned a few weeks ago....Pelosi, Harry Reid, Maxine Waters, Diane Feinstein, Sheila 'something' (forgot her name)...they are a disservice to humanity, and who the hell ever gave them the right to claim only their views correspond to the truth ??
Which parts are wrong ?? Suppose you've been following the leftist assault on Brett Kavanaugh.....accusations of 38 years ago ? of sexual abuse at a frat party ? everyone drunk, in the midle of an era when free love was the 'thing'? who, back then, may not have inadvertently gone over the limit ? Comparing the behavioral norms regarding sex, of nearly 40 years ago, to today's, is ridiculous...like some woman in the UK accusing an MP of sexual abuse because he allegedly put his hand on her knee...30 years ago ? what are these idiots after ? but of course, if the democraps were the ones to appoint the next judge to the SCOTUS, their candidate would be a saint....just like Bill Clinton.
Re Brett Kavanaugh, if he had just put his hand on her knee or something similar, then I would agree with you. I know that things that would be considered sexual harassment now were common back then. But that's not what she described. According to her he and his friend pushed her into a bedroom during a party, pinned her down on the bed, groped her and tried to take her clothes off. She thought he was going to rape her, and when she tried to call for help he used his hand to gag her. He didn't even stop by himself, she only managed to get away because his friend jumped on the bed and knocked them off. That's not a simple misjudgement, she didn't go to the bedroom with him and he went too far, it's an attack on a 15 year old girl. The fact that most Republicans don't care whether it's true or not, and apparently have no higher moral standards for their Supreme Court judges - a lifetime appointment making crucial decisions that affect everyone in America - than for the janitor, is just another mark against them as far as I'm concerned.
Sep 28th, 2018 - 09:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0And I don't think Kavanaugh himself agrees that it's no big deal. He didn't say it's true but times have changed and he think's it's wrong now, or that something did happen but she's exaggerating, or that he doesn't remember. He denied everything, including that he was a heavy drinker back then, although under oath he dodged the questions about that. The friend who was supposedly in the room at the time has said he doesn't remember anything; I'd like to know why they didn't get him to testify under oath.
As for the Democrats, they're far from perfect, they also have members who've been accused, and AFAIK, where the accusations were serious and credible most of those from both parties have resigned or stood down from their campaigns. I don't believe Clinton would have survived the allegations against him if they happened today - not the Lewinski thing, but the others that weren't consensual.
Need more space to reply to the rest...
@JB:
Sep 28th, 2018 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “if it’s the ‘authorities” that apply the law, what’re you gonna do”:
You ARE right!!!
The Legal-System is not only corrupt AND corrupted but it is also infiltrated with the Money+Power Hungry.
The Laws+Constitution are made [by The (supposed-to-be) Guardians themselves], purposefully vague + exposed to innumerable loopholes+interpretations; to let the Guilty-Elite escape with their wrongdoings.
Is corruption just ONE of their crimes?
Is that why the guilty are “NOT Guilty” after all, to live - for generations - happily ever after; after (and in spite of) indulging in a series of “misconducts” (scandals?)? REF:
https://i.correiobraziliense.com.br/qUXoHfnzDHJwsTakDi5ctMTCHxY=/820x0/smart/imgsapp2.correiobraziliense.com.br/app/noticia_127983242361/2014/01/13/407558/20140113084716444006i.jpg
@ :o))
Sep 28th, 2018 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Constitution wasn't made that way, but they easily get round it. :(
@JB
“during your lifetime you have not experienced extremes, or chaos”
I don't agree. If you'd grown up in the UK and me in Brazil, we'd both have very different opinions in the details, but I think I'd still be liberal and you, conservative. We see the same events differently, and that's rooted in different personalities, not the things that happen around and to us.
“Being in denial can take on two forms”
Which do you think was more important for the ordinary Germans during Hitler's rise to power, and afterwards?
