MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Paulo Guedes the ultra-liberal economic advisor of an ultra-populist nationalist
After getting out of its most severe recession in history in 2017, Brazil remains in a state of economic malaise, notching up a mere 1% of growth last year, with public debt forecast to snowball from 77% of GDP to 140% by 2030, according to the World Bank. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesHold On - everyone will be rich again!
Oct 16th, 2018 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://i2.wp.com/humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Promessa-de-cuidar-dos-pobres-por-Newton-Silva.jpg?resize=480%2C360
Guedes proposes a simple solution: “Reduce public debt by 20% through privatizations and spending cuts.” He's embracing the same successful formula that resulted in Chile eventually become a stable progressive free market economy.
Oct 16th, 2018 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0¡Viva Brazil!
It sounds an awful lot like the policies Germany forced on Greece in exchange for a bail out, which resulted in GDP falling from nearly $32k per person in 2008 to 18.1k in 2016.
Oct 16th, 2018 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That didn't happen in Chile, right? So they must have done something different.
DemonTree
Oct 16th, 2018 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually, the transition was a terrible shock and many people were economically affected negatively. I lived through the difficult period and not all the ideas of the “Chicago Boys” were successful. It took us about 10 years of hardship until we emerged into a stable progressive economy. Brazil has all the correct resources to become one of the greatest world economic powers, but the need to embrace tough societal reforms. Of 200 million inhabitants, over 25% are actually living below the poverty level, which is unacceptable. Socialisim is not the solution.
“over 25% are actually living below the poverty level, which is unacceptable”
Oct 16th, 2018 - 05:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tell me honestly, what do you think the percentage will be after Guedes finishes cutting social spending?
It's a little strange to be cheering for Brazil to enter 10 years of hardship, don't you think? With no guarantee of any improvement at the end of it, following ideas that you admit were hit and miss - even supposing the 'erratic individual with no track record,' who just announced that he knows nothing about the economy, actually sticks with them.
Besides, economic growth only reduces poverty if everyone gets to share in it. In 1900 the UK had one of the highest GDPs per capita in the world, yet poverty, disease and malnutrition were so common that ~50% of volunteers for the Boer war had to be turned away for medical reasons. It was thanks to 'socialism' that that all changed.
DemonTree
Oct 16th, 2018 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the next election, change will occur. Bolsonaro will win the election and there is hope that he will reduce the obscene corruption and rampant crime that has affected all Brazilians. These serious societal problems are directly attributable to the corrupt political mismanagement mostly controlled by the Partido dos Trabalhadores.* Unfortunately, many of the historical political parties of the left and right have all been guilty of plundering Latin America's wealth. Considering its potential, it's ridiculous that a country like Brazil continues to fail its people, especially the poor.
(*This group are not like your ideal altruistic Socialists you think they are.)
You didn't reply on whether Guedes' policies will cause poverty to rise or fall - at least you're honest enough not to lie.
Oct 16th, 2018 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It doesn't surprise me that countries would fail their people when they are governed by the elite, for the elite; and by making Guedes his adviser, Bolsonaro has secured their support. They will benefit from privatisations and lower taxes, and what do they care if the poor are hungry and live in slums?
DemonTree
Oct 16th, 2018 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Honestly, I doubt anyone will know if Guede's policies will be enacted, but what for certain is that very little will be accomplished until there is a dramatic change in the high level of systemic corruption Brazil currently suffers.
Sincerely, you need to open your eyes about Latin America. The old saying “a rising tide raises all the boats in the water” does not always apply to all classes of society, but certainly the previous administration was just as capitalistic as most countries, and yet only shared a small percentage of the wealth with the poor. In the end they just ended up mismanaging and looting the country.
I have close friends in Recife and Petrolina who are very unhappy with their country. Crime there has become absolutely unacceptable.
DT
Oct 16th, 2018 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Tell me honestly, what do you think the percentage will be after Guedes finishes cutting social spending?” (to Chicureo)
Very different to Chicureo's ”Reduce public debt by 20% through privatizations and spending cuts.”..
1) reduce public debt by 20% through privatization : not only highly recomendable - as the State-run Cos are a drain on the economy - but because will reduce interest paid on the debt by roughly R$ 80 billion/year...and “reducing” the need for 'new' loans...
2) He did not mention cutting “social” spending ....but 'spending'...reducing, or trying to reduce government spending with itself.....a much needed measure but hard to achieve.
3) The above two policies will leave substantially more money in the 'kitty'....which can presumably be invested in the currently deficient infrastructure, creating jobs, salaries etc....so I don't see how, with this, we run the risk of increasing poverty.
4) If he's successful in curbing corruption, it'll be another source of saving taxpayer's money.
“to be cheering for Brazil to enter 10 years of hardship, don't you think?”
And who is “cheering” ? fact is, thanks to the PT, and mainly the PT, Brazil entered its worst recession in decades......more PT government - which seems what you were hoping for - would only drive us further away from economic growth. With the PT's philosophy that you shouldn't have a cap on government expenditure, and their policy of spending themselves OUT of recession, Brazil would just sink further...simple math...which you are good at.
Anyway, while I think it'll continue to take most of the next 4 years to get Brazil back on track again - while nevertheless slowly progressing during it - and provided the PT don't get in again, in 22, Brazil has a good chance of full recovery by 2023 (imo).
“what do they care if the poor r hungry 'n live in slums?”...always possible, but you are presuming the worst scenario, to which I could say “the BF will raise them out of poverty”.
@Chicureo
Oct 16th, 2018 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Assume Guedes' policies will be enacted - it's a hypothetical question anyway.
“you need to open your eyes about Latin America”
Sorry, but I think your optimism is misplaced. Bolsonaro ain't no Pinochet; not as bad, and not as good either. Besides, no President (or judge) could fix the corruption in Brazil, they need to change the whole system, and I've seen no signs anyone is willing to do that.
As for the PT, you're factually incorrect. Yes, they were just as capitalist as most countries - though I don't think Jack agrees - but income inequality in Brazil fell during their presidencies, though it's still at a very high level compared to other countries.
Crime is a different issue, the current government has clearly lost control and something needs to be done. But at this point the criminals are better armed and better organised (and much better funded,) than the police; it's worryingly close to fighting a counter-insurgency rather than crime.
@JB
Most spending is social spending, you're not going to get big savings anywhere else, and if he uses the money to pay off the debt it can't be invested in any other projects. Greece has had a primary budget surplus since 2013 and its GDP has nosedived.
Do you think Guedes' policies would not affect poverty, then, or even reduce it?
Chicureo was cheering “¡Viva Brazil!” for Brazil adopting the same policies that caused 10 years of hardship in Chile. I wasn't hoping for another PT government, but I'd take Haddad over the 'erratic individual with no track record,' who just announced that he knows nothing about the economy (and who you yourself said was incompetent and nearly as radical as Lula).
“Brazil has a good chance of full recovery by 2023”
Judging by Europe's experiment with austerity over the last 10 years, I think that's far too optimistic - if Brazil really goes that route.
DemonTree
Oct 16th, 2018 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Bolsonaro ain't no Pinochet...”
...you are telling me that??? Of course not!
“...but income inequality in Brazil fell during their presidencies...”
Are you really saying that when Brazil is currently in an economic stagnation affecting especially the poor?
“...I'd take Haddad over the 'erratic individual with no track record,'...”
You do realize that Haddad was chosen by Lula's supporters??? Do you understand he represents a continuation of the PT political agenda?
Sincerely, I'm cheering the people of Brazil breaking away with a new start. I wish upon no class of society suffering poverty, it's just the opposite.
