71–80 of 106 posts
The fact that the result was so close is chilling. How bad do populists have to be to not be re-elected?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lula is a populist and a fascist. His campaign ran on a platform of “regulating the media” and has succeeded in censoring a major news channel and the release of a documentary film about the attempt to murder the president in the previous election.
I can understand (if disagree with) your view of Lula as a populist. Why do you call him a fascist though? > His campaign ran on a platform of “regulating the media” It didn't, but in any case the media is regulated. Everything that's being argued in this regard is about breaking trusts and monopolies in the media. Trusts and monopolies are widely regarded as counter to working democracies, and free markets. Seeing l…
Yes. I posted the news here on HN as it was happening.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33312582
> granted the nation’s elections chief unilateral power to order tech companies to remove many online posts and videos
> one of the most aggressive actions taken by any country to combat false information
> the elections chief can order the immediate removal of content that he believes has violated previous takedown orders
Whatever this guy believed became the only allowed truth. He was clearly biased towards the left. Censored plenty of people calling attention to the fact Lula is known to be corrupt and many other instances.
The fact that the result was so close is chilling. How bad do populists have to be to not be re-elected?
If Bolsonaro had managed the pandemic just a little bit better we would have won, I think.
It's interesting reading these comments. Many commenters (who I assume are mostly from North America and Europe) are relieved that Lula won and seem to view Bolsonaro as a repulsive authoritarian. This view is the view that is implicitly espoused by all mainstream Western media outlets, such as the New York Times and the Guardian. However, some commenters seem to view Lula as a corrupt politician, essentially nothing…
He is corrupt and a criminal. Officials actually tried to censor these facts here in Brazil.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-30/lula-wins...
> Lula was a wildly popular president before accusations of wrongdoing and fiscal mismanagement resulted in the impeachment of his hand-picked successor, Dilma Rousseff in 2016.
> By 2019, Lula was behind bars and facing a long prison sentence amid accusations he steered billions of state contracts to allies.
> Released on a technicality, it cleared the way for him to run last year after the Supreme Court quashed his convictions.
He walked free because of some jurisdiction bullshit and his judgement is pending retrial to this day. He was not absolved of wrongdoing as he claimed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-56326389
Didn't just escape justice, he made it back to political office, to the presidency of this country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. Definitely not when it comes to voting. Before Trump the idea of voting machine fraud and the impossible task to be certain of integrity of the elections was fairly non conspiratorial idea. I've never seen voting machines but I remember reading constantly about US southern states using them and the suspicions. As I said many democratic nations have banned them.
Just show evidence the electronic voting was rigged in Brazil and we can all move on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just show evidence the electronic voting was rigged in Brazil and we can all move on.
They're the ones who have to demonstrate the system is secure and trustworthy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Votes are counted, not the supposed size of stage-managed "rallies".
If there is one thing the US election of 2020 showed us is that there is zero relationship between crowd/rally attendance and voter turnout for the candidate. One explanation is that voters may be enthusiastically voting "against" a particular candidate, in which case they would likely not be attending any rally or showing support in any meaningful way.
I'm not sure if this is the strongest argument in favor of your hypothesis. In most instances it would rather be an indicator of election fraud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're the ones who have to demonstrate the system is secure and trustworthy.
"They" have done it multiple times. You're not satisfied, apparently. Show the evidence.
I’m more curious if there still be a military coup
Curious if he's gonna pull a Trump.