Flavio promised to pardon his father, so the other effect of this is that Bolsonaro stays in jail. Although by jail I mean house arrest, which is something that rich, powerful people manage to get somehow and is barely a punishment.
I mean, to be fair, the restriction on freedom is the real punishment. I don't think anyone could honestly say that house arrest isn't genuinely undesirable, especially for rich and powerful people.
What's the point of having all that money and power if you can't actually do the things you want?
They are impressive but I often ask myself why so much effort is spend here. While people are curious about results, a bit of waiting for the counts shouldn't matter.
The most "sensible" application would be for betting markets I thought.
One modern need is to avoid people using the well known patterns of vote reporting to inflame conspiracies about "mysterious" and "sudden" reversals in vote tallies.
Trust me, telling people the vote will look weird ahead of time does not quiet the vote consipuracistst. Heck I'd say it gives ammo. They call it predictive programming. The lie is revealed and normalized.
True but for example in California we have it extra bad where it takes weeks for votes to get counted.
Even the most idealistic person with respect to how people should process election results must admit that it taking this long either:
a) Undermines trust or
b) Creates a more fertile ground to undermine trust
The Finnish public broadcaster has used a model to predict final vote share for as long as I remember. The stated purpose is to offset the bias that comes from smaller, more rural municipalities reporting sooner.
It usually kicks in when 10-20 % of the votes have been counted and switches back to raw results near the 90% mark.
Didn't find an exact date when they started using it; an article says "dates back to 1960s" but it's definitely been a staple in 2000s.
Mexico has been doing that since the 90s, with the PREP (Programa de Resultados Electorales Preliminares). Preliminary results start pouring almost soon as the voting period ends, and in 24 hours we know the winner. Statistical models are perfect for this scenario, as they become increasingly certain. In my country, the loser has conceded defeat before all 100% votes are counted, by sheer mathematical certainty.
It always surprises me that USA, the self-appointed bastion of democracy worldwide, has such tortuous and malleable elections; and that no serious academic discussion occurs despite the endemic flaws. Even these days, the PREP's Wikipedia page lacks an English translation.
It was anyway a lose-lose situation. I hope to see Brazil free from 'bolsopetismo'/'bolsolulismo' (as some of we call this disease to keep Bolsonaro and Lula or their parties on the presidential room) soon, but here we go for another 4 years...
I agree with you. I wish we had better candidates. The right had Dr. Enéas Carneiro, who's dead. The left has PCO, which is awesome but is shunned by the rest of the left because they are bold enough to criticize Lula and PT. Neither ever had or will have any realistic chance of ever winning.
It's not going to end until Lula literally drops dead. This country proved that today.
On the same day, in Serbia, the long-term incumbent was defeated by a party/movement that has been founded only 2 years ago as a response to corruption issues. So change can happen.
Serbia has actual corruption. Lula went to jail because when Bolsonaro was in charge they made up a case about him accepting beachfront property. Even the UN Human Rights Committee found that the prosecutions violated his due process and political rights
Lula's Fala.BR platform is a massive step up for free and public access to information for all Brazilians and federal contracting procedures have been standardized and oversight has been massively improved.
Lula represents a massive step towards fighting corruption
> Lula went to jail because when Bolsonaro was in charge they made up a case about him accepting beachfront property.
Lula went to jail before Bolsonaro came into power and got released while he was president. It's a well remembered case in Latin America and it's easy to correct you on that.
Well he wasn't elected yet, but the reason his conviction was thrown out by the Supreme Court and the reason the United Nations stepped in to call the case out as bogus was because investigative journalists from The Intercept got ahold of leaked Telegram messages proving Bolsonaro made a deal with the corrupt judge Sérgio Moro.
The case is the reason Lula was barred from running against Bolsonaro. After Bolsonaro won, he appointed Moro as the Minister of Justice and Public Security as a political reward.
The case has been thoroughly disproven as bogus by journalists and even the United Nations. It's genuinely depressing how many people still believe in it
Yeah this is valuable context. He Jerry Brown'd it.
I do think term limits are good, but nonconsecutive 16 years is actually an ok limit IMHO. Maybe not the one I'd prefer for my government, but not necessarily objectively bad for democracy.
I don't like the idea of reelections in general. I think it is generally damaging to democracy. Ideally I would not even add term limits, but they should all be non-consecutive.
Still, as you said, this context is important. Lula left in 2010 and came back in 2022 after having been arrested, freed, and then defeating Jair Bolsonaro, who was the current president and a fierce rival.
That said, I think reelections are actually more damaging in the legislative (and it is not uncommon to have congressmen and senators for 20, 30 years straight).
It's very situationally dependent. Term limits stop bad politicians doing too much damage, they also stop good politicians getting too much momentum on their side.
Why? If they’re democratically voted, what’s wrong with it?
Australia has no term limits and has famously had the longest serving prime minister (12 years) followed by extremely short terms. All seemed to represent the general will of the population.
I wish Australia had term limits for all politicians, and not just for the PM. Term limits prevents people becoming career politicians, which i think would be a good thing.
The argument against aggressive term limits that I’ve read: there are many people making a career in politics as a whole—lobbyists, influence groups, party committees, etc. They have a huge advantage over the term-limited elected politician.
I’m not a political junkie but that makes sense to me. The critters who get your vote are just part of the system that runs the place.
Mark Rutte, Netherlands, 14 years prime minister, four terms in office. It is hard to say if he represented the general will of the population given that his party, the liberal-right VVD favors the more well-to-do part of the population. I think many voters voted for him as a trustworthy face and friendly, amicable man. Vote for the personality. He was also characterized as Mr Tefal for his ability to make nothing stick to him in terms of criticism, and utterly pragmatic, denouncing vision. As a result the big problems and areas where reform were most needed, were always pushed to the future.
You might say he introduced a kind of populism, where politicians only care about the next election round and their reputation, to the cost of important decision-making and long-term thinking. Unfortunately this is kind of a working strategy, a weakness of democracy, where the current centre-right government is struggling with all the aggravated problems not dealt with in the past, and the voters think "well, perhaps we have to vote VVD again where these problems didn't exist", or vote more right-wing by populism that makes immigration the cause of all problems.
I think the real weakness of democracy is that governments can’t make difficult changes. The current government wanted to but both the right and the left did not accept those changes. Similar story as France, a big need to change, but everybody expects others to pay, not themselves.
Today, it’s always either the fault of the other party (who never had a real chance of making big changes), the rich (but if you tax them too much they leave and you’re left with no economy, see France), or the foreigners.
The idea that you must fire your most competent employees after ~8 years on the job, in a exceedingly difficult job that requires on-the-job training, is in fact one of the most inane and damaging things to democracy.
Disagree. Presidency, like other elected positions, should not be a career. I want people who can serve with high dedication and then go back to private life. I'd like to see term limits on representatives and senators as well, and also an upper age limit.
> Presidency, like other elected positions, should not be a career.
As stated, this is merely a truism, and you have not justified this belief. Would you care to? It seems very irrational to me. High office is one of the most difficult and most impactful jobs in the world. It's easy to do a terrible job and screw everyone over while enriching yourself, of course, but extremely challenging to do a good job. You are responsible for the fate of tens or hundreds of millions of people, and must exercise incredible judgment on the breadth of every macro problem society faces while simultaneously maneuvering both internal support and foreign relations. Why would we not want to make this most important of all jobs a job where people can actually grow into the role and demonstrate expertise in it? You are strictly only eliminating the electorate's options. There is already a corrective mechanism for voters to evict someone doing a bad job [whether they choose to exercise it is another matter, but that's literally democracy in action], but there should be no mechanism to sustain a job well done?
The skill to win elections and the skill to govern are not the same. And humans have biases against change. Term limits guarantee the downside is limited and they are healthy for a real democracy.
Also... too long in power makes it easier to dismantle the democratic process.
The entire American system of checks and balances is not designed to get optimal leadership, it is designed to limit damage from bad leadership.
> The skill to win elections and the skill to govern are not the same.
Then elect someone else next time. This, however, is a criticism of democracy more than it is a justification for term limits.
> The entire American system of checks and balances is not designed to get optimal leadership, it is designed to limit damage from bad leadership.
How's that working out for you? You got Trump and Biden as a direct result of term limits. The way I see it, your system has selected for the maximally damaging bad leadership possible.
> You got Trump and Biden as a direct result of term limits.
The US only enacted term limits in 1951. Before that time, only two presidents had attempted to seek third terms (another two attempted but failed to secure even a nomination by a political party), and only one was successful.
And, quite frankly, the only president since the 22nd amendment who I could see wanting to run for a third term is Trump, who does seem to be campaigning for one anyways despite being constitutionally barred from it.
The writing is that no one can serve as president for longer than ten years, not that someone couldn't run a third term. A traditional reading means that you wouldn't seek a third term, but tradition'a been thrown out the window.
In the interests of pedantry, that's not what the writing says. The operative text is quoted here:
> No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
The 'obvious loophole' is that the text doesn't constrain the number of terms anyone can serve, but instead constrains the number of times someone can be elected as president, so if you run as vice president for someone who agrees to immediately resign to let you be president, you technically don't run afoul of the rule.
(The more likely loophole, following from Trump v Colorado, is that nobody is actually allowed to declare somebody ineligible for president, so the constitution's strictures are meaningless in practice. It truly is a disgusting SCOTUS decision.)
I mean, US foreign policy been supercharged with Trump, and from that perspective his leadership's been plenty adequate. Declaring war on Iran in particular has long been a neoliberal aspiration that no one had the political courage to implement - enter Trump, the nominal adversary on whom they could outsource their ambitions, and whose blunders could cynically be disavowed.
I agree with you, the system is far from perfect. But right now we're talking about the benefits of term limits and it is greatly comforting that no matter what, in two more years Trump will be gone.
They are most competent in getting elected, which often is not the same as being most competent in anything else.
Even with Germany it turned out that Angela Merkel did grave mistakes and Germans were able to find out about those only after she left office. Being continually in office gives you the ability to hide your trials. The longer you stay the easier it is for you to get elected.
That’s why it is very important to have a time limit in power.
> They are most competent in getting elected, which often is not the same as being most competent in anything else.
If it was not clear, I am not stating that anyone who is in office is automatically the most competent. However, the entire point of a democracy is that you have the option to fire bad candidates. And yet, with term limits, when you do get a competent candidate in office, you do not have the option to keep them in office.
The most commonly repeated pattern across literally all of human history is that power grows.
Being the chief executive in a system like brazil's results in a lot of power, for several perfectly good reasons, but it does mean you have to build in safe guards against that power growing.
Regular elections are good, but not sufficient, as a study of recent world history would demonstrate.
> Regular elections are good, but not sufficient, as a study of recent world history would demonstrate.
Term limits are not a solution either, as a study of recent world history would demonstrate. Clearly there is a need to check power, but perhaps the mechanisms that check power should not also ensure you will never have a truly excellent leader && increase instability from flipflopping policies && give more opportunities for people who will abuse power to take office and ignore the term limits because that's what people who abuse power do. A term limit is only effective against a mildly bad candidate who is not truly willing to abuse their power, because if they are willing to abuse their power they can just ignore it. In that way, you've created a system that caps upside but leaves downside uncapped in practice.
I wouldn't mix countries and software projects though. When the "benevolent leader" of a software project goes crazy there will be a bit of social media drama and that's it. When the same thing happens in a country, people are massacred (and in essence this is also the reason why countries shouldn't be governed like a company, a country can't simply shut down like a company when things go south).
There's the view that republican Rome's military success was due to their public career path churning out OK military commanders at a steady rate. Not necessarily great, just good enough with a solid understanding of the basics.
The fall of that system then came about when politically ambitious characters started developing more personal and long-term relations with their troops.
I'd say that's an argument for term limits: you want them to get good but not set roots permanently.
I ran into that idea the other day and I thought it was pretty interesting, although I'd phrase it slightly differently:
"Rome's tradition of having to serve in 'lower offices' before the higher ones meant that when aristocrats inevitably ended up in charge of entire armies they had some level of practical experience and learnings to draw on while commanding".
But yes, much is made of Rome's redundancy in terms of military strength and there's a lot of states during that period that had A King who did everything and then died in a battle and then everything collapsed.
Tbh, a single politician should never have enough power to move the needle significantly to either side. And even in companies, the "bus factor" is a thing (eg everybody must be replaceable).
It's even more important that time limit gives those in power a planned off-ramp.
The extreme case which you want to avoid is "politicians" (dictators) desperately clinging to power, because they did things that would get them killed if they ever lost their power, which is a vicious cycle.
TBH the idea that one person could have so much power is bad imho, it only attracts sociopaths.
I like the swiss model more where one party never gets full power, even if it means societal changes take more time to happen[1], it seems less risky to me as there is never one power grab whose decision can influence the next election by stuff like redistricting, puting clearly leaning judges to federal court, etc.
[1] famous example is the women right to vote in the general election happened in 1971 which is quite shameful
When I read about ancient (republican) Rome, I used to wonder how much their having an off-ramp from power contributed to their stability.
In many of the contemporary cultures (e.g., the post-Alexander greek kingdoms), being toppled from the heights of power would result in exile, imprisonment, or worse; in the republic, you could lose a battle as a general or step down from being consul and still lead a peaceful life afterwards.
One could argue that the change in this situation in the late republic directly resulted in it's downfall--Caesar crossed the Rubicon because he feared prosecution and imprisonment by his opponents once he lost his proconsular immunity.
That's a reasonable thought. But a counter perspective is that leaders may have had more integrity and fidelity to ethical behaviors making prosecution less necessary. If that were the case then it would be better to have continual investigation and prosecution possible so there is no shield of power or incentive to hold on to the shield. The check on power is the punishment. The threat of punishment encourages leaders that are unethical to self select avoiding office.
> Even with Germany it turned out that Angela Merkel did grave mistakes and Germans were able to find out about those only after she left office. Being continually in office gives you the ability to hide your trials.
A "required absence" is a thing in a number of sensitive positions, especially financial/regulated industries.
In America the next administration hides them for you because they will never set the precedent of punishing a president for exceeding their power.
Obama could have had Bush against the wall at the Hague for his war crimes... and then Trump could have had Obama against the wall at the Hague for his war crimes... and then Biden could have had Trump... and on and one we go.
It’s a nice argument but there’s another axis: fatigue. Leading takes its toll. To be charitable it’s not plausible that you can run a country, with all the stress that entails, and out compete everyone not at the apex of the front line.
I check my brake pads every year. Eventually the incumbent pads lose out to some whipper-snapper from the new pads box. I might vote red again or I might switch to blue. It depends how muddy it is. Either way, it’s both a new/old choice as well as a red/blue choice.
Time-in-office is also a major contributor to corruption. Lukashenko has been winning the same election for 30+ years!
i feel like democracy isn't about the most competent but about the "least bad" option you could have. an effective dictator (lol) can cut thru the red tape but what people are worried about are the terrible ones. at least with a democracy you can rotate them out.
Except when those employees also have command of armies, at which point history has shown that swapping them out before they get too comfortable is key for keeping a republic a republic.
It doesn't really show that, though. Putin was not stopped by term limits. Hitler seized power within a year of being elected. Lukashenko established his rigged state within two years. Fujimori launched a self-coup within two years. I'm actually not aware of evidence that term limits have ever meaningfully did anything to impede a would-be wrongdoer.
Survivorship bias explains that. The list of dictators-for-life does not include those who don't become dictators for life.
I'd suggest that term limits are party of a package that rests on strong public faith in democratic institutions. E.g. Macron is about able to hang on, but i doubt he could stay past an electoral defeat because he presides over a nation that won't tolerate it.
First among equals, the president of the Confederation has no powers over and above the other six councillors and continues to head the assigned department. Traditionally the duty rotates among the members in order of seniority; the vice president of the Federal Council assumes the presidency the year after the officeholder's tenure. The president of the Confederation is not the head of state because the entire Federal Council is the collective head of state.
No, it means that the role of the Swiss president cannot be compared to the cases discussed. It requires a different organization of the state, not just a term or age limit.
Wrt to the latter: the Swiss system prefers the elder candidate.
The entire republican tradition (with a small r) rests on the assumption that leadership is a common skill. The society is supposed to give ambitious young people opportunities to demonstrate their skills, and then select the most capable ones and give them increasingly challenging roles. At any given time, there should be an order of magnitude more potential leaders (with the necessary skills and experience) than what the society actually needs. And the leaders should be replaced often enough, to avoid giving them the idea that they are somehow special.
It shouldn’t be a fixed age, that’s the mistake too many laws make already is not accounting for change. What happens when i. the future the average lifespan is 200 years? It should be something like no older than 75% of the average lifespan.
Part of being competent is building legislative and other public service systems that run without you being at the helm, and bringing up younger leaders behind you who keep things going upward. Memento mori, and all that.
Exactly this; the job of civil service is to retain institutional competence, and to offer cabinets digests and levers to pull that they can operate at high level.
Day one:
- your predecessor had this and this initiative, see pages 4 to 7
- i don't like that, what alternatives exist
- we worked this up at the time, here are the projections which were updated six months ago
- good, do that instead
- we'll need to redo the numbers
- then do so, and brief me again next week
Democracy is not about figuring out who’s most competent at the job, it’s about being able to get rid of everybody in power at some point without using weapons or waiting for them to die of natural causes. A term limit is a very good idea and I’d even implement it for legislators and other government officials.
Are you talking about politicians, or actual employees?
If the latter: Yes, that is actually stupid, but the stupidity lies not in the term limits for politicians, but in the idea that public servants are employed on the grounds of party affiliation.[1]
But replacing large swathes of competent higher officials every time you change government... The only country I know of for sure that does that is the USA. Are you saying that's the way it works in Brazil, too?
___
[1]: Sure, to some extent it exists everywhere, but that's usually only a few sincure posts for old politicians removed from any actual influence by being "promoted diagonally left-upwards". (See, for example, the post of "landshövding" in Sweden.)
The problem is what happens if an incompetent person stays on forever. There are many examples in history of great countries and empires that were lead by one person only for it all to come down when one idiot became the person in charge. An important idea behind term limits and democracy is sacrificing the ability to have an amazing leader for life so that an incompetent leader doesn't serve for life.
Its a fundamental safeguard and a hedge against tyranny. Its why, in general, countries that are lead by one person for life can be very impressive in the short term but inevitably fall apart once the wrong person eventually takes charge. Because the odds are that eventually the wrong person will take charge.
Brazil also has this. A president can't run 3 times in a row. But if there's a break in between then they can run again. Lula won't be able to run in 2030
I think limiting presidential terms is pretty American, I can't see why its undemocratic to stand for longer as long as there are still elections, free press, right to protest etc.
In the US, FDR stood 4 terms, and he was hardly the end of democracy.
Please, let's not cherry-pick our worries about what's not good for democracy. Yes, perhaps term-limits might aid in a healthy democracy, perhaps not. But please read this [1]
It's not. Brazil has a good elections system with the 2 turns. But still on the first turn more than 90% voted for these 2 parties. The only party on "the left" is a Unionist president and a right wing vice president. There's no serious politics on the left, and people vote like they are cheering for football teams. Voting for Lula was the evident lesser evil (as in, proven track record, and no concrete evidence of corruption like his opponent), but half the country disagrees...
It wasn't consecutive, there were 2 terms (one of which was for the opposition) in-between. According to the law a president can only serve 2 consecutive terms.
It is not great true, but it is not Turkey/Russia-level with president for life (yet). Although it is forming a succession crisis in much the same way.
Well when the alternative is someone who is openly in favor of violently overthrowing fair elections it's hard to get too upset about someone winning fairly, even if it is their fourth time.
It's wild how closely Brazil's politics have mirrored the US in recent years, at least at a high level. They literally had their own Jan 6 insurrection. Lula, like Biden, was competent enough for a time but ultimately outstayed his welcome and ran for another term when they should have gracefully retired. Unlike Biden, Lula actually imposed some consequences on the people trying to destroy his country's democracy.
Depends on which ranked system. IRV has a lot of issues that other systems (like STAR, my personal preference in voting system, or Condorcet methods for instance) address much better. Non-monotonicity in particular seems like a bad property of a voting system, so I'm confused that IRV is so popular recently.
> Non-monotonicity in particular seems like a bad property of a voting system, so I'm confused that IRV is so popular recently.
Same here. The idea of lobbying for a voting system where your vote for a candidate might hurt them, or where you might be better off not voting at all than expressing your honest preference is bizarre to me. If IRV was the only alternative, sure, but we have multiple other systems which don't have as bad tradeoffs. STAR or Ranked Robin would be so much better, but the Equal Vote Coalition doesn't seem to have the power behind it that FairVote does.
One reason IRV is popular is that it has extensive use in other countries (Australia, Ireland). It's not revolutionary but it's an improvement and nothing terrible has happened.
STAR has been used approximately nowhere. STAR is also one of the few seriously advocated-for voting methods in which it's possible for the first choice of a majority to lose, although that isn't likely to happen in practice.
IRV is not used in Ireland except for president, a role so procedurally minor that there is an alternative used when the president is unavailable (it seems to have evolved into what could be called an artistic role). Almost all elections are multimember (3-5 member districts); the voting is done the same way but most of the issues with IRV don't apply to the multimember version or are much less severe. In Ireland, the proprotionally elected body decides the single person roles, including things like auditor or mayor.
No electoral method is perfect and there are problems with Instant runoff ranked ballots. Look up "Favourite Betrayal" as a problem where ranking your most favourite incorrectly can accidentally result in your least favourite winning.
Of course just because there are technically flaws, doesn't mean it's not an improvement over the status quo.
Instant Runoff Ranked ballots are particularly well suited for electing a single position like a Mayor or President. Given that it's still a majoritarian system like First Pass the Post, it's a much more questionable system to use for other things like electing a parliament.
I think IRV at least has fairly unpredictable failure cases, which means they can't be exploited.
I remember seeing a 2D chart representing voter preferences on the X and Y axis, coloured by who wins under those preferences (and some symmetry-breaking assumptions). Some systems showed clear biases towards certain outcomes. IRV had a pretty symmetric shape but with a splotch in the middle that was a random jumble of different colours - an unpredictable, chaotic outcome.
> Of course just because there are technically flaws, doesn't mean it's not an improvement over the status quo.
The problem IMO is when there's better options but it's hard to get people to care enough to switch systems again. I'm hoping Ranked Robin can catch on so at least places that went to IRV can switch to a better system without new ballots.
STAR Voting (Score Then Automatic Runoff) works in two stages:
1. Voters score candidates from 0 to 5.
2. The two candidates with the highest total scores become finalists.
3. The finalist preferred by more voters wins.
So it combines score voting and runoff. Meaning it favors centrist candidates that are prefered by most people over somebody that can turn out the base.
Not Brazillian, and I didn't know about the 2-turn system, but I definitely became a fan. It's simple to understand and to implement. Ranked voting is too complex to implement and for everyone to understand. Run-off lets you vote for you preferred party first, and for the realistic contender second. Sadly, almost no one did that in Brazil - >90% voted for the finalists in the first turn.
I really strongly believe in approval/disapproval with a runoff.
You can vote for or against as many candidates as you want. Take the top 2 score getters and do a runoff. This means in the first round you can have as many candidates as you want. Those with no name recognition get no support. Also it prevents the situation so many find themselves in where both candidates are deeply unpopular but we feel we have no other choices. If the most well known candidates are deeply divisive then they won't get through.
The runoff gives people time to research the 2 candidates.
two-turn systems don't help if the people aren't educated about them. I lost a friendship once over trying to argue with them that it's okay for people to vote on unpopular candidates in the 1st turn.
I was seeing the reports from the first pass which said it was almost guaranteed that Lula would not win because of what the results of the first were. I wonder what caused that prediction to fail.
I am glad the son of a failed coup organizer and a trump puppet didn't get elected and am hopeful for Brazils ability to self govern. Breaking free of US financial monopolies (credit cards) gives me hope they'll continue to produce and innovative into a healthier and competitive world market, but I am also tired of Lula being at the helm and wish someone else could step up and take the reigns. When someone stays in power for so long in a democracy it makes me suspicious of the legitimacy of their power. Are they popular because they are good for the country or are they popular because they have the right people with power, influence, and money on their side.
A lot of media outlets have been fingering the outage of some data centers due to kinetic action for a worldwide decline in divisive rhetoric, potentially impacting democratic processes.
Lula is neither anti-US, nor is he anti-NATO. He is against a single country having hegemony over the globe, against US meddling in Latin American elections (including with trade policy as of late), and against huge defense budgets.
Why do Americans accept that their democratic country is actively intervening in other countries elections? It's grotesque. The US security establishment has been allowed to run amoc for decades and they have destroyed the values that made the US country that people admired across the world.
The people in charge didn't run on this. Most of the real orchestrators are appointees, anyway. They're about to get a reality check fairly soon. I wouldn't be surprised if Hegseth were sacrificed. Rubio, the real brains behind the operations, will probably hold on somehow.
If Americans elect Rubio after all this, or resoundingly reelect a Republican congress, I think you have a better claim.