@DT
Oct 17th, 2018 - 12:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Reducing the debt, saves money…may not be a solution to 100% of the problems, but by no means should be ignored. The Federal government ‘machine’, bloated beyond reason during the PT years, should be reduced in size….the Pension system – and other – reforms – will save money.
A few big savings, and a lot of smaller ones, will add up to a lot of what’s missing now…Every step in the right direction is good.
If the economy just ‘starts’ to recover, govt revenue will increase, and have the snowball effect….but why would the right economic policy, adapted to Brazil’s reality, cause more poverty ? Excess (populist) spending, that yes, will cause it.
Chicureo’s !Viva Brasil ! was just taking the piss….not cheering for something bad.
You don’t know Haddad…I do…he’s as incompetent as Dilma. He is Lula's choice . I also know Bolsonaro…while Trumpish in rhetoric, and without a ‘great’ political past, I expect he will converge to the centre…let’s wait ‘n see…
Haddad would probably go further left if the PT got in again, trying to continue where Dilma left off….or do you think Lula would allow himself to fade into the background ?... despite the fact that the PT now, for the 2nd round, is trying to disassociate its image from Lula, and has removed the red flag with the commie star in the middle from its propaganda.
Getting back to Bolsonaro – if he avoids political indications for top posts, that will already be enormous progress…by putting competent people in the right places – not politicians - it’ll avoid political manipulation/ cut down corruption in State-run Cos..
Brazil has a history of being resilient when the right measures are adopted….but it remains to be seen, if Congress plays along, or if it does what it did to Temer…in this last case, not even 2030 will see recovery.
@JB
Oct 17th, 2018 - 10:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “Getting back to Bolsonaro – if he avoids political indications for top posts, that will already be enormous progress…by putting competent people in the right places – not politicians - it’ll avoid political manipulation/ cut down corruption in State-run Cos”:
Brazil already has “order”[?] AND “progress”[?] - don't know in “what/where” though]. Nobody admits but there is “efficiency” as well [at least in stealing public funds].
The only missing element is “PROSPERITY”. It's easy to believe that prosperity is just around the corner; particularly when one is “high” on whatever one is sniffing [and re-selling st the same time]!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7kDGswTq87Y/TqvHYZ_ur7I/AAAAAAAAACg/hCsEprVnsTQ/s1600/charge-brasil-de-todos1+%25282%2529.gif
Steve Bannon's plan is in full swing.
Oct 17th, 2018 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse -1With Bolsonaro getting the thumbs up from David Duke, God is in his Kingdom.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/10/11/world/americas/ap-lt-brazil-elections-bannon.html
“PROSPERITY”:
Oct 17th, 2018 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pz1X86KQfa4/WTLIjo_3sTI/AAAAAAAAEwU/rHEqc7AvszUSAJNojOOg3dC6RjOmp1ZmwCLcB/s1600/FB_IMG_1494971859638.jpg
Terrence Hill would want us all to agree that according to Liberal Socialist-Marxist theory, the history of all society has been the history of class struggle and with each phase of this struggle comes a new set of social relationships that dictate the direction of society's development and, fundamentally, the system of producing and distributing goods and services. Arising from the creation of surplus during the neolithic revolution, the unequal distribution of this surplus has been reinforced by the state which represents the interests of the ruling class of the time. While all societies and civilizations have had their own unique history of development, they each pass through six distinctive stages of economic relationships sharing common characteristics, these being: primitive socialism (hunter-gatherer societies), slavery, feudalism, capitalism and finally Marxist-Socialism in a highly advanced form which is considered to be the epoch of humanity having become fully civilized.
Oct 17th, 2018 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's something reasonable that we all could be in agreement, don't you think?
Chicureo aka “the prize troll”
Oct 17th, 2018 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse -1It's a political philosophy that I had figured was bunkum before I was in my teens. The only time it has crossed my path is the rubbish that is passed under the guise of 'political correctness'. That encroaches on subjects in academia. That the purveyor is not only wrong, but is also unqualified.
Whereas, your the only one that appears to be engrossed in it.
Our enlightened Comrade Terrence Hill strongly supports the proletarian will of the majority voting for the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy, as he learned from his idols: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels “The 1849 Communist Manifesto”
Oct 17th, 2018 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comrade Terence Hill encourages the Brazilian voter to elect Bolsonaro to stop very cannibalism of the counterrevolution by the ruthless and evil Partido dos Trabalhadores, PT and will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.
¡Viva la revolución!
@Chicureo
Oct 17th, 2018 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're up to 3 question marks, do I get a prize? ;)
“Sincerely...”
I'll take your word for it, but your concern for Brazil's (and other countries') poverty would be a tad more convincing if you didn't always support the kind of politicians who don't give a toss.
@JB
“why would the right economic policy, adapted to Brazil’s reality, cause more poverty ?”
It wouldn't, but what makes you think this is the right economic policy? It sounds very much like the type of policies the IMF likes to enforce on borrowers, and if that made countries rich there would be a hell of a lot more developed countries out there. Argentina used to be one of their success stories, until 2001, and now that they have been forced to go back to the IMF and cut spending (including social, and Macri's planned infrastructure spending), they are heading straight back into recession again. (And sure, excess spending, especially poorly aimed, can also lead to poverty. There is more than one way to screw up an economy.)
It would be more accurate to say Trump's rhetoric was like Bolsonaro's, but actually B's is way worse, and his planned economic policy rather opposite to Trump's. But who knows how long he will stick to it, since it contradicts his previous positions.
Re Haddad, it does make you wonder how they became the two final candidates, much like Trump and Clinton in the US. With two very different systems, you both ended up with a choice of evils.
Temer had a reasonably cooperative congress, I thought; they didn't let his prosecutions go forward and he managed to get quite a few laws passed. If it wasn't for his personal corruption problems and calling the army out in Rio, he probably could have got pension reform done too. How likely are they to work with B if he doesn't continue the Mensalão and won't hand out top posts to politicians?
@Terry
Don't feed the troll.
@DT
Oct 17th, 2018 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the right economic policy ? because I am aware of some of his main proposals and to me they make sense...simple.
The IMF is all about making loans, and then holding the country to its word, even if it means going through recession ...Paulo Guedes' ideas have nothing to do with the IMF and loans etc...he wants to cut back 'sensibly', to allow the country's finances to get back in the black...fact is that under the PT, govt got too big, and badly administered, led to what it did.
Think what you want about Bolsonaro's rhetoric, because after all, that's all it is....Time will tell if I'm right in believing the agressive rhetoric (used to counteract the PT's) will fade, and we'll see a centre-govt trying to do what it has to. I don't have a crystal ball, but within the realm of possibilities, I think he'll go for it....at least, no worse than the PT.
'You' believe Putin changed from a communist to right-wing (I don't, but that's beside the point) so why can't Bolsonaro converge to the centre ?
“Re Haddad, it does make you wonder how they became the two final candidates,...”
It's what I've said all aloooong....in a country where a good part of the population is badly-informed, if at all , it's not surprising the succumb to populist bs...IF they had sufficient discernment to weed out the bs, we'd probably be deciding between Amoedo and Alckin on the 28th.
In the beginning Congress played along with Temer....they became less cooperative after he was accused....as his supposed crimes ('supposed' because still not tried, convicted) occurred before he took over (Sept 2016), his immunity (being in office) protected him from the STF ; impeachment would not stick, for the same reason (crimes occurred before Sept 2016) and, it would be disastrous for a 2nd impeachment, soon after Dilma's...
The mensalão/petrolão is being taken care of by a renewed sense of justice in this country,
and if Congress rebels, he'll have to count on popular support to push them.
Sure the IMF is about loans, but they always demand spending cuts and privatisations as a condition of giving them. You can see the results in (poor) countries all around the world. Maybe Guedes' ideas are different, but it sounds like he is more driven by ideology than practicality. Only time will tell.