The Brazilian Constitution is clearly far from perfect. I can see why, after the dictatorship, they added the protections for politicians, and the many possibilities for appeal, but they have ended up being abused by all parties. Also IMO they went too far into details, trying to cover every possibility, rather than sticking to basic principles. In the end a constitution is just a piece of paper, it only has power in as much as the people care about making their rulers stick to it, and are able to put pressure on them to do so. I don't think either is very true in Brazil, and that's why I think it would make little difference if you adopted the US one instead. As for America, there are plenty of people there who would be happy to tear up the Constitution, to get what they want. So far they are not a majority, but in the future, who knows?
And of the two parties, I think there are far more extremists on the right, and they have greater power, starting with the current President. Nor is the row over Kavanaugh a matter of policy, unless you think it's official Republican policy to support sexual assault and harassment? It probably does illustrate the current partisan divisions, seeing that most people had made up their mind who to believe and whether it was important before either had even testified, but I meant which of the policies I mentioned above was not accurate?
Re Kavanaugh, it’s clear you believe Ford. I don’t. A friend, school colleague, who initially claimed to be a witness (at the party during the alleged attack), later, under questioning, recanted saying she had only ‘heard’ abt it ; Am not saying Kavanaugh was a saint – few people are at 17 – but the fact he denied being there, the fact that it was not even reported, by Ford or her friends, is strange. Afaic, the Senate hearing has become a circus, in which the Dems desire to obstruct Trump, is greater than their will to get to the truth.
Sep 28th, 2018 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Clinton/Lewinski affair was consensual – Bill & Hillary’s problem to sort out - but how abt all the women who came forward during the last campaign, 'n Hillary’s attempts to discredit them ? 'n Hillary’s secret server, at home ? the deletion of 1000s of e-mails ? you thinks those accusations weren’t credible ? Hillary didn’t stand down, and it was for the President’s job, not a SC judge’s.
IMO, you, having been brought up in the 1st world, have not been subjected to political and/or social extremes, as I have, in Brazil. You are saying the environment someone grows up in, has no influence on their political views, i.e., that you , if lived in Brazil, would still be a liberal…Can’t argue that, as it might be true for you, but I don’t think “personality” (innate, but not born ideological) comes into it, and gen'lly speaking, that you ARE influenced by your environment (home, school, surroundings, social atmosphere etc)…in my case, having been brought up in conservative surroundings, the tendency would be, of course, to be a conservative…but it does not necessarily mean I could not have shifted to left of centre IF the left had done a good job in Brazil. We know they didn’t, which reinforced my values against the left in S. America, which is really only populism, disguised as ‘democratic socialism’, which no one here knows the meaning of, but thinks it sounds good…the question on denial/Hitler not too clear...need space
“it’s clear you believe Ford”
Sep 28th, 2018 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think it's pretty plausible, and why would she report it? Nothing would have happened to him; you said yourself the norms about sex were very different then. Most likely she would have got the blame for going to a party were everyone was drinking alcohol. I'm not convinced either way though, and I don't know why anyone would be who doesn't know either of them. What I am sure of though, is that IF it's true, then he shouldn't be on the supreme court, and I don't think much of the people trying to minimise it (to his credit, these do not include Kavanaugh himself).
JB, please tell me you never did anything like that when you were young?
I don't know too much about Bill Clinton, and who accused him of what when. It wasn't Hilary herself who was accused though, do you think the Democrats should have insisted she divorce Bill if she wanted the nomination, or what?
“You are saying the environment someone grows up in, has no influence on their political views”
Nah, it must do, and I'm sure I'd have different views if I'd grown up in Brazil. But there's a left and a right in Brazil, among people who grew up there same as you did, and I'm pretty sure I'd still be on the left. And surely you don't believe that if you'd grown up in the UK and had my life, you'd be so idealistic/naive?
Looking from the outside, I'd say neither the right nor the left have done well in Latin America, and both have engaged in widespread corruption and spawned repressive governments. So it's a case of pay your money and pick your poison. Probably in general the left has been better for the poor and the right for the (sadly small) middle class.
Re Hitler, I was talking about the Holocaust. Do you think Germans at the time didn't believe what was happening, that Hitler would really do what he said, or that they decided to ignore it, because they believed the propaganda or just didn't care, or because they were too afraid to speak out?