Tl;dr they don't accept it, but they keep getting tricked
To me it often if feels like South American countries themselves are stuck in an eternal pendulum of electing corrupt left-wing populists after corrupt right-wing populists and swinging back again.
That's representative democracy. There's not really any practical ways to delegate power without enabling corruption, so corruption is more or less inevitable without radical levels of transparency and public oversight.
> This far less popular than United 24 which is a propaganda outlet disguised as a news site.
What are smoking? If you bother to check, United24 clearly describes itself as "The official fundraising platform for collecting donations to support Ukraine."
Russia does have elections, but they are internally meddled with so outsiders don't see much point. Even places known for brutal authoritarian regimes like Israel and Iran have elections. Elections are a great tool for promoting social cohesion even in decidedly undemocratic countries. It's totally illogical, but people like to vote for the winner - and when everyone knows who the winner is going to be that's quite easy. Elections in illiberal countries are like a societal placebo that can ease the mental burden of the voters and give them a sense of participation and belonging without making any actual changes. Letting the controlled opposition vent regularly and then crushing them in a "fair" election keeps their popularity at a manageable level and helps governments gauge public opinion. Democracy is a system rather than a process, and confusing the trappings of democracy (elections) with the system of democracy (self-governance) is something that's been done by with purpose by antidemocratic forces.
Hell of an allegation to make with no evidence provided. How do "they" "have" the supreme court, and why does that mean that they're popular and win elections?
When "but they let more eligible voters vote, that's cheating!" is your argument against someone in a democracy, it's time to take a good look at yourself.
Have polling stations open for a week, run them 24 hours on election day. Have so many that there's never a queue, and no one complains that they have to go far. That's democracy. The price is negligible.
Unless you're relying on suppressing the capacity of certain parts of your population to vote to win an election, like my country's right wing government has done, because last minute enrollment voters tend to not vote for them.
That’s making quite a mental leap. What’s wrong is changing the rules halfway during a voting day, specially in one of the largest countries in the world with uneven logistics.
Polls were closed in some places, voting boxes sealed, and had to be reopened.
While not necessarily bad, it can create fraud suspicions. Just arrange a longer voting time from the get go. Else it looks you are stalling and boosting turnout out for your side.
PS it’s quite common in some countries to put people on buses and make them vote in exchange of money.
The problem is the bias of the court. When Bolsonaro asked for one in 2022, it was denied. "Everybody had the opportunity to vote". When Bolsonaro asked for one yesterday due to heavy rain in the south, they didn't grant it either. They granted it immediately when Lula asked it though, and the person who did so was Lula's former lawyer. It's clear that there is no fairness to be found in the Brazilian institutions tasked with running fair elections.
By the end of the next four years, Lula will finish his term with 70% of the seats of the supreme court being filled directly by his party.
They also stacked the lesser courts with judges which support him. Including the electoral court. We had judges who openly declared their vote for him judging his electoral complaints this entire month. Any guess which way the judges leaned?
Did you know one of the supreme court judges used to be Lula's own lawyer?
> and why does that mean that they're popular and win elections?
The supreme court literally engaged in unconstitutional censorship in order to get him elected in 2022. Judges also constantly barred Bolsonaro from doing things in 2022 that Lula was allowed to do this month, like lowering taxes at the gas pump before the election.
The supreme court was so incredibly politically active in 2022, it destabilized the country and led directly to the January 8th nonsense where people asked the military to enact a coup.
There's a saying here: "judges = gods". Actual lawyer told me that. And Lula owns the judges. If you don't see how having literal judge-god-kings on your side can tilt elections, then I don't know what I can possibly say to convince you.
Here's an example from the last four years: Lula implemented a tax on financial operations, our elected congress blocked it, then he went to the supreme court and they rammed it down our throats. Yes, the supreme court raised taxes. Not a single person voted for those judges, by the way. This is the Venezuela governance model.
The whole point of electing the right wing was to make those gods bleed. I'm going to go ahead and deflate my expectations now.
Go a few more years back, and it's hard to say the Brazilian right-wing aren't reaping what they sowed wrt. supreme court/judicial branch shenanigans.
But that doesn't make you wrong. All presidential republics are like this when push comes to shove. There are two branches of government with equal claim to popular legitimacy, therefore every presidential republic in the world reels from one constitutional crisis to another like a drunken sailor.
> Go a few more years back, and it's hard to say the Brazilian right-wing aren't reaping what they sowed wrt. supreme court/judicial branch shenanigans.
My exploration of this mess ended at around 2019 which is when the "fake news" inquisition began. It's entirely possible that they were abusing their power for much longer, but I sincerely don't know. Please post details if you do.
> But that doesn't make you wrong.
Thank you.
> All presidential republics are like this when push comes to shove.
My impression is this is a Latin American phenomenon. It's how Maduro governed Venezuela, for example. It's the reason why Bukele had to depose the judiciary in El Salvador.
I simply have never heard of or read about anything similar ever happening in the US or Europe. Would appreciate counterpoints.
Well, the EU has a "parliament" that can't change the law, and the EU supreme court (ECJ) has been caught in the past hearing a case where both sides are being argued by the same law firm and the plaintiff didn't even know they were engaged in a court case at all. There was no investigation and nothing was changed. EU media is in general pretty supine and doesn't report on EU level corruption, so given such shenanigans it seems likely the ECJ is quite corrupt. So it's not unknown in Europe.
> Here's an example from the last four years: Lula implemented a tax on financial operations, our elected congress blocked it, then he went to the supreme court and they rammed it down our throats. Yes, the supreme court raised taxes. Not a single person voted for those judges, by the way. This is the Venezuela governance model.
Do you have a source to read up on this?
Surely they're ruling on whether the executive branch has the power to do XYZ, right? So they don't directly endorse a policy, they decide who can do what?
You see the same in the US, with the decisions largely going the other way.
Lula writes up a sort of decree raising taxes on financial operations such as BRL/USD conversions.
Our elected congress blocked it. That is their role.
Supreme court swoops in and "reestablishes" the decree.
Through this simple mechanism, president can bypass our elected congress and senate, and rule monocratically like a king.
The supreme court judges are appointed by the president himself. Lula will stack the court with four additional justices loyal to him by the end of the next four years. He will own 70% of the court. He can do anything.
Bolsonaro was our last chance to fix this shit. Plan was to elect a right wing senate and president, then impeach all of those judges. We managed to elect the senators, but not the president. If we impeach the judges now, it just buys Lula even more seats in the court. It's pretty much over now.
> Our elected congress blocked it. That is their role.
So in a Republic, the President has the right to issue decrees. That's what makes it the executive branch. Congress can make laws that block specific things but they would need to pass legislation? And assuming this power is granted on the constitution, they can't change this (easily).
> That is exactly what they do.
They rule if the president can issue that decree, no? They don't have the ability to change any of that?
> If we impeach the judges now, it just buys Lula even more seats in the court.
There’s a clear right-wing/centrist majority in Congress, so Lula’s Supreme Court nominations will not be that partisan.
Many Justices do need to be investigated and impeached, and it’s our job now to pressure congressmen in that regard, and then pressure again to make sure future nominees are much better.
For some reason, I seriously doubt the senate is going to move a finger against the judges. I just have a bad feeling about this. I don't think they're going to do anything anymore.
I really hope you're right though. If even a single judge suffers consequences, this election will have been a major win.
probably not in the first 2 years with the current Senate president but then next it is less clear. There are 3 conservative judges also involved in the banco Master scandal case so let's see how it ends.
Really? Didn't the Bolsanaro campaign also request an extension of the voting deadline due to water logging and transportation problems in parts of the country?
Yeah, and the court was not at all inclined to grant it, just like they didn't grant an extension when Bolsonaro asked for one in 2022. "Everyone had the opportunity to vote", the judge said back then.
Then Lula asks for one, because his own people placed Lula stickers on busses which is an electoral crime and caused them to be grounded. Suddenly his former lawyer turned supreme court judge is moved to the point of tears at his plight and grants it immediately. The irony is not lost on me.
Bolsonaro was prohibited from running lives inside the Palácio do Alvorada in 2022. Lula does so with impunity, court rejects regulation when denounced.
Bolsonaro banned from using UN speech during his campaign. Attempts to denounce Lula for the same behavior went nowhere. Judge is known to vote for Lula.
Bolsonaro prevented from explaining his Auxílio Brasil benefits to the public until after the election. Lula can spam people with the same content all he wants with total impunity.
"son of a failed coup organizer" is an absolute false statement which only serves those in power to criminalize dissent and have been seen in many authoritarian regimes during their implementation.
> "son of a failed coup organizer" is an absolute false statement
But, his dad:
> Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is serving a 27-year prison sentence after being convicted by Brazil's Supreme Court for plotting a coup following his 2022 election defeat
I don’t see how to read it any other way. Explain?
The Supreme Court in Brazil can be as rotten of political as it wants, to make a plan to assassinate political rivals is just completely unacceptable.
And before someone tries to defend the bolsonaros by saying they were not involved in this, don't use a defense that they themselves did not use. The defense that Flávio Bolsonaro said about the incident was "thinking of killing someone is not a crime".
The Brazilian Supreme Court is completely out of control and its judgements mean nothing. It's not like the American Supreme Court that only arbitrates constitutional matters. Look at the recent history of it and you'll find judges on it using the police as their personal enforcers, randomly imprisoning people who criticize them, high levels of outright corruption and Lula's personal lawyer being appointed to it. Think about it: would the US Supreme Court personally convict someone of a crime? No, they only hear appeals, there is no such thing as someone directly imprisoned by a single supreme court judge in America. The Brazilian court also interferes directly in elections - in this case one of them ordered that voting be extended for hours after it had already been closed and the ballot boxes sealed for no good reason.
Basically, in Brazil the Supreme Court appears to be directly in charge of the police, and they can and do issue whatever "rulings" they want to impose their will on whatever or whoever they feel like, with no appeals possible. Including elected politicians.
I expect this HN thread to be a disaster zone of badly informed takes, but the Brazilians I know consider Brazil to be a dictatorship and this election to have been stolen. It's a sad day.
Thank you so much for this post. I've been saying the same thing as you, and people in this thread are already telling me to check myself into a mental institution.
Bolsonaro was the last chance we had to fix this. The plan was to impeach those judges and then restrict the court to purely constitutional matters, like the US supreme court. That little project is pretty much done now. We'll be lucky if we can impeach Alexandre de Moraes. It's over.
In Brazil, judges are gods. An actual lawyer told me this, once.
> "son of a failed coup organizer" is an absolute false statement
How so?
I don't really follow Brazilian politics, but Jair Bolsonaro was found guilty by the Brazilian Supreme Court of:
participation in an armed criminal organization, attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, attempted coup d'état, qualified damage, and deterioration of protected heritage property.[1]
Flávio Bolsonaro is Jair Bolsonaro's son. "attempted coup d'état" is a failed coup.
There don't seem to be any serious questions that the process was fair and that the Supreme Court was impartial (I mean there are always Trumpian accusations of bias, but I mean ones with any evidence at all).
The only part I could see possible disagreement with is organizer I suppose? But I must be missing something.
> There don't seem to be any serious questions that the process was fair and that the Supreme Court was impartial
This is the supreme court that in 2019 launched a perpetual "fake news" inquisition where they are themselves the victims, investigators, prosecutors, judges and executioners of wildcard crimes against themselves with a jurisdiction covering the entire territory of Brazil.
Saying that Bolsonaro was convicted by this court carries less weight to me than saying he was banned by dang.
The whole point of electing a right wing senate and Bolsonaro's son was to impeach and hold accountable the judges of this court. Obviously, that's never going to happen now. Lula will put four additional judges in there, and will rule uncontested until the day that he dies. It's the Venezuela model.
That's right, it's the Venezuela model. It's also the Hungary model, the US model, the South Korea model, the Peru model, the Mongolia model, to name a few. All in recent years have had constitutional crises as a result of conflicts between a popularly elected president and a popularly elected legislative.
Can you show me an example of a US president raising taxes, getting blocked by congress or something, and then asking the supreme court to force the taxes to be raised?
Not raising taxes specifically no, but yes, US presidents have asked the supreme court for permission to do things the legislative told them not to, and gotten it. One Trump famously got, was the right to fire almost all federal employees at will, including members of boards established to be bipartisan for political reasons.
But really, the US has had the same problem you see in Brazil for so long, the president usually doesn't even have to ask the court, because the legislative was already sidelined decades ago. That is the case for the rather important issue of going to war, which of course Trump has also done against legislative approval.
Well, I agreed with anyone who pointed this out to me. Clearly the problem is not isolated to Brazil as I previously imagined.
This isn't right. Judiciary should be impartial. It shouldn't matter who it is, what party it is, the treatment should be equal. Anything less than that is profoundly destabilizing. I couldn't imagine even countries like the US would face the same issue.
* Lula did something unusual, which is win in the second round after trailing in the first. This is a first in Brazilian politics, so simple pattern matchers are surprised.
I'm not surprised. If you have one terrible candidate, in the first round you can vote for whomever you like. In the second round, however, you need to ensure they lose, so you vote for the opposite party, whomever they might be.
France here might disagree. If you have an overly scattered left wing by voting whomever in the first round... you end up with a macron flavored moron as the sole non far-right option in the second round and have to deal with this shit for the next five years.
The only way for the far right to win the second round is to end up against Mélanchon, so what you write is totally in line with what Le Pen would want you to propagate.
There were lots of candidates in the first round, neither of today's candidates got 50%+1 so they had a runoff, all the voters from those other candidates were forced to pick one of the two
Mass protests and voter activation might have tipped the scale towards Lula. There was a rude awakening among mainly the younger populace when Bolsonaro jr managed to get the most votes in the first round.
~3 million more people voted compared to the first round. 30 million still didn’t vote. You just pay a fine to put your registration in order for the next time, there are no long term consequences.
Voting is mandatory but people aren't dragged to the polls. If they don't vote they get a small fine, the repercussions are tiny. So participation is still an issue, there were about 30 million people who didn't vote in the runoff, against 33 million in the first round.
> I was seeing the reports from the first pass which said it was almost guaranteed that Lula would not win because of what the results of the first were. I wonder what caused that prediction to fail.
Those weren't, as far as I can see, real predictions; they were people saying "the runner up in the runoff has never won, therefore the runner up in the runoff _cannot_ win". Which is fairly ridiculous; it's a _tiny_ sample size.
Well the first round was extremely close and so was the second one where he only won by 3.5 points. The 1st round loser winning the 2nd round is unprecedented but shifts of that magnitude are not. The margin only shifted by 5 points.
Also I think Lula's campaign successfully highlighted Meta's election interference to the voting base which energized a lot of supporters to turn out
Interesting how pro-democracy wave after wave strike the shore as Russia's resources dwindle. Perhaps Russia is/was the only thing still keeping those monsters up?
Indeed Russia has had over 20 years of covert operations and generally different philosophy of how to influence a country to your will than the Americans.
This is into "not even wrong" territory. Brazil has a fairly close relationship with Russia, they're a fellow founding BRICS member - and Lula was president when it was formed. What would Putin get from having US (Trump) ally Bolsonaro Jr. over him?
And while it's great that the murder-happy fascist didn't win, it's not exactly a great win for democracy. It's just stopping the bleeding. Besides the obvious problem of being allied with Russia and China, Brazil has a worrying "anti fake news" law. Like elsewhere, it seems the slightly-better guys aren't eager to roll back power grabs that now benefit themselves.
Really? I couldn't tell. In the last debate alone, the main TV network conceded to Flavio's request to not use live fact checking systems on TV. Turns out 75% of his statements were not true. He's facing no consequences for that, nor is the network for hosting and broadcasting his fake facts.
Such laws always work better for one side than the other, it's always selective about which facts get checked and which false news get suppressed. I don't know about how trusted that media network is in Brazil, but from all we've seen from other countries, authoritative fact checking from old information monopolies just fan the flames. It wouldn't surprise me if conceding to the request was the best they could do in the situation.
Fact checking systems often lack context and self-correction mechanisms, suffer from selection bias and numerous other problems that doesn't elevate them above other forms of media. Especially media that doesn't claim to be an authoritative source.
You probably could have constructed a fact checker that would have said that 75% is true, the completely other way around. For most truths or facts that is entirely possible without any contradiction if you change perspective. This basic media literacy isn't optional and it cannot be outsourced.
That's true, and indeed the fact checking they posted online sometimes lacked nuance. But they actually tried to tackle that exact problem by labeling several statements as "not quite right", and all facts had a description, it was not black and white. I also understand that in live TV that nuance would be lost. But some statements were 100% straight out lies. Those could be even flagged by the debate moderator.
Well, at least I could read that about Bolsonaro, that's for sure. Being hardline Trump supporters, Bolsonaros are not very fond of things like being in BRICS or making business with China.
I guess Putin doesn't really care whether you are red or blue, but who do you align with, or who do you oppose.
Russia occupies a weird area where they have a natural affinity with third worldists and anti-imperialists. Historically a lot of Russian propaganda has targeted the western left (see Russia Today which often looks straight up progressive) but they're clearly also targeting the far right
I think this framing is pretty much disinformation itself. Sure, Russia tries to influence elections like every other country does as well, democracies or not.
Currently we see such claims resurfacing on topics like Brexit or other contemporary issues. If you look at the hard data of visibility on the attempts of Russia, they are in a similar spot as their economy. Doing decently poorly.
If any domestic news article or politician points their fingers at Russia, it is probably to distract from something else. Sure, if you are situated in Ukraine, the story is different. The latter does have to swallow the results of the moronic foreign policy of quite a few western nations for that matter and it would be served well if a bit of sensible reflection would be put on the table.
I feel the whole Putin/Trump/Bolsonaro/Netanyahu fascist like schtick is wearing a bit thin with voters. Making <country> great again is running into military quagmires.
That's a mind-boggling viewpoint when the US/Trump heavily interfered to prop up Bolsonaro. US has also been propping up dictators throughout SA, especially since trump's reelection
The fact that I am learning today that Bolsonaro has been in prison for some time makes me think my strategy of staying away from news and politics to avoid cortisol peaks is working well.
I have a learning a bit more related to tech from this election. Centrally organized, cohesive, persistent online engagement wins elections.
It won for Bolsonaro whose campaign nailed it in 2018. It didn’t win in 2022 because he was completely bad in dealing with pandemics (mocking people dying and saying he had nothing to do with it being president).
Now, Lula’s campaign was absolutely dead during the whole time. Until it lost in the legislative by a mile and in the President run had a partial loss in the first round. Then the campaign lit up after the partial upset.
Janones, an energetic young guy elected to legislative with good online presence led the campaign. He achieved creating a WhatsApp group with 11 million people called “Lula’s army”. He would give the directions and the people would obey almost blindly.
The interwebs (basically WhatsApp + Instagram) got flooded with this top to bottom Lula’s campaign.
The first round results made Bolsonaro very favorite. Lula victory was a huge upset. I put the merit in this incessant social media campaign.
The thing is: “centrally planned cohesive campaign” looks a lot like a cult. The point of the campaign is not critical thought or argumentation, it is incessant messaging. Think fandoms.
Bolsonaro voters pejorative nickname from past campaigns was they were all “cattle”. Because that is how they behaved online. Ironically, what worked for Lula voters this year was they behaving like “cattle”. Just reposting and following this central orders on what to post, what to say, what to dress.
The thing is, it works. Cult-like fandoms work in elections. The right won a few elections like this in the world. In Brazil, the left just learned how to do it was well.
The more mindless posters a politician has following their campaign HQ orders, the more votes they have.
> It didn’t win in 2022 because he was completely bad in dealing with pandemics
And also because the entire state apparatus was engaged in unconstitutional censorship of his "centrally organized, cohesive, persistent online engagement" machine, which is what wins elections, as you noted.
And now that Janones set up his own "Lula's Army", Brazilian institutions did not manifest even a fraction of the energy they had shown while persecuting Bolsonaro.
Lula was allowed to do everything Bolsonaro was persecuted for in 2022. He even lowered taxes on fuels, and got away with it. The tax cut ends tomorrow.
Nonsense, Bolsonaro was persecuted because 100,000's of Brazilians died unnecessarily during the pandemic, and he and his family decided to push hidrocloroquina and experiment with "forced herd immunity" in regions like Manaus that were sacrificed instead of just telling people to mask, isolate, and take the vaccine. The department of hate from 2018-2022 was absolutely a fake news factory on the model of Steve Bannon and friends, nothing like the Janones digital movement which was completely transparent: you just had to join (and can still join) the whatsapp group.
His poor handling of the pandemic does not somehow justify the relentless censorship effort in 2022.
I remind you that censorship is unconstitutional in Brazil, and political censorship doubly so. The supreme court walked all over the constitution when they censored him.
"Fake news" is still speech and cannot and must not be censored. I question the supreme court's ability to determine whether any political statement is true or false in an impartial manner: they declared fake things which I know are true. They said it was "fake news" that Lula was a friend of communist dictators. After he won, I was forced to watch him literally roll out the red carpet and welcome Maduro to my country with full military honors. It was a nationwide gaslighting campaign.
Your side also pushed plenty of "fake news", only with total impunity. Claimed he was going to end the healthcare system. Claimed he was going to end government benefits. Claimed he was going to abolish female suffrage. Bolsonaro has repeatedly said he was never going to do any of that, yet the pushing persisted, and not a single judge lifted a finger to censor you people.
Must be nice, having literal judge-god-kings on your side.
You only need to look at what FB has said and done over his entire career in public and private, his copycatting of Trump (ahem, the first debate), and the conduct of him and his father's government (stealing funds allocated for social programs for a shadow budget) to know that his government, with executive, legislative, and judicial majorities, would wreak havoc on every Brazilian instution possible, ala Trump's second government.
As is currently observable in the United States, given consolidation of power in the three branches of government, it is no longer necessary to follow the law or the constitution. Minimal research into who from the US government the Bolsonaros associate with tells you what their agenda would have been in the "Bolsonaro 2" government: complete, transparent self-interest and complete disregard for actually administering the country for the benefit of the people.
Taking him at his word in the last three months of the campaign after 20 years of a vapid/nothing political career full of police investigations and associations with organized crime makes no sense.
Janones was not leading a cult, this is just absurd. He was not telling people what to believe or how to behave AT ALL - he was just giving directions on what to do on social media to win the elections. Bolsonarism on the other hand is 100% a cult, from the beginning.
In India, we have a name for for blind supporters of the current Hindu right ruling party.. The BJP... They're called andh bhakts... Translated 'the faithful blind'... Even incontrovertible proof of wrong doing does not change their mindset
Your cause and effect are inverted. It's precisely because of Lula's corruption that nobody cares anymore.
He was arrested for the biggest corruption scandal this country ever had. People ratted him out. He was the guy at the top.
Then the supreme court cited some technicality like "his initial judgement took place in the wrong court" and just undid the entire thing. They did it because nobody else could take out Bolsonaro.
Then he ran against Bolsonaro and took him out in 2022. And he just did it again.
It's Brazil. Crime pays. Lula's existence is proof. This country will never truly change.
So... people react by voting on one of the leaders of the fucking Rio mob? (the "nice family you have, it would be a shame if something happened to them" kind of mob?)
Besides, Jair Bolsonaro won when Lula was still in jail.
The "mob" accusations are just that: accusations. Lula was actually held guilty by multiple independent judges based on evidence and testimony.
And you're right, Lula's imprisonment changed everything. It was a moment of hope for many of us, and the reason why Bolsonaro even had a chance to begin with. Surely you can understand why the supreme court breaking the guy out of jail and putting him in the presidential race again while censoring everything Bolsonaro said and did would cause people to stop believing in justice?
The first instance judge colluded with the prosecution, and when the supreme court was about to rule on a habeas corpus, a general tweeted a thinly veiled threat of military coup if the sentence wasn't confirmed. And the evidence was scant to begin with. Hardly surprising that the conviction was eventually overturned.
Bolsonaro's condemnation, on the other hand, was backed by much more comprehensive evidence, and resulted from a heavily scrutinized process.
If the process was so faulty, why was Lula's condemnation annulled based on the flimsiest of excuses?
Everything got thrown out because of a "tried in the wrong court" technicality. I'd still be disappointed but I'd have been far more sympathetic if what you posted had been cited as the reason for the maneuver.
By "the flimsiest of excuses" do you mean the extensive evidence that one of the most fundamental principles of the justice system, the impartiality of the judge, was completely violated? Because I'd call that a mischaracterization, and that's cos' I'm feeling generous.
Like, I'm not happy that the whole process was thrown out either, because a lot of actually corrupt people got away with it. But another fundamental principle of the justice system is that it NEEDS to err on the side of innocence. So, while it is an unfortunate outcome, I still think that 1) it's better than the alternative, and 2) the blame lays 100% with the partial (and, arguably, corrupt) judge and prosecutor. It was their unscrupulous drive to get 1 guy convicted (with, again, arguably second intentions, since both judge and prosecutor got elect and made a bunch of money with talks and shit) that turned the whole case into trash.
UPDATE: I jumped the gun a bit in the answer, and ended up no addressing the main point: Lula's conviction was not overturned just because it was tried in a 1st instance court, the evidence of partiality of the judge was very much also a factor.