Oct 17th, 2018 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for B, why assume he doesn't mean what he says? Electing someone thinking they will change seems a little foolish, much like marrying someone with the same belief, but I suppose you don't have much choice and have to make the best of it. Putin had already given up communism (at least to outward appearances) before he became President; the Russians elected him based on his current policies. Anyway, B's bigotry is not a problem for you, and luckily for me I don't live in Brazil.
But if you believe Putin is still a commie, don't you think it was pretty odd and worrying that Trump said he trusted Putin more than his own police and intelligence agents?
“in a country where a good part of the population is badly-informed, if at all , it's not surprising the succumb to populist bs”
Do you think that applies to America too? Americans are more educated than Brazilians, but with all the fake news around, and people segregating themselves according to belief, it probably is easy for them to believe bullshit.
“we'd probably be deciding between Amoedo and Alckin”
More likely between one of them and whoever is the most sensible leftist candidate. I just looked up Amoedo; he seems to represent your views pretty well. Guess we'll have to wait and see what congress does; if the changes benefit them and their friends, they'll probably go along with it.
Interesting item in the news:
Oct 17th, 2018 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Walid Phares tweeted last week that the State Department and democracy agencies are paying close attention to the Brazilian presidential elections while the intelligence community is monitoring Iran and Venezuela for “nefarious activities inside Brazil, especially since the assassination attempt” on Bolsonaro at a rally in September.”
Why on earth would the future leader be concerned about two peaceful and completely democratic innocent nations? Maybe it's because there is talk that B's new Brazil will break diplomatic relations with the criminal governments...
Chicureo aka “the prize troll“
Oct 18th, 2018 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -1”the intelligence community is monitoring Iran and Venezuela for “nefarious activities inside Brazil,“
”Company That Ran Trump's Campaign Has Arrived in Brazil
Of the many controversial aspects surrounding Trump's presidential campaign, at least one has been exported to Brazil and will most likely be a part of the 2018 election.
Cambridge Analytica is a pioneering company that merges behavioral psychology with big data for political campaigns. The company arrived back in March and has been operating ever since.
The company emerged as a partner to British consulting firm SCL. In order to operate in Brazil the company teamed up with Ponte Estratégia, a targeted marketing company, leading to the creation of CA-Ponte.
The conservative trend in the company's client portfolio is no coincidence. One of the main investors behind Cambridge Analytica is billionaire Robert Mercer, who is also a Republican donor.
Trump's former chief-strategist, Steve Bannon, who served in his administration until August, was also on the administrative board of Cambridge Analytica.
https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/brazil/2017/12/1941041-company-that-ran-trumps-campaign-has-arrived-in-brazil.shtml
@Chicureo
Oct 18th, 2018 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Terry supports the Folha's idea “C.Analytica will most likely be a part of the 2018 election”....when was the article written ? Jun 2017. Didn't C.A. shut down in May 2018?
Before the campaign ?
@DT
Guedes favors reducing the size of govt, something the IMF usually advocates, but he hasn't mentioned it. And with all the dead wood, reducing it would not affect government negatively.
“As for B, why assume he doesn't mean what he says?” don’t take his rhetoric literally, but as a manner of speech to counteract the PT and rouse those who have had enough ‘n probably didn’t realize it. Extreme proposals usually converge to the center after a candidate is elected. What you call B’s bigotry, I call the manner found to combat the PT’s lies ‘n extremism…you probably don’t remember Lula’s rhetoric in ’89, in ’93, and in 2002…when he eventually took over, despite keeping his Foro de SP dreams alive, but on the back burner, on the outside he converged to the center…a requirement to survive.
When you’ve been here long enough you get to get an inkling as to what goes on in the minds of Brazilian politicians.
Putin can appear to be whatever he wants, but imo, deep down he will always be a communist, who does what he needs to, to survive.
““more than his own police 'n intelligence agents?”…at the time, the FBI was still full of BO cronies.
”Do you think that applies to America too?”…without a doubt….don’t know the demographics in the US, but I’d say there are plenty of idiots running around, both Republicans & Democrats. You imply Republicans are stupid, but what would you say of those who voted for Hillary ?
Alckmin, as the PSDB has always positioned itself - slightly left of center - was acceptable, and usually the only choice. The PSDB never entertained ideas about the Foro de SP, and that was a relief.
Amoedo is a businessman, and that characteristic would probably be incorporated in to his style of government, neither one extreme or the other.
Steve Bannon's plan is in full swing.
Oct 18th, 2018 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“Brazil battles fake news 'tsunami' amid polarized presidential election
Electoral court orders Facebook to remove links to 33 fake news stories targeting Fernando Haddad’s vice-presidential candidate”
https://www. theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/10/brazil-fake-news-presidential-election-whatsapp-facebook
Also in August, Eduardo posted on Instagram a picture of himself with Bannon. The caption said that the two had met and that Bannon was an “enthusiast” of his father’s candidacy and they would “unite forces against cultural Marxism”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/11/brazil-steve-bannon-jair-bolsonaro
“with all the dead wood, reducing it would not affect government negatively.”
Oct 18th, 2018 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe, assuming it's done intelligently. Cuts here have affected the NHS, police, and prisons negatively, and though Britain probably had less 'dead wood' to cut, in my experience they're just as likely to fire necessary workers as useless ones.
“a manner of speech to counteract the PT”
Considering the only speech of B's I've watched was from 1999, and he was advocating shutting down Congress and 'doing the job the military regime forgot to do: killing 30,000 people, starting with FHC', I find it a tad hard to believe his 'manner' has anything to do with the PT.
And now I wonder: if the Brazilian military had murdered those 30,000, including FHC and who knows how many other academics, would Brazil still be suffering hyperinflation today?
As for Lula, sure I don't remember his rhetoric from before his election, I'd never heard of him back then. What did he used to say?
“at the time, the FBI was still full of BO cronies”
Do you mean James Comey, the registered Republican who announced they had reopened the investigation into Hilary's emails two weeks before the election, and then closed it again without result afterwards? And are you seriously saying that FBI agents - even 'BO crony' ones - are less trustworthy than the secretly-communist leader of an unfriendly rival power who has every reason to lie?
“You imply Republicans are stupid”
I thought you did that: “in a country where a good part of the population is badly-informed, if at all , it's not surprising the succumb to populist bs”. In the US Trump was the populist candidate who claimed to be against the 'establishment'. He even said he loves the poorly educated, and they love him - he promised to do something for people the other candidates had been ignoring, much like Lula did. Different promises for a different country with different circumstances, but both targeting the people who aren't enjoying the benefits of society.
DT
Oct 19th, 2018 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0If cuts to intended investments are made, yes…but then , you can’t invest what you don’t have…or you can, by taking loans, paying interest etc.
1999 was 19 years ago….people can change, or moderate their views. As to shutting down Congress, if I knew the reason, I might’ve supported him…it’s a only a necessary evil. As I said, don’t know the reason, but would be surprised if it did NOT have something to do with the PT, as they were lefties.
Re the 30,000, how can I know ?... perhaps Brazil would’ve sent someone to the moon…I dunno.
Lula was always very radical, instilling anger in the poor classes (against business owners, the elite), as if only the PT were capable of making Brazil great…that is all he talked about, the usual crap we’ve already discussed. Back then, he was even more ignorant than today…today at least, he knows the ropes of government (a bit too well).
Yes Comey…such an idiot, appointed by BO in 2013…might have been a registered Republican, but it means nothing if he accepted the nomination by BO. The FBI agents, in that investigation, followed Comey’s lead…going against him would’ve got them sacked.
