RE Nicaragua and the Sandinista regime: they aren't non-tyrannical and there really isn't an argument I see for them not being so. I know someone who was there this past summer doing research and talking to the groups which were opposing the government and they are generally the same groups which opposed the Ortega led Sandinista government as soon as they took power, but fought with them against the Somoza regime (Miskito Indians, Nationalists in the vein of Sandino and sort of Fonseca etc.). They apparently wanted US, or really any third party, intervention because it was seen as giving them a better chance than fighting against the regime while disarmed. And while they have "elections", the first time they had an actual election the wife of Chamorro, who fought with them against Somoza, won so that went away again. In addition to targeting the Miskito Indians they also targeted Nicaraguan Jews early on because they were associated with the capitalist class and private business.
I've talked to Venezuelans who had the same sentiment as those resisting the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, that US intervention is better than the status quo. And there is no way to argue that Maduro isn't a tyrant at this point either.
I think at this point we should be continuing normalization of relations with Cuba and pushing diplomatically for more liberalization, and giving them aid money (not just loans through IMF/WB) with no strings attached because their development and shift towards us is a win, rather than pulling an Iran "Axis of Evil" gaff here.
No offense, but lol if you think that any of that money will actually go to the country's development or it's citizens. Cuba is a medieval country, with it's military as feudal lords and it's citizenry as serfs.
Venezuela is simple: The country's options are famine, being killed by regular criminals or being killed by the criminals in the government. That's it. An US intervention at least means that Maduro goes away too.
No offense, but lol if you think that any of that money will actually go to the country's development or it's citizens. Cuba is a medieval country, with it's military as feudal lords and it's citizenry as serfs.
Venezuela is simple: The country's options are famine, being killed by regular criminals or being killed by the criminals in the government. That's it. An US intervention at least means that Maduro goes away too.
I agree. That's a more general issue when it comes to aid spending in any country unfortunately. Many times it's because we (NGOs, USAID, DoS etc.) don't know the local contexts and assume that what we've planned to do with aid money and who we've planned to give it to are the best ways that money can be used. Many times it's also local actors, especially governments, exploiting us to extract as much aid money as possible in the short amount of time it's available because they know we don't care about the local contexts and our conception of a successful end of a program is not the same as theirs and we will leave after a project is "finished".
I think in the context of Cuba we have to be aware of exactly what you pointed out. By no strings attached I didn't mean no oversight, I meant no terms for repayment which is why I mentioned IMF/WB loans but I could have been more clear about that. In the case of Cuba oversight is very likely a necessity to prevent the regime and military from sucking up all aid spending. Though, as in the case of Venezuela and Nicaragua, I'm not opposed to a direct intervention either.
RE Nicaragua: I think something that is downplayed when discussing the early Sandinista rule and the Contras is that we weren't building up "fake" counter-revolutionary militias from whole cloth. These were people who often had fought with the Sandinistas/Terceristas against Somoza who were then politically marginalized and/or outright targeted. Instead it is presented as a miscarriage of justice that the large and powerful US was just bullying a legitimate government, standing up fascist counter-revolutionary armies full of bandits, because that's how the Ortegas presented it through directly lobbying the US Congress and a robust propaganda campaign in the early 80's. In reality the people who were the Contras were the same people fighting the Sandinista regime today. And at the time it was much more like a Latin American Syrian Civil War situation in which an illiberal regime was being resisted by people with legitimate grievances being supported by and fighting next to foreign volunteers (something I haven't seen talked about often is that there were US citizen war volunteers fighting with the Contra units just as US citizen war volunteers fought with the rebels and the Kurds in Syria) with arms and clandestine support from the US government.
Trump signed an executive order to ban anyone in the United States from dealing with entities and people involved with “corrupt or deceptive” gold sales from Venezuela, Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton said in a speech in Miami.
“The Maduro regime has used this sector as a bastion to finance illicit activities, to fill its coffers, and to support criminal groups,” Bolton said.
No offense, but lol if you think that any of that money will actually go to the country's development or it's citizens. Cuba is a medieval country, with it's military as feudal lords and it's citizenry as serfs.
Venezuela is simple: The country's options are famine, being killed by regular criminals or being killed by the criminals in the government. That's it. An US intervention at least means that Maduro goes away too.
