Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lula defeats Bolsonaro to again become Brazil’s president

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: Lula defeats Bolsonaro to again become Brazil’s president

#81

Post by cassianoleal »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #68
cassianoleal wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it was. For half of his first term. That said, this is hardly an argument against Lula's effectiveness at cutting down deforestation, and even less an argument for Bolsonaro. It took Lula the first half of his first term to effectively cut the trend that had started between 1997 and 1998. For the rest of his time in office, there was a sharp and sustained drop. Numbers put it at roughly a 70% drop. That trend co…

> the unlawful imprisonment of Lula Are you joking?

Of course not, but I think you know that.

Re: Lula defeats Bolsonaro to again become Brazil’s president

#82

Post by cassianoleal »

andrenth wrote: post #66
cassianoleal wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you, but I would hardly consider these references unbiased. The first is the acutal supposedly censored media vehicle complaining. That's expected. In any case, the decision is at best in a grey area. A lot of people cry about freedom of press but the decision was around electoral laws and was simply trying to get better isonomy for both candidates. The other decision was about avoiding the use of an incredibly…

They were prevented by the State to mention facts about a candidate. Facts, not opinions. This is not a grey area, it’s plain old censorship. About the documentary: it was censored based on its title only. It was not even watched by the sensors. When questioned about it, the president of the electoral court basically said something like “Let’s not fool ourselves, we know what will be there”. In other words, preemptiv…

> They were prevented by the State to mention facts about a candidate.

According to their own website which you linked above:

“Não podemos, em nossa programação (...), falar sobre os fatos envolvendo a condenação do candidato petista Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva”

Translated to English:

“We are not allowed, in our programmes, to speak about facts involving the condemnation of the _petista_ (Workers Party member) candidate Luís Inácio Lula da Silva”

Well, given that the condemnation was unlawful, I imagine it’s not very hard to understand why talking about it without also speaking clearly about the unlawfulness and facts around it would be misleading to the public.

To your other point:

> At the same time, a “documentary” that explicitly invited watchers to vote the opposing candidate

> This kind of double standards

I don’t know which documentary you’re talking about, but here’s some food for thought.

Generally, explicitly asking for votes for one candidate makes it pretty clear what the bias in the publication is.

On top of that, the other, supposedly censored work, was speculative at best - given that despite Bolsonaro’s 4 years in power and effectively commanding the Federal Police, the alleged attempt on his life was never fully solved. Publishing it during the electoral campaign was considered an attempt at misleading the public opinion against one of the candidates based on hearsay and opinions.

That’s not a double standard. It’s perhaps just one that happens to inconvenience one more than the other but it’s a fairly clear one.

Re: Lula defeats Bolsonaro to again become Brazil’s president

#83

Post by drcongo »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #71
it_citizen wrote: post #25

The fact that the result was so close is chilling. How bad do populists have to be to not be re-elected?

What's chilling is the fact my country elected a pro-censorship communist to the presidency. A politician that is known to be corrupt. How much of a criminal do you have to be to not be elected?

As much as Bolsonaro, obviously.

Re: Lula defeats Bolsonaro to again become Brazil’s president

#84

Post by incomingpain »

gautamcgoel wrote: post #48

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…

Personally I know very little about brazil. Botflies mean I will never ever go there. Canadian here, and I would say our media represents Bolsonaro quite poorly. LGBT rights aren't even on the table(middle-east like), and he's actively going the other direction on women's rights.

I believe i recall him also looking to 'send in the military and kill all those who protest' something along those lines. This was in comparison to Canada's banning of protests and simply arresting all the lawful protestors. Under the same vein, having not followed the same lockdowns for covid he was committing crimes against humanity.

I do believe he was pro-putin and ukraine war. In that he was providing support to russia, but no direct military support? Kind of like what the west is doing for ukraine. I get this, BRICs is a thing.

Here's the thing, you dont have to tell me the above is inaccurate. Canadian political media is extremely biased. Curious if you agree with any of this?

Re: Lula defeats Bolsonaro to again become Brazil’s president

#85

Post by andrenth »

cassianoleal wrote: post #82
andrenth wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were prevented by the State to mention facts about a candidate. Facts, not opinions. This is not a grey area, it’s plain old censorship. About the documentary: it was censored based on its title only. It was not even watched by the sensors. When questioned about it, the president of the electoral court basically said something like “Let’s not fool ourselves, we know what will be there”. In other words, preemptiv…

> They were prevented by the State to mention facts about a candidate. According to their own website which you linked above: “Não podemos, em nossa programação (...), falar sobre os fatos envolvendo a condenação do candidato petista Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva” Translated to English: “We are not allowed, in our programmes, to speak about facts involving the condemnation of the _petista_ (Workers Party member) candidat…

> Well, given that the condemnation was unlawful, I imagine it’s not very hard to understand why talking about it without also speaking clearly about the unlawfulness and facts around it would be misleading to the public.

This kind of partisan half-truth is what allows totalitarian governments to be successful. He was convicted in three instances, including by the supreme court. He was proven to be a criminal. People convicted along with him have given back money they admitted to have stolen. The "unlawfulness" part is simply the supreme court judges finding a ridiculous excuse to allow him to run against a candidate they don't like. After years they suddenly figure out "well akshually he should have been judged in a court from a different city". Yeah, like that should invalidate all the crimes that were exposed.