Me : “You imply Republicans are stupid”/ You : “I thought you did that”…Now, I presume your trying to be smart…I don’t know the number of each side in the US (some are loyal, others switch sides etc), but generally speaking, the ‘people’ as a whole, are not too bright….but in numbers, they can sway an election….I’m not judging their intelligence restricted to 2016. Both sides, and their electorates put up pretty poor shows. And considering some of the immense differences between the US and Brazil, any similarities between Lula’s and Trump’s rhetoric, have to be taken in context of each country’s reality. “Both targeting people who aren’t…”, with a likely difference that Trump meant what he said….Lula talked loud, but stopped very short of what he could have done…because he thought he’d done enough for the ‘people’, and had them hooked.
Bolso/Haddad
Oct 19th, 2018 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0WhatsApp & Facebook
Blame-Games
Fake-News
A HUGE storm in a Tea-Cup indeed!
As usual - believe it or not - it'll be the SAME shit, the SAME Stink but with DIFFERENT flies [apparently]. A perfectly understandable explanation is that Brazil is Completely “Un-Governable”. Await Concrete-Proofs otherwise.
https://vidainsensata.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/charge-7setembro.jpg
“As to shutting down Congress, if I knew the reason, I might’ve supported him”
Oct 19th, 2018 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Looks like he was responding to this scandal during the PSDB government:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050920150946/http://support.casals.com/aaaflash1/busca.asp?ID_AAAControl=5083
Since the PT were in opposition then, it's a good bet they were among those trying to launch a congressional probe. And given you opposed the PT's attempt to impeach FHC around that time, surely you wouldn't have been in favour of the far more drastic measure of shutting down Congress?
At any rate, it's clear Bolsonaros's rhetoric is not only aimed at the PT, he spoke equally violently against previous centrist governments. Presumably, like Lula, he's moving towards the centre in order to get elected, but how much his ideas have really changed is another question. He supported the truckers strike that recently brought Brazil to a standstill, and his allies were involved in the social media campaign for the police strike in Espírito Santo, during which 181 people were murdered. Doesn't seem very business-friendly to me.
”instilling anger in the poor classes (against business owners, the elite)”
That sounds about right. Having an enemy to blame problems on is a feature of populism. For the left it's nearly always the rich and the elite, while right-populists prefer minorities like immigrants, but sometimes the elite too (drain the swamp!) and both can blame foreign countries (China is taking advantage of the US, the imperialist US is attacking our economy). Yeah there are dumb people on each side, but don't think any other presidential candidate in the US has run a really populist campaign recently.
“Trump meant what he said”
You would say that. People on the left would say the exact opposite, that Lula meant what he said and Trump just said whatever would get votes.
As for Comey, would you say Meirelles was Lula's crony because he accepted a nomination to run the Central Bank?
REF: “Trump meant what he said”
Oct 19th, 2018 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Somebody seems to have an excellent sense of humor!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JiDJjLYg3JM/TUn9yyl81oI/AAAAAAAABxI/CcQb-8mo-sI/s1600/chargee.jpg
@JB
Oct 19th, 2018 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If Comey was really Obama's 'crony', he would have kept quiet about Clinton's emails until after the election, rather than raising new doubts about her honesty right before it.
DT
Oct 19th, 2018 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Looks like you’re right. Remember Cacciola (condemned, released under appeal, fled the country) ‘n I’m sure there was corruption within the PSDB, 'n that FHC got his cut ; problem was that back then, Bzl's justice nearly always dismissed accusations, alleging lack of evidence. Investigations were lax, 'n there were no Moros.
Before the PT got into power, it could afford to sell itself as an honest party, accusing others of corruption while claiming to be clean…but that all changed after it got into power, and became worse than its predecessors.
Congress has always been regarded as a centre for corruption, waste, privileges, which has not endeared itself to the public, but despite this, it’s also acted as a buffer to avoid (most) extremes…nevertheless, if we could do without them, or change the system, might be better.
Bolsonaro’s extreme ideas, even if he IS convinced they are correct, Congress will tone them down.
The trucker’s strike, although it caused chaos and inflation, was a just cause…the price of fuel on the rise, the lack of an agreement between users ‘n providers, government interference, all contributed.
As to 181 murders in ES, just goes to show the size of the criminality problem in Brazil.
The issues Trump was addressing, and those Lula was, were in very different contexts, so to measure the extent that their rhetoric addressed real problems or was just populism, is hardly comparable. But of course, every candidate reserves part of their time to say what the voter wants to hear.
Re Comey, ‘n Meirelles / Lula, in the specific case of Lula, ignorant in financial/economic matters, he would’ve given Meirelles a free-hand, except in cases where economic policy would hurt the PT’s image, nevertheless, despite his political leaning (not very clear),if Meirelles wanted to keep his job he would’ve avoided clashing w/ Lula.
Comey acted erratically, but on the verge of the election, with BO on the way out, who knows where his loyalty lay ?
@JB
Oct 19th, 2018 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's why I said earlier they need to change the system to get rid of corruption, because any party can be anti-corruption when they're not in power, but once they are it's a different matter. And I know what you mean about Congress; it has all kinds of problems, but it does act as a moderating influence. (As it should; if people were trustworthy we could just elect someone dictator for 4 years, but we all know how that would end.) I hope they do manage to tone Bolso down, assuming he's elected.
Supporting strikes is more what I'd expect the PT to do, is that why you called him radical?
Re Trump, I think he was sincere about supporting tariffs and his belief that 'trade wars are easy to win', but for example his promises not to cut spending were just saying what voters wanted to hear. He promised to cut taxes, increase spending, *and* reduce the national debt, which is a logistical impossibility.
“if Meirelles wanted to keep his job he would’ve avoided clashing w/ Lula.”
True, but once the PT were out of power he had no further reason to be loyal to Lula, which was the situation for Comey during most of the Russia investigation. Unlike the investigation into Hilary's emails, when Obama could put pressure on him, for well over a year before he was fired Comey only had to defer to Trump himself.
@DT
Oct 20th, 2018 - 12:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “they need to change the system to get rid of corruption”:
“THEY” are already solving the problem by legalizing it!
https://youtu.be/8IlXxDkivHM
@DT
Oct 20th, 2018 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the 70s, Lula’s radical trait was always visible in his inflammatory speeches to rouse the workers against their employers…even when no need for it. He did not ‘support’ the strikes, he started them. Then making irrational demands, impossible to be met, to end the strike. But he didn’t care, his objective was to create a nasty scenario and then benefit personally from it, using the workers as pawns. I've mentioned this before, as I worked at Ford and knew a director who participated in various of these negotiations with Lula).
Until today, his inconformity with having lost power (and seeing his Bolivarian dream go up the spout) is what’s eating him up, and his reaction is pretty exaggerated. A normal person would not only know when they'd lost the battle, but the war as well.
The nat’l debt in the US is certainly a problem, and Brazil’s is becoming one as well (given the due scale between the size of the economies and the capacity to reduce the debts).
The thing is that a government takes a loan and then expects the next governments to pay it. Very easy to pass the buck. Reason why fiscal targets are essential, and our Law of Responsibility (intended to curb excessive spending) has to be respected.
When investments are planned, they need to eventually, be able to pay for themselves.
Meirelles was the worldwide president of Bank Boston, and a very rich man in his own right, so putting up with Lula, or more recently Temer, I don’t think was his main corncern…just trying to get the economy back on track was, and to a certain extent, considering Congress’s reluctance to cooperate with Temer, he did a fairly good job.
Presume you’ve heard of the term RINO …Republican In Name Only…perhaps Comey’s case.
@:o))
o famoso 'jeitinho'....não adianta, sempre fará parte da nossa cultura.