Cuba is pretty literally feudal with the travel restrictions in place to keep people from moving from rural to urban areas. Thats like, textbook serfdom, keeping the population in its rightful place.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
While I am firmly oposed to Bolsonaro, I think that many foreign detractors miss some of the context of Brazil that might shape the way they vote and conduct politics in general. For example, having favelas, wich are not just rough neighborhoods, and the idea that mass immigration from Venezuela will make the crime and poverty issue even worse.
This are a couple of pictures from what has traditionally been the country with the strongest economy in the region, and arguably the country with the most segregated population in the region as well.
I always think that going right is the wrong choice, but I understand how brazilian people will go to extremes when someone offers them a chance to change the status quo. lures the voters with promises of change.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
I for one no longer care whether the criminals or the law "wins" in Brazil or the Phillipines. Voting for a tough-on-crime guy is one thing, voting for a genocidal sociopath another.
I for one no longer care whether the criminals or the law "wins" in Brazil or the Phillipines. Voting for a tough-on-crime guy is one thing, voting for a genocidal sociopath another.
"People deserve to die until they repent from their sins". Christ, that's almost as bad as all the "We must invade Brazil to save the Amazon forest" posts on Reddit post-Bolsonaro.
+1
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
"Innocent people deserve to die and suffer so I can feel safer" is a pretty bitch move.
Countries that choose fascism always have a reason. Resisting fascism is hard. Germany between the wars had many good reasons to be unhappy and aggrieved. None of them justified what they chose.
People will vote for anti-status quo candidates if the status-quo is bad. That's life. And given the social inequality on Brazil, for Bolsonaro to get over 50% of the vote on a country with mandatory voting, there was a lot of poor people that voted for him because they wanted something better. Blaming the victims is the easiest position. Anyways, the one English journalist that has been delving deep on Brazilian politics, Glenn Greenwald, expands on this point:
So five to seven percent. Bolsonaro got 55 percent of the votes cast—of the valid votes cast. So even though he may have lost in most of the places—the neighborhoods that we can call “poor”—even in those places, he got huge numbers of votes: of black voters, of working-class voters, poor voters, people who live in favelas, people who live in the interior. You can’t win an election in Brazil without large numbers of those votes, because that is who composes the majority of the population.
The full interview is particularly interesting, though I'm aware that there's some very sensitive topics on it.
He got over half the vote after the likely winner was imprisoned in a blatantly political prosecution. So yeah, I guess he "won".
PT aren't knights in shining armor, they're the lesser evil. Their corruption scandal was the worst in Latin America. This is not a recipe for stopping fascists like Bolsonaro from gaining power, these are the type of status quo's fascists will gleefully exploit and PT gave it to them on a silver platter.
And yet, is was the PT's job to provide a better alternative, not blame the citizenry for not wanting to vote for a Lula puppet.
No party is owed votes just because they other guys are worse.
I view it as a yes and no situation.
Yes. They really should have run someone better. They should have developed a bench that exists beyond Lula. They might actually try not being corrupt fucks.
No. People should think before voting to put their dicks into a meat grinder. Votes are a choice. Choices have consequences. You can usually plot out the consequences of your choices.
And yet, is was the PT's job to provide a better alternative, not blame the citizenry for not wanting to vote for a Lula puppet.
No party is owed votes just because they other guys are worse.
I view it as a yes and no situation.
Yes. They really should have run someone better. They should have developed a bench that exists beyond Lula. They might actually try not being corrupt fucks.
No. People should think before voting to put their dicks into a meat grinder. Votes are a choice. Choices have consequences. You can usually plot out the consequences of your choices.
Whether it's the authoritarian left or authoritarian right, it's usually fairly easy to spot the candidate who is one Reichstag Fire away from imprisoning his political opponents and "relieving" you of the burden of choice in the voters booth.
RedTide on
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
And yet, is was the PT's job to provide a better alternative, not blame the citizenry for not wanting to vote for a Lula puppet.
No party is owed votes just because they other guys are worse.
I view it as a yes and no situation.
Yes. They really should have run someone better. They should have developed a bench that exists beyond Lula. They might actually try not being corrupt fucks.
No. People should think before voting to put their dicks into a meat grinder. Votes are a choice. Choices have consequences. You can usually plot out the consequences of your choices.
Whether it's the authoritarian left or authoritarian right, it's usually fairly easy to spot the candidate who is one Reichstag Fire away from imprisoning his political opponents and "relieving" you of the burden of choice in the voters booth.