88’s Constitution embraced what the left wanted, above all, a way to protect themselves. Goes into irrelevant detail, more appropriately addressed in common law. Agree, it's only as good as the govt’s will to enforce it / the people’s, to respect it. In Brazil, truth be said, ‘people’ are idiots – don’t learn from past mistakes, so the Constitution ends up being used to benefit those in power. Brzlians would trash any Constitution, their ingrained disrespect for rules is cultural.
Sep 29th, 2018 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the US, afaik, the WH draws up a list of candidates, based on their history ; once selected, FBI conducts background check ‘n then the nominee needs the Senate’s approval…most presidents select nominees from acquaintances who share the same ideological views, which is no guarantee of loyalty.
Re Kavanaugh, you sound like judge, jury ‘n executioner…to me, both sides of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had made up their minds well in advance. To say Trump’s choice of Kavanaugh has nothing to do with policy (intended to favor conservatism ?), is to be naïve, but to link it to a policy of “rape is OK”, is ridiculous.
Until ‘proof’ is presented – at this point near impossible – Kavanaugh’s testimony is as credible as hers. She’d been drinking – how could she be 100% sure ? If it caused such trauma, why keep it quiet…for decades. Of course sex norms were different back then, but rape has always been rape, not simple sexual harassment. Far from saying she’s to blame, but she must’ve known the risk of going to such parties.
In the 70s, with my bachelor pad, on a few occasions I may have been insistent in the heat of the moment, but only verbally, never physically. Why force it, given the abundance of easy sex ?
The Senate accused Bill ; Hillary’s marriage got screwed, but she hung on, due to political ambition. In 2016, and before, Hillary had intimidated ‘n insulted women who had accused him. If she had decided to divorce Bill, should’ve been for infidelity, not politics.
Need space.
“above all, a way to protect themselves”
Sep 29th, 2018 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes. Imprisoning, torturing and exiling people will do that. And disrespect for rules does seem to be a cultural thing. I suppose you'd know that, after living there all your life.
I wasn't seriously suggesting the GOP have a policy that rape is okay (although several of them seem worryingly unsure on that question), my point was the allegations against Kavanaugh have nothing to do with policy, which is what we were talking about. The US is so divided on ideology that we couldn't expect K to be acceptable to any Dems, the only question is what the R's think. I presume if they did find him unacceptable for any reason there are other conservative candidates to choose from.
As for being judge, jury and executioner, you do understand the difference between thinking a crime is serious, and being sure the suspect is guilty, right? As I already said, I'm NOT convinced he's guilty (or innocent), it's the idea the accusations are not serious, and are something anyone could have done, that I object to.
“She’d been drinking – how could she be 100% sure ?”
She had one beer. And what is the risk of going to a party at a friend's house with other high school kids you know? When I was a teenager, that was considered completely normal, and we weren't inclined to stop at one beer, either. As for why keep it quiet for decades, according to her he didn't actually rape her, and she probably tried to put it behind her and forget about it. Only later, when she was seeing a therapist, did she admit (to herself?) that it was still affecting her. Probably a hard thing to do, everyone wants to be strong and get over things on their own.
“If she had decided to divorce Bill, should’ve been for infidelity, not politics.”
True. I wonder if Hilary believes the accusations against Bill?
PS. In case it wasn't obvious, I don't think you're idealistic or naive. I think that you think I am. Realised it could be unclear after posting...
It was unlikely by 88 the military would ever intervene again, but politicians prepared the ground for their future activities, w/ full immunity while in office.
Sep 29th, 2018 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Before the Senate hearings, all Dems were alrdy 100% against him...suggestive ? Anyway, watch the following video - https://youtu.be/C5mSiMWRlYI
What called my attention, at 1:48/1:49 hr, was Sen Cornyn's statement that Dems said ('n not contested by them) that the B of P does not lie with the accuser (?) …since when ? if BK is being accused of a crime, even though not in a court of law, is there no need for corroborating proof ? can you just accuse someone w/o proof, and that’s it ?
Looks like the Dems are trying to subvert the order of things …when they say BK has to prove he’s innocent (?) - so, even if innocent, the fact you're accused of a crime (even out of the blue) but cannot 'prove' your innocence, makes you guilty ?