A normal person never would have become President. Carrying on fighting when it looks like you're beaten is pretty much a requirement for success in anything. How did Lula benefit personally from strikes?
Oct 20th, 2018 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Very easy to pass the buck.”
Yes. Bill Clinton was the last President who tried to balance the budget, and his party suffered for it at the polls. Since then both have only cared about the debt when not in power. But that doesn't excuse promising the impossible just to get votes.
“Presume you’ve heard of the term RINO”
Yes, I have. Always used by radicals who want to impose their own
standards of ideological purity on moderates, and think any attempt to work with the opposition is selling out. It's another symptom of the polarisation and dysfunction in US politics. Not content with calling everyone on the left a socialist, they are now attacking their own people, too. Trump is the true RINO, anyway. He's been registered as a Democrat and an independent at various times in the past, and his trade policies are the total opposite of traditional Republican ones.
“perhaps Comey’s case”
Or he was trying to his job as best he could, and Trump supporters are just looking for excuses. Do you think Mueller is an Obama crony? And the same of Trump's associates who've plead guilty in the investigation?
@DT
Oct 20th, 2018 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“A normal person never would have become President”…really ? so to be a president – or a Prime Minister for that matter – you need to (be a radical and) keep on fighting even when, not only do you know you are beaten, but your policies have failed miserably ?
Lula’s insistence sure did get him the presidency, and his insistence with populism and other crap (re which Dilma was a good disciple) screwed Brazil.
How did Lula benefit from the strikes ? I’ve told you before….after a bit of (BS) negotiation, to give it an air of legitimacy, he’d call the strike off, for a handsome payoff from the auto industries.
Indeed, Clinton tried to balance the yearly budgets, and was quite successful. But what had a considerable influence over this, was the fact he raised taxes (on the rich, mainly) in 1994, the economy was booming, there were huge gains in the stock market – with the so-called ‘dot.com’ bubble – which brought in hundreds of millions of dollars of unanticipated tax revenue from capital gains and rising salaries etc.
“But that doesn't excuse promising the impossible just to get votes”…couldn’t agree more.
I only mentioned RINO to possibly describe Comey as not being a committed Republican, no more…and because also, I can’t pretend to know what led him to stop ‘n go, then stop again.
The fact a US politician may be a Republican or a Democrat, does not imply that he/she will always think and vote on every issue as the party wants them to. I haven’t really been following the Mueller probe, but one thing you must acknowledge is that in politics, when someone thinks they got a raw deal, they’ll turn on their former bosses in the blink of an eyelid. In politics, loyalty is fine, as long as it suits you.
JB
Oct 21st, 2018 - 01:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Funny, without even mentioning your name, ..you soon realized the hat fit”
No! It was the great big sign post you placed. “Re the above tirade..”
“What you post here is for your own benefit only.....just trying to convince yourself.”
Not at all, I'm already convinced, by the fact your unable to provide any object proof to support your narrative.
DT
“What good are you doing here,” Probably a lot more probative value than you.
“You could try and convince..” How do you know I don't? I'll say yet again, I'm here to clarify any spurious claims.
http://en.mercopress.com/2018/10/11/survey-bolsonaro-13-points-ahead-for-oct-28-runoff/comments#comment493624
@JB
Oct 21st, 2018 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0No, I meant you need a lot of determination to succeed at something difficult, which becoming President surely is. If you are easily discouraged by failure then you'll give up. Obviously if your policies fail, then you should change them, and Lula has done that at least once: you said his original plan for hunger zero failed, so he decided to expand the Bolsa Escola and other benefits into the BF instead.
“he’d call the strike off, for a handsome payoff from the auto industries.”
I remember now, you did tell me before. What did he say to the workers, to excuse changing his mind?
Re Clinton, it was raising taxes that made him unpopular. People are happy to accept benefits but they don't want to pay for them. And if you don't pay off your debts when the economy is booming, you'll be screwed in the next recession.
Comey was never a politician, and I shouldn't think he's too happy with the Republicans anymore, since Trump fired him over the Russia investigation. We know what he's said he was thinking, whether you want to believe him is up to you.
“In politics, loyalty is fine, as long as it suits you.”
Do you think Obama is an exception to that? Which is more likely, that two US agencies, an independent prosecutor, and several now-jailed Trump allies are inventing evidence of Russian meddling, or that an ex-KGB agent is lying?
@TH
“How do you know I don't?”
If you did you would've said so instead of blustering. Although since you don't speak Portuguese maybe there's not much you could do anyway.
@DT/JB
Oct 21st, 2018 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF: Corruption [agran?]
I really can't understand why everyone feels the need to criticize the corrupt politicians. They are merely DOING THEIR JOB for which the POPULATION elects them:
http://asopa.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83454f2ec69e201bb0951e8b2970d-800wi
@JB
Oct 21st, 2018 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Re “B 13 points ahead”
“the left always criticizes the far-right as if they didn't have something just as bad on the far-left.”
You feel free to criticise communism, though there's something just as bad on the far-right. People who aren't extremists don't identify with the extremes, so why not criticise them? As for L vs R, it mostly comes down to what values you think are more important. This graphic is US-centric, but still a nice illustration:
https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-us/
I agree with some stuff on the right-hand side, but mostly I prefer the ones on the left, and probably you feel the opposite.
Re Lula, what freedoms did he encroach on? You still have a free press, free elections, and unlike many of his allies, he didn't abolish term limits so that he could stay in power indefinitely. And far from weakening the judiciary, it has become much more powerful since he took over. As you said, back in 2001 'Bzl's justice nearly always dismissed accusations, alleging lack of evidence', while now they are putting politicians, and not only opposition ones, but also Lula himself, in jail.
If he planned to stay in power for 30 years, apparently it was by being so popular that people would continually elect his party - and what's wrong with that?
As for his 'friends', the left in Latin America has long been hostile towards the US, blaming them for stifling economic development, and supporting the dictatorships with military help, money, and even training them in torture methods, all so US companies could go on exploiting their resources. So I guess it's not surprising they would look in other directions for allies, or try to unite the leaders in the region with similar views, even when it wasn't a good idea. (And I don't think it was.)
“rumors say it was to keep Haddad's campaign going”
I'd check that carefully before believing it, smells of fake news to me...
DT
Oct 21st, 2018 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“..instead of blustering”. So you haven't a clue, so there is confirmation as to who's doing the blustering.
DT
Oct 22nd, 2018 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Determination’s one thing, fanaticism, another. Why d’you think PT policy is known as “Lulopetismo” ? ‘cause it is a cult, ‘n Lula its God. His followers r a bunch of ass lickers…Haddad visit his master every week. Re ‘hunger-zero’/BF, when you come face to face w/ a wall, normally you walk around it. Lula probably bs’d the workers with talk like “I did my best, but…”. If they were smart they wouldn’t have been manipulated in the 1st place. There’s no exact equation for a successful economy, but there sure are quite a few to ruin it. Not being a politician, most likely Comey just wanted to do his job, but political pressure probably didn’t allow him to. Afaic, BO & democrats were like a tight-knit gang, all trying to please each other, while Republicans are more independent, less likely to believe blindly. Never liked Communism, luckily never had to live under it, so quite frankly, I only feel the need to criticize it when someone tries to convince me how wonderful it was. While I don’t ‘identify’ with “far”-right, I have come to hate the far-left ‘n what it has tried to do in LatAm (implement their Bolivarian dream, Foro SP etc) - can only talk of my own experiences.
We only still have a free-press because Lula didn’t get his way…thought that would be obvious. He was against re-election when FHC proposed it, but once in power he supported it…C’mon DT, look at the whole picture !! Many “situation” politicians are alrdy in jail (PMDB, PP, PSDB)…don’t kid yrself. Democracy is abt the alternation of power, but with the stolen billions, any party would be able to buy their permanence in power…wake up !