Was Lula/PT relying on this to maintain their monopoly on power in Brazil? They knew the stakes, and what was possible if the right took back control, yet they priorised greed regardless.
The rumour is that the main reason Dilma got expelled (impeached?) Is because she wasn't blocking the corruption cases. But the PT found itself decapitated.
He got over half the vote after the likely winner was imprisoned in a blatantly political prosecution. So yeah, I guess he "won".
PT aren't knights in shining armor, they're the lesser evil. Their corruption scandal was the worst in Latin America. This is not a recipe for stopping fascists like Bolsonaro from gaining power, these are the type of status quo's fascists will gleefully exploit and PT gave it to them on a silver platter.
Nor did he legally run for president in 2018, that went to his second: Fernando Haddad.
I'm not sure why its necessary to point out that Brazil has a corruption scandal when you see people talk about how the fascists and conservatives used it to imprison their strongest political opponent. We're all up to speed on Brazilian news Harry.
He got over half the vote after the likely winner was imprisoned in a blatantly political prosecution. So yeah, I guess he "won".
PT aren't knights in shining armor, they're the lesser evil. Their corruption scandal was the worst in Latin America. This is not a recipe for stopping fascists like Bolsonaro from gaining power, these are the type of status quo's fascists will gleefully exploit and PT gave it to them on a silver platter.
Nor did he legally run for president in 2018, that went to his second: Fernando Haddad.
I'm not sure why its necessary to point out that Brazil has a corruption scandal when you see people talk about how the fascists and conservatives used it to imprison their strongest political opponent. We're all up to speed on Brazilian news Harry.
Shot in the dark here but probably because some people don't seem to want to accept that "their strongest political opponent" was corrupt as shit and should be imprisoned.
I think electing this asshole was 100% a mistake, and I think it's a mistake they're unfortunately going to spend a long time regretting, but I think it's a pretty understandable mistake given the situation.
He got over half the vote after the likely winner was imprisoned in a blatantly political prosecution. So yeah, I guess he "won".
PT aren't knights in shining armor, they're the lesser evil. Their corruption scandal was the worst in Latin America. This is not a recipe for stopping fascists like Bolsonaro from gaining power, these are the type of status quo's fascists will gleefully exploit and PT gave it to them on a silver platter.
Nor did he legally run for president in 2018, that went to his second: Fernando Haddad.
I'm not sure why its necessary to point out that Brazil has a corruption scandal when you see people talk about how the fascists and conservatives used it to imprison their strongest political opponent. We're all up to speed on Brazilian news Harry.
Shot in the dark here but probably because some people don't seem to want to accept that "their strongest political opponent" was corrupt as shit and should be imprisoned.
I think electing this asshole was 100% a mistake, and I think it's a mistake they're unfortunately going to spend a long time regretting, but I think it's a pretty understandable mistake given the situation.
Corrupt or not the notion that his trial was fair is laughable. When the judge is openly a political opponent who thought you should be in prison before the case started guilt is basically irrelevant.
The corruption does see like a big deal, in terms of voter response
But I wonder to what extent it is the case that for a lot of Brazilians who voted for him their economic and social living conditions are very poor, crime is rampant, violence is regular... this guy stands up and says "I am going to start cleaning this shit up with the barrel of a gun" and at what point is your situation sufficiently shit that Bolsonaro becomes appealing and the other guys seem useless?
He got over half the vote after the likely winner was imprisoned in a blatantly political prosecution. So yeah, I guess he "won".
PT aren't knights in shining armor, they're the lesser evil. Their corruption scandal was the worst in Latin America. This is not a recipe for stopping fascists like Bolsonaro from gaining power, these are the type of status quo's fascists will gleefully exploit and PT gave it to them on a silver platter.
Nor did he legally run for president in 2018, that went to his second: Fernando Haddad.
I'm not sure why its necessary to point out that Brazil has a corruption scandal when you see people talk about how the fascists and conservatives used it to imprison their strongest political opponent. We're all up to speed on Brazilian news Harry.
Shot in the dark here but probably because some people don't seem to want to accept that "their strongest political opponent" was corrupt as shit and should be imprisoned.
I think electing this asshole was 100% a mistake, and I think it's a mistake they're unfortunately going to spend a long time regretting, but I think it's a pretty understandable mistake given the situation.