Regarding the Dems insistent attempts (2) to get BK to ask the FBI to halt hearings 'n do a background check/ investigation – another one ? - is ludicrous….1st, BK was called to answer questions, 2nd, only the Chairman can halt proceedings & request FBI to investigate , 3rd ) investigate what already has been ? and what’s more, BK rightly stated that the FBI does not ‘reach conclusions’ , the committee does…..because of that, the press accused BK of trying to sidestep the issue /avoid answering the question, yes or no...as if that were important in determining his guilt ? sounds like a witch hunt by the Dems, trying to entrap BK into discrediting himself.
“She had one beer” ? can she prove it ? Such parties attract many UNinvited, can get wild. Well, IF he did actually jump on her, but didn't rape her, it speaks in his favor...She could've done many things, but keeping quiet is no defense. If she needed a therapist to extract it fm her, sounds she might not remember correctly.
Oh yes, she 'n everyone else knew abt Bill's infidelity;
PS: not naive, but too trusting.
“Before the Senate hearings, all Dems were alrdy 100% against him...suggestive ?”
Sep 30th, 2018 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0No, inevitable when politics has become so polarised that there is virtually no middle ground. The Dems weren't going to support K's nomination because of his views, even if he's a perfectly stand-up guy, and if he isn't accepted in the end, it's a safe bet they won't support Trump's next pick, either.
As for the burden of proof, if K was on trial for the crimes then I would certainly agree, but he's not. He's being considered for a very important and responsible job. Are the rules different in that case? I'm not sure. But it seems reasonable to take the time to hear all the evidence and allow the FBI to investigate allegations that they were unaware of the first time. There's no hurry, we know the court can function for months and months with only 8 justices.
“IF he did actually jump on her, but didn't rape her, it speaks in his favor.”
No it doesn't, because he didn't choose to stop, she managed to get away.
JB, I know people who have been raped or sexually assaulted, and most of them did not report it to the police, either at the time or later. That's normal, and I don't blame them at all.
DT
Sep 30th, 2018 - 04:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0“No, inevitable when politics has become so polarised, that there is virtually no middle ground”
Ok, with that kind of situation, how fair, or impartial a hearing would BK's be ? Sounds like the Dems weren't interested in listening to anything but their own opinions. But in what world will Trump indicate a democrat ? Trump will keep on indicating Republicans until there's one the Dems can't pick holes in. Regretable situation, in which the Dems are more interested in party politics (obstructing Trump) than the country.
BK wasn't on trial, but the Dems obviously thought he should be. And even if he was, Ford would have to prove her accusation. Let's presume he WAS drunk and DID attack her, am still not convinced he should 'now' pay for a 38 year-old cock-up, with his career. You may think so, but I don't think that what allegedly happened diminishes his capacity as a judge. Makes one wonder how many of the Dem senators on the committee are totally guilt-free ? perhaps the only difference between them is they were never caught.
I'm not against yet 'another' FBI check, but what “conclusive proof” do they expect to find ? The Dems have already made up their minds, regardless of what FBI presents.
“....she managed to get away.”....well, in that case looks like 'boys' were not all that determined to harm her. Don't think she's deliberately lying, but I think she may have convinced herself of something which is still unclear in her own head.
I don't recall knowing anyone personally who was raped, or sexually assaulted, but I still think that the anger - I presume they would feel - would make them look for justice... unless they were uncertain about what happened...anyway, the probability that the police might have done nothing - had she reported what she considered an attack - is big, but at least an official record of her complaint would on file. But ok, I know people react differently, I'm no pschyatrist, so anything I say will be speculation.
“I don't recall knowing anyone personally who was raped, or sexually assaulted”
Sep 30th, 2018 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Based on statistics you likely have known someone, but it's not the kind of thing you go around telling everyone you meet. Still, that means there's no one you can ask, and you probably can't imagine yourself in that situation. But it really is common not to report it, for the reason you said - that the police would be unlikely to do anything - but also out of shame, not wanting everyone to know, and fear that reporting it will also be traumatic and you will be blamed by the police or other people who find out.