Re LatAm v. US, always easier to blame an external cause for yr internal misfortunes. Don’t take the ONE recent Brazilian dictatorship ‘n try to generalize. Ok, w/o multinationals in LatAm, we’d go back to the 1900s.. btw, do you use any of their products ? Re $ 50 million (Haddad), I’m not concerned if true or fake, was only pointing out who PT’s “friends” are.
JB
Oct 22nd, 2018 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “There’s no exact equation for a successful economy, but there sure are quite a few to ruin it”:
Lip-Service of ALL parties+politicians - NONE are really keen on SOLVING the problems:
http://www.jav.inf.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Opini%C3%A3o.jpg
“Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro threatens purge of leftwing 'outlaws'
Oct 22nd, 2018 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Presidential frontrunner says rivals will ‘go overseas, or to jail’ in video address to supporters
Bolsonaro’s pledge to return Brazil to past alarms survivors of dictatorship”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/22/brazils-jair-bolsonaro-says-he-would-put-army-on-streets-to-fight
Sure, The Guardian is independent...takes money from no one....so its political editorialists are independent left-wingers....what's the difference in being paid to spread biased news or to spread it because you believe it ?
Oct 22nd, 2018 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just more bs from the left, trying to predict the worst scenario. Well TH, if it keeps you out of Brazil, can't be all that bad...
Isn't it ironic :
many people voted for Ciro because they didn't want Haddad....Now, Ciro supports Haddad..I wonder how they feel, having been made fools of ?
in 2002, the PT won; in 2006 the PT won ; in 2010, the PT won ; in 2014 the PT won; Now, in 2018, they say they need to get in again, to fix the country they destroyed. Are you retarded or what ?
For a candidate to get knifed and not appear at a debate is absurd. But it's perfectly normal for a candidate to visit an inmate every week to get instructions on how to run the country.
Fake news is really on the rise, so much so that the PT candidate is fake, the real one is in jail....
JB
Oct 22nd, 2018 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It doesn't matter how The Guardian is operated. What is important is what they say is true. Since they show Bolsonaro saying that in a YouTube video. Which readers can select English captions if they need to. End of story, so you can dither and equivocate all you want, the publication is absolutely correct.
@TH
Oct 22nd, 2018 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree. What else do you expect from a fascist? Stirring up hate and appealing to people's worst impulses is how they get their power.
@JB
Re Hitler, I dug out one of his speeches on communism to show he really was right wing:
https://www.nationalists.org/library/hitler/speeches/hitler-speech-sep14-1936.html
Tell me honestly, do you disagree with any of that?
As for Lula and press freedom, here's a list of things Chavez and Maduro did to limit freedom of the press:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Venezuela
You told me that Lula was popular enough to pass any law he wanted, yet there's no Brazilian version of Telesur, and private TV stations and newspapers are still going strong - and publishing stories hostile to the PT. If money was enough to win elections, the Hilary would have beaten Trump. To stay in power you need control of the army, the judiciary, and the press.
And it is easier to blame an external cause, but they're not wrong about the role of the US in installing and supporting dictatorships. There were dictatorships all over Latin America at the time, plenty enough to generalise.
Re the Democrats, sounds like you're saying they are more united than the Republicans, more willing to bury their differences and work together. Or are you talking about the way the DNC tried to bias things towards the centrist candidate and screwed Bernie? I guess the difference is that Republicans are moving away from the centre and trying to enforce a more extremist ideology by accusing moderates of being 'RINO's and replacing them with hardliners.
So Bolsonaro has declared he is going to violate the Brazilian Constitution, and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of which Brazil is a signatory.
Oct 22nd, 2018 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Brazil's Constitution of 1988 with Amendments through 2014
XLVII. there shall be no penalties:
d. of banishment;
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
“Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.”
We'll just have to hope Brazil's institutions are stronger than they look.
Oct 22nd, 2018 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@JB
Do you want people like me to be forced to leave Brazil also?
@TH/DT :
Oct 23rd, 2018 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0TH's “doesn’t matter how Guardian is operated /important is what they say is true”…'n if they were independent “&”’ right-wing ? and while what they say, may be true, in that Bolsonaro did say those words, they were taken completely out of context, i.e., an attempt to deceive its readers.
While the Guardian tries to show us how dangerous Bolsonaro is (‘n by analogy, his father), in reality it’s quite different. Watch the video :
https://youtu.be/f-dPdh3fe5Qlist=PLnxsQgyoi5l33tb4uWS3yyGBtXr6K5ntU
The PT extracted 10 seconds from a lecture of his – i.e., took it out of context.
Now, “in context” : In June - not last week - while giving an hour-long lecture, one of the attendees asked him:- [Contrary to IBOPE/Datafolha forecasts, if your father were to win, fair and square in the 1st round, ‘n the STF decided to not allow him to take over, “hypothetically speaking”, what “could” the army do ?]
Bolsonaro replied : [“first, it’s highly unlikely that would occur in a democratic State…but if it did, given that the STF would be overstepping its jurisdiction, the army “could” shut it down (‘n mentioned a Constitutional clause), but if you/STF wanted to argue that he had received irregular donations, then it has to be checked…but as people like to joke, you wouldn’t need to send a ‘jeep’ (presumably full of soldiers), because to shut down the STF all it would take is a couple of soldiers].
On the other hand, there's another video - https://youtu.be/f-dPdh3fe5Qlist=PLnxsQgyoi5l33tb4uWS3yyGBtXr6K5ntU - from April 2018, just after Lula was jailed, in which Wadih Damous (not re-elected radical sh*t from the PT), criticizes Barroso (STF judge) ‘n accuses him of trying to influence people’s votes, ‘n goes on to defend – in no uncertain way - the shut-down of the STF…..no one complained then…
@DT
Read Hitler's speech....he's a nut case that only analyzes events from his side,
but will need space talk about it.
“Do you want people like me to be forced to leave Brazil”? No..why ?
JB
Oct 23rd, 2018 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“they were taken completely out of context, i.e., an attempt to deceive its readers.”
Rubbish, he said that, therefore that's what he means.
“but if it did, given that the STF would be overstepping its jurisdiction,”
No, it would not, and “No-one can be a judge in their own cause” Nemo iudex in causa sua
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_iudex_in_causa_sua
@JB
Oct 23rd, 2018 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I watched the videos, but of course I can't understand it, and I doubt Terry does either. The autotranslated subtitles are too scrambled to make any sense.
Was it definitely the questioner who brought up the army and not Bolso Jnr? And what was the lecture about that such a question was relevant?
Re Damous, one of the comments quoted him:
“Temos que redesenhar o Poder Judiciário e o papel do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Tem que fechar o Supremo Tribunal Federal. Temos que criar uma Corte Constitucional de guarda exclusiva da Constituição, com seus membros detentores de mandato”.
So what does he mean by ”to create a Constitutional Court of exclusive custody of the Constitution, with its members holding office”? How is that different to what you've got?
As for leaving Brazil, you said it couldn't be bad if it kept TH out of the country, but he's not the only one it'll keep out. The latest thing B said is that people who disagreed with him could go to jail or into exile - FHC tweeted about it.
And now you have space to talk about Hitler - but remember we know now he was lying about wanting peace, whereas people listening in 1936 did not know that.
TH
Oct 23rd, 2018 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't argue with idiots, so much so that you don't seem to have noticed that Eduardo Bolsonaro is NOT the presidential candidate.....Jair Bolsonaro is, and as such he has already told his son to shut up (although the hypothetical answer was given at a lecture, over 4 months ago, before the campaign had even started). What pussies you 'petistas' are...