Corrupt or not the notion that his trial was fair is laughable. When the judge is openly a political opponent who thought you should be in prison before the case started guilt is basically irrelevant.
You're underestimating how large the corruption was in PT, it wasn't simply Lula - many of the higher ups in the party went to jail for that scandal and his party was failing miserably under Dilma, his successor. Meanwhile, violent crime was rampant all over Brazil, and PT looked deeply corrupt, uncaring and incompetent. None of that restored confidence to the public that the government/PT could be trusted, and provided an atmosphere for the right to take advantage of which PT was unable to knock back. The scope in this is much, much larger than simply Lula's trial.
He got over half the vote after the likely winner was imprisoned in a blatantly political prosecution. So yeah, I guess he "won".
PT aren't knights in shining armor, they're the lesser evil. Their corruption scandal was the worst in Latin America. This is not a recipe for stopping fascists like Bolsonaro from gaining power, these are the type of status quo's fascists will gleefully exploit and PT gave it to them on a silver platter.
Nor did he legally run for president in 2018, that went to his second: Fernando Haddad.
I'm not sure why its necessary to point out that Brazil has a corruption scandal when you see people talk about how the fascists and conservatives used it to imprison their strongest political opponent. We're all up to speed on Brazilian news Harry.
Shot in the dark here but probably because some people don't seem to want to accept that "their strongest political opponent" was corrupt as shit and should be imprisoned.
I think electing this asshole was 100% a mistake, and I think it's a mistake they're unfortunately going to spend a long time regretting, but I think it's a pretty understandable mistake given the situation.
Corrupt or not the notion that his trial was fair is laughable. When the judge is openly a political opponent who thought you should be in prison before the case started guilt is basically irrelevant.
You're underestimating how large the corruption was in PT, it wasn't simply Lula - many of the higher ups in the party went to jail for that scandal and his party was failing miserably under Dilma, his successor. Meanwhile, violent crime was rampant all over Brazil, and PT looked deeply corrupt, uncaring and incompetent. None of that restored confidence to the public that the government/PT could be trusted, and provided an atmosphere for the right to take advantage of which PT was unable to knock back. The scope in this is much, much larger than simply Lula's trial.
What does corruption in PT have to do with the fact that Lula got a show trial for political purposes? Lula was polling significantly ahead. A joke of a trial threw him in prison and fascists took control.
I know hating on leftists is like your thing but you're defending kangaroo courts.
Exempting or exonerating Lula would have legitimately provoked a constitutional crisis and possibly resulted in a military coup.
The obvious middle ground being that if you're going to try politicians for corruption you have to give them a real trial otherwise you're just using the legal system to remove political opposition.
Exempting or exonerating Lula would have legitimately provoked a constitutional crisis and possibly resulted in a military coup.
The obvious middle ground being that if you're going to try politicians for corruption you have to give them a real trial otherwise you're just using the legal system to remove political opposition.
Which considering the evidence against him would have been easy. The only person who has more evidence against them for corruption is Trump.
He got over half the vote after the likely winner was imprisoned in a blatantly political prosecution. So yeah, I guess he "won".
PT aren't knights in shining armor, they're the lesser evil. Their corruption scandal was the worst in Latin America. This is not a recipe for stopping fascists like Bolsonaro from gaining power, these are the type of status quo's fascists will gleefully exploit and PT gave it to them on a silver platter.
Nor did he legally run for president in 2018, that went to his second: Fernando Haddad.
I'm not sure why its necessary to point out that Brazil has a corruption scandal when you see people talk about how the fascists and conservatives used it to imprison their strongest political opponent. We're all up to speed on Brazilian news Harry.
Shot in the dark here but probably because some people don't seem to want to accept that "their strongest political opponent" was corrupt as shit and should be imprisoned.
I think electing this asshole was 100% a mistake, and I think it's a mistake they're unfortunately going to spend a long time regretting, but I think it's a pretty understandable mistake given the situation.
Corrupt or not the notion that his trial was fair is laughable. When the judge is openly a political opponent who thought you should be in prison before the case started guilt is basically irrelevant.
You're underestimating how large the corruption was in PT, it wasn't simply Lula - many of the higher ups in the party went to jail for that scandal and his party was failing miserably under Dilma, his successor. Meanwhile, violent crime was rampant all over Brazil, and PT looked deeply corrupt, uncaring and incompetent. None of that restored confidence to the public that the government/PT could be trusted, and provided an atmosphere for the right to take advantage of which PT was unable to knock back. The scope in this is much, much larger than simply Lula's trial.