“in that case looks like 'boys' were not all that determined to harm her.”
Like those incompetent Brazilian terrorists who couldn't even succeed buying guns in Paraguay? I'm sure your favourite human right's defenders argued the same for them: if they had really meant to act, they would have done something and not just talked. I had thought your view was that protecting other people is more important than giving criminals another chance?
“I don't think that what allegedly happened diminishes his capacity as a judge”
If he is guilty, then I don't think he should be judging sexual assault cases, and they are bound to come up. Assuming it's true, should he pay now for a crime he committed at 17? I'm not sure, but in a job that affects the whole country, isn't the rest of America more important than one man's career?
As for the Dems, practically speaking it doesn't really matter if they think K is guilty or not - they would mostly have voted against him regardless. It's the Republicans he needs to convince, and I'm sure they'll be more than fair to him. As for party politics, I think it's pretty clear that both sides believe the other's Supreme Court picks would be very bad for the country. So in this case, they are both working for the good of the country according to their own ideas of what that is.
@DT
Sep 30th, 2018 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Disagree. If anyone I knew - with whom I had a relationship, either business or personal - had been raped etc, I do not believe they would have managed to disguise the fact and carry on as if nothing had happened. Not only never knew of anything like that, but never suspected it either, and I am pretty observant.
I have been held up at gunpoint....not a nice experience, especially when you get the sensation that in a few seconds you might be killed, nevertheless you eventually get over it. A few days after the incident, and for a few weeks, I acted aggressively towards people, until I realized it was a process of getting rid of my anger....it was impossible to hide. But you have yr opinion, I have mine.
Don't think drunken sexual assault is comparable to obvious intent to commit a terrorist act. As to the intended act, it was still in the planning stage...why wouldn't they discuss it ?
Don't have any favourite HR defenders, and I'm not sure what their lawyers alleged in their defence. But I do believe in preventive action against criminals, or would-be criminals. Only chicken-thieves should be given a second chance, not those who commit premeditated murder, rape, or terrorist acts.
As a SC judge, BK would be overseeing constitutional matters, not rape allegations. But IF he is PROVED guilty, he should pay, but my question still is, IS he guilty ? how's it going to be proved, beyond doubt ?....and if it isn't , and whichever the final decision, the doubt (either way) will always exist.
I think that the Dems motivation for crucifying BK goes beyond his alleged sexual conduct, but it gave them the excuse they needed. I would like to believe that the Senate is really acting in the interests of the US, but I don't....given that not even one Senator, from either party, is likely to side with the opposition, therefore reinforcing that as far as both sides were concerned, the verdict was decided before the hearings even started.
I'm not very observant, but wouldn't it depend on how well you knew a person, and how often you see then? And if someone was acting different, how would you know what the cause was? In any case, if it happened before you met them, then you would never know.
Sep 30th, 2018 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've never been mugged or anything, and I'm sure being held up at gunpoint is pretty scary and unpleasant. But I wouldn't have known it would affect you for weeks, or make you angry rather than, say, scared to go out. Guess it shows you don't always know how you would react until you've had the experience. I presume you reported it to the police? How did that go? And did you tell everyone who noticed you were acting differently, what had happened, or did you think it was none of their business?
Obviously terrorism is worse than most other crime, but you could say the same thing about many crimes where the intended victim got away. Maybe the criminal would have changed their mind, or maybe if they had been more serious about it they would have succeeded, but we don't know that.
As for K, I don't see how they can prove much about it. Who except the protagonists is going to remember anything after all this time? Maybe there'd be more chance of confirming or disproving the other allegations. And yeah, if it's not proved the doubt will always exist. Maybe he should step down for that reason, for the sake of public trust in the SC, but that seems unfair if he's innocent.
“I would like to believe that the Senate is really acting in the interests of the US, but I don't”
It certainly is hard to believe at times. I don't know how the country got so divided, when in many areas the two parties have pretty similar policies. Often it seems both parties are more interested in blocking their opponents than in accomplishing anything, and the more they do it, the less each is inclined to cooperate, like a game of prisoners' dilemma where each player keeps defecting because the other one did.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!