The TV network was forbidden by the State to use specific terms like "ex-convict" and "criminal". It is not under dispute that he is both of these things.

Please keep in mind that dictators always say they are acting "within the law". In fact they are, because they control the law. This is what's going on here.

> On top of that, the other, supposedly censored work, was speculative at best - given that despite Bolsonaro’s 4 years in power and effectively commanding the Federal Police, the alleged attempt on his life was never fully solved. Publishing it during the electoral campaign was considered an attempt at misleading the public opinion against one of the candidates based on hearsay and opinions.

The documentary wasn't even about the elections. Besides, how do you know that it was speculative? How do you know it would be an attempt to mislead the public? You didn't watch it. Nobody has, because it was preemptively censored.

Whatever your political side is, left or right, I beg you, please don't side with censors.

Re: Lula defeats Bolsonaro to again become Brazil’s president

#86

Post by matheusmoreira »

drcongo wrote: post #83
matheusmoreira wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's chilling is the fact my country elected a pro-censorship communist to the presidency. A politician that is known to be corrupt. How much of a criminal do you have to be to not be elected?

As much as Bolsonaro, obviously.

Lula was arrested, tried, convicted multiple times and imprisoned for corruption, bribery and money laundering. Happened on national television, I saw it live. I have no doubt Bolsonaro and all the others are corrupt too but at least there's plausible deniability. Electing a publicly known criminal though? This is such an embarrassment I can't take this country seriously anymore.

Re: Lula defeats Bolsonaro to again become Brazil’s president

#87

Post by matheusmoreira »

cassianoleal wrote: post #81
matheusmoreira wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the unlawful imprisonment of Lula Are you joking?

Of course not, but I think you know that.

How is it unlawful to arrest a criminal with multiple convictions of corruption, bribery and money laundering?

Re: Lula defeats Bolsonaro to again become Brazil’s president

#88

Post by cassianoleal »

andrenth wrote: post #85
cassianoleal wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They were prevented by the State to mention facts about a candidate. According to their own website which you linked above: “Não podemos, em nossa programação (...), falar sobre os fatos envolvendo a condenação do candidato petista Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva” Translated to English: “We are not allowed, in our programmes, to speak about facts involving the condemnation of the _petista_ (Workers Party member) candidat…

> Well, given that the condemnation was unlawful, I imagine it’s not very hard to understand why talking about it without also speaking clearly about the unlawfulness and facts around it would be misleading to the public. This kind of partisan half-truth is what allows totalitarian governments to be successful. He was convicted in three instances, including by the supreme court. He was proven to be a criminal. People…

> The "unlawfulness" part is simply the supreme court judges finding a ridiculous excuse to allow him to run against a candidate they don't like.

This kind of partisan half-truth is what allows totalitarian governments to be successful.

"Lula trial in Brazil violated due process, says UN rights panel" [0][1]

He was unlawfully investigated and judged by Sérgio Moro, who then followed to become Justice Minister [2] in what's at best a clear ethical conflict.

The whole process was ridden with vices and other legal and ethical issues. Secret US involvement [3][4], coordination between judge and prosecution [5][6] and many others.

> The "unlawfulness" part is simply the supreme court judges finding a ridiculous excuse to allow him to run against a candidate they don't like.

The leaks make it fairly clear that the whole process was politically motivated to eliminate Lula from the race against Bolsonaro [7].

> Please keep in mind that dictators always say they are acting "within the law". In fact they are, because they control the law. This is what's going on here.

It is not. The current President, chief of the executive and the Armed Forces, is the one who's being supposedly hit by these decisions.

> The TV network was forbidden by the State to use specific terms like "ex-convict" and "criminal". It is not under dispute that he is both of these things.

I agree it is not under dispute. You could say "ex-convict" is not wrong but it doesn't tell the whole story. He was unlawfully convicted.

You can absolutely not call him a "criminal". That he is not, or at least it has not been proved within a fair trial that he is. I believe I have provided enough high profile references to this effect.

> The documentary wasn't even about the elections. Besides, how do you know that it was speculative?

There hasn't been a conclusive investigation on the matter. I don't see how it could be anything but speculative, and given the timing they wanted to have it released it's hard to not think it was electoral in nature.

> Whatever your political side is, left or right, I beg you, please don't side with censors.

I do not. Now that elections are over, I fully expect it to be allowed to air and if there are credible accusations they should be investigated. That said, if it does have any substance, why hasn't it been sent to the prosecutorial authorities so that they could start investigative proceures?

The fact that it hasn't also hints at purely electoral motives.

[0] https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1117192

[1] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/04/brazil-crimi...

[2] https://uk.news.yahoo.com/brazil-anti-graft-judge-accepts-bo...

[3] https://theintercept.com/2020/03/12/united-states-justice-de...

[4] https://progressive.international/wire/2021-02-12-lava-jato-...

[5] https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/brazil-lula-operation-ca...

[6] https://theintercept.com/series/mensagens-lava-jato/

[7] https://theintercept.com/2019/06/16/vaza-jato-corrupcao-serg...

Re: Lula defeats Bolsonaro to again become Brazil’s president

#89

Post by cassianoleal »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #87
cassianoleal wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not, but I think you know that.

How is it unlawful to arrest a criminal with multiple convictions of corruption, bribery and money laundering?

Please see this post in a sibling thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33407619
Post reply on HN