What does corruption in PT have to do with the fact that Lula got a show trial for political purposes? Lula was polling significantly ahead. A joke of a trial threw him in prison and fascists took control.
I know hating on leftists is like your thing but you're defending kangaroo courts.
Because Lula is one of the key players in the party, involved in one of the biggest corruption scandals in Latin America. Say I agree it was a kangaroo court (haven’t researched anything yet so I’ll just say you’re right) what’s your opinion on the scandal with the party itself? Do you think it’s all bullshit?
I’m not defending anyone, I’m pointing out the biggest context here regarding the PT corruption scandal and the trial is a small part in that picture. I already agreed PT was the better party to Bolsonaro, I just don’t think it’s as good guys vs bad guys as you’re claiming- which is why upthread I called them the “Lesser Evil.” Did you watch the videos I posted, they go deeper into both the scandal and the political scene in Brasil. Nor is PT a far left party (though it has some true believers still there), by Brasíl standards it’s centrist.
Posts
Apparently they are only concerned with *left-wing* tyranny. Right-wing is A-OK. The more tyrannical the better.
Bolton still takes advice from him then.
I've talked to Venezuelans who had the same sentiment as those resisting the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, that US intervention is better than the status quo. And there is no way to argue that Maduro isn't a tyrant at this point either.
I think at this point we should be continuing normalization of relations with Cuba and pushing diplomatically for more liberalization, and giving them aid money (not just loans through IMF/WB) with no strings attached because their development and shift towards us is a win, rather than pulling an Iran "Axis of Evil" gaff here.
No offense, but lol if you think that any of that money will actually go to the country's development or it's citizens. Cuba is a medieval country, with it's military as feudal lords and it's citizenry as serfs.
Venezuela is simple: The country's options are famine, being killed by regular criminals or being killed by the criminals in the government. That's it. An US intervention at least means that Maduro goes away too.
On Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega is a pedophile rapist that treats protesters like Maduro does.
I agree. That's a more general issue when it comes to aid spending in any country unfortunately. Many times it's because we (NGOs, USAID, DoS etc.) don't know the local contexts and assume that what we've planned to do with aid money and who we've planned to give it to are the best ways that money can be used. Many times it's also local actors, especially governments, exploiting us to extract as much aid money as possible in the short amount of time it's available because they know we don't care about the local contexts and our conception of a successful end of a program is not the same as theirs and we will leave after a project is "finished".
I think in the context of Cuba we have to be aware of exactly what you pointed out. By no strings attached I didn't mean no oversight, I meant no terms for repayment which is why I mentioned IMF/WB loans but I could have been more clear about that. In the case of Cuba oversight is very likely a necessity to prevent the regime and military from sucking up all aid spending. Though, as in the case of Venezuela and Nicaragua, I'm not opposed to a direct intervention either.
RE Nicaragua: I think something that is downplayed when discussing the early Sandinista rule and the Contras is that we weren't building up "fake" counter-revolutionary militias from whole cloth. These were people who often had fought with the Sandinistas/Terceristas against Somoza who were then politically marginalized and/or outright targeted. Instead it is presented as a miscarriage of justice that the large and powerful US was just bullying a legitimate government, standing up fascist counter-revolutionary armies full of bandits, because that's how the Ortegas presented it through directly lobbying the US Congress and a robust propaganda campaign in the early 80's. In reality the people who were the Contras were the same people fighting the Sandinista regime today. And at the time it was much more like a Latin American Syrian Civil War situation in which an illiberal regime was being resisted by people with legitimate grievances being supported by and fighting next to foreign volunteers (something I haven't seen talked about often is that there were US citizen war volunteers fighting with the Contra units just as US citizen war volunteers fought with the rebels and the Kurds in Syria) with arms and clandestine support from the US government.
Cuba is pretty literally feudal with the travel restrictions in place to keep people from moving from rural to urban areas. Thats like, textbook serfdom, keeping the population in its rightful place.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
This are a couple of pictures from what has traditionally been the country with the strongest economy in the region, and arguably the country with the most segregated population in the region as well.
I always think that going right is the wrong choice, but I understand how brazilian people will go to extremes when someone offers them a chance to change the status quo. lures the voters with promises of change.