Matheus in this forum you're literally the only person who believes this and who feels that this is worse than Bolsonaro having literally planned a coup.
Lula's corruption "scandal" was the Lava Jato which was cooked up by Bolsonaro. He served 580 days in jail for it. Even the United Nations stepped in and said the case violated his due process and political rights
What other cases are you referring to? Be specific
Bolsonaro made a deal with the judge Sérgio Moro which is what got Lula unable to run against Bolsonaro. He then appointed Moro as his Minister of Justice and Public Security as a political reward.
Investigative journalists from The Intercept proved this collaboration when they got ahold of leaked Telegram messages. That investigation is what led the Supreme Court to throw out the conviction and the United Nations to step in and call it out as bogus.
I see. That's absolutely problematic and I don't condone it.
Are we really just going to ignore all the other evidence though? All the testimonies? The corruption can't possibly have been fake. It's scandal after scandal, Vorcaro is just the latest episode.
Note that I'm not denying that the Bolsonaros are corrupt. I think every single politician in this country is corrupt.
> Even incontrovertible proof of wrong doing does not change their mindset
You could argue that about pretty much every politician and their supporters in India. The right wing keeps winning because the left refuses to address the fears of a majority of the Indian population. Even if those fears are unwarranted - dismissing them as "uneducated" and "blind sheep" alienates people even more.
Most of that gear is manufactured.. With mass media fully captured.. So yes, unwarranted.. And the people are coming out of the spell.. Esp as they see their children suffer due to the systemic damage... These are the silent majority that's slow to react but eventually does.. That's what put the fear in the govt now and precipitated the massive crackdown on dissent.
When one doesn’t have a response based on logic and common sense, one resorts to name calling.
Fact is, whether you like it or not, the party in power has been in power only for a few years, and has achieved more than the other party did in 60 years.
Do you really believe that the INC would have handled Covid better? They were trying to kill off indigenous vaccines to favour Pfizer etc who (a) refused trials in Indian conditions and (b) wanted $62 per shot.
Do you really believe that they would have managed to keep fuel prices in check given Trump's war on Iran?
Do you really believe that Rahul Gandhi is qualified to run a home owner's association, leave alone a nation of 1.4 billion people?
Take a look in the mirror then next time you use that phrase.
An area of Amazon forest roughly the size of the US state of New Jersey has remained standing due to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s leadership of Brazil, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
Once again, a clear anti-Bolsonaro vote from the majority of the electorate. Lula won because he got last-minute support from the moderates and even some right-wingers. It certainly does not feel like a victory of the left.
Now he will face a much bigger opposition in Congress and therefore will have to find a middle ground.
I expect his policies to move even further to the right. This might pave the way for his vice-president Alckmin, a historical right-winger, to run in the 2030 elections — likely against São Paulo’s governor Tarcísio de Freitas, also a right-winger and considered more moderate than the Bolsonaros despite being associated with them.
I wouldn’t say deadlocked but the coalition between moderates and the left isn’t a given. There are many centrist parties who will likely alternate between supporting and opposing the government depending on the issue.
Yeah, they will just make deals. Seriously doubt there will be a deadlock. Hope they at least manage to impeach the supreme court justices, which is what we elected them for.
I would call this a defensive victory. The left’s best chance was a 0-0 draw, so they put everyone in defense and managed to prevent the right from scoring a victory goal.
moving to the right would be a trap. (cf. Dem party vs Trump) The left must instead build an anti-right wing narrative. People vote on material benefits so delivering more of those should be top priority—I think Trumps slump in the US proves that.
Nobody wants to see them cut taxes from the rich or reduce employers rights. The popular "right" in Brazil wants taxes to be easier to pay, judges not to decide based on who is asking, and clear rules on what you can or can't do.
Also, nobody can beat Dilma on cutting taxes from the rich.
But there's also a religious fundamentalist faction, no? Which I recently learned was fomented by the CIA years ago under Reagan (when the Catholic church was moving left and the "US" was afraid of Brazil moving to the left as well)
Those, the "we must kill all the criminals!!", the actual nazis and all the other people that identify with the Bolsonaro family add up to about 15% of the country.
i don't know why you were downvoted. any turn to the moderation/center seems good news to me. those crazy swings between extremes left or right are just bad. i have never voted for both bolsonaro neither lula and crave for something closer to the center.
lula is a little less crazy (compared to bolsonaro), likely not anti-science, preserves the amazon, seems to care about keeping the same constituition and so on, but he heaves his hand when it comes to (mostly populist) spending, like there's no tomorrow.
he thinks he is helping the poor, but it is just for short term. so much public debt, in a few years everyone, rich or poor, will have pay the price, with interest. people that likes him usually say they don't like milei, but his incredible debt build up is actually a future-milei magnet.
also, after so much terms and "custo brazil" ("Brazilian (Business) Cost Burden"?) still prohibitive, the country never goes up from its terrible positions in making business rankings. one can just not hope he does anything better now after so much terms. his spending is too demand biased.
> he heaves his hand when it comes to (mostly populist) spending, like there's no tomorrow
This is key to his reelection. He literally ran on a "Bolsonaro will end Bolsa Família" campaign.
It's unfortunate. Lula inherited a post-Washington consensus neoliberal Brazil. He had nearly 20 years to undo all that and reindustrialize the country, thereby putting us on China's path.
I would have voted for him regardless of ideology if he had done it, but he didn't. It's just easier to just anesthetize the population and put them on paliative care with free money.
> he thinks he is helping the poor, but it is just for short term.
This "short term" is unbearably long... But I do see signs that the system is reaching its limits. Government was already having trouble paying pensions before Vorcaro.
> so much public debt, in a few years everyone, rich or poor, will have pay the price, with interest.
Big issue is that there are no swings between crazy left and crazy right.
There is crazy right and significantly more normal left. And if you want the center to win, you need to ackwnowledge that. Anything else helps the more crazy side.
AFAIK the final numbers are not out yet, the electoral commission called it because Lula's margin is sufficiently large that Bolsonaro mathematically cannot win.
"We are interested in discussing the defence area, the space area, the scientific and technological area, the education area, and especially, the energy issue area," Lula said.
Tbh don’t really care which side is right (some of Lula's politics I like and other not). I’m just pointing out the mental gymnastics HN goes through to paint one group as “fascist,” while completely ignoring the grey areas that don’t fit their cleancut worldview.
The real lesson that the USA should be taking from these elections, is that any non-3rd world country with more than 1 party (not looking at you China) can count next to 100% of the votes in a matter of hours.
Polymarket was like 80% Bolsonaro Jr to 20% Lula 7pm, 7:15 it changed to 60% Lula. There were multiple reports in the news websites about it favoring Bolsonaro which itself probably made some people vote for him.
I'm quite happy with the result tho. Let's see how the far right opposition will take this loss. I'm already expecting the worse.
They are good at some markets but they don’t understand latam and especially Brazilian politics in the least so whatever makes it into the US news drives the market although it is normally wrong
If he has an 80% chance to win that means Polymarket will be "wrong" 20% of the time. And 80% seems fair given he was leading in the polls by a razor thin but consistent margin.
Polymarket isn't binary so you are understating how wrong they were. Polymaket gives outcomes as percentage odds and less than 12 hours ago they had Bolsonaro by 5-to-1.
20% happens about 1 in 5 times. I know that's snarky wording but 20% shots come though constantly in daily life.
I think as humans we are really bad at intuition about probabilities, and it being an election only makes it much worse. I don't think anyone is consciously conflating these with poll numbers but percentages of voters are the numbers we see a lot more than prediction markets, and 80% is idunno an 80% chance of getting between 50% and 54% of the vote or something.
It's not a 'prediction market', it's a gambling market. It's far more accurate to say 80% of gamblers were convinced Bolsanaro would win than to say there's an 80% likelihood he would win. It's not measuring likelihood as it's untethered from things that impact the actual results. Obscuring it basic gambling with the word 'prediction' doesn't change the fact that's naked gambling at the end of the day.
The 80% is not the proportion of people who think he would win, that's not how these things work.
Every single factor was pointing towards Bolsonaro, Polymarket was just consistent with that.
He unexpectedly won the first round of the election. His lead was expected to grow since he'd likely get most of the votes of the other candidates. 17 out of 18 polls favored Bolsonaro. Market movements indicated a strong expectation of him winning. The Brazilian Real futures are already down 10% in the last couple hours.
But that's how democracy works, I think this election will be studied many times in the future.
It's extremely inaccurate to say 80% of the gamblers were convinced because that's not how it works at all. Each bet has someone on the other side of it - 50% of the people bet on Bolsanaro and 50% against.
If you bet on 20% chances and they happen 30% of the time you make money. The payoffs are such that you win by being a better predictor than the market. I'm fine criticizing it as a gambling blight (not to mention a corruption payoff) but it is also a prediction market.
A 20% chance of Lula winning is still a real chance of winning. A standard rule of thumb would require 2 standard deviations aka 5% aka p<0.05 for relative certainty.
If the new right wing senate manages to at least impeach some supreme court judges, I'll still call it a major win.
Surprising to see Bolsonaro lose at this point, but the real upset of this election was caused by the senate. The whole point of electing the right wing was to impeach the judges. So long as that happens, I will be satisfied.
The next four years were going to seriously suck for Flávio. Now the economic bomb is going to explode in Lula's hands. I was tempted to vote for Lula myself just to make that happen. It's the supreme court issue that stopped me.
Lula's barely fit for his position as president too. He might resign and let the vice-president deal with it. Also an acceptable outcome.
It's the only place where I feel safe enough to discuss Brazilian politics.
Impeachment of the supreme court is precisely what will save this country. They have been ruling monocratically since they launched the "fake news" inquisition in 2019. People can stomach a Lula win, even I have points where I intersect with the guy. The thing is not a single Brazilian voted for those judges.
Unfortunately, Flávio's loss will only embolden them now. Remains to be seen whether the senators will do what we elected them to do.
> It's the only place where I feel safe enough to discuss Brazilian politics
And so, you feel comfortable foisting your political views on a tech forum, even when you are repeatedly told that your views are unhinged and that you need serious help?
I am not from Brazil, nor am I closely following its politics, but I would like to pose a genuine question: in a modern liberal democracy, doesn’t a four-term presidency represent too much power concentrated in one person?
In a liberal democracy with many opposing viewpoints, having to elect a single "head of government" that will be necessarily beholden to only one part of the electorate is detrimental, especially in combination with something like FPTP.
A directorate where executive power is distributed over multiple people and executive policy is decided on in a concordat it a much better solution.
Yes it sounds worrisome, the general populace is getting fed up with him running the country for 20 years and want a fresh change of leaders.
But it doesn't help that the alternative far-right candidate is an extremist nutjob whose appointment for the presidential race was done for noone other than nepotism (bearing his jailed father name). That alienated alot of his voting base who wanted a more competent candidate.
Not really. He has never had any real legislative power to back him. The biggest scandal surrounding his party was paying off congressmen and heads of parties in order for them to vote for welfare policies. These policies never would've been voted in if that was not the case. A lot of parties gatekeep votes for important legislation until they get handouts.
Ironically (or not at all) the man who individually received the most money from that scheme is the head of Flavio Bolsonaro's party, and the party who received the most payoff as a whole was Jair Bolsonaro's party at the time.
Politics in Brazil require a great deal of consensus, obscure dealmaking and corruption.
The one good thing about the current system is that shitheads like musk can spend half-a-billion to buy elections, but the people still have the final say.
Gerrymandering doesn’t change the fact that the voters decide the results. Most electoral systems already give unequal weight to different votes based on district sizes etc., so gerrymandering is only a change of degree and intention, not of how democracy fundamentally works.
> Gerrymandering doesn’t change the fact that the voters decide the results.
Well it does change which voters decide the results. A lot of electoral systems seek to constantly redress imbalance by having impartial bodies redraw district lines as populations shift. It is a shame the US does not. Gerrymandering is fundamentally undemocratic.
I don't know the specifics of Brazil's system, but at least in the US gerrymandering has nothing to do with the Presidency or Senate, only the House. It's also not without risk. Gerrymandering is bad, but it doesn't change the totals of votes; it attempts to reapportion "excess" votes yielding a large win margin in one area to give winning, but necessarily smaller, margins in more areas. Amongst other challenges though that smaller margin means if there is a wave then a gerrymander can turn into a "dummymander" where previously safe districts get flipped.
>funny business
This is actually pretty dang hard in anything but a total sham, and even then is at least obvious it happened. Some timy fiddling at the margins may be possible to sneak through, and yeah some elections that might make the difference. But that can't counter any serious victory. The more common technique seems to be trying to suppress the vote. But as well as also not being trivial it also too risks backfiring by motivating people much harder. There is a lot of human psychology around "loss", people often absolutely hate things being taken from them even if they were complacent about having them.
Brazilian here. President wins by popular vote. Period.
Must win by 50% plus 1 of all valid votes on Round 1. If not, 1st and 2nd most voted go for Round 2 a few weeks later. Then, 50%+1 again of all valid votes.
Gerrymandering is the most benign of the tricks, and both sides play that trick. What's more concerning is we don't really have a true paper record of the votes. So many of these swing states have machines that produce digital only voting records. So how do we even know that the vote is accurate? Even if there was a paper record, most states don't even bother re-checking unless it's very close. After 2016, a lot of activism across the country has forced states to switch to a paper + digital record, which allows quick tallies, but then also paper backup and opens the door to two way verification. Unfortunately, this is not enough. There needs to be validation done after the election to confirm. But again, the worst part is that the states that really matter have been the ones least incentivized to actually switch over. So who knows? While its conspiracy thinking that Trump didn't actually win in 2024, do we really know for sure?
Everything else you mentioned also matters. I can't tell you the amount of times that the state of Georgia, suddenly out of the blue, invalidated a lot of registered voters. And if people don't check, like my friend in a minority town outside of Atlanta, they won't realize until election day. Red states are more likely to play this trick. Your conclusion is something I disagree with, though. Voters have lost so much over the last decade, and they don't fight back until it really starts to affect them personally. I think the surge that we might see this election is only due to economics. If the economics were good, it's not out of the question that Trump would be doing fairly decent this election cycle. This is why Iran is playing things very well to try to enact maximum economic pain in the days before the election. But it's all about economics, and that shows you that people truly don't really care.
Gerrymandering can give you control of state level offices that then let you affect federal elections by say closing voting locations where you think mostly the opposition will vote or kicking people with ethnic names of voting lists at the last minute.
So there's not a direct effect on Presidential elections but there's a second order effect.
If you have a lot of money and you've managed to stay out of prison, people are generally ready to believe good things about you and want to be in your good graces. If you pay people to continually say good things about you and manage your media appearances for you, there will generally be a lot of impact to that. You're just telling people what they're primed to believe. A lot of people will fluff up your image for free just because they're hoping for patronage.
Musk has a BA in physics that was awarded a couple years after he says he says he completed his studies. Unlike CPSC, leaving a physics program early robs you of some pretty crucial stuff. You generally don't see a lot of rockstar physicists leaving university early to join startups. Despite Musk posing as a rocket scientist, engineering guru, etc., there's no evidence he's one of the scientific or engineering minds behind Tesla or SpaceX's work. He's just a money guy.
The general rule for money guys is that the closer you are to the money, the more of it you can get. This is why CEO's are paid outrageous sums. Musk is the closest guy to the money at his companies, and his one true gift seems to be "getting close" to politicians in order to get the public's money, which Tesla and SpaceX have received gob-smacking amounts of.
If you want a laugh, go look up the episode of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History addendum where he brought Musk on. Carlin typically interviews authors of history books, so why Musk? Why indeed! During this episode, it comes out that Musk used to have models of WWII planes but clearly knows absolutely nothing about history. Despite this, he makes every effort to sound like he does. This is the sort of exposure $$$ gets you but, sometimes, you miss the mark.
It's not limited to textbooks or academic publications, or based on any context whatsoever, but an ngram search actually suggests there's a much larger musk stain on recent published literature than I'd ever thought possible:
I wasn't trying to imply that, simply noting that there was a surprising amount of literary chatter about Musk, at high levels compared to commonly cited physicists. It's not the most useful comparison.
It could easily be people writing fanfic about him (ugh) or criticising the pants off him, and may not be related at all. But I'd guess a lot of this was field-adjacent to at least his business interests.
I guess some people still like to troll? Or are so dumb they’ve obviously never even cracked a physic text? I’m hoping it’s just old fashioned trolling.
No, this much money in politics is still very dangerous.
A major reason it isn't working for now is because Donald Trump is, in addition to being a corrupt autocrat, incredibly incompetent. We shouldn't have to rely on that next time.
EV sales are not a great metric to judge musk sentiments, consider the Tesla drivers who put various bumper stickers on
Tesla is the only EV company in the US making a good product. People also like the techieness. Foreign manufactures like Hyundai (what I drive, preferred less tech and real buttons) have tariffs and such applied to them. BYD would wreck them all if allowed.
>Tesla is the only EV company in the US making a good product. People also like the techieness.
Well yes. Those were things in EU too. But those didn't override the fact that he tried to control their elections. The US has some people who swore off Tesla in similar protest, but the overall sentiment didn't seem to impact their bottom line.
I personally want to hold out and see if/when the US gives up on tariffing progress. But I have driven a 2008 car for almost 10 years and can't overlook the scenario of needing to replace it one day.
And I'm interested in an FEV for my next car. Tesla is completely out of the question, but I really haven't been impressed with most other offerings when I could peer over the border and see what BYD, Xiaomi, and others are doing. Maybe I compromise short term then trade in when the time comes?
Interestingly the current "lets stop corporations from spending money on elections" that's popular in several states - wouldn't directly touch Musk because he can just spend the money directly.
I don't think "Oooh. Scary muslims!" works any less well if it's required to say "Elon Musk" rather than "American Apple Pie Goodness PAC" or whatever.
It might make a difference for smaller donors, especially if they're more sensitive about their personal PR.
Many countries cap donations by private individuals (capped to 1,000 in Ireland, for instance, for both private individuals and companies). Like, this is a fixable problem.
It's fixable if you have significant Supreme Court reform. I doubt the numbers are there to actually land that reform. Say you get 52 Democrats in the Senate, which is a tall order, and you write some reforms that could actually work, forced retirements, that sort of thing, immediately you'll find that two or three of them suddenly think such reforms need to be "bipartisan" and alas the Republicans who've fixed things don't seem interested in coming along. How about that.
Or, I suppose, you could fix it by abolishing America's Written Constitution so that its legislature can just write legislation for this. I think that would go down like cold sick - Americans love their Written Constitution.
Just a friendly gesture that there's still independents/non-partisan's here. We're a dying breed, but it seems to the the inevitable outcome when politics becomes a religion.
Buddy, ICE is chasing down and killing US citizens. Musk is openly supporting European neo-Nazis. The US tech sector is supporting the genocide of Palestinians, and interfering with foreign elections.
See, the problem is that each side has moved so far to the extreme that any middle of the road comment is perceived as supporting the other side. But thanks for the demonstration, I guess.
No, you just blatantly assumed none of those things mattered to me. You do realize you can have morals and opinions but also be non-partisan, right? Of course big tech is political, I completely agree. But you never asked me that question. Which again, really just keeps driving my point home. It's rabid.
The parties have morals and opinions which are quite diametrically opposed. If you have any at all, then you necessarily align with one or the other - being in the exact middle is an extreme rarity (and also quite a stupid position, because it implies you can't decide whether it's better to have free healthcare or to torture immigrants). Most people who claim to be in the exact middle are in fact not.
Being non-partisan or independent has nothing to do with being in the "exact middle." I don't even think that's a real thing, nor did I ever imply it was. A better example is that, given an election ballot, I might split party lines rather than toe it unconditionally. I register as neither party because I generally disagree enough I don't wish to be affiliated with their policies. It doesn't mean I don't agree with some. Perhaps one election cycle I swing more left than right and the next I swing more right than left. It doesn't mean one cycle I identify as a Democrat and the other a Republican.
Since you keep baiting me with your straw man, I'll address the example: I neither want to torture immigrants nor do I want to give free healthcare to non-taxpayers. So, given your straw man, that would posit I'm in neither party's camp.
It's never a 50/50 split, and thus far it has yet to stay consistent with the tumultuous election cycles we've seen recently. I answered your straw man, which you ignored. Perhaps you can instruct me on what my true party affiliation is based on my answer to it? That might clear things up.
A middle of the road comment would be "we need taxes, but not too high" or "children shouldn't be going hungry, but very sadly we can't afford to feed them from the city budget". What's actually being responded to above is the complete lack of a comment.
This is a naive perspective. Both extremes are losing people to independents for a reason. What we want is less of this and more of civil discourse. Most people are not tuned into the details, are focusing on their family, and vote based on how their wallet feels and the things they hear 2-3 weeks before the election.
Perhaps if the far left and hard right didn't dominate primaries (many reasons for this), we could have less extreme candidates in November. But it is what it is until we start having civil conversations with our friends, family, neighbors, and community. We could be having conversations about how we improve our democracy.
You comment lends to being part of the problem. Please stop demeaning everyone with blanket statements.
As an independent volunteering with Indivisible, my main effort has been to moderate the members on the far left.
I have heard of precisely three people in American politics who are left at all, much less far left. Those are AOC, Bernie Sanders, and Zohran Mamdani. The left is certainly not dominating any primaries.
They are democratic socialists, the far left is a much bigger camp.
The rule of thumb I use is, do they say things like "win at all costs" or talk about how they want to dominate others, forcing their views on all Americans.
So where are the quotes of hard left politicians (and not some fringe politician) saying they want to dominate everything. Also how is that even part of a left/right definition. In fact in my experience the ones who most talk about eliminating others in politics are the self declared moderates, who at every opportunity talk about how we need to eliminate the extremes from politics.
the culture war between the groups has ample examplar
lots of top down rules for everyone, rather than the "trickle up" governance experiments we need to runin order to (1) figure out what works in practice (2) convince others they should try it to
This person seem content with summarizing the entire choice of a political party into a single point of torturing immigrants. It's no wonder we're in the state we are.
> until we start having civil conversations with our friends, family, neighbors, and community. We could be having conversations about how we improve our democracy.
You don't have much idea what some of our family, friends, and neighbors are like do you? I have nothing to say to fascists, Nazis, and anyone who advocates for the things MAGA advocates for. Spare us the "oh we should just talk it out" BS. The time for discourse ended when people started advocating for racist fascism. And if you're unable to spot the racist fascism, then you likely support it.
Blue MAGA (what you sound like) is no better than Trump's MAGA
Please leave your political extremism at home when coming to HN. Musk Social is the place for that, if you need to let off the steam and yell into the void
No idea what blue MAGA is. But I know a fascist apologist when I hear one. And that fascism is the political extremism here, so you might consider leaving it behind.
You know what Blue MAGA is, they are people who are too online, too caught up in their echo chamber, and say hyperbolic things like you have, putting anyone who doesn't agree with them into their evil list, unable to understand nuance or the center / independents
There is a reason both extremes are losing support, it's people who say things like you have here. The rest of us are tired of you and you undermine the causes you care about. Touch some grass, talk to people in real life.
I'll have you know, I'm estranged from my parents and a best friend over these things. You do not need to talk to them all, but we do need to talk with them collectively if we are to move minds. I let my sister work on my parents, she has always had a much closer relationship.
Oh, so blue MAGA is just someone you don't like, I see.
You are either are blind to the things going on in this country, or you approve of them. Elon Musk did a Nazi salute at Trump's inauguration. Twice. Trump invited a known white supremacist to dinner. ICE is disappearing people. Trump had his goons raid a sitting congresswoman, in an obvious attempt to intimidate naturalized citizens and immigrants. He is implementing Project 2025, which is white Christian nationalism. He already attempted a coup, and has every intention of interfering in the midterms. Oh and he's clearly a pedo.
And you think people opposed to those things are "extreme"? What exactly do you say to people who support things that Nazis literally supported? As I said, you either support these things, or you are willfully ignorant of them.
There is no center with fascism. You are for or against. I don't give a goddamn if you are tired of hearing about it. People less fortunate than you are living it.
Sure pal. It's not the fascists and the pedos and the white supremacists and the warmongering oligarchs, it's anyone who points out what they are doing.
I'm starting to think you do support all of that. Why else would you whine about anyone mentioning it? What alternative is there? You clearly have no idea about the people you think should be talked to, they cannot be reached because they like what's going on.
It took a goddamn world war to stop Nazis from doing what they did. Talking won't do anything to people like that.
you're only making yourself more miserable thinking and speaking like this
you are as bigoted as you portray them to be, text book projection, because you've never talked with them, you see what bots promote on social media and attribute it to large swaths of humans, that's textbook fascism bud
Aww, thanks for the concern. Your problem is you are not nearly mad enough about what is going on, and where things are heading (assuming you're not fully on board, which is seeming likely). Enjoy your head full of sand.
dwell on this, keep checking back to see how much winning you did, it's totally healthy for you /s
Have you tried to understand why Trump won the popular vote in 2024?