Re taking stuff out of context, you think it makes no difference....ok, If I said “Terry is incapable of controlling his anger when someone criticizes Lula”.....and now, out of context, “Terry is incapable of controlling his anger”......TWO DIFFERENT implications, but you can't see it, can you ?
As I said, I know the secret to happiness.
@JB
Oct 23rd, 2018 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Looks like our posts crossed in the intertubes. Also, you so do argue with idiots, I've seen you argue with Terry plenty of times, and I'm guilty of it too.
@DT
Oct 23rd, 2018 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It was definitely the questioner who brought the subject up...(from start to 49th sec of the video). Bolsonaro was invited to say a few words at a lecture, or during a lesson of some preparation course in PR, for (by the look of what was on the board) cost accounting ‘n taxes, when someone asked the (hypothetical) question. It wasn’t really relevant but being the son of a possible future prez candidate…
Re the Wadih Damous video, he criticizes Barroso (which presumably is his right), but then he says the STF should be closed ‘n substituted by a Constitutional Court (whatever that is, but being a radical ‘petista’, I can guess), with its members having ‘elected mandates’ ….meaning ? members of Congress, OR voted in for 4 or more years, like politicians are ? (NB: high court members are appointed by Prez, ‘n should retire at 70) ;smells a lot like the PT’s attempt (Haddad in 2015, I think) to form local councils, which would which could overrule the Municipal legislature's decisions…can imagine ‘who’ he would have placed in such councils.
An example of PT’s fake news, just off the press : Over the weekend, at a show in Bahia, a singer (Geraldo Azevedo, a petista), accused Bolsonaro’s VP, Gen. Mourão, of having tortured him in 1969. This AM, during an interview with ‘O Globo”, Haddad confirmed the information, as did ex-PT Sen. Lindbergh Farias (tweeted).
Gen Mourão (now 65) came forward and informed everyone that in 1969 he was 15 to 16 yrs old, 'n was attending Military School in Porto Alegre…the singer then admitted he had lied....Up to now hDon't know what Haddad is quiet.
When I said it would be good to keep TH out, was not because he's a communist, but because he's an unbearable idiot.
Yeah, you're right, but slowly I'm becoming immune to his crap...just a bit more 'n I'll be able to ignore his stupid manner of communicating 'n his arrogant (self-proclaimed) superiority.
Looks like will need space for Hitler...again...(sorry....)
”In a speech, Alexandre de Moraes said that the Attorney General's Office (PGR) should open procedure to investigate the speech about closing the Supreme Court. Without mentioning Eduardo Bolsonaro, he said it was “unbelievable that we have to hear so much blunder from the mouth of who represents the people.”
Oct 23rd, 2018 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0After the disgruntled demonstrations of his peers, the president of the STF, minister Dias Toffoli, issued an official note stating, also without citing the federal deputy, that “attacking the judiciary is attacking democracy.”
http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/politica/noticia/2018-10/em-carta-celso-de-mello-bolsonaro-diz-que-se-deve-prestigiar-o-stf
I still don't like Eduardo's answer, and the Bs being so buddy-buddy with the army, it's very concerning, but I suppose the context does make a difference. It would have been much worse to say that at a political rally rather than in response to a question at a lecture.
Oct 23rd, 2018 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Damous's idea sounds dodgy as hell. Using members of Congress would be a terrible idea, as well as impractical since they aren't qualified to be judges, so presumably he means separately elected (if he's even thought about it at all and isn't making it up as he goes along). I'm not an expert on constitutions but I presume there's a reason the judges are appointed and for longer terms - perhaps to prevent them being too influenced by popular opinion? That's not to say I think the judges aren't biased/corrupt, but reform can too easily be an excuse for the party in power to eliminate opposition.
And Haddad should learn to do some fact-checking before believing such a claim. Just because a story confirms what you want to believe,you shouldn't assume it's true.
“When I said it would be good to keep TH out, was not because he's a communist, but because he's an unbearable idiot.”
I know you meant that, but it's not what B means, and he is the one who can really force people into exile. Probably mostly people you have no sympathy for, but it's still wrong, and bad for the country.
There's never enough space for Hitler. ;)
Bolsonaro’s Most Dangerous Supporters
Oct 24th, 2018 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Brazilian military dictatorship, .. was not removed from power through political defeat. Instead, facing increased political opposition, corruption scandals, and economic crisis in the mid-1980s, dictatorship forces opted to carefully manage Brazil’s transition to democracy. This ensured that their allies were well positioned within Brazil’s new political system and the constitution would protect them from repercussions for the dictatorship’s brutal crimes.
Mourão,together with General Augusto Heleno, were Brazil’s top military commanders in its disastrous intervention in Haiti...In an attempt to eliminate opposition to the intervention, on July 5 Heleno ordered the execution of the slum’s pro-Aristide community leader Emmanuel “Dread” Wilme. Tens of mostly women and children were killed in the operation.
Video footage of the massacre, collected by human rights observers form the San Francisco Labor Council, which was later aired on Democracy Now!, showed gruesome images of dead Haitians killed under Heleno’s command...General Heleno, says Donnelly, “initially challenged us, our delegation, as to why were we concerned about the rights of the ‘outlaws,’ the term that he used, and not the ‘legal force.’ He seemed to write off community testimony as being part of community hostility and part of these ‘gang attacks’ on UN forces.”
Estimates say at least twenty-seven Haitians were killed in the raid, mostly young women. Heleno’s response mirrors the Brazilian right’s championing of mass murder in the peripheries as a valid security policy, claiming that the only good bandit is a dead bandit.
Additionally, there were over two thousand accusations of rape leveled against Brazilian soldiers. Racist to its core, the operation was cheered on by the media as an opportunity for the Brazilian army to practice its future occupations of Rio’s favelas, with black Haitians serving as guinea pigs.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/10/bolsonaro-
DT
Oct 24th, 2018 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You'll notice TH keeps on about Eduardo B's stupid remark....not only does he ignore tt the PT propaganda is out of context, but also tt Wadih Damous defended closing the STF.
“I know you meant that, but it's not what B means, and he's the one who can really force people into exile.”
Correction : the president does NOT have the power to exile anyone. Lula once tried it 'n was told he couldn't.
Finally, Hitler : he hated the Soviets…ok, he made that clear in his speeches, but imo, not only because he regarded them as enemies, but because he felt compelled to try to conquer the USSR in order to satisfy (his desire, or) Germany’s need for more land, and to control the USSR’s vast resources - oil, iron ore, grain etc – essential to carry on his war in the West.
To convince the Germans his cause was ‘just’, he preached how bad communism was, and exalted his national socialism…all his political propaganda and comparisons (between the USSR and the Reich), were not aimed only at the Germans, but very likely to the rest of the world as well, to justify his plans...clear, when he talks of the threat of the “principle of its (bolshevism) internationalism”.
He obviously believed his national socialism was a strong representation of 'democracy', and that the ‘weak’ democracies in the rest of Europe were a gateway through which Communism would spread.
While both extremes are bad, imo, the main characteristics of the two systems, communism and Hitler’s national socialism, show they weren’t really all that different. Authoritarian, and with their power based on the strength of the military.
TH's above drivel, extracted from the racist, communist 'jacobinmag', on how the Brzilian military massacred/raped Haitians is a load of BS . 1st,15+ counties were militarily present after Aristide's ouster ; 2nd, the UN requested, 'n Lula sent the army ; 3rd, Mourão was never in command during Brazil's presence (2004/17).
But talking of rape, what abt OXFAM scandal ?
“Haddad will be there with you soon, but not to visit,” Bolsonaro said of his centre-left opponent Haddad, who took over Lula's candidacy.