"People deserve to die until they repent from their sins". Christ, that's almost as bad as all the "We must invade Brazil to save the Amazon forest" posts on Reddit post-Bolsonaro.
Except they're not "innocent" in their minds. (That is to say, because they make me feel less safe, they're not innocent.)
PT aren't knights in shining armor, they're the lesser evil. Their corruption scandal was the worst in Latin America. This is not a recipe for stopping fascists like Bolsonaro from gaining power, these are the type of status quo's fascists will gleefully exploit and PT gave it to them on a silver platter.
Nor did he legally run for president in 2018, that went to his second: Fernando Haddad.
But not much of a dilemma. Fascists are corrupt and ALSO like murdering a lot of people.
This is definitely true.
No party is owed votes just because they other guys are worse.
I'm pretty sure that's how democracy works actually.
I view it as a yes and no situation.
Yes. They really should have run someone better. They should have developed a bench that exists beyond Lula. They might actually try not being corrupt fucks.
No. People should think before voting to put their dicks into a meat grinder. Votes are a choice. Choices have consequences. You can usually plot out the consequences of your choices.
Whether it's the authoritarian left or authoritarian right, it's usually fairly easy to spot the candidate who is one Reichstag Fire away from imprisoning his political opponents and "relieving" you of the burden of choice in the voters booth.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Was Lula/PT relying on this to maintain their monopoly on power in Brazil? They knew the stakes, and what was possible if the right took back control, yet they priorised greed regardless.
Fascinating insight into how Bolsonaro divided women voters, and was able to ride a wave of an anti-corruption campaign ala Duterte.
I'm not sure why its necessary to point out that Brazil has a corruption scandal when you see people talk about how the fascists and conservatives used it to imprison their strongest political opponent. We're all up to speed on Brazilian news Harry.
Shot in the dark here but probably because some people don't seem to want to accept that "their strongest political opponent" was corrupt as shit and should be imprisoned.
I think electing this asshole was 100% a mistake, and I think it's a mistake they're unfortunately going to spend a long time regretting, but I think it's a pretty understandable mistake given the situation.
Corrupt or not the notion that his trial was fair is laughable. When the judge is openly a political opponent who thought you should be in prison before the case started guilt is basically irrelevant.
But I wonder to what extent it is the case that for a lot of Brazilians who voted for him their economic and social living conditions are very poor, crime is rampant, violence is regular... this guy stands up and says "I am going to start cleaning this shit up with the barrel of a gun" and at what point is your situation sufficiently shit that Bolsonaro becomes appealing and the other guys seem useless?
You're underestimating how large the corruption was in PT, it wasn't simply Lula - many of the higher ups in the party went to jail for that scandal and his party was failing miserably under Dilma, his successor. Meanwhile, violent crime was rampant all over Brazil, and PT looked deeply corrupt, uncaring and incompetent. None of that restored confidence to the public that the government/PT could be trusted, and provided an atmosphere for the right to take advantage of which PT was unable to knock back. The scope in this is much, much larger than simply Lula's trial.
What does corruption in PT have to do with the fact that Lula got a show trial for political purposes? Lula was polling significantly ahead. A joke of a trial threw him in prison and fascists took control.
I know hating on leftists is like your thing but you're defending kangaroo courts.
The obvious middle ground being that if you're going to try politicians for corruption you have to give them a real trial otherwise you're just using the legal system to remove political opposition.
Which considering the evidence against him would have been easy. The only person who has more evidence against them for corruption is Trump.
And the tape of him facilitating bribes came out 10 fucking minutes after he got Dilma's job.
Because Lula is one of the key players in the party, involved in one of the biggest corruption scandals in Latin America. Say I agree it was a kangaroo court (haven’t researched anything yet so I’ll just say you’re right) what’s your opinion on the scandal with the party itself? Do you think it’s all bullshit?
I’m not defending anyone, I’m pointing out the biggest context here regarding the PT corruption scandal and the trial is a small part in that picture. I already agreed PT was the better party to Bolsonaro, I just don’t think it’s as good guys vs bad guys as you’re claiming- which is why upthread I called them the “Lesser Evil.” Did you watch the videos I posted, they go deeper into both the scandal and the political scene in Brasil. Nor is PT a far left party (though it has some true believers still there), by Brasíl standards it’s centrist.