I was like you, then I swore off Big Social and anything with reposts and quote posts, and the echo chamber media that has replaced newspapers. I found new sources for better information and ideas, and started working with my local political organizations instead. Much happier and healthier these days. Able to make more difference than yelling at people online ever will.
This only gets fixed in meat space, not digital space
Just to clarify I'm not american and I don't support either us main party, but your comment that the hard left and hard right are dominating the primaries sums it up pretty clearly. From an outside perspective only absolute miniscule fraction of politicians in the US are hard left. Most of US politics would be anywhere between moderate conservative to extreme right in the rest of the world.
Here are a few examples of initially neutral or moderate organisations that are using their time machines to harbor enemies of His Majesty Homer Simpson:
The mental gymnastics on display here by so many is quite impressive. Many are now saying term limits are bad. They want the government to control media outlets. They take on face value vague accusations against META doing something wrong.
Lula used a justice he appointed to order polling stations to stay open past the agreed upon deadline without consulting the courts that are supposed to rule on election matters. That's election interference. I'm not convinced the population is going to see him as legitimate after that stunt.
What I wrote happened. It's not "fake news". What remains to be seen is which polling stations remained open and which did not. This election may need to be annulled.
> What remains to be seen is which polling stations remained open and which did not.
You can check it yourself, the output and log files for each ballot box are already available. I can see that mine opened and closed at the expected time.
Bolsonaro also sought extra voting time as well. He wanted it done only in certain states but it was granted nationwide. He was very involved in this process and is now crying foul because it wasn't done in a matter exclusively favorable to him!
It’s a tough position to fight for: “Lula only won because too many people voted for him!”.
I think you are equivocating. Denying people their vote indeed counts as election tampering but that doesn’t mean giving more people the vote is also bad.
Brazilian here. It was unprecedented but not unreasonable, given problems with availability of public transportation in a number of locations. Both sides asked for extensions, although in different places that would favour their own bases. A nationwide extension was the best option, even if it was semi-botched due to the time it was decided. Also, the vote difference between Lula and Bolsonaro was much larger than any additional voting would have delivered.
I literally saw the smugness and confidence get wiped off their faces in real time. They thought they were going to win straight up in the 2nd round of the election, and by the end of it they looked like they were attending a funeral
Touché. Looks like both our sides got hit with the same issue: smug overconfidence before a "guaranteed" win. Your own satisfaction is earned.
This doesn't undo the earlier win though. It's the supreme court I care about, not Lula. If the senate gets the supreme court impeachments out, it's still an unprecedented win in my book. There's a chance we can both win here.
The idea was to have the best of both worlds. Electronic voting plus a paper vote that gets automatically printed and deposited into a sealed box. Fast vote counting, plus the paper votes as the ultimate source of truth.
Deeply unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected. Lula was allowed to do every "electoral crime" they barred Bolsonaro from doing in 2022. They even extended voting time, a move that directly benefiting him, and also ruled illegal back in 2022.
Gotta look on the bright side. Bolsonaro was closer to US interests than I'd like. If the elected right wing senate manages to at least impeach some supreme court justices next year, I'm going to be OK with this.
> Lula was allowed to do every "electoral crime" they barred Bolsonaro from doing in 2022. They even extended voting time, a move that directly benefiting him, and also ruled illegal back in 2022.
Bolsonaro-aligned mayors deliberately blocked busses from running that would take people to the polls in Lula-supporting neighborhoods. Emergency legal decisions allowed voting times to extend as a response to this. By the margin of votes, it wouldn't have mattered.
Personally, I don't consider it a serious crime at all, or even a crime.
However, it is an electoral crime to do things like stamp public transport vehicles with a party insignia to "remind" candidates who provides for them. As such, it's not at all surprising that the busses were grounded.
The point is the busses weren't grounded maliciously in order to deliberately stop people from voting. There is an actual reason why it happened: Lula's supporters slapped Lula stickers onto the buses, which is an electoral crime.
Both sides asked to extend the hours. The court took the action. I don't really know brazillian politics and what happened in the past but thought I'd point that out.
Abstainees were thought to be the biggest source of new votes for Lula in the 2nd round of elections. I think such a move benefited Lula far more than it did Flávio.
It's also inconsistent with the court's own precedent. Extending voting hours was deemed illegal back in 2022. "Everybody had the chance to vote", said Alexandre de Moraes.
After Lula lost in the 1st round, suddenly it became legal again. The irony is not lost on me. That's the pattern with the leftist judges in the courts. The supreme court judge who decided it used to be Lula's own lawyer.
Bolsonaro's father asked for an extension last election. Don't remember why. Denied, illegal. "Everybody had the opportunity to vote".
Bolsonaro's son asked for an extension this election due to heavy rains in the south. As far as I can tell, it was also denied.
Lula asks for an extension this election due to busses being grounded because Lula-aligned syndicates slapped Lula insignias on them which is an electoral crime. Lula's former lawyer turned supreme court judge approves it.
It is obvious that the Brazilian institutions, and these judges in particular, wanted Lula to win. They were going to be impeached otherwise.
I for one flag everything I see him posting because his extreme positions hurts our country. It is crazy HN doesn't rate-limit how much he can post and people posting technical stuff can post like 4 comments then get blocked.
Many cities had their mayor cancelling free public transportation and stopping people from going voting. Extending the time is a reaction, not a first action. Furthermore, the ask didn't come just from Lula's party, it came from both candidates [1].
2022 Brazil had the Federal Police Director actively interfering with transportation as well.
I commented that 15 hours ago, and replied within minutes.
I think it's a matter of consistency, not agreement. From my perspective it looks like the court only grants things if Lula wants it granted.
I believe it would have been granted even if Bolsonaro hadn't requested it, and I seriously doubt it would have been granted if only Bolsonaro had requested it.
I'm not even accusing anyone of fraud. This is merely evidence of the court's bias and favoritism.
Accuse me of being wrong if you must, but please don't insinuate I'm a bot. These are my actual thoughts.
Now you are just speculating on what would have happened in hypothetical scenarios. That's not evidence of anything.
Also, all that's achieved by extending polls for two hours across is enabling more people to vote. If that helps one or other candidate to win, it can only be because there are lots of people who want to vote for them.
This is a very confusing comment. Most on this side don't know the insider informing the Brazilian elections, and we only know the public news
Can you explain?
You are right winger but don't like the Brazilian right wing aligning with the US right wing, but do like the politicians who are aligned with the US right wing?
I'm kinda trying to move past left/right labels. I'll try to explain.
Bolsonaro generally supports privatizing Brazilian state companies and selling them off to foreigners. I don't want that. Especially not to the US and Israel.
Lula on the other hand is better aligned with China, which is also what I want.
Lula and myself are aligned on these two points. So this outcome is not entirely bad for me.
The problem I have with Lula is his party's obnoxious taxation, lack of a real plan for reindustrialization, continuous defense of criminals, and most importantly, his total domination of the supreme court. I voted for the right specifically to see those judges impeached and imprisoned, because I absolutely oppose everything they did in 2022, far more than I ever opposed Lula himself. I'm of the opinion that presidents and elections barely matter anymore, because it's the supreme court that runs the country. It's the Venezuela governance model: president appoints god-like supreme court judges and rules monocratically through them.
The 1st round this month was such an upset not because of Bolsonaro but because of the senate. They are the ones who can impeach supreme court judges, and when Brazil unexpectedly elected a right wing majority in the senate, it struck true fear into the court. This was our chance to completely wipe out that court and forever change the history of this country, like Bukele did for El Salvador.
While in the end the necessary victory didn't materialize, Brazilian senate is still absolute majority right wing now, and they could still impeach those judges. I'm not going to hold out hope for that anymore, but if I see at least one judge bite the dust I'll still call it a major win.
I have been here for over ten years and have posted over eleven thousand HN comments, only a fraction of which are about politics. If you think I'm some kind of Russian bot account, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.
Also, "debunked" is debatable. I don't accept your portrayal of extremely complex issues as settled, and I also don't accept "official" explanations of anything. I always try to reach my own conclusions and form my own opinions.
I came here to discuss my viewpoints in an attempt to find truth for myself. If you don't want to help with that, then kindly don't reply to me again.
It was extremely amusing. Brazilian election law generally sets 5 p.m. Brasília time as the deadline for closing polls. The judge who made the emergency ruling to pause counting and extend voting hours by 2 hours was Cristiano Zanin Martins - Lula's former personal attorney. The same guy who Lula nominated to the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil in June 2023.
Yeah it’s alarming how much HN users are willing to support corruption so long as it’s their preferred candidate doing it. Really is all just tribalism to most posters in this thread so far
You think a supreme court judge, who was once the candidate's lawyer, ignoring his own court's precedents, to try and help said candidate, is in the same conceptual space as your mom being confused?
Back in 2022, Lula's party used to be against Bolsonaro's "digital militias". They engaged everybody they had in the superior and supreme courts in order to censor it all. It was disgusting.
This time around, some guy in Lula's party created "Lula's Army", a channel with millions of people in it. Suddenly, it was fine.
They used to cry about "fake news" and call for censorship at every opportunity, and they'd get it because they own the courts. Now they were the ones spreading "fake news" of all sorts. Did they get censored? Nah.
Censorship in Brazil is unconstitutional, by the way. Political censorship is doubly so. It doesn't matter, because they own the supreme court.
There are no laws in Brazil, there is only what the supreme court wants. Whatever they write on a piece of paper becomes law, and police obeys it. They are the true seat of power in this country.
It sounds like they have tried a tactic, discovered that it does not work, and switched to a different tactic which works. Isn't that exactly what they should do?
Absolutely. Do you have nothing to say about the obvious censorship, though? Consistency demands that they too be censored, since Bolsonaro was censored back in 2022. Censoring the right and letting the left run free is precisely what led to January 8th.
I don't condone any form of censorship, for any reason. Brazilian constitution is also clear and unambiguous: censorship is unconstitutional, and political censorship doubly so.
The selective application of unconstitutional "fake news" rules, which were made up on the spot by the supreme court judges aligned with the left: is it good or bad?
Lula and his party spread a truly absurd amount of "fake news" between the 1st round and 2nd round of presidential elections. Why are they allowed to do it while the right was censored?
You're right about Brazil's censorship problem. There's actually another article about how Lula is still trying to use courts to rein Flavio Bolsonaro's social media presence, with evidence like "the random number generator gave Bolsonaro's ballot number" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50229587)
Although fortunately, it didn't seem to be work: it seems Facebook and Twitter largely ignored Brazil's courts and Flavio Bolsonaro had a bigger social media presence despite "Lula's Army".
Yeah, I agree completely. I didn't vote for any of these candidates, I voted to impeach the supreme court.
There is exactly one politician that once upon a time represented me: Dr. Enéas Carneiro. Ironically, his ideas were closest to the Chinese Communist Party. He's dead now.
The left wing has PCO, a real left wing party, and I agree with them on a daily basis. They're shunned by everyone, and were even persecuted by the supreme court along with the right wing.
I'm increasingly resigned to the idea that immigration is the only option by now.
Flavio promised to pardon his father, so the other effect of this is that Bolsonaro stays in jail. Although by jail I mean house arrest, which is something that rich, powerful people manage to get somehow and is barely a punishment.
There are two other efforts to release him early. Via the courts and via the Brazilian legislator.
House arrest was a great idea before the internet. We call it "Netflix sentence" here.
> We call it "Netflix sentence" here.
It could be argued that the Netflix catalog nowadays is akin to some kind of torture.
I mean, to be fair, the restriction on freedom is the real punishment. I don't think anyone could honestly say that house arrest isn't genuinely undesirable, especially for rich and powerful people.
What's the point of having all that money and power if you can't actually do the things you want?
For socially recluse persons that is another tuesday
Social recluses do not become president of a major nation state.
Normal people, including most social recluses, also generally don't get the luxury of house arrest, so there's that.
This was the first time I saw a major mainstream media outlet prominently feature a statistical predictive model live during the vote count (and it was spot on): https://www.estadao.com.br/politica/eleicoes/em-tempo-real-p...
Indeed, Rodrigo Mahlmeister's model was absolutey impressive. It even predicted the inflection points incredibly well.
They are impressive but I often ask myself why so much effort is spend here. While people are curious about results, a bit of waiting for the counts shouldn't matter.
The most "sensible" application would be for betting markets I thought.
One modern need is to avoid people using the well known patterns of vote reporting to inflame conspiracies about "mysterious" and "sudden" reversals in vote tallies.
Trust me, telling people the vote will look weird ahead of time does not quiet the vote consipuracistst. Heck I'd say it gives ammo. They call it predictive programming. The lie is revealed and normalized.
True but for example in California we have it extra bad where it takes weeks for votes to get counted. Even the most idealistic person with respect to how people should process election results must admit that it taking this long either:
a) Undermines trust or
b) Creates a more fertile ground to undermine trust
Are there any sources of the methodology ?
The github link in the article does not work
https://github.com/rodrigomahlmeister/projecao-2026-metodo
It was there last night. Now I get a 404.
The Finnish public broadcaster has used a model to predict final vote share for as long as I remember. The stated purpose is to offset the bias that comes from smaller, more rural municipalities reporting sooner.
It usually kicks in when 10-20 % of the votes have been counted and switches back to raw results near the 90% mark.
Didn't find an exact date when they started using it; an article says "dates back to 1960s" but it's definitely been a staple in 2000s.
The NYTimes does this with "The Needle"
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/elections/100000009683078/h...
NYT famously had the needle which infamously kept breaking down on election day and they'd have to take it down
Mexico has been doing that since the 90s, with the PREP (Programa de Resultados Electorales Preliminares). Preliminary results start pouring almost soon as the voting period ends, and in 24 hours we know the winner. Statistical models are perfect for this scenario, as they become increasingly certain. In my country, the loser has conceded defeat before all 100% votes are counted, by sheer mathematical certainty.
It always surprises me that USA, the self-appointed bastion of democracy worldwide, has such tortuous and malleable elections; and that no serious academic discussion occurs despite the endemic flaws. Even these days, the PREP's Wikipedia page lacks an English translation.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programa_de_Resultados_Elector...
It was anyway a lose-lose situation. I hope to see Brazil free from 'bolsopetismo'/'bolsolulismo' (as some of we call this disease to keep Bolsonaro and Lula or their parties on the presidential room) soon, but here we go for another 4 years...
I agree with you. I wish we had better candidates. The right had Dr. Enéas Carneiro, who's dead. The left has PCO, which is awesome but is shunned by the rest of the left because they are bold enough to criticize Lula and PT. Neither ever had or will have any realistic chance of ever winning.
It's not going to end until Lula literally drops dead. This country proved that today.
PCO is awesome but the US would never allow a Marxist power in power in their "backyard". The Donroe Doctrine reinforces that
> It's not going to end until Lula literally drops dead. This country proved that today.
It's not going to end until the opposition comes up with a competent alternative. Flavio was the worst choice they did.
On the same day, in Serbia, the long-term incumbent was defeated by a party/movement that has been founded only 2 years ago as a response to corruption issues. So change can happen.
proud of serbians! they rly got a big power move going. historical is an understatement. Really hope it will being better times for the ppl there!
Serbia has actual corruption. Lula went to jail because when Bolsonaro was in charge they made up a case about him accepting beachfront property. Even the UN Human Rights Committee found that the prosecutions violated his due process and political rights
Lula's Fala.BR platform is a massive step up for free and public access to information for all Brazilians and federal contracting procedures have been standardized and oversight has been massively improved.
Lula represents a massive step towards fighting corruption
> Lula went to jail because when Bolsonaro was in charge they made up a case about him accepting beachfront property.
Lula went to jail before Bolsonaro came into power and got released while he was president. It's a well remembered case in Latin America and it's easy to correct you on that.
Well he wasn't elected yet, but the reason his conviction was thrown out by the Supreme Court and the reason the United Nations stepped in to call the case out as bogus was because investigative journalists from The Intercept got ahold of leaked Telegram messages proving Bolsonaro made a deal with the corrupt judge Sérgio Moro.
The case is the reason Lula was barred from running against Bolsonaro. After Bolsonaro won, he appointed Moro as the Minister of Justice and Public Security as a political reward.
The case has been thoroughly disproven as bogus by journalists and even the United Nations. It's genuinely depressing how many people still believe in it
As optimistic as I want to be, this is the fourth term for a president?? That cannot be good for democracy.
It can be better than the alternatives and still not good.
Not in a row.
Lula served two terms from 2002-2010, and came back in 2022 (now to serve until 2030, if he lives until then).
Yeah this is valuable context. He Jerry Brown'd it.
I do think term limits are good, but nonconsecutive 16 years is actually an ok limit IMHO. Maybe not the one I'd prefer for my government, but not necessarily objectively bad for democracy.
I don't like the idea of reelections in general. I think it is generally damaging to democracy. Ideally I would not even add term limits, but they should all be non-consecutive.
Still, as you said, this context is important. Lula left in 2010 and came back in 2022 after having been arrested, freed, and then defeating Jair Bolsonaro, who was the current president and a fierce rival.
That said, I think reelections are actually more damaging in the legislative (and it is not uncommon to have congressmen and senators for 20, 30 years straight).
His first two terms were 2003-2011
It's very situationally dependent. Term limits stop bad politicians doing too much damage, they also stop good politicians getting too much momentum on their side.
Term limits result in dynasties "behind the scenes" running things.
Long-term politicians result in "behind the scenes" doing the real work of running things.
Wait a minute ...
Plus he's 80 today and will be 84 by the time his term ends. Gerontocracy for the win.
Why? If they’re democratically voted, what’s wrong with it?
Australia has no term limits and has famously had the longest serving prime minister (12 years) followed by extremely short terms. All seemed to represent the general will of the population.
I wish Australia had term limits for all politicians, and not just for the PM. Term limits prevents people becoming career politicians, which i think would be a good thing.
The argument against aggressive term limits that I’ve read: there are many people making a career in politics as a whole—lobbyists, influence groups, party committees, etc. They have a huge advantage over the term-limited elected politician.
I’m not a political junkie but that makes sense to me. The critters who get your vote are just part of the system that runs the place.
Sheeeeeeeeeeit
Mark Rutte, Netherlands, 14 years prime minister, four terms in office. It is hard to say if he represented the general will of the population given that his party, the liberal-right VVD favors the more well-to-do part of the population. I think many voters voted for him as a trustworthy face and friendly, amicable man. Vote for the personality. He was also characterized as Mr Tefal for his ability to make nothing stick to him in terms of criticism, and utterly pragmatic, denouncing vision. As a result the big problems and areas where reform were most needed, were always pushed to the future.
You might say he introduced a kind of populism, where politicians only care about the next election round and their reputation, to the cost of important decision-making and long-term thinking. Unfortunately this is kind of a working strategy, a weakness of democracy, where the current centre-right government is struggling with all the aggravated problems not dealt with in the past, and the voters think "well, perhaps we have to vote VVD again where these problems didn't exist", or vote more right-wing by populism that makes immigration the cause of all problems.
I think the real weakness of democracy is that governments can’t make difficult changes. The current government wanted to but both the right and the left did not accept those changes. Similar story as France, a big need to change, but everybody expects others to pay, not themselves.
Today, it’s always either the fault of the other party (who never had a real chance of making big changes), the rich (but if you tax them too much they leave and you’re left with no economy, see France), or the foreigners.
Modern democracy is not about enforcing the populates will whatever that is. It’s about limiting tyranny.
The idea that you must fire your most competent employees after ~8 years on the job, in a exceedingly difficult job that requires on-the-job training, is in fact one of the most inane and damaging things to democracy.
Disagree. Presidency, like other elected positions, should not be a career. I want people who can serve with high dedication and then go back to private life. I'd like to see term limits on representatives and senators as well, and also an upper age limit.
> Presidency, like other elected positions, should not be a career.
As stated, this is merely a truism, and you have not justified this belief. Would you care to? It seems very irrational to me. High office is one of the most difficult and most impactful jobs in the world. It's easy to do a terrible job and screw everyone over while enriching yourself, of course, but extremely challenging to do a good job. You are responsible for the fate of tens or hundreds of millions of people, and must exercise incredible judgment on the breadth of every macro problem society faces while simultaneously maneuvering both internal support and foreign relations. Why would we not want to make this most important of all jobs a job where people can actually grow into the role and demonstrate expertise in it? You are strictly only eliminating the electorate's options. There is already a corrective mechanism for voters to evict someone doing a bad job [whether they choose to exercise it is another matter, but that's literally democracy in action], but there should be no mechanism to sustain a job well done?
The skill to win elections and the skill to govern are not the same. And humans have biases against change. Term limits guarantee the downside is limited and they are healthy for a real democracy.
Also... too long in power makes it easier to dismantle the democratic process.
The entire American system of checks and balances is not designed to get optimal leadership, it is designed to limit damage from bad leadership.
> The skill to win elections and the skill to govern are not the same.
Then elect someone else next time. This, however, is a criticism of democracy more than it is a justification for term limits.
> The entire American system of checks and balances is not designed to get optimal leadership, it is designed to limit damage from bad leadership.
How's that working out for you? You got Trump and Biden as a direct result of term limits. The way I see it, your system has selected for the maximally damaging bad leadership possible.
hardly the worst leaderships. Would you rather have Mao/Stalin/Putin?
> You got Trump and Biden as a direct result of term limits.
The US only enacted term limits in 1951. Before that time, only two presidents had attempted to seek third terms (another two attempted but failed to secure even a nomination by a political party), and only one was successful.
And, quite frankly, the only president since the 22nd amendment who I could see wanting to run for a third term is Trump, who does seem to be campaigning for one anyways despite being constitutionally barred from it.
The writing is that no one can serve as president for longer than ten years, not that someone couldn't run a third term. A traditional reading means that you wouldn't seek a third term, but tradition'a been thrown out the window.
In the interests of pedantry, that's not what the writing says. The operative text is quoted here:
> No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
The 'obvious loophole' is that the text doesn't constrain the number of terms anyone can serve, but instead constrains the number of times someone can be elected as president, so if you run as vice president for someone who agrees to immediately resign to let you be president, you technically don't run afoul of the rule.
(The more likely loophole, following from Trump v Colorado, is that nobody is actually allowed to declare somebody ineligible for president, so the constitution's strictures are meaningless in practice. It truly is a disgusting SCOTUS decision.)
The second part says you can only be elected once in that case, so you do “run afoul of the rule”.
The argument would be that you were elected to the office of Vice President rather than the office of President.
> The entire American system of checks and balances is not designed to get optimal leadership, it is designed to limit damage from bad leadership.
Well how's that working out? There's a reason the rest of the developed democratic world hasn't adopted a strong executive.
American system maintained being a super power for 80 years, great stability and giant prosperity.
Worked out very well for the American system till recently.
I think that's just because both parties managed to keep demagogues from being nominated until 2016.
I mean, US foreign policy been supercharged with Trump, and from that perspective his leadership's been plenty adequate. Declaring war on Iran in particular has long been a neoliberal aspiration that no one had the political courage to implement - enter Trump, the nominal adversary on whom they could outsource their ambitions, and whose blunders could cynically be disavowed.
The neocons at The Bulwark are secretly rejoicing about the war with Iran.
I agree with you, the system is far from perfect. But right now we're talking about the benefits of term limits and it is greatly comforting that no matter what, in two more years Trump will be gone.
> And humans have biases against change
Funnily enough, a lot of people who voted for Flávio only did it because they wanted a change from Lula.
They are most competent in getting elected, which often is not the same as being most competent in anything else.
Even with Germany it turned out that Angela Merkel did grave mistakes and Germans were able to find out about those only after she left office. Being continually in office gives you the ability to hide your trials. The longer you stay the easier it is for you to get elected.
That’s why it is very important to have a time limit in power.
> They are most competent in getting elected, which often is not the same as being most competent in anything else.
If it was not clear, I am not stating that anyone who is in office is automatically the most competent. However, the entire point of a democracy is that you have the option to fire bad candidates. And yet, with term limits, when you do get a competent candidate in office, you do not have the option to keep them in office.
The most commonly repeated pattern across literally all of human history is that power grows.
Being the chief executive in a system like brazil's results in a lot of power, for several perfectly good reasons, but it does mean you have to build in safe guards against that power growing.
Regular elections are good, but not sufficient, as a study of recent world history would demonstrate.
> Regular elections are good, but not sufficient, as a study of recent world history would demonstrate.
Term limits are not a solution either, as a study of recent world history would demonstrate. Clearly there is a need to check power, but perhaps the mechanisms that check power should not also ensure you will never have a truly excellent leader && increase instability from flipflopping policies && give more opportunities for people who will abuse power to take office and ignore the term limits because that's what people who abuse power do. A term limit is only effective against a mildly bad candidate who is not truly willing to abuse their power, because if they are willing to abuse their power they can just ignore it. In that way, you've created a system that caps upside but leaves downside uncapped in practice.
> you will never have a truly excellent leader
Democracies shouldn't have a "leader", they should have functional governments and strong oppositions. Focusing on a single person never ends well.
Never is too far. Singapore's done well with a benevolent leader, as has Python and Linux.
I wouldn't mix countries and software projects though. When the "benevolent leader" of a software project goes crazy there will be a bit of social media drama and that's it. When the same thing happens in a country, people are massacred (and in essence this is also the reason why countries shouldn't be governed like a company, a country can't simply shut down like a company when things go south).