Oct 24th, 2018 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You can get out of here! You won't have any more chance in our homeland,” Bolsonaro said, “It will be a cleansing never seen in the history of Brazil.”
Deprivation of political rights is forbidden;
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/10/bolsonaro-cleanse-brazil-left-wing-criminals-181022182033929.html
Brazil's Constitution of 1988 with Amendments through 2014
TITLE II: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND GUARANTEES
CHAPTER I: INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE RIGHTS AND DUTIES
Art 5
IV. manifestation of thought is free,
VIII. no one shall be deprived of any rights ...or philosophical or political convictions,
Art 220
The expression of thoughts, creation, speech and information, through whatever form, process or vehicle, shall not be subject to any restrictions, observing the provisions of this Constitution.
Art 219
§1°. No law shall contain any provision that may constitute an impediment to full freedom of the press, in any medium of social communication, observing the provisions of art. 5°, IV, V, X, XIII and XIV.
§2°. Any and all censorship of a political, ideological and artistic nature is forbidden. It is the province of Federal law to:
Freedom of movement, Freedom of assembly, Freedom of association, Right of petition, Protection from ex post facto laws
CHAPTER IV: POLITICAL RIGHTS
Art 15
Deprivation of political rights is forbidden
TH
Oct 24th, 2018 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Listen to the drama queen.......but I don't argue with idiots.
If I were you I wouldn't dare come to Brazil...I'll ask B to throw you in jail with Lula.....
(can't wait to see your reply, poor, wee, Terry....sniff, sniff...)
JB
Oct 24th, 2018 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Listen to the...” sub-text for you're just someone with big mouth who has nothing of any substance to say.
@JB
Oct 24th, 2018 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“not only because he regarded them as enemies, but because he felt compelled to try to conquer the USSR”
That's probably true, it was a very convenient view for him, but I think Hitler really did hate communism. He wanted to ally with the UK, and couldn't understand why we wouldn't do it to fight the threat of communism. Unsurprisingly, our government saw Hitler as the bigger threat.
And yes, despite the big differences in ideology, communism and Nazism ended up quite similar in some ways.
But, parts of his speech sounded eerily familiar:
“Bolshevism has attacked the foundations of our whole human order, alike in State and society, the foundations of our conception of civilization, of our faith and of our morals: all alike are at stake.”
If you replaced Bolshevism with 'cultural-Marxism', 'liberalism', or whatever, and updated the old-fashioned language, I can easily imagine some of the far-right parties saying it today. Or the part where he says Bolshevism is determined to enforce its views on the whole world, and journalists and parliamentarians are burying their heads in the sand... replace Bolshevism with Islam, and there are *plenty* of people promoting that view today. Especially when you add in the ideas that democracies are weak and easily taken over, and the speakers' idea that they are some kind of prophet who is being unfairly ignored.
As for the Oxfam scandal, AFAIR it wasn't rape but prostitution. Still despicable for a charity worker to take goods paid for by donations and intended to be handed out freely, and demand sex in return for distributing the food and other essentials.
REF: “Paulo Guedes the ultra-liberal economic advisor of an ultra-populist nationalist”:
Oct 25th, 2018 - 10:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0SIGNS OF IMPROVEMENTS [in the economic-crisis]:
http://s2.glbimg.com/ykJnlUF_EhmlpvUTHcz_jUJkhas=/s.glbimg.com/jo/g1/f/original/2016/11/11/esmola-estados.jpg
@DT
Oct 25th, 2018 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hitler may indeed have hated communism, but 1) don’t think Germany was under any threat from the USSR when he started his campaign against communism, ‘n 2) he probably felt he needed to legitimize his plans, in the eyes of the Germans, and of the world.
Chamberlain failed to see Hitler for what he was, and it took Churchill to open the British govt’s eyes.
Bolshevism WAS bad, no doubt about it, but Hitler had to convince the world of this.
When you mention “far-right’ parties, to whom are you referring ? Europe’s resurgence of the right ?
Can only talk abt the leftist threat in LatAm, where it is real…working silently – except when discovered and stopped ; but despite the campaign rhetoric – a bit out of control, on both sides - I don’t think there’s much risk of any far-right extremism here.
But going back to Bolshevism/communism, “…is determined to enforce its views on the whole world…”, he was right…the USSR was not content to control its direct area of influence, but tried to spread communism to South America (and Africa ...Angola, ‘n Moçambique), through Cuba.
But his idea that ‘democracies’ are weak, in the sense that they ‘allow’ themselves to be weakened from within, is a setback - try openly to implement democracy in a country that is traditionally authoritarian…the moment the leaders feel threatened, heads will roll.
Your right, Oxfam was about prostitution, taking advantage of people in need…just as bad ; but my intention was to question TH’s stupid fake news about the Brazilian Military having sponsored massacres and rape…there might have been isolated cases of rape, I don’t know, but the fact is that generally speaking, their presence was appreciated by the Haitians….if otherwise, I doubt that 100s would be moving south and requesting refuge in Brazil.
@JB
Oct 25th, 2018 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think Germany was under threat from Russia at the time, but it's like people who talk about a Muslim takeover now - according to them the real threat is internal, merely supported by other countries. Chamberlain thought Hitler would see sense and understand his own limitations (just look how the war ended for Germany), but he was wrong. Hitler was crazy, but the people who elected him didn't know that. I'm sure it all sounded very reasonable at the time, and easy to believe Bolshevism was a threat when it really did have a declared goal of spreading across the world.
Yes, I meant the far-right in Europe. Most of what I have seen has been online, they're generally too timid to admit their views in real life. I would have agreed with you about the lack of risk in South America two years ago, but obviously I was wrong. They've spread there too, and LatAm countries are more ready to elect extremists of all stripes.
Not sure what you're saying about democracy. Do you think democracies are weaker than countries ruled by dictators, or juntas?
I don't know anything about the Brazilian military in Haiti. Soldiers misbehaving seems highly likely, anything systematic less so, but who knows? And people wanting to move to Brazil doesn't prove a lot. I know many people in LatAm think America has screwed their countries, but they still think they'd be personally better off moving there, and they'd be right.
@DT
Oct 25th, 2018 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, it's a well-known fact that Islam is at work silently, trying to spread its influence...terrorism is just one aspect of it. I believe the threat is very real, and if the West has any intention of stopping its silent revolution, Europe had better wake up now...perhaps some countries have already let if go too far - all this bs about “if we love them, they will love us back”, will not work... and if they don't react, shit WILL hit the fan.
Sure when insidious movements start, few people can see beyond their noses...those that do, like Churchill did, were called 'warmongers'. Of course, there are also those who like to exaggerate the seriouness of events, in order to benefit from possible counter-reactions ...like those, IMO, that exaggerate the so-called B threat in Brazil...
Countries where democracy is strong, are under little or no threat from the far-left, but those where democracy is still fledgeling, democracy runs a real risk of being subverted by extreme movements, which have the freedom to act...aggravated when the people, as a whole, are not too educated and easily manipulated.
It is far easier to “topple” a democtartic government than an authoritarian one. Look how easy it has been for fundamentalist Islam to spread in EU, while in Russia...somewhat more difficult.
There were soldiers from 20 countries in Haiti....Brazil led the peacekeeping mission, but could not effectively control abuses committed by soldiers from other countries....like cholera, spread by Nepalese soldiers, killed thousands....re the hundreds of reported rapes, do not recall one case of a Brazilian soldier being accused.
Right, moving to Brazil only proves that they think it's better than Haiti, but even so, if their recollection of 13 years of Brazilian military presence was as bad as our resident idiot tries to make us believe, it's unlikely they would come here...where, btw, they are well-received.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!