There's the view that republican Rome's military success was due to their public career path churning out OK military commanders at a steady rate. Not necessarily great, just good enough with a solid understanding of the basics.
The fall of that system then came about when politically ambitious characters started developing more personal and long-term relations with their troops.
I'd say that's an argument for term limits: you want them to get good but not set roots permanently.
There's a reason the US military cycles officers to different duty postings every 2-4 years...
What it loses in efficiency, it gains in avoiding centralization, cult of personality, and encouraging standardization.
Efficiency is often directly opposed to resiliency. Governments and militaries should prioritize resiliency over efficiency.
I ran into that idea the other day and I thought it was pretty interesting, although I'd phrase it slightly differently:
"Rome's tradition of having to serve in 'lower offices' before the higher ones meant that when aristocrats inevitably ended up in charge of entire armies they had some level of practical experience and learnings to draw on while commanding".
But yes, much is made of Rome's redundancy in terms of military strength and there's a lot of states during that period that had A King who did everything and then died in a battle and then everything collapsed.
Tbh, a single politician should never have enough power to move the needle significantly to either side. And even in companies, the "bus factor" is a thing (eg everybody must be replaceable).
It's even more important that time limit gives those in power a planned off-ramp.
The extreme case which you want to avoid is "politicians" (dictators) desperately clinging to power, because they did things that would get them killed if they ever lost their power, which is a vicious cycle.
TBH the idea that one person could have so much power is bad imho, it only attracts sociopaths.
I like the swiss model more where one party never gets full power, even if it means societal changes take more time to happen[1], it seems less risky to me as there is never one power grab whose decision can influence the next election by stuff like redistricting, puting clearly leaning judges to federal court, etc.
[1] famous example is the women right to vote in the general election happened in 1971 which is quite shameful
When I read about ancient (republican) Rome, I used to wonder how much their having an off-ramp from power contributed to their stability.
In many of the contemporary cultures (e.g., the post-Alexander greek kingdoms), being toppled from the heights of power would result in exile, imprisonment, or worse; in the republic, you could lose a battle as a general or step down from being consul and still lead a peaceful life afterwards.
One could argue that the change in this situation in the late republic directly resulted in it's downfall--Caesar crossed the Rubicon because he feared prosecution and imprisonment by his opponents once he lost his proconsular immunity.
That's a reasonable thought. But a counter perspective is that leaders may have had more integrity and fidelity to ethical behaviors making prosecution less necessary. If that were the case then it would be better to have continual investigation and prosecution possible so there is no shield of power or incentive to hold on to the shield. The check on power is the punishment. The threat of punishment encourages leaders that are unethical to self select avoiding office.
> Even with Germany it turned out that Angela Merkel did grave mistakes and Germans were able to find out about those only after she left office. Being continually in office gives you the ability to hide your trials.
A "required absence" is a thing in a number of sensitive positions, especially financial/regulated industries.
In America the next administration hides them for you because they will never set the precedent of punishing a president for exceeding their power.
Obama could have had Bush against the wall at the Hague for his war crimes... and then Trump could have had Obama against the wall at the Hague for his war crimes... and then Biden could have had Trump... and on and one we go.
It’s a nice argument but there’s another axis: fatigue. Leading takes its toll. To be charitable it’s not plausible that you can run a country, with all the stress that entails, and out compete everyone not at the apex of the front line.
I check my brake pads every year. Eventually the incumbent pads lose out to some whipper-snapper from the new pads box. I might vote red again or I might switch to blue. It depends how muddy it is. Either way, it’s both a new/old choice as well as a red/blue choice.
Time-in-office is also a major contributor to corruption. Lukashenko has been winning the same election for 30+ years!
i feel like democracy isn't about the most competent but about the "least bad" option you could have. an effective dictator (lol) can cut thru the red tape but what people are worried about are the terrible ones. at least with a democracy you can rotate them out.
Except when those employees also have command of armies, at which point history has shown that swapping them out before they get too comfortable is key for keeping a republic a republic.
> history has shown
It doesn't really show that, though. Putin was not stopped by term limits. Hitler seized power within a year of being elected. Lukashenko established his rigged state within two years. Fujimori launched a self-coup within two years. I'm actually not aware of evidence that term limits have ever meaningfully did anything to impede a would-be wrongdoer.
Survivorship bias explains that. The list of dictators-for-life does not include those who don't become dictators for life.
I'd suggest that term limits are party of a package that rests on strong public faith in democratic institutions. E.g. Macron is about able to hang on, but i doubt he could stay past an electoral defeat because he presides over a nation that won't tolerate it.
Switzerland rotates their President every year.
First among equals, the president of the Confederation has no powers over and above the other six councillors and continues to head the assigned department. Traditionally the duty rotates among the members in order of seniority; the vice president of the Federal Council assumes the presidency the year after the officeholder's tenure. The president of the Confederation is not the head of state because the entire Federal Council is the collective head of state.
Per wikipedia.
Exactly, this prevents personality cults and power hoarding.
No, it means that the role of the Swiss president cannot be compared to the cases discussed. It requires a different organization of the state, not just a term or age limit.
Wrt to the latter: the Swiss system prefers the elder candidate.
The entire republican tradition (with a small r) rests on the assumption that leadership is a common skill. The society is supposed to give ambitious young people opportunities to demonstrate their skills, and then select the most capable ones and give them increasingly challenging roles. At any given time, there should be an order of magnitude more potential leaders (with the necessary skills and experience) than what the society actually needs. And the leaders should be replaced often enough, to avoid giving them the idea that they are somehow special.
Power corrupts.
Power doesn't corrupt, it reveals.
Is Trump and his administration most competent employees?
I would rather limit not amount of terms, but the age. Not eligible for any kind of elections if you are 60+, both as candidate and as voter.
It shouldn’t be a fixed age, that’s the mistake too many laws make already is not accounting for change. What happens when i. the future the average lifespan is 200 years? It should be something like no older than 75% of the average lifespan.
There is nothing competent about Lula. It’s a populist “corrupticracy”.
I really can’t understand how Brazilians (that actually have a multi party system) keep having to choose between two awful candidates.
Part of being competent is building legislative and other public service systems that run without you being at the helm, and bringing up younger leaders behind you who keep things going upward. Memento mori, and all that.
Exactly this; the job of civil service is to retain institutional competence, and to offer cabinets digests and levers to pull that they can operate at high level.
Day one:
- your predecessor had this and this initiative, see pages 4 to 7 - i don't like that, what alternatives exist - we worked this up at the time, here are the projections which were updated six months ago - good, do that instead - we'll need to redo the numbers - then do so, and brief me again next week
Democracy is not about figuring out who’s most competent at the job, it’s about being able to get rid of everybody in power at some point without using weapons or waiting for them to die of natural causes. A term limit is a very good idea and I’d even implement it for legislators and other government officials.
Would you say that the gerontocracy currently ruling in congress is preferable?
Are you talking about politicians, or actual employees?
If the latter: Yes, that is actually stupid, but the stupidity lies not in the term limits for politicians, but in the idea that public servants are employed on the grounds of party affiliation.[1]
But replacing large swathes of competent higher officials every time you change government... The only country I know of for sure that does that is the USA. Are you saying that's the way it works in Brazil, too?
___
[1]: Sure, to some extent it exists everywhere, but that's usually only a few sincure posts for old politicians removed from any actual influence by being "promoted diagonally left-upwards". (See, for example, the post of "landshövding" in Sweden.)
The problem is what happens if an incompetent person stays on forever. There are many examples in history of great countries and empires that were lead by one person only for it all to come down when one idiot became the person in charge. An important idea behind term limits and democracy is sacrificing the ability to have an amazing leader for life so that an incompetent leader doesn't serve for life.
Its a fundamental safeguard and a hedge against tyranny. Its why, in general, countries that are lead by one person for life can be very impressive in the short term but inevitably fall apart once the wrong person eventually takes charge. Because the odds are that eventually the wrong person will take charge.
Brazil also has this. A president can't run 3 times in a row. But if there's a break in between then they can run again. Lula won't be able to run in 2030
That's why you have an administrative state filled with career people whose knowledge is in their field and loyalty to country, not party.
History and present have many examples of the flawed human tendency to latch onto larger-than-life figures.
A benevolent, wise dictator would be the most effective form of government, but we are humans, not angels.
Most of the times they are hardly competent.
It’s good for Putin. He and Lula are allies, and their friendship goes way back.
Let's do takes for the sake of takes.
Ah yes and Bolsonaro is of course an enemy of Putin
we dont have a lot of hoices in south america and he is top notch
There's a limit of two consecutive terms.
Roosevelt has entered chat.
Repeal the 22nd.
everything should be juged by the action/output, not by the identity. too bad most democracy counties is focus on the later.
I think limiting presidential terms is pretty American, I can't see why its undemocratic to stand for longer as long as there are still elections, free press, right to protest etc.
In the US, FDR stood 4 terms, and he was hardly the end of democracy.
Brazil also has limits. You can only be president for 2 years in a row.
Rather, 2 terms (8 years).
Whoops, yes I meant 2 terms.
Please, let's not cherry-pick our worries about what's not good for democracy. Yes, perhaps term-limits might aid in a healthy democracy, perhaps not. But please read this [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Jair...
FDR served four terms and basically saved the USA from the jaws of ruin, fascism and the oligarchy. It's not necessarily a bad thing.
It's not. Brazil has a good elections system with the 2 turns. But still on the first turn more than 90% voted for these 2 parties. The only party on "the left" is a Unionist president and a right wing vice president. There's no serious politics on the left, and people vote like they are cheering for football teams. Voting for Lula was the evident lesser evil (as in, proven track record, and no concrete evidence of corruption like his opponent), but half the country disagrees...
It wasn't consecutive, there were 2 terms (one of which was for the opposition) in-between. According to the law a president can only serve 2 consecutive terms.
It is not great true, but it is not Turkey/Russia-level with president for life (yet). Although it is forming a succession crisis in much the same way.
3 terms. Lula left in 2010, came back in 2022.
Those were not four straight terms. There was alternation, with opposing groups taking the presidential seat in between.
Well when the alternative is someone who is openly in favor of violently overthrowing fair elections it's hard to get too upset about someone winning fairly, even if it is their fourth time.
It's wild how closely Brazil's politics have mirrored the US in recent years, at least at a high level. They literally had their own Jan 6 insurrection. Lula, like Biden, was competent enough for a time but ultimately outstayed his welcome and ran for another term when they should have gracefully retired. Unlike Biden, Lula actually imposed some consequences on the people trying to destroy his country's democracy.
Democracy isn't the objective, good leadership is. Democracy is just a poor stand-in to attempt to measure that.
"Good leadership" depends on whose interests we're talking about. Democracy is about representation, not good leadership.
People voted and he won, that's democracy. You're opinion of him as a leader isn't a measure of democracy unless he's done something to undermine it.
This is probably a good support case for run-off elections being beneficial.
Ranked voting and runoff systems seem to have nothing but positives yet adoption is still lacking for some reason.
First past the post is beneficial for establishment parties.
Indeed. It tends to reinforce a two-party system. Anyone who votes third-party gets accused of 'wasting' their vote.
Preferential/ranked choice voting allows people to vote third-party while still expressing a preference for one of the majors.
Depends on which ranked system. IRV has a lot of issues that other systems (like STAR, my personal preference in voting system, or Condorcet methods for instance) address much better. Non-monotonicity in particular seems like a bad property of a voting system, so I'm confused that IRV is so popular recently.
> Non-monotonicity in particular seems like a bad property of a voting system, so I'm confused that IRV is so popular recently.
Same here. The idea of lobbying for a voting system where your vote for a candidate might hurt them, or where you might be better off not voting at all than expressing your honest preference is bizarre to me. If IRV was the only alternative, sure, but we have multiple other systems which don't have as bad tradeoffs. STAR or Ranked Robin would be so much better, but the Equal Vote Coalition doesn't seem to have the power behind it that FairVote does.
One reason IRV is popular is that it has extensive use in other countries (Australia, Ireland). It's not revolutionary but it's an improvement and nothing terrible has happened.
STAR has been used approximately nowhere. STAR is also one of the few seriously advocated-for voting methods in which it's possible for the first choice of a majority to lose, although that isn't likely to happen in practice.
IRV is not used in Ireland except for president, a role so procedurally minor that there is an alternative used when the president is unavailable (it seems to have evolved into what could be called an artistic role). Almost all elections are multimember (3-5 member districts); the voting is done the same way but most of the issues with IRV don't apply to the multimember version or are much less severe. In Ireland, the proprotionally elected body decides the single person roles, including things like auditor or mayor.
No electoral method is perfect and there are problems with Instant runoff ranked ballots. Look up "Favourite Betrayal" as a problem where ranking your most favourite incorrectly can accidentally result in your least favourite winning.
Of course just because there are technically flaws, doesn't mean it's not an improvement over the status quo.
Instant Runoff Ranked ballots are particularly well suited for electing a single position like a Mayor or President. Given that it's still a majoritarian system like First Pass the Post, it's a much more questionable system to use for other things like electing a parliament.
I think IRV at least has fairly unpredictable failure cases, which means they can't be exploited.
I remember seeing a 2D chart representing voter preferences on the X and Y axis, coloured by who wins under those preferences (and some symmetry-breaking assumptions). Some systems showed clear biases towards certain outcomes. IRV had a pretty symmetric shape but with a splotch in the middle that was a random jumble of different colours - an unpredictable, chaotic outcome.
Might have been these charts: https://www.rangevoting.org/IEVS/Pictures.html
> Of course just because there are technically flaws, doesn't mean it's not an improvement over the status quo.
The problem IMO is when there's better options but it's hard to get people to care enough to switch systems again. I'm hoping Ranked Robin can catch on so at least places that went to IRV can switch to a better system without new ballots.
In Star Vote Favourite Betrayal still exists, but its very rare.
The issue is that you can't have 'Later No Harm' and 'Favorite Betrayal' at the same time.
Star Vote scores high on both but it can't be perfect.
See: https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10602-022-09389-3?sh...
PS for those that don't know:
STAR Voting (Score Then Automatic Runoff) works in two stages: 1. Voters score candidates from 0 to 5. 2. The two candidates with the highest total scores become finalists. 3. The finalist preferred by more voters wins.
So it combines score voting and runoff. Meaning it favors centrist candidates that are prefered by most people over somebody that can turn out the base.
_Is_ it lacking? Most democratic systems use some form of PR and/or runoffs.
Not Brazillian, and I didn't know about the 2-turn system, but I definitely became a fan. It's simple to understand and to implement. Ranked voting is too complex to implement and for everyone to understand. Run-off lets you vote for you preferred party first, and for the realistic contender second. Sadly, almost no one did that in Brazil - >90% voted for the finalists in the first turn.
I really strongly believe in approval/disapproval with a runoff.
You can vote for or against as many candidates as you want. Take the top 2 score getters and do a runoff. This means in the first round you can have as many candidates as you want. Those with no name recognition get no support. Also it prevents the situation so many find themselves in where both candidates are deeply unpopular but we feel we have no other choices. If the most well known candidates are deeply divisive then they won't get through.
The runoff gives people time to research the 2 candidates.
two-turn systems don't help if the people aren't educated about them. I lost a friendship once over trying to argue with them that it's okay for people to vote on unpopular candidates in the 1st turn.
I was seeing the reports from the first pass which said it was almost guaranteed that Lula would not win because of what the results of the first were. I wonder what caused that prediction to fail.
I am glad the son of a failed coup organizer and a trump puppet didn't get elected and am hopeful for Brazils ability to self govern. Breaking free of US financial monopolies (credit cards) gives me hope they'll continue to produce and innovative into a healthier and competitive world market, but I am also tired of Lula being at the helm and wish someone else could step up and take the reigns. When someone stays in power for so long in a democracy it makes me suspicious of the legitimacy of their power. Are they popular because they are good for the country or are they popular because they have the right people with power, influence, and money on their side.
> I wonder what caused that prediction to fail.
A lot of media outlets have been fingering the outage of some data centers due to kinetic action for a worldwide decline in divisive rhetoric, potentially impacting democratic processes.
If that were true it would have diminished Lula "support" as Lula is strongly preferred by Russia due to his anti-US and anti-NATO stance.
Im not sure the strategic calculation is as simplistic as that
Would a Trump puppet not also be anti-NATO and pro-Putin?
hey i see what you did there. so funny
That's a bingo gif.
Lula is neither anti-US, nor is he anti-NATO. He is against a single country having hegemony over the globe, against US meddling in Latin American elections (including with trade policy as of late), and against huge defense budgets.
Why do Americans accept that their democratic country is actively intervening in other countries elections? It's grotesque. The US security establishment has been allowed to run amoc for decades and they have destroyed the values that made the US country that people admired across the world.
The people in charge didn't run on this. Most of the real orchestrators are appointees, anyway. They're about to get a reality check fairly soon. I wouldn't be surprised if Hegseth were sacrificed. Rubio, the real brains behind the operations, will probably hold on somehow.
If Americans elect Rubio after all this, or resoundingly reelect a Republican congress, I think you have a better claim.
Tl;dr they don't accept it, but they keep getting tricked
That feels like an analysis stuck in 2015.
To me it often if feels like South American countries themselves are stuck in an eternal pendulum of electing corrupt left-wing populists after corrupt right-wing populists and swinging back again.
That's representative democracy. There's not really any practical ways to delegate power without enabling corruption, so corruption is more or less inevitable without radical levels of transparency and public oversight.
This has been widely discredited.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9y7l0pm8jkko
This far less popular than United 24 which is a propaganda outlet disguised as a news site. People believe what they want to hear.
> This far less popular than United 24 which is a propaganda outlet disguised as a news site.
What are smoking? If you bother to check, United24 clearly describes itself as "The official fundraising platform for collecting donations to support Ukraine."
The world is more worried about US/CIA bots(US social sites) than any so-called Russian bots
Ah, speaker for the world!
Speaker for the region where elections and politics is manipulated by external forces
Is there a country where elections and politics are not manipulated by external forces?
Middle East, because they conduct no elections :-)
Fair point. I guess we can add Russia and tentatively pencil in USofA from 2028 onwards.
Russia does have elections, but they are internally meddled with so outsiders don't see much point. Even places known for brutal authoritarian regimes like Israel and Iran have elections. Elections are a great tool for promoting social cohesion even in decidedly undemocratic countries. It's totally illogical, but people like to vote for the winner - and when everyone knows who the winner is going to be that's quite easy. Elections in illiberal countries are like a societal placebo that can ease the mental burden of the voters and give them a sense of participation and belonging without making any actual changes. Letting the controlled opposition vent regularly and then crushing them in a "fair" election keeps their popularity at a manageable level and helps governments gauge public opinion. Democracy is a system rather than a process, and confusing the trappings of democracy (elections) with the system of democracy (self-governance) is something that's been done by with purpose by antidemocratic forces.
Israel is just brutal authoritarian to others. Their elections are free.
Every state in the world is “authoritarian” to non-citizens.
Well they're not always very nice to their Arab citizens either.
European here, that's absolutely false in Europe.
Ha! I knew it. That was way too unlikely. But it was a great narrative. Kudos to Selenskyj.
Not everything you'd want to be true, is. Checking makes the difference, you just need to do it.
Facebook/Meta openly supporting Bolsanaro and sabotaging Lula probably mattered a lot more. Here's them acknowledging funny business:
https://mronline.org/2026/10/16/meta-acknowledges-the-reduce...
> are they popular because they have the right people with power, influence, and money on their side
They have the supreme court. That is all they really need.
Hell of an allegation to make with no evidence provided. How do "they" "have" the supreme court, and why does that mean that they're popular and win elections?
No, it means they get an extra 2h of voting with no legislation backing that nor a precedent to go after.
Didn't both parties request for the extension, or am I misinformed?
Yes, both asked for it. Didn't stop Jair's son to call it "unprecedented"
When "but they let more eligible voters vote, that's cheating!" is your argument against someone in a democracy, it's time to take a good look at yourself.
Have polling stations open for a week, run them 24 hours on election day. Have so many that there's never a queue, and no one complains that they have to go far. That's democracy. The price is negligible.
I'm not sure why letting more people vote is bad?
Unless you're relying on suppressing the capacity of certain parts of your population to vote to win an election, like my country's right wing government has done, because last minute enrollment voters tend to not vote for them.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/news-and-media/news/electo...
That’s making quite a mental leap. What’s wrong is changing the rules halfway during a voting day, specially in one of the largest countries in the world with uneven logistics.
Polls were closed in some places, voting boxes sealed, and had to be reopened.
While not necessarily bad, it can create fraud suspicions. Just arrange a longer voting time from the get go. Else it looks you are stalling and boosting turnout out for your side.
PS it’s quite common in some countries to put people on buses and make them vote in exchange of money.
The problem is the bias of the court. When Bolsonaro asked for one in 2022, it was denied. "Everybody had the opportunity to vote". When Bolsonaro asked for one yesterday due to heavy rain in the south, they didn't grant it either. They granted it immediately when Lula asked it though, and the person who did so was Lula's former lawyer. It's clear that there is no fairness to be found in the Brazilian institutions tasked with running fair elections.
> How do "they" "have" the supreme court
By the end of the next four years, Lula will finish his term with 70% of the seats of the supreme court being filled directly by his party.
They also stacked the lesser courts with judges which support him. Including the electoral court. We had judges who openly declared their vote for him judging his electoral complaints this entire month. Any guess which way the judges leaned?
Did you know one of the supreme court judges used to be Lula's own lawyer?
> and why does that mean that they're popular and win elections?
The supreme court literally engaged in unconstitutional censorship in order to get him elected in 2022. Judges also constantly barred Bolsonaro from doing things in 2022 that Lula was allowed to do this month, like lowering taxes at the gas pump before the election.
The supreme court was so incredibly politically active in 2022, it destabilized the country and led directly to the January 8th nonsense where people asked the military to enact a coup.
There's a saying here: "judges = gods". Actual lawyer told me that. And Lula owns the judges. If you don't see how having literal judge-god-kings on your side can tilt elections, then I don't know what I can possibly say to convince you.
Here's an example from the last four years: Lula implemented a tax on financial operations, our elected congress blocked it, then he went to the supreme court and they rammed it down our throats. Yes, the supreme court raised taxes. Not a single person voted for those judges, by the way. This is the Venezuela governance model.
The whole point of electing the right wing was to make those gods bleed. I'm going to go ahead and deflate my expectations now.
Go a few more years back, and it's hard to say the Brazilian right-wing aren't reaping what they sowed wrt. supreme court/judicial branch shenanigans.
But that doesn't make you wrong. All presidential republics are like this when push comes to shove. There are two branches of government with equal claim to popular legitimacy, therefore every presidential republic in the world reels from one constitutional crisis to another like a drunken sailor.
> Go a few more years back, and it's hard to say the Brazilian right-wing aren't reaping what they sowed wrt. supreme court/judicial branch shenanigans.
My exploration of this mess ended at around 2019 which is when the "fake news" inquisition began. It's entirely possible that they were abusing their power for much longer, but I sincerely don't know. Please post details if you do.
> But that doesn't make you wrong.
Thank you.
> All presidential republics are like this when push comes to shove.
My impression is this is a Latin American phenomenon. It's how Maduro governed Venezuela, for example. It's the reason why Bukele had to depose the judiciary in El Salvador.
I simply have never heard of or read about anything similar ever happening in the US or Europe. Would appreciate counterpoints.
> I simply have never heard of or read about anything similar ever happening in the US
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supr...
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-ru...
https://www.cato.org/blog/king-v-burwell-clear-example-legis...
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/court-allows-trump-to-fir...
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/looking-back-at-2025-the-... (Trump v CASA, Trump v Illinois)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a966_1b8e.pdf
Thank you.
Well, the EU has a "parliament" that can't change the law, and the EU supreme court (ECJ) has been caught in the past hearing a case where both sides are being argued by the same law firm and the plaintiff didn't even know they were engaged in a court case at all. There was no investigation and nothing was changed. EU media is in general pretty supine and doesn't report on EU level corruption, so given such shenanigans it seems likely the ECJ is quite corrupt. So it's not unknown in Europe.
> Here's an example from the last four years: Lula implemented a tax on financial operations, our elected congress blocked it, then he went to the supreme court and they rammed it down our throats. Yes, the supreme court raised taxes. Not a single person voted for those judges, by the way. This is the Venezuela governance model.
Do you have a source to read up on this?
Surely they're ruling on whether the executive branch has the power to do XYZ, right? So they don't directly endorse a policy, they decide who can do what?
You see the same in the US, with the decisions largely going the other way.
> Do you have a source to read up on this?
https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/economia/noticia/2025-07/en...
Lula writes up a sort of decree raising taxes on financial operations such as BRL/USD conversions.
Our elected congress blocked it. That is their role.
Supreme court swoops in and "reestablishes" the decree.
Through this simple mechanism, president can bypass our elected congress and senate, and rule monocratically like a king.
The supreme court judges are appointed by the president himself. Lula will stack the court with four additional justices loyal to him by the end of the next four years. He will own 70% of the court. He can do anything.
Bolsonaro was our last chance to fix this shit. Plan was to elect a right wing senate and president, then impeach all of those judges. We managed to elect the senators, but not the president. If we impeach the judges now, it just buys Lula even more seats in the court. It's pretty much over now.
> So they don't directly endorse a policy
That is exactly what they do.
> Our elected congress blocked it. That is their role.
So in a Republic, the President has the right to issue decrees. That's what makes it the executive branch. Congress can make laws that block specific things but they would need to pass legislation? And assuming this power is granted on the constitution, they can't change this (easily).
> That is exactly what they do.
They rule if the president can issue that decree, no? They don't have the ability to change any of that?
> If we impeach the judges now, it just buys Lula even more seats in the court.
There’s a clear right-wing/centrist majority in Congress, so Lula’s Supreme Court nominations will not be that partisan.
Many Justices do need to be investigated and impeached, and it’s our job now to pressure congressmen in that regard, and then pressure again to make sure future nominees are much better.
For some reason, I seriously doubt the senate is going to move a finger against the judges. I just have a bad feeling about this. I don't think they're going to do anything anymore.
I really hope you're right though. If even a single judge suffers consequences, this election will have been a major win.
probably not in the first 2 years with the current Senate president but then next it is less clear. There are 3 conservative judges also involved in the banco Master scandal case so let's see how it ends.
Really? Didn't the Bolsanaro campaign also request an extension of the voting deadline due to water logging and transportation problems in parts of the country?
Yeah, and the court was not at all inclined to grant it, just like they didn't grant an extension when Bolsonaro asked for one in 2022. "Everyone had the opportunity to vote", the judge said back then.
Then Lula asks for one, because his own people placed Lula stickers on busses which is an electoral crime and caused them to be grounded. Suddenly his former lawyer turned supreme court judge is moved to the point of tears at his plight and grants it immediately. The irony is not lost on me.
And of course, like always you will present no proof other than 'everyone knows'
I substantiated my logic in a reply to your sibling comment. Here is the link:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50239676
You 'substantiated' by making further unhinged claims without a single reference or citation.
https://www.tse.jus.br/comunicacao/noticias/2022/Setembro/pl...
https://www.tse.jus.br/comunicacao/noticias/2026/Outubro/cor...
https://www.infomoney.com.br/politica/lula-usa-alvorada-em-l...
Bolsonaro was prohibited from running lives inside the Palácio do Alvorada in 2022. Lula does so with impunity, court rejects regulation when denounced.
https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/politica/tse-mantem-restricoes-...
https://jovempan.com.br/colunistas/bruno-pinheiro/tse-nega-p...
Bolsonaro banned from using UN speech during his campaign. Attempts to denounce Lula for the same behavior went nowhere. Judge is known to vote for Lula.
https://www.poder360.com.br/justica/moraes-veta-campanha-sob...
https://www.tse.jus.br/comunicacao/noticias/2026/Outubro/cge...
Bolsonaro prevented from explaining his Auxílio Brasil benefits to the public until after the election. Lula can spam people with the same content all he wants with total impunity.
https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-invalida-emend...
https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-reconhece-que-...
Supreme court invalidates Bolsonaro's benefit increases during the election year. Lula can increase them with total impunity.
I think it's pretty clear at this point that the court will back Lula.
"son of a failed coup organizer" is an absolute false statement which only serves those in power to criminalize dissent and have been seen in many authoritarian regimes during their implementation.
> "son of a failed coup organizer" is an absolute false statement
But, his dad:
> Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is serving a 27-year prison sentence after being convicted by Brazil's Supreme Court for plotting a coup following his 2022 election defeat
I don’t see how to read it any other way. Explain?
There is this narrative I heard from a Brazilian near me that the Supreme Court in Brazil is political and rotten to the core.
Check this article, use Google translate if needed https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punhal_Verde_e_Amarelo
The Supreme Court in Brazil can be as rotten of political as it wants, to make a plan to assassinate political rivals is just completely unacceptable.
And before someone tries to defend the bolsonaros by saying they were not involved in this, don't use a defense that they themselves did not use. The defense that Flávio Bolsonaro said about the incident was "thinking of killing someone is not a crime".
The Brazilian Supreme Court is completely out of control and its judgements mean nothing. It's not like the American Supreme Court that only arbitrates constitutional matters. Look at the recent history of it and you'll find judges on it using the police as their personal enforcers, randomly imprisoning people who criticize them, high levels of outright corruption and Lula's personal lawyer being appointed to it. Think about it: would the US Supreme Court personally convict someone of a crime? No, they only hear appeals, there is no such thing as someone directly imprisoned by a single supreme court judge in America. The Brazilian court also interferes directly in elections - in this case one of them ordered that voting be extended for hours after it had already been closed and the ballot boxes sealed for no good reason.
Basically, in Brazil the Supreme Court appears to be directly in charge of the police, and they can and do issue whatever "rulings" they want to impose their will on whatever or whoever they feel like, with no appeals possible. Including elected politicians.
I expect this HN thread to be a disaster zone of badly informed takes, but the Brazilians I know consider Brazil to be a dictatorship and this election to have been stolen. It's a sad day.
Thank you so much for this post. I've been saying the same thing as you, and people in this thread are already telling me to check myself into a mental institution.
Bolsonaro was the last chance we had to fix this. The plan was to impeach those judges and then restrict the court to purely constitutional matters, like the US supreme court. That little project is pretty much done now. We'll be lucky if we can impeach Alexandre de Moraes. It's over.
In Brazil, judges are gods. An actual lawyer told me this, once.
so are you saying he is not his son?
> "son of a failed coup organizer" is an absolute false statement
Jair Bolsonaro was tried and convicted of organizing a coup.
Flavio Bolsonaro is his son.
Where's the false part?
> "son of a failed coup organizer" is an absolute false statement
How so?
I don't really follow Brazilian politics, but Jair Bolsonaro was found guilty by the Brazilian Supreme Court of:
participation in an armed criminal organization, attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, attempted coup d'état, qualified damage, and deterioration of protected heritage property.[1]
Flávio Bolsonaro is Jair Bolsonaro's son. "attempted coup d'état" is a failed coup.
There don't seem to be any serious questions that the process was fair and that the Supreme Court was impartial (I mean there are always Trumpian accusations of bias, but I mean ones with any evidence at all).
The only part I could see possible disagreement with is organizer I suppose? But I must be missing something.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_for_the_2022%E2%80%93202...
> There don't seem to be any serious questions that the process was fair and that the Supreme Court was impartial
This is the supreme court that in 2019 launched a perpetual "fake news" inquisition where they are themselves the victims, investigators, prosecutors, judges and executioners of wildcard crimes against themselves with a jurisdiction covering the entire territory of Brazil.
Saying that Bolsonaro was convicted by this court carries less weight to me than saying he was banned by dang.
The whole point of electing a right wing senate and Bolsonaro's son was to impeach and hold accountable the judges of this court. Obviously, that's never going to happen now. Lula will put four additional judges in there, and will rule uncontested until the day that he dies. It's the Venezuela model.
You're going to have to provide some citations mate, because right now you sound like a conspiracist.
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inqu%C3%A9rito_das_Fake_News
Thank you, interesting reading.
People other than me have been writing about the Brazilian supreme court right here on HN for years.
Examples:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36543423
I also tend to comment on the matter extensively whenever it's brought up.
Here's my recollection of the events that happened before, during and after the 2022 election:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44619572
I think the abuses of the supreme court are well established at this point.
dang is usually fair. Do you have counterexamples?
I didn't mean to imply dang wasn't fair. I was trying to say the court cannot be trusted.
That's right, it's the Venezuela model. It's also the Hungary model, the US model, the South Korea model, the Peru model, the Mongolia model, to name a few. All in recent years have had constitutional crises as a result of conflicts between a popularly elected president and a popularly elected legislative.
Can you show me an example of a US president raising taxes, getting blocked by congress or something, and then asking the supreme court to force the taxes to be raised?
Not raising taxes specifically no, but yes, US presidents have asked the supreme court for permission to do things the legislative told them not to, and gotten it. One Trump famously got, was the right to fire almost all federal employees at will, including members of boards established to be bipartisan for political reasons.
But really, the US has had the same problem you see in Brazil for so long, the president usually doesn't even have to ask the court, because the legislative was already sidelined decades ago. That is the case for the rather important issue of going to war, which of course Trump has also done against legislative approval.
I see... That's honestly terrifying. I wasn't aware such things were happening in the US as well.
I am convinced that the judiciary is the ultimate weakness of democracy.
that's what other people have been tryin' to point out.
no matter the place the judiciary can be stacked to favor a party. in the US right now it's stacked to favor Trump & the republicans.
just like how u r complaining abt the brazilian judiciary.
Well, I agreed with anyone who pointed this out to me. Clearly the problem is not isolated to Brazil as I previously imagined.
This isn't right. Judiciary should be impartial. It shouldn't matter who it is, what party it is, the treatment should be equal. Anything less than that is profoundly destabilizing. I couldn't imagine even countries like the US would face the same issue.
Yes, you're describing the trump tariff saga in the USA (tariffs are taxes).
Bolsonaro attempted a coup pretty plainly. I think you are describing a conspiracy theory that Bolsonaro is innocent?
Pretty far fetched.
> "son of a failed coup organizer" is an absolute false statement
What do you have to say about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022%E2%80%932023_Brazilian_co...
> "son of a failed coup organizer" is an absolute false statement
Aprende com o nome dele e faz ai um "Já ir". De preferencia no...
* Lula did something unusual, which is win in the second round after trailing in the first. This is a first in Brazilian politics, so simple pattern matchers are surprised.
* Turnout. Made all the difference.
I'm not surprised. If you have one terrible candidate, in the first round you can vote for whomever you like. In the second round, however, you need to ensure they lose, so you vote for the opposite party, whomever they might be.
France here might disagree. If you have an overly scattered left wing by voting whomever in the first round... you end up with a macron flavored moron as the sole non far-right option in the second round and have to deal with this shit for the next five years.
Yes, for sure, it's not a serious model. But I've observed exactly this scenario a couple of times, so it tracks well for me.
The only way for the far right to win the second round is to end up against Mélanchon, so what you write is totally in line with what Le Pen would want you to propagate.
There were 10 presidential elections in Brazil after the post-1988 constitutional system, with 2 of those decided in the first round.
8 is a really small sample to consider it as unusual, plus the reversal was not that huge 1.8%
Right, but simpler pattern matchers don't always consider that.q
There were lots of candidates in the first round, neither of today's candidates got 50%+1 so they had a runoff, all the voters from those other candidates were forced to pick one of the two
Mass protests and voter activation might have tipped the scale towards Lula. There was a rude awakening among mainly the younger populace when Bolsonaro jr managed to get the most votes in the first round.
What does "voter activation" mean in a country that requires that every person who can vote must vote?
Just because you can vote doesn't mean you have to vote on the first candidate or the other one, voting blank or voting arbitrary is genuine options.
So voting activation is to push all those people to not vote blank or arbitrarily.
Means +3M voters on the second round. While voting is mandatory no one is forced to vote
~3 million more people voted compared to the first round. 30 million still didn’t vote. You just pay a fine to put your registration in order for the next time, there are no long term consequences.
Voting is mandatory but people aren't dragged to the polls. If they don't vote they get a small fine, the repercussions are tiny. So participation is still an issue, there were about 30 million people who didn't vote in the runoff, against 33 million in the first round.
> I was seeing the reports from the first pass which said it was almost guaranteed that Lula would not win because of what the results of the first were. I wonder what caused that prediction to fail.
Those weren't, as far as I can see, real predictions; they were people saying "the runner up in the runoff has never won, therefore the runner up in the runoff _cannot_ win". Which is fairly ridiculous; it's a _tiny_ sample size.
Well the first round was extremely close and so was the second one where he only won by 3.5 points. The 1st round loser winning the 2nd round is unprecedented but shifts of that magnitude are not. The margin only shifted by 5 points.
Also I think Lula's campaign successfully highlighted Meta's election interference to the voting base which energized a lot of supporters to turn out
Interesting how pro-democracy wave after wave strike the shore as Russia's resources dwindle. Perhaps Russia is/was the only thing still keeping those monsters up?
No not the only one. Musk, Thiel, Vance are also working hard and spending tons of money on that.
They are children compared to Putin in the art of geopolitical manipulation. If he didn't wield his skills so malignantly, I'd be impressed.
Indeed Russia has had over 20 years of covert operations and generally different philosophy of how to influence a country to your will than the Americans.
What's the evidence for Russian involvement in the Brazil election?
As far as I can see it's pretty thin. US interence on the other hand has been open.
https://thebostonreport.com/2026/10/11/russia-brazil-electio...
Oh, in this particular case they have no need, as both candidates are friendly to Russia.
It is not even Russia in this case. Just look what Meta and Trump and friends have been doing
Why is it always Russia?
This is into "not even wrong" territory. Brazil has a fairly close relationship with Russia, they're a fellow founding BRICS member - and Lula was president when it was formed. What would Putin get from having US (Trump) ally Bolsonaro Jr. over him?
And while it's great that the murder-happy fascist didn't win, it's not exactly a great win for democracy. It's just stopping the bleeding. Besides the obvious problem of being allied with Russia and China, Brazil has a worrying "anti fake news" law. Like elsewhere, it seems the slightly-better guys aren't eager to roll back power grabs that now benefit themselves.
If we look at fascists taking power in south america, then the us is an better suspect, since they already did this before.
> Brazil has a worrying "anti fake news" law
Really? I couldn't tell. In the last debate alone, the main TV network conceded to Flavio's request to not use live fact checking systems on TV. Turns out 75% of his statements were not true. He's facing no consequences for that, nor is the network for hosting and broadcasting his fake facts.
Such laws always work better for one side than the other, it's always selective about which facts get checked and which false news get suppressed. I don't know about how trusted that media network is in Brazil, but from all we've seen from other countries, authoritative fact checking from old information monopolies just fan the flames. It wouldn't surprise me if conceding to the request was the best they could do in the situation.
Fact checking systems often lack context and self-correction mechanisms, suffer from selection bias and numerous other problems that doesn't elevate them above other forms of media. Especially media that doesn't claim to be an authoritative source.
You probably could have constructed a fact checker that would have said that 75% is true, the completely other way around. For most truths or facts that is entirely possible without any contradiction if you change perspective. This basic media literacy isn't optional and it cannot be outsourced.
That's true, and indeed the fact checking they posted online sometimes lacked nuance. But they actually tried to tackle that exact problem by labeling several statements as "not quite right", and all facts had a description, it was not black and white. I also understand that in live TV that nuance would be lost. But some statements were 100% straight out lies. Those could be even flagged by the debate moderator.
>Why is it always Russia?
Why indeed.
Given that Bolsonaro would reduce engagement with BRICS and de-dollarization, I guess it was Lula the candidate favored by Putin.
That's an interesting angle. Is that a fact, though? Far-right has usually been in bed with Putin.
"Far-right" means nothing anymore, other than opposition to the globalist establishment.
Chinese people I debated politics with called Bolsonaro center-left. It blew me away.
Well, at least I could read that about Bolsonaro, that's for sure. Being hardline Trump supporters, Bolsonaros are not very fond of things like being in BRICS or making business with China.
I guess Putin doesn't really care whether you are red or blue, but who do you align with, or who do you oppose.
Russia occupies a weird area where they have a natural affinity with third worldists and anti-imperialists. Historically a lot of Russian propaganda has targeted the western left (see Russia Today which often looks straight up progressive) but they're clearly also targeting the far right
Lula was the incumbent. What does Russia have to do with anything?
Bolsanaro (the fellow in jail/house arrest) is the one favoured by Trump.
I think this framing is pretty much disinformation itself. Sure, Russia tries to influence elections like every other country does as well, democracies or not.
Currently we see such claims resurfacing on topics like Brexit or other contemporary issues. If you look at the hard data of visibility on the attempts of Russia, they are in a similar spot as their economy. Doing decently poorly.
If any domestic news article or politician points their fingers at Russia, it is probably to distract from something else. Sure, if you are situated in Ukraine, the story is different. The latter does have to swallow the results of the moronic foreign policy of quite a few western nations for that matter and it would be served well if a bit of sensible reflection would be put on the table.
>I think this framing is pretty much disinformation itself.
Russian troll factories etc are a documented fact, not an opinion. It goes way beyond just "influencing elections".
US troll factories are just called social media. That's the one that tried to influence the Brazilian election in favor of the BolsoJr
I feel the whole Putin/Trump/Bolsonaro/Netanyahu fascist like schtick is wearing a bit thin with voters. Making <country> great again is running into military quagmires.
That's a mind-boggling viewpoint when the US/Trump heavily interfered to prop up Bolsonaro. US has also been propping up dictators throughout SA, especially since trump's reelection
The fact that I am learning today that Bolsonaro has been in prison for some time makes me think my strategy of staying away from news and politics to avoid cortisol peaks is working well.
Just wait until you find out that Lula was also in prison
I have a learning a bit more related to tech from this election. Centrally organized, cohesive, persistent online engagement wins elections.
It won for Bolsonaro whose campaign nailed it in 2018. It didn’t win in 2022 because he was completely bad in dealing with pandemics (mocking people dying and saying he had nothing to do with it being president).
Now, Lula’s campaign was absolutely dead during the whole time. Until it lost in the legislative by a mile and in the President run had a partial loss in the first round. Then the campaign lit up after the partial upset.
Janones, an energetic young guy elected to legislative with good online presence led the campaign. He achieved creating a WhatsApp group with 11 million people called “Lula’s army”. He would give the directions and the people would obey almost blindly.
The interwebs (basically WhatsApp + Instagram) got flooded with this top to bottom Lula’s campaign.
The first round results made Bolsonaro very favorite. Lula victory was a huge upset. I put the merit in this incessant social media campaign.
The thing is: “centrally planned cohesive campaign” looks a lot like a cult. The point of the campaign is not critical thought or argumentation, it is incessant messaging. Think fandoms.
Bolsonaro voters pejorative nickname from past campaigns was they were all “cattle”. Because that is how they behaved online. Ironically, what worked for Lula voters this year was they behaving like “cattle”. Just reposting and following this central orders on what to post, what to say, what to dress.
The thing is, it works. Cult-like fandoms work in elections. The right won a few elections like this in the world. In Brazil, the left just learned how to do it was well.
The more mindless posters a politician has following their campaign HQ orders, the more votes they have.
Absolutely. Janones won this election. Let's see if he will be part of the government or will be sidelined again.
> It didn’t win in 2022 because he was completely bad in dealing with pandemics
And also because the entire state apparatus was engaged in unconstitutional censorship of his "centrally organized, cohesive, persistent online engagement" machine, which is what wins elections, as you noted.
And now that Janones set up his own "Lula's Army", Brazilian institutions did not manifest even a fraction of the energy they had shown while persecuting Bolsonaro.
Lula was allowed to do everything Bolsonaro was persecuted for in 2022. He even lowered taxes on fuels, and got away with it. The tax cut ends tomorrow.
Nonsense, Bolsonaro was persecuted because 100,000's of Brazilians died unnecessarily during the pandemic, and he and his family decided to push hidrocloroquina and experiment with "forced herd immunity" in regions like Manaus that were sacrificed instead of just telling people to mask, isolate, and take the vaccine. The department of hate from 2018-2022 was absolutely a fake news factory on the model of Steve Bannon and friends, nothing like the Janones digital movement which was completely transparent: you just had to join (and can still join) the whatsapp group.
His poor handling of the pandemic does not somehow justify the relentless censorship effort in 2022.
I remind you that censorship is unconstitutional in Brazil, and political censorship doubly so. The supreme court walked all over the constitution when they censored him.
"Fake news" is still speech and cannot and must not be censored. I question the supreme court's ability to determine whether any political statement is true or false in an impartial manner: they declared fake things which I know are true. They said it was "fake news" that Lula was a friend of communist dictators. After he won, I was forced to watch him literally roll out the red carpet and welcome Maduro to my country with full military honors. It was a nationwide gaslighting campaign.
Your side also pushed plenty of "fake news", only with total impunity. Claimed he was going to end the healthcare system. Claimed he was going to end government benefits. Claimed he was going to abolish female suffrage. Bolsonaro has repeatedly said he was never going to do any of that, yet the pushing persisted, and not a single judge lifted a finger to censor you people.
Must be nice, having literal judge-god-kings on your side.
You only need to look at what FB has said and done over his entire career in public and private, his copycatting of Trump (ahem, the first debate), and the conduct of him and his father's government (stealing funds allocated for social programs for a shadow budget) to know that his government, with executive, legislative, and judicial majorities, would wreak havoc on every Brazilian instution possible, ala Trump's second government.
As is currently observable in the United States, given consolidation of power in the three branches of government, it is no longer necessary to follow the law or the constitution. Minimal research into who from the US government the Bolsonaros associate with tells you what their agenda would have been in the "Bolsonaro 2" government: complete, transparent self-interest and complete disregard for actually administering the country for the benefit of the people.
Taking him at his word in the last three months of the campaign after 20 years of a vapid/nothing political career full of police investigations and associations with organized crime makes no sense.
Janones was not leading a cult, this is just absurd. He was not telling people what to believe or how to behave AT ALL - he was just giving directions on what to do on social media to win the elections. Bolsonarism on the other hand is 100% a cult, from the beginning.
In India, we have a name for for blind supporters of the current Hindu right ruling party.. The BJP... They're called andh bhakts... Translated 'the faithful blind'... Even incontrovertible proof of wrong doing does not change their mindset
Lula's been involved in over a dozen corruption scandals by now. It doesn't matter to anyone. It's been completely normalized.
Flavio seems to be a mob leader, why anybody would care that Lula was caught stealing things?
Your cause and effect are inverted. It's precisely because of Lula's corruption that nobody cares anymore.
He was arrested for the biggest corruption scandal this country ever had. People ratted him out. He was the guy at the top.
Then the supreme court cited some technicality like "his initial judgement took place in the wrong court" and just undid the entire thing. They did it because nobody else could take out Bolsonaro.
Then he ran against Bolsonaro and took him out in 2022. And he just did it again.
It's Brazil. Crime pays. Lula's existence is proof. This country will never truly change.
So... people react by voting on one of the leaders of the fucking Rio mob? (the "nice family you have, it would be a shame if something happened to them" kind of mob?)
Besides, Jair Bolsonaro won when Lula was still in jail.
The "mob" accusations are just that: accusations. Lula was actually held guilty by multiple independent judges based on evidence and testimony.
And you're right, Lula's imprisonment changed everything. It was a moment of hope for many of us, and the reason why Bolsonaro even had a chance to begin with. Surely you can understand why the supreme court breaking the guy out of jail and putting him in the presidential race again while censoring everything Bolsonaro said and did would cause people to stop believing in justice?
And how many of those 'independent' judges were appointed by Bolsanaro after openly and explicitly promising to 'end' Lula?
One.
From 2 courts with 5 judges each.
Bolsonaro hadn't even been elected at the time Lula was imprisoned.
> multiple independent judges
The first instance judge colluded with the prosecution, and when the supreme court was about to rule on a habeas corpus, a general tweeted a thinly veiled threat of military coup if the sentence wasn't confirmed. And the evidence was scant to begin with. Hardly surprising that the conviction was eventually overturned.
Bolsonaro's condemnation, on the other hand, was backed by much more comprehensive evidence, and resulted from a heavily scrutinized process.
If the process was so faulty, why was Lula's condemnation annulled based on the flimsiest of excuses?
Everything got thrown out because of a "tried in the wrong court" technicality. I'd still be disappointed but I'd have been far more sympathetic if what you posted had been cited as the reason for the maneuver.
By "the flimsiest of excuses" do you mean the extensive evidence that one of the most fundamental principles of the justice system, the impartiality of the judge, was completely violated? Because I'd call that a mischaracterization, and that's cos' I'm feeling generous.
Like, I'm not happy that the whole process was thrown out either, because a lot of actually corrupt people got away with it. But another fundamental principle of the justice system is that it NEEDS to err on the side of innocence. So, while it is an unfortunate outcome, I still think that 1) it's better than the alternative, and 2) the blame lays 100% with the partial (and, arguably, corrupt) judge and prosecutor. It was their unscrupulous drive to get 1 guy convicted (with, again, arguably second intentions, since both judge and prosecutor got elect and made a bunch of money with talks and shit) that turned the whole case into trash.
UPDATE: I jumped the gun a bit in the answer, and ended up no addressing the main point: Lula's conviction was not overturned just because it was tried in a 1st instance court, the evidence of partiality of the judge was very much also a factor.
Very well. My world view has been updated.
Matheus in this forum you're literally the only person who believes this and who feels that this is worse than Bolsonaro having literally planned a coup.
Lula's corruption "scandal" was the Lava Jato which was cooked up by Bolsonaro. He served 580 days in jail for it. Even the United Nations stepped in and said the case violated his due process and political rights
What other cases are you referring to? Be specific
Bolsonaro was not even in power when it happened.
Bolsonaro made a deal with the judge Sérgio Moro which is what got Lula unable to run against Bolsonaro. He then appointed Moro as his Minister of Justice and Public Security as a political reward.
Investigative journalists from The Intercept proved this collaboration when they got ahold of leaked Telegram messages. That investigation is what led the Supreme Court to throw out the conviction and the United Nations to step in and call it out as bogus.
https://www.democracynow.org/2019/6/12/secret_files_show_how...
I see. That's absolutely problematic and I don't condone it.
Are we really just going to ignore all the other evidence though? All the testimonies? The corruption can't possibly have been fake. It's scandal after scandal, Vorcaro is just the latest episode.
Note that I'm not denying that the Bolsonaros are corrupt. I think every single politician in this country is corrupt.
> Even incontrovertible proof of wrong doing does not change their mindset
You could argue that about pretty much every politician and their supporters in India. The right wing keeps winning because the left refuses to address the fears of a majority of the Indian population. Even if those fears are unwarranted - dismissing them as "uneducated" and "blind sheep" alienates people even more.
Opposition is full of corrupt dynasties who ruled India for 65years with iron fist. Indians want dynasties out.
The ruling party has more than it's share of dynasties...
Most of that gear is manufactured.. With mass media fully captured.. So yes, unwarranted.. And the people are coming out of the spell.. Esp as they see their children suffer due to the systemic damage... These are the silent majority that's slow to react but eventually does.. That's what put the fear in the govt now and precipitated the massive crackdown on dissent.
When one doesn’t have a response based on logic and common sense, one resorts to name calling.
Fact is, whether you like it or not, the party in power has been in power only for a few years, and has achieved more than the other party did in 60 years.
Do you really believe that the INC would have handled Covid better? They were trying to kill off indigenous vaccines to favour Pfizer etc who (a) refused trials in Indian conditions and (b) wanted $62 per shot.
Do you really believe that they would have managed to keep fuel prices in check given Trump's war on Iran?
Do you really believe that Rahul Gandhi is qualified to run a home owner's association, leave alone a nation of 1.4 billion people?
Take a look in the mirror then next time you use that phrase.
An area of Amazon forest roughly the size of the US state of New Jersey has remained standing due to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s leadership of Brazil, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-lula-presidency-saved-a...
for those partying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vL--PrvsJ0
Once again, a clear anti-Bolsonaro vote from the majority of the electorate. Lula won because he got last-minute support from the moderates and even some right-wingers. It certainly does not feel like a victory of the left.
Now he will face a much bigger opposition in Congress and therefore will have to find a middle ground.
I expect his policies to move even further to the right. This might pave the way for his vice-president Alckmin, a historical right-winger, to run in the 2030 elections — likely against São Paulo’s governor Tarcísio de Freitas, also a right-winger and considered more moderate than the Bolsonaros despite being associated with them.
(reposting my own comment from a related thread)
The margin is a little close, so is the Senate expected to be deadlocked? Or is there a coalition that can form between moderates and the left?
I wouldn’t say deadlocked but the coalition between moderates and the left isn’t a given. There are many centrist parties who will likely alternate between supporting and opposing the government depending on the issue.
Senate is very right wing.
Legislative branch in Brazil never deadlocks. Coalitions are a very natural part of our democracy.
Yeah, they will just make deals. Seriously doubt there will be a deadlock. Hope they at least manage to impeach the supreme court justices, which is what we elected them for.
I would call this a defensive victory. The left’s best chance was a 0-0 draw, so they put everyone in defense and managed to prevent the right from scoring a victory goal.
moving to the right would be a trap. (cf. Dem party vs Trump) The left must instead build an anti-right wing narrative. People vote on material benefits so delivering more of those should be top priority—I think Trumps slump in the US proves that.
Nobody wants to see them cut taxes from the rich or reduce employers rights. The popular "right" in Brazil wants taxes to be easier to pay, judges not to decide based on who is asking, and clear rules on what you can or can't do.
Also, nobody can beat Dilma on cutting taxes from the rich.
But there's also a religious fundamentalist faction, no? Which I recently learned was fomented by the CIA years ago under Reagan (when the Catholic church was moving left and the "US" was afraid of Brazil moving to the left as well)
https://smalands.org/en/the-cold-wars-unholy-war-how-the-cia...
That exists, yes.
Those, the "we must kill all the criminals!!", the actual nazis and all the other people that identify with the Bolsonaro family add up to about 15% of the country.
Delivering material benefits requires fiscal health, something Brazil lacks: https://tradingeconomics.com/brazil/government-debt-to-gdp
i don't know why you were downvoted. any turn to the moderation/center seems good news to me. those crazy swings between extremes left or right are just bad. i have never voted for both bolsonaro neither lula and crave for something closer to the center.
lula is a little less crazy (compared to bolsonaro), likely not anti-science, preserves the amazon, seems to care about keeping the same constituition and so on, but he heaves his hand when it comes to (mostly populist) spending, like there's no tomorrow.
he thinks he is helping the poor, but it is just for short term. so much public debt, in a few years everyone, rich or poor, will have pay the price, with interest. people that likes him usually say they don't like milei, but his incredible debt build up is actually a future-milei magnet.
also, after so much terms and "custo brazil" ("Brazilian (Business) Cost Burden"?) still prohibitive, the country never goes up from its terrible positions in making business rankings. one can just not hope he does anything better now after so much terms. his spending is too demand biased.
> he heaves his hand when it comes to (mostly populist) spending, like there's no tomorrow
This is key to his reelection. He literally ran on a "Bolsonaro will end Bolsa Família" campaign.
It's unfortunate. Lula inherited a post-Washington consensus neoliberal Brazil. He had nearly 20 years to undo all that and reindustrialize the country, thereby putting us on China's path.
I would have voted for him regardless of ideology if he had done it, but he didn't. It's just easier to just anesthetize the population and put them on paliative care with free money.
> he thinks he is helping the poor, but it is just for short term.
This "short term" is unbearably long... But I do see signs that the system is reaching its limits. Government was already having trouble paying pensions before Vorcaro.
> so much public debt, in a few years everyone, rich or poor, will have pay the price, with interest.
Bankers love Lula for a reason. Record profits.
Big issue is that there are no swings between crazy left and crazy right.
There is crazy right and significantly more normal left. And if you want the center to win, you need to ackwnowledge that. Anything else helps the more crazy side.
Are humans still involved in summarizing? Why is "What you need to know" missing the vote count even though the title is about votes?
AFAIK the final numbers are not out yet, the electoral commission called it because Lula's margin is sufficiently large that Bolsonaro mathematically cannot win.
Fascism loses, maybe there is hope for the rest of the world.
"Lula's re-election will strengthen Brazil's ties with Russia, Brazilian Workers Party congressman Reimont Otoni told TASS"
The world is more complex than "fascist" vs "communist"
Are you taking this single congressman's word as fact?
https://www.barrons.com/news/lula-calls-to-strengthen-strate...
Literally Lula said as much
"We are interested in discussing the defence area, the space area, the scientific and technological area, the education area, and especially, the energy issue area," Lula said.
I don't know enough about their available options to know how bad this is.
I get that BRICS is world-domination wise scary to the US, but I don't really think the rest of the world fears that sans the US's warmongering.
Tbh don’t really care which side is right (some of Lula's politics I like and other not). I’m just pointing out the mental gymnastics HN goes through to paint one group as “fascist,” while completely ignoring the grey areas that don’t fit their cleancut worldview.
None of the things you mentioned have anything to do with whether or not a candidate is fascist. No “mental gymnastics” are needed.
Bolsonaro was also friendly towards Russia. Any president will be. Brazil depends on their fertilizers.
So what?! Nobody is saying otherwise. But PT vastly misrepresents how close it is to fascists and dictators. Love them, but hate to publicize them.
I agree with you.
Why is it that this a concern to you but it's not a concern when the US and European powers align themselves with Saudi Arabia and Qatar?
Only if you beat the fascists. Otherwise it gets real black-and-white real fast
The real lesson that the USA should be taking from these elections, is that any non-3rd world country with more than 1 party (not looking at you China) can count next to 100% of the votes in a matter of hours.
Heartening after all the interference the US and its oligarchs threw at this election.
> The surprise result defied polls, precedent and went against the rightward trend that's been sweeping across Latin America.
...so this will play in to Bolsonaro's claims the election was "stolen" then probably, if the polls heavily favored him?
Importantly president Lula has vowed to regulate internet and social media around elections "within 100 days".
seems like social media titans generally need to be regulated much more, and 365 days a year
Sounds like a good idea considering facebool and twitter behavior
Nice to see this despite the tech fascist effort.
Lula (not the Trump buddy) wins and Brazil wants to do some non-US financial stuff. Get ready for some CIA shenanigans...
Parabéns Lula! Uffaaaaaa
Really unexpected.
Polymarket was like 80% Bolsonaro Jr to 20% Lula 7pm, 7:15 it changed to 60% Lula. There were multiple reports in the news websites about it favoring Bolsonaro which itself probably made some people vote for him.
I'm quite happy with the result tho. Let's see how the far right opposition will take this loss. I'm already expecting the worse.
Maybe these prediction markets are less useful than has been claimed.
They are good at some markets but they don’t understand latam and especially Brazilian politics in the least so whatever makes it into the US news drives the market although it is normally wrong
If he has an 80% chance to win that means Polymarket will be "wrong" 20% of the time. And 80% seems fair given he was leading in the polls by a razor thin but consistent margin.
Polymarket isn't binary so you are understating how wrong they were. Polymaket gives outcomes as percentage odds and less than 12 hours ago they had Bolsonaro by 5-to-1.
They resolve as binary. Until they resolve it's a percentage chance of the eventual resolution.
Maybe it's useful for people spending money to present the odds they wish for?
20% happens about 1 in 5 times. I know that's snarky wording but 20% shots come though constantly in daily life.
I think as humans we are really bad at intuition about probabilities, and it being an election only makes it much worse. I don't think anyone is consciously conflating these with poll numbers but percentages of voters are the numbers we see a lot more than prediction markets, and 80% is idunno an 80% chance of getting between 50% and 54% of the vote or something.
It's not a 'prediction market', it's a gambling market. It's far more accurate to say 80% of gamblers were convinced Bolsanaro would win than to say there's an 80% likelihood he would win. It's not measuring likelihood as it's untethered from things that impact the actual results. Obscuring it basic gambling with the word 'prediction' doesn't change the fact that's naked gambling at the end of the day.
The 80% is not the proportion of people who think he would win, that's not how these things work.
Every single factor was pointing towards Bolsonaro, Polymarket was just consistent with that.
He unexpectedly won the first round of the election. His lead was expected to grow since he'd likely get most of the votes of the other candidates. 17 out of 18 polls favored Bolsonaro. Market movements indicated a strong expectation of him winning. The Brazilian Real futures are already down 10% in the last couple hours.
But that's how democracy works, I think this election will be studied many times in the future.
> The Brazilian Real futures are already down 10% in the last couple hours.
Brutal.
It's extremely inaccurate to say 80% of the gamblers were convinced because that's not how it works at all. Each bet has someone on the other side of it - 50% of the people bet on Bolsanaro and 50% against.
If you bet on 20% chances and they happen 30% of the time you make money. The payoffs are such that you win by being a better predictor than the market. I'm fine criticizing it as a gambling blight (not to mention a corruption payoff) but it is also a prediction market.
They were never useful for the results, just for market expectation, which is never the same as real chances of something happening
and more manipulated for intended public influence than realized
this kind of gambling ought be made illegal along with the explicit in-pocket gambling
want to gamble, go to a physical place,
constant, easy access apps are already showing harm
Not really. If you follow anyone who has been covering latam for a long time they had odds of this election at a coinflip.
A 20% chance of Lula winning is still a real chance of winning. A standard rule of thumb would require 2 standard deviations aka 5% aka p<0.05 for relative certainty.
If you think this result with those odds is unexpected, you must have never played X-Com :)
We saw how they took it last time.
If the new right wing senate manages to at least impeach some supreme court judges, I'll still call it a major win.
Surprising to see Bolsonaro lose at this point, but the real upset of this election was caused by the senate. The whole point of electing the right wing was to impeach the judges. So long as that happens, I will be satisfied.
The next four years were going to seriously suck for Flávio. Now the economic bomb is going to explode in Lula's hands. I was tempted to vote for Lula myself just to make that happen. It's the supreme court issue that stopped me.
Lula's barely fit for his position as president too. He might resign and let the vice-president deal with it. Also an acceptable outcome.
What do you get out of posting on HN that you want to destroy your country?
It's the only place where I feel safe enough to discuss Brazilian politics.
Impeachment of the supreme court is precisely what will save this country. They have been ruling monocratically since they launched the "fake news" inquisition in 2019. People can stomach a Lula win, even I have points where I intersect with the guy. The thing is not a single Brazilian voted for those judges.
Unfortunately, Flávio's loss will only embolden them now. Remains to be seen whether the senators will do what we elected them to do.
> It's the only place where I feel safe enough to discuss Brazilian politics
And so, you feel comfortable foisting your political views on a tech forum, even when you are repeatedly told that your views are unhinged and that you need serious help?
I do my part flagging everything he posts but it seems HN has its favorites that are allowed to break the rules.
Polymarket also just had the Serbian election at 71.5% Vučić a few hours before the results came out of him losing
Gambling websites are all but useless for predicting elections.
I am not from Brazil, nor am I closely following its politics, but I would like to pose a genuine question: in a modern liberal democracy, doesn’t a four-term presidency represent too much power concentrated in one person?
Yes.
no. as presidency is not a dictatorship
It's not four consecutive terms, you are only allowed 2 consecutive terms.
He just got voted in, if he's doing a good job or people don't like the other guy, people will keep voting or him
In a liberal democracy with many opposing viewpoints, having to elect a single "head of government" that will be necessarily beholden to only one part of the electorate is detrimental, especially in combination with something like FPTP.
A directorate where executive power is distributed over multiple people and executive policy is decided on in a concordat it a much better solution.
Yes it sounds worrisome, the general populace is getting fed up with him running the country for 20 years and want a fresh change of leaders.
But it doesn't help that the alternative far-right candidate is an extremist nutjob whose appointment for the presidential race was done for noone other than nepotism (bearing his jailed father name). That alienated alot of his voting base who wanted a more competent candidate.
Not really. He has never had any real legislative power to back him. The biggest scandal surrounding his party was paying off congressmen and heads of parties in order for them to vote for welfare policies. These policies never would've been voted in if that was not the case. A lot of parties gatekeep votes for important legislation until they get handouts.
Ironically (or not at all) the man who individually received the most money from that scheme is the head of Flavio Bolsonaro's party, and the party who received the most payoff as a whole was Jair Bolsonaro's party at the time.
Politics in Brazil require a great deal of consensus, obscure dealmaking and corruption.
The one good thing about the current system is that shitheads like musk can spend half-a-billion to buy elections, but the people still have the final say.
That's assuming no gerrymandering and funny business at the polls.
Gerrymandering doesn’t change the fact that the voters decide the results. Most electoral systems already give unequal weight to different votes based on district sizes etc., so gerrymandering is only a change of degree and intention, not of how democracy fundamentally works.
> Gerrymandering doesn’t change the fact that the voters decide the results.
Well it does change which voters decide the results. A lot of electoral systems seek to constantly redress imbalance by having impartial bodies redraw district lines as populations shift. It is a shame the US does not. Gerrymandering is fundamentally undemocratic.
I'm not sure you could find, or make, an impartial body in the US.
A district system already embeds bias towards large parties.
Also, many countries use multiseat PR, which makes gerrymandering virtually impossible.
gerrymandering is not possible with Brasil electoral system
Right, but he's right to try to account for legal, as in currently allowed, cheating or misrepresentation of the people in a democracy.
>gerrymandering
I don't know the specifics of Brazil's system, but at least in the US gerrymandering has nothing to do with the Presidency or Senate, only the House. It's also not without risk. Gerrymandering is bad, but it doesn't change the totals of votes; it attempts to reapportion "excess" votes yielding a large win margin in one area to give winning, but necessarily smaller, margins in more areas. Amongst other challenges though that smaller margin means if there is a wave then a gerrymander can turn into a "dummymander" where previously safe districts get flipped.
>funny business
This is actually pretty dang hard in anything but a total sham, and even then is at least obvious it happened. Some timy fiddling at the margins may be possible to sneak through, and yeah some elections that might make the difference. But that can't counter any serious victory. The more common technique seems to be trying to suppress the vote. But as well as also not being trivial it also too risks backfiring by motivating people much harder. There is a lot of human psychology around "loss", people often absolutely hate things being taken from them even if they were complacent about having them.
Brazilian here. President wins by popular vote. Period.
Must win by 50% plus 1 of all valid votes on Round 1. If not, 1st and 2nd most voted go for Round 2 a few weeks later. Then, 50%+1 again of all valid votes.
While gerrymandering technically "only" involves the house, it can demotivate people who would otherwise turn out.
Gerrymandering is the most benign of the tricks, and both sides play that trick. What's more concerning is we don't really have a true paper record of the votes. So many of these swing states have machines that produce digital only voting records. So how do we even know that the vote is accurate? Even if there was a paper record, most states don't even bother re-checking unless it's very close. After 2016, a lot of activism across the country has forced states to switch to a paper + digital record, which allows quick tallies, but then also paper backup and opens the door to two way verification. Unfortunately, this is not enough. There needs to be validation done after the election to confirm. But again, the worst part is that the states that really matter have been the ones least incentivized to actually switch over. So who knows? While its conspiracy thinking that Trump didn't actually win in 2024, do we really know for sure?
Everything else you mentioned also matters. I can't tell you the amount of times that the state of Georgia, suddenly out of the blue, invalidated a lot of registered voters. And if people don't check, like my friend in a minority town outside of Atlanta, they won't realize until election day. Red states are more likely to play this trick. Your conclusion is something I disagree with, though. Voters have lost so much over the last decade, and they don't fight back until it really starts to affect them personally. I think the surge that we might see this election is only due to economics. If the economics were good, it's not out of the question that Trump would be doing fairly decent this election cycle. This is why Iran is playing things very well to try to enact maximum economic pain in the days before the election. But it's all about economics, and that shows you that people truly don't really care.
Gerrymandering can give you control of state level offices that then let you affect federal elections by say closing voting locations where you think mostly the opposition will vote or kicking people with ethnic names of voting lists at the last minute.
So there's not a direct effect on Presidential elections but there's a second order effect.
wasn't musk heavily quoted in physics and tech books until his politics became center stage?
Serious question: why would he be "heavily" quoted in physics books? I didn't think he was a physicist, is he?
We need to get to the bottom of why people believe stuff like that, and fix it.
You're fighting a losing war against human laziness and gullibility.
Reality distortion field. Same reason Jobs is held up as an amazing visionary.
That assumption has certainly been vindicated, considering what happened to Apple after he was gone.
A 5 trillion dollar company?
That produces the blandest corporate safe slop.
Who’s to say that it’s not a calculated decision to not follow in Jobs’ footsteps, and not some sort of “skill issue”?
Long before a company reaches 5 trln, everything at that level is a calculated decision.
Also, what is a brand if not a intentional ‘reality distortion’?
It's money.
If you have a lot of money and you've managed to stay out of prison, people are generally ready to believe good things about you and want to be in your good graces. If you pay people to continually say good things about you and manage your media appearances for you, there will generally be a lot of impact to that. You're just telling people what they're primed to believe. A lot of people will fluff up your image for free just because they're hoping for patronage.
Musk has a BA in physics that was awarded a couple years after he says he says he completed his studies. Unlike CPSC, leaving a physics program early robs you of some pretty crucial stuff. You generally don't see a lot of rockstar physicists leaving university early to join startups. Despite Musk posing as a rocket scientist, engineering guru, etc., there's no evidence he's one of the scientific or engineering minds behind Tesla or SpaceX's work. He's just a money guy.
The general rule for money guys is that the closer you are to the money, the more of it you can get. This is why CEO's are paid outrageous sums. Musk is the closest guy to the money at his companies, and his one true gift seems to be "getting close" to politicians in order to get the public's money, which Tesla and SpaceX have received gob-smacking amounts of.
If you want a laugh, go look up the episode of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History addendum where he brought Musk on. Carlin typically interviews authors of history books, so why Musk? Why indeed! During this episode, it comes out that Musk used to have models of WWII planes but clearly knows absolutely nothing about history. Despite this, he makes every effort to sound like he does. This is the sort of exposure $$$ gets you but, sometimes, you miss the mark.
Somewhat Related:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmJI6qIqURA
It's not limited to textbooks or academic publications, or based on any context whatsoever, but an ngram search actually suggests there's a much larger musk stain on recent published literature than I'd ever thought possible:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Elon+Musk%2CAl...
Make of that what you will.
I don't understand how to filter this to physics books
I wasn't trying to imply that, simply noting that there was a surprising amount of literary chatter about Musk, at high levels compared to commonly cited physicists. It's not the most useful comparison.
It could easily be people writing fanfic about him (ugh) or criticising the pants off him, and may not be related at all. But I'd guess a lot of this was field-adjacent to at least his business interests.
I guess some people still like to troll? Or are so dumb they’ve obviously never even cracked a physic text? I’m hoping it’s just old fashioned trolling.
Not really. He had a really good PR person that made people think this, but most technologists are focused on, y’know, actual technology
You’re making the claim. Back it up.
no
https://x.com/AlexanderSoros/status/2114508265643983067
Need I say more?
Wait, what did he do besides be happy that a fascist isn't in charge of the future of the Amazon?
Yes, please say more, I have no idea what you're saying.
So can we stop panicking about money in elections or
No.
Not really. A biased coin doesn't need to be biased 99% (to 1%) for it to matter.
Absolutely the fuck not.
No, this much money in politics is still very dangerous.
A major reason it isn't working for now is because Donald Trump is, in addition to being a corrupt autocrat, incredibly incompetent. We shouldn't have to rely on that next time.
Trump's time is ending, but Musk's is not. That's pretty scary
Your belief is unfalsifiable
Nope. Money still buys votes. It's just that Musk is so opaquely unpopular outside of the US that it negates his riches. Which really says something.
He's also very unpopular in the US
Not unpopular enough to tank Tesla sales (like in other countries) or not be pubic enemy #1 after literally stealing America's government data.
He did screw up Twitter/X enough that a new competitor managed to make a blip on the map, though. So that leads some credence.
EV sales are not a great metric to judge musk sentiments, consider the Tesla drivers who put various bumper stickers on
Tesla is the only EV company in the US making a good product. People also like the techieness. Foreign manufactures like Hyundai (what I drive, preferred less tech and real buttons) have tariffs and such applied to them. BYD would wreck them all if allowed.
>Tesla is the only EV company in the US making a good product. People also like the techieness.
Well yes. Those were things in EU too. But those didn't override the fact that he tried to control their elections. The US has some people who swore off Tesla in similar protest, but the overall sentiment didn't seem to impact their bottom line.
I personally want to hold out and see if/when the US gives up on tariffing progress. But I have driven a 2008 car for almost 10 years and can't overlook the scenario of needing to replace it one day.
And I'm interested in an FEV for my next car. Tesla is completely out of the question, but I really haven't been impressed with most other offerings when I could peer over the border and see what BYD, Xiaomi, and others are doing. Maybe I compromise short term then trade in when the time comes?
Check out Hyundais, I drive an Ioniq 6, really nice sedan, 800V architecture, charges in less than 20m on a 350
As demonstrated in 2024 with democrat billionaires trying and failing to buy the election :)
Interestingly the current "lets stop corporations from spending money on elections" that's popular in several states - wouldn't directly touch Musk because he can just spend the money directly.
I don't think "Oooh. Scary muslims!" works any less well if it's required to say "Elon Musk" rather than "American Apple Pie Goodness PAC" or whatever.
It might make a difference for smaller donors, especially if they're more sensitive about their personal PR.
The US is going to need a constitutional amendment to undo the Citizens United decision. Unlimited money in politics is anything but free speech.
Many countries cap donations by private individuals (capped to 1,000 in Ireland, for instance, for both private individuals and companies). Like, this is a fixable problem.
It's fixable if you have significant Supreme Court reform. I doubt the numbers are there to actually land that reform. Say you get 52 Democrats in the Senate, which is a tall order, and you write some reforms that could actually work, forced retirements, that sort of thing, immediately you'll find that two or three of them suddenly think such reforms need to be "bipartisan" and alas the Republicans who've fixed things don't seem interested in coming along. How about that.
Or, I suppose, you could fix it by abolishing America's Written Constitution so that its legislature can just write legislation for this. I think that would go down like cold sick - Americans love their Written Constitution.
I mean, my assumption would be that there is a way to write such a law such that it is constitutional.
I truly hate what HN has become. It has all the expected comments about Musk, fascism, etc. This is exactly why I stopped going to reddit.
Just a friendly gesture that there's still independents/non-partisan's here. We're a dying breed, but it seems to the the inevitable outcome when politics becomes a religion.
Buddy, ICE is chasing down and killing US citizens. Musk is openly supporting European neo-Nazis. The US tech sector is supporting the genocide of Palestinians, and interfering with foreign elections.
See, the problem is that each side has moved so far to the extreme that any middle of the road comment is perceived as supporting the other side. But thanks for the demonstration, I guess.
Swing and a miss buddy. The point is that big tech is political by its own choice, and you have to be extremely ignorant to look past that.
No, you just blatantly assumed none of those things mattered to me. You do realize you can have morals and opinions but also be non-partisan, right? Of course big tech is political, I completely agree. But you never asked me that question. Which again, really just keeps driving my point home. It's rabid.
The parties have morals and opinions which are quite diametrically opposed. If you have any at all, then you necessarily align with one or the other - being in the exact middle is an extreme rarity (and also quite a stupid position, because it implies you can't decide whether it's better to have free healthcare or to torture immigrants). Most people who claim to be in the exact middle are in fact not.
Being non-partisan or independent has nothing to do with being in the "exact middle." I don't even think that's a real thing, nor did I ever imply it was. A better example is that, given an election ballot, I might split party lines rather than toe it unconditionally. I register as neither party because I generally disagree enough I don't wish to be affiliated with their policies. It doesn't mean I don't agree with some. Perhaps one election cycle I swing more left than right and the next I swing more right than left. It doesn't mean one cycle I identify as a Democrat and the other a Republican.
Since you keep baiting me with your straw man, I'll address the example: I neither want to torture immigrants nor do I want to give free healthcare to non-taxpayers. So, given your straw man, that would posit I'm in neither party's camp.
This is not the definition of non-partisan.
"Nonpartisan means free from party affiliation, bias, or political party alignment."
You're not even being genuine at this point.
Do you find yourself aligning with one party more than the other or is it an exact 50/50 split?
It's never a 50/50 split, and thus far it has yet to stay consistent with the tumultuous election cycles we've seen recently. I answered your straw man, which you ignored. Perhaps you can instruct me on what my true party affiliation is based on my answer to it? That might clear things up.
A middle of the road comment would be "we need taxes, but not too high" or "children shouldn't be going hungry, but very sadly we can't afford to feed them from the city budget". What's actually being responded to above is the complete lack of a comment.
"We'll just shoot protestors a little bit"
The left: we need free healthcare and less market capture.
The right: we need to torture immigrants and more market capture.
The center: I can't decide between these two equally appealing, equally moral options.
This is a naive perspective. Both extremes are losing people to independents for a reason. What we want is less of this and more of civil discourse. Most people are not tuned into the details, are focusing on their family, and vote based on how their wallet feels and the things they hear 2-3 weeks before the election.
Perhaps if the far left and hard right didn't dominate primaries (many reasons for this), we could have less extreme candidates in November. But it is what it is until we start having civil conversations with our friends, family, neighbors, and community. We could be having conversations about how we improve our democracy.
You comment lends to being part of the problem. Please stop demeaning everyone with blanket statements.
As an independent volunteering with Indivisible, my main effort has been to moderate the members on the far left.
I have heard of precisely three people in American politics who are left at all, much less far left. Those are AOC, Bernie Sanders, and Zohran Mamdani. The left is certainly not dominating any primaries.
They are democratic socialists, the far left is a much bigger camp.
The rule of thumb I use is, do they say things like "win at all costs" or talk about how they want to dominate others, forcing their views on all Americans.
guy whose blog is capstoned with "vive la résistance" bragging about spending his free time moderating the left
man, the wannabe trolls are out today
quality first comment buddy, leave that stuff on Musk and Zuck Social please
So where are the quotes of hard left politicians (and not some fringe politician) saying they want to dominate everything. Also how is that even part of a left/right definition. In fact in my experience the ones who most talk about eliminating others in politics are the self declared moderates, who at every opportunity talk about how we need to eliminate the extremes from politics.
the culture war between the groups has ample examplar
lots of top down rules for everyone, rather than the "trickle up" governance experiments we need to runin order to (1) figure out what works in practice (2) convince others they should try it to
So the answer is no quotes.
By that metric Donald Trump is far left, so I don't think it's a good metric.
it's a metric for the extremes, both far left and hard right
the rest of us want debates and compromise
This person seem content with summarizing the entire choice of a political party into a single point of torturing immigrants. It's no wonder we're in the state we are.
> until we start having civil conversations with our friends, family, neighbors, and community. We could be having conversations about how we improve our democracy.
You don't have much idea what some of our family, friends, and neighbors are like do you? I have nothing to say to fascists, Nazis, and anyone who advocates for the things MAGA advocates for. Spare us the "oh we should just talk it out" BS. The time for discourse ended when people started advocating for racist fascism. And if you're unable to spot the racist fascism, then you likely support it.
How do you expect them move away from those awful mindsets if we don't talk to them?
There is firm historical precedent on how to talk to Nazis.
Blue MAGA (what you sound like) is no better than Trump's MAGA
Please leave your political extremism at home when coming to HN. Musk Social is the place for that, if you need to let off the steam and yell into the void
No idea what blue MAGA is. But I know a fascist apologist when I hear one. And that fascism is the political extremism here, so you might consider leaving it behind.
You know what Blue MAGA is, they are people who are too online, too caught up in their echo chamber, and say hyperbolic things like you have, putting anyone who doesn't agree with them into their evil list, unable to understand nuance or the center / independents
There is a reason both extremes are losing support, it's people who say things like you have here. The rest of us are tired of you and you undermine the causes you care about. Touch some grass, talk to people in real life.
I'll have you know, I'm estranged from my parents and a best friend over these things. You do not need to talk to them all, but we do need to talk with them collectively if we are to move minds. I let my sister work on my parents, she has always had a much closer relationship.
Oh, so blue MAGA is just someone you don't like, I see.
You are either are blind to the things going on in this country, or you approve of them. Elon Musk did a Nazi salute at Trump's inauguration. Twice. Trump invited a known white supremacist to dinner. ICE is disappearing people. Trump had his goons raid a sitting congresswoman, in an obvious attempt to intimidate naturalized citizens and immigrants. He is implementing Project 2025, which is white Christian nationalism. He already attempted a coup, and has every intention of interfering in the midterms. Oh and he's clearly a pedo.
And you think people opposed to those things are "extreme"? What exactly do you say to people who support things that Nazis literally supported? As I said, you either support these things, or you are willfully ignorant of them.
There is no center with fascism. You are for or against. I don't give a goddamn if you are tired of hearing about it. People less fortunate than you are living it.
> ... I see
you don't see, you stand on a soap box and tell everyone how bad they are for not saying things exactly like you do
you are part of the problem in this country
do you think relentlessly attacking people is the way to win them to your causes or way of thinking?
I'm opposed to the same things you are, but you don't move people when you say things they way you say them
Sure pal. It's not the fascists and the pedos and the white supremacists and the warmongering oligarchs, it's anyone who points out what they are doing.
I'm starting to think you do support all of that. Why else would you whine about anyone mentioning it? What alternative is there? You clearly have no idea about the people you think should be talked to, they cannot be reached because they like what's going on.
It took a goddamn world war to stop Nazis from doing what they did. Talking won't do anything to people like that.
you're only making yourself more miserable thinking and speaking like this
you are as bigoted as you portray them to be, text book projection, because you've never talked with them, you see what bots promote on social media and attribute it to large swaths of humans, that's textbook fascism bud
Aww, thanks for the concern. Your problem is you are not nearly mad enough about what is going on, and where things are heading (assuming you're not fully on board, which is seeming likely). Enjoy your head full of sand.
dwell on this, keep checking back to see how much winning you did, it's totally healthy for you /s
Have you tried to understand why Trump won the popular vote in 2024?
I was like you, then I swore off Big Social and anything with reposts and quote posts, and the echo chamber media that has replaced newspapers. I found new sources for better information and ideas, and started working with my local political organizations instead. Much happier and healthier these days. Able to make more difference than yelling at people online ever will.
This only gets fixed in meat space, not digital space
Just to clarify I'm not american and I don't support either us main party, but your comment that the hard left and hard right are dominating the primaries sums it up pretty clearly. From an outside perspective only absolute miniscule fraction of politicians in the US are hard left. Most of US politics would be anywhere between moderate conservative to extreme right in the rest of the world.
Or,
The left: let’s do empty gestures and those who are supposed to help just commit fraud instead. Let’s support genocide but be “sad” about it online.
The right: let’s make sure that people aren’t hindered in leading the lives that they want and everyone benefits from this.
The center: the left claims to do nice things and the right doesn’t seem friendly.
Buddy, I think you would benefit from getting your news from other sources.
In current times only cowards and deadbeats are non partisan.
Non-partisan doesn't mean lack of engagement or action. Maybe that's why there's so much confusion here.
By non-partisan, it is meant that a person will apply reasoning instead of blindly following the partisan narrative.
Yeah it's a really bad echo chamber, hard to find any system that is not built around group thinking
True.
So you're not against fascism?
A shocking number of people aren't against fascism, as long as you don't use the actual word to describe what they support.
And when you correctly use the word to describe what they are supporting, you are inciting violence.
Example?
Anglo-American media spend the 2000s and 2010s accusing Denmark of being fascist.
The word is absolutely meaningless now.
The word may be ill defined but it's a useful term for the current trend of right wing populist autocratic leaders.
Unfortunately those on the left seem to have fascist tendencies.
O'Sullivan's First Law: "Any organization not explicitly right-wing will eventually become left-wing"
Usually laws are based on some kind of observable reality.
Here are a couple examples of initially neutral or moderate organizations that became left wing bastions:
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
Screen Actors Guild–American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
Writers Guild of America
Directors Guild of America
National Education Association
American Federation of Teachers
American Psychological Association
American Sociological Association
Modern Language Association
American Historical Association
Association of American Universities
Columbia University
Harvard University
Yale University
University of California, Berkeley
Oberlin College
Reed College
NPR
PBS
The New York Times
The Washington Post
The Guardian
Human Rights Campaign
GLAAD
Good luck finding examples of the opposite direction.
The "left" has a well-known reality bias.
The New York Times and The Washington Post left wing bastions?
Either your list is way out of date or the Overton Window is so far to the right in the US that this statement is somehow possible.
There are many more institutions on that list that are explicitly not left wing by non-US standards.
Here are a few examples of initially neutral or moderate organisations that are using their time machines to harbor enemies of His Majesty Homer Simpson:
(Pretend I wrote the exact same list)
> I truly hate what HN has become
Account created 3 months ago
As if alt accounts don't exist
The mental gymnastics on display here by so many is quite impressive. Many are now saying term limits are bad. They want the government to control media outlets. They take on face value vague accusations against META doing something wrong.
So, how long until Trump decides that he dislikes Lula and removes him by force?
Lula used a justice he appointed to order polling stations to stay open past the agreed upon deadline without consulting the courts that are supposed to rule on election matters. That's election interference. I'm not convinced the population is going to see him as legitimate after that stunt.
Flavio asked for the same thing. Stop spreading fake news.
What I wrote happened. It's not "fake news". What remains to be seen is which polling stations remained open and which did not. This election may need to be annulled.
> What remains to be seen is which polling stations remained open and which did not.
You can check it yourself, the output and log files for each ballot box are already available. I can see that mine opened and closed at the expected time.
Heaven forbid more voters get to chance to cast their vote!
And FWIW Bolsonaro was also asking the polling stations to stay open longer.
Bolsonaro also sought extra voting time as well. He wanted it done only in certain states but it was granted nationwide. He was very involved in this process and is now crying foul because it wasn't done in a matter exclusively favorable to him!
It’s a tough position to fight for: “Lula only won because too many people voted for him!”.
I think you are equivocating. Denying people their vote indeed counts as election tampering but that doesn’t mean giving more people the vote is also bad.
Brazilian here. It was unprecedented but not unreasonable, given problems with availability of public transportation in a number of locations. Both sides asked for extensions, although in different places that would favour their own bases. A nationwide extension was the best option, even if it was semi-botched due to the time it was decided. Also, the vote difference between Lula and Bolsonaro was much larger than any additional voting would have delivered.
Voters decided to punish themselves
The next four years are going to suck.
I literally saw the smugness and confidence get wiped off their faces in real time. They thought they were going to win straight up in the 2nd round of the election, and by the end of it they looked like they were attending a funeral
Touché. Looks like both our sides got hit with the same issue: smug overconfidence before a "guaranteed" win. Your own satisfaction is earned.
This doesn't undo the earlier win though. It's the supreme court I care about, not Lula. If the senate gets the supreme court impeachments out, it's still an unprecedented win in my book. There's a chance we can both win here.
An opaque, illegal system. Brazilian law states votes must be counted publicly.
And now, any hopes of a paper trail have been permanently laid to rest.
Everything was fine when Jair Bolsonaro won, and even during the first round of this election. The logic here is crazy!
I've always defended the paper trail. I'd be defending the paper trail even if Bolsonaro had won today.
There is no contradiction here. When it comes to elections, there should be exactly zero room for doubt.
The paper trail thing has always been a myth. I say this as a Brazilian American who votes in both. The Brazilian system is far superior.
The idea was to have the best of both worlds. Electronic voting plus a paper vote that gets automatically printed and deposited into a sealed box. Fast vote counting, plus the paper votes as the ultimate source of truth.
Deeply unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected. Lula was allowed to do every "electoral crime" they barred Bolsonaro from doing in 2022. They even extended voting time, a move that directly benefiting him, and also ruled illegal back in 2022.
Gotta look on the bright side. Bolsonaro was closer to US interests than I'd like. If the elected right wing senate manages to at least impeach some supreme court justices next year, I'm going to be OK with this.
I submitted the news too and it got flagged:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50237256
Why unfortunate?
> Lula was allowed to do every "electoral crime" they barred Bolsonaro from doing in 2022. They even extended voting time, a move that directly benefiting him, and also ruled illegal back in 2022.
Letting cirixes vote in elections is bad?
Bolsonaro-aligned mayors deliberately blocked busses from running that would take people to the polls in Lula-supporting neighborhoods. Emergency legal decisions allowed voting times to extend as a response to this. By the margin of votes, it wouldn't have mattered.
Busses with a Lula insignia on it, which is an electoral crime.
Ah yeah, the serious serious crime of having stickers on busses...
Just as bad as storming the capitol!
Personally, I don't consider it a serious crime at all, or even a crime.
However, it is an electoral crime to do things like stamp public transport vehicles with a party insignia to "remind" candidates who provides for them. As such, it's not at all surprising that the busses were grounded.
Wow, yeah. Someone should totally find the people responsible and let them know how criminal they were. Super top priority.
Also it's a good thing people were afforded more time to vote in case their buses weren't running.
It would be sad for a Bolsonaro voter to not be counted because some cheeky rapscallion stickered a bus.
Thank goodness both candidates sought extension and it was granted.
I think you're missing the point, while not a serious offense it is still an offense and tampering of the electoral process.
I don't think I'm missing the point at all mate. The point is to insinuate some conspiracy bull cock and I'm calling bull cock.
The point is the busses weren't grounded maliciously in order to deliberately stop people from voting. There is an actual reason why it happened: Lula's supporters slapped Lula stickers onto the buses, which is an electoral crime.
"They even extended voting time, a move that directly benefiting him"
Both candidates supported that decision.
Both sides asked to extend the hours. The court took the action. I don't really know brazillian politics and what happened in the past but thought I'd point that out.
Abstainees were thought to be the biggest source of new votes for Lula in the 2nd round of elections. I think such a move benefited Lula far more than it did Flávio.
It's also inconsistent with the court's own precedent. Extending voting hours was deemed illegal back in 2022. "Everybody had the chance to vote", said Alexandre de Moraes.
After Lula lost in the 1st round, suddenly it became legal again. The irony is not lost on me. That's the pattern with the leftist judges in the courts. The supreme court judge who decided it used to be Lula's own lawyer.
If it was illegal, then why did Bolsonaro ask for it to be done in this election?
If Bolsonaro did not want it done in this election, then why did Bolsonaro ask for it to be done in this election?
Bolsonaro's father asked for an extension last election. Don't remember why. Denied, illegal. "Everybody had the opportunity to vote".
Bolsonaro's son asked for an extension this election due to heavy rains in the south. As far as I can tell, it was also denied.
Lula asks for an extension this election due to busses being grounded because Lula-aligned syndicates slapped Lula insignias on them which is an electoral crime. Lula's former lawyer turned supreme court judge approves it.
It is obvious that the Brazilian institutions, and these judges in particular, wanted Lula to win. They were going to be impeached otherwise.
Both candidates wanted an extension.
Court agreed, they didn't feel everyone had a chance to vote this time. Approved. Legal.
This seems hard for you to wrap your head around for some reason.
Funny how they always agree when Lula wants something.
I guess, humor is subjective after all.
How are you posting so fast? I usually get blocked after five in an hour.
Sometimes dang applies a rate limit to accounts. I used to be rate limited as well. I would often get in arguments about stuff such as copyright.
> submitted the news too and it got flagged
Please review the HN guidelines:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I was just linking it for completeness. My submission was flagged, but this one wasn't. Guidelines don't explain the difference.
They explain why you should refrain from posting about politics here, unless there's an angle that makes it interesting for the HN crowd.
I for one flag everything I see him posting because his extreme positions hurts our country. It is crazy HN doesn't rate-limit how much he can post and people posting technical stuff can post like 4 comments then get blocked.
Please don't share half the context.
Many cities had their mayor cancelling free public transportation and stopping people from going voting. Extending the time is a reaction, not a first action. Furthermore, the ask didn't come just from Lula's party, it came from both candidates [1].
2022 Brazil had the Federal Police Director actively interfering with transportation as well.
[1] - https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/eleicoes/o-que-diz-o-codigo-ele...
Busses with a Lula insignia on it? That's an electoral crime, and probably why they were stopped from circulating. Just yet another one to the list.
They called for extension back in 2022 too, and it was ruled illegal. "Everybody had the chance to vote", said Alexandre de Moraes.
An hour before sending this comment you read that BOTH sides asked the court for the extension and the COURT has granted it.
I don't think it was the same situation last time.
Not sure what axe you have to grind but it sure looks like you love to present only half of the truth.
I commented that 15 hours ago, and replied within minutes.
I think it's a matter of consistency, not agreement. From my perspective it looks like the court only grants things if Lula wants it granted.
I believe it would have been granted even if Bolsonaro hadn't requested it, and I seriously doubt it would have been granted if only Bolsonaro had requested it.
I'm not even accusing anyone of fraud. This is merely evidence of the court's bias and favoritism.
Accuse me of being wrong if you must, but please don't insinuate I'm a bot. These are my actual thoughts.
Now you are just speculating on what would have happened in hypothetical scenarios. That's not evidence of anything.
Also, all that's achieved by extending polls for two hours across is enabling more people to vote. If that helps one or other candidate to win, it can only be because there are lots of people who want to vote for them.
Closer to US interests? What a joke. Better luck next time, I guess.
I don't get it. Are you agreeing with me?
He’s completely aligned with US interests because he is the best definition of the word puppet in the context of geopolitics.
Then we agree. I never really disputed this. I simply considered other matters more important.
This is a very confusing comment. Most on this side don't know the insider informing the Brazilian elections, and we only know the public news
Can you explain?
You are right winger but don't like the Brazilian right wing aligning with the US right wing, but do like the politicians who are aligned with the US right wing?
I'm kinda trying to move past left/right labels. I'll try to explain.
Bolsonaro generally supports privatizing Brazilian state companies and selling them off to foreigners. I don't want that. Especially not to the US and Israel.
Lula on the other hand is better aligned with China, which is also what I want.
Lula and myself are aligned on these two points. So this outcome is not entirely bad for me.
The problem I have with Lula is his party's obnoxious taxation, lack of a real plan for reindustrialization, continuous defense of criminals, and most importantly, his total domination of the supreme court. I voted for the right specifically to see those judges impeached and imprisoned, because I absolutely oppose everything they did in 2022, far more than I ever opposed Lula himself. I'm of the opinion that presidents and elections barely matter anymore, because it's the supreme court that runs the country. It's the Venezuela governance model: president appoints god-like supreme court judges and rules monocratically through them.
The 1st round this month was such an upset not because of Bolsonaro but because of the senate. They are the ones who can impeach supreme court judges, and when Brazil unexpectedly elected a right wing majority in the senate, it struck true fear into the court. This was our chance to completely wipe out that court and forever change the history of this country, like Bukele did for El Salvador.
While in the end the necessary victory didn't materialize, Brazilian senate is still absolute majority right wing now, and they could still impeach those judges. I'm not going to hold out hope for that anymore, but if I see at least one judge bite the dust I'll still call it a major win.
> I'm kinda trying to move past left/right labels.
And yet, somehow 100% of your posts are repeating debunked Brazilian right wing propaganda. How curious.
I have been here for over ten years and have posted over eleven thousand HN comments, only a fraction of which are about politics. If you think I'm some kind of Russian bot account, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.
Also, "debunked" is debatable. I don't accept your portrayal of extremely complex issues as settled, and I also don't accept "official" explanations of anything. I always try to reach my own conclusions and form my own opinions.
I came here to discuss my viewpoints in an attempt to find truth for myself. If you don't want to help with that, then kindly don't reply to me again.
Someone else said it far better than me here last year, so I'll just leave it at that
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44948769
The amount of mental gymnastics people will do to support fascist dictator wannabes is truly insane. For your sake I hope you find reality.
It was extremely amusing. Brazilian election law generally sets 5 p.m. Brasília time as the deadline for closing polls. The judge who made the emergency ruling to pause counting and extend voting hours by 2 hours was Cristiano Zanin Martins - Lula's former personal attorney. The same guy who Lula nominated to the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil in June 2023.
Both candidates agreed to it. Please stop.
Yeah it’s alarming how much HN users are willing to support corruption so long as it’s their preferred candidate doing it. Really is all just tribalism to most posters in this thread so far
How is letting more people vote corruption? I'd say it's corruption whenever anyone can't vote.
Everyone had more than enough time to vote. The courts said that verbatim back in 2022. Why change opinion now?
Last week my mom said we didn't have any orange juice. This week she said we have orange juice. Why the change?
You think a supreme court judge, who was once the candidate's lawyer, ignoring his own court's precedents, to try and help said candidate, is in the same conceptual space as your mom being confused?
Is my mom confused?
She must corrupt. Is the door dash driver her ex personal attorney?
What are the other crimes? Extending time would rarely be bad, and it seems both candidates approved it.
Back in 2022, Lula's party used to be against Bolsonaro's "digital militias". They engaged everybody they had in the superior and supreme courts in order to censor it all. It was disgusting.
This time around, some guy in Lula's party created "Lula's Army", a channel with millions of people in it. Suddenly, it was fine.
They used to cry about "fake news" and call for censorship at every opportunity, and they'd get it because they own the courts. Now they were the ones spreading "fake news" of all sorts. Did they get censored? Nah.
Censorship in Brazil is unconstitutional, by the way. Political censorship is doubly so. It doesn't matter, because they own the supreme court.
There are no laws in Brazil, there is only what the supreme court wants. Whatever they write on a piece of paper becomes law, and police obeys it. They are the true seat of power in this country.
It sounds like they have tried a tactic, discovered that it does not work, and switched to a different tactic which works. Isn't that exactly what they should do?
Absolutely. Do you have nothing to say about the obvious censorship, though? Consistency demands that they too be censored, since Bolsonaro was censored back in 2022. Censoring the right and letting the left run free is precisely what led to January 8th.
Is censorship good or bad?
I don't condone any form of censorship, for any reason. Brazilian constitution is also clear and unambiguous: censorship is unconstitutional, and political censorship doubly so.
The selective application of unconstitutional "fake news" rules, which were made up on the spot by the supreme court judges aligned with the left: is it good or bad?
Lula and his party spread a truly absurd amount of "fake news" between the 1st round and 2nd round of presidential elections. Why are they allowed to do it while the right was censored?
> I don't condone any form of censorship, for any reason.
Then you don't believe Lula should be censored. Lula wasn't censored, so there's no problem here.
You didn't answer my question.
Will you speak out against the persistent censorship efforts against the Bolsonaros?
Do you condone censorship of Bolsonaro?
You're right about Brazil's censorship problem. There's actually another article about how Lula is still trying to use courts to rein Flavio Bolsonaro's social media presence, with evidence like "the random number generator gave Bolsonaro's ballot number" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50229587)
Although fortunately, it didn't seem to be work: it seems Facebook and Twitter largely ignored Brazil's courts and Flavio Bolsonaro had a bigger social media presence despite "Lula's Army".
The effort to impeach the supreme court failed, and Lula's coming for them next year. Censorship is going to get a lot worse.
Lula and Bolsonaro are two sides of the same coin: a stupid tribalism were each side feeds on the hatred for the other.
Both will lead the country to pork-barrel, corruption and government paralysis by debt. Both are "unfortunate".
There are 2 solutions for all Brazilian problems: Guarulhos and Galeão. The rest is just circus.
Yeah, I agree completely. I didn't vote for any of these candidates, I voted to impeach the supreme court.
There is exactly one politician that once upon a time represented me: Dr. Enéas Carneiro. Ironically, his ideas were closest to the Chinese Communist Party. He's dead now.
The left wing has PCO, a real left wing party, and I agree with them on a daily basis. They're shunned by everyone, and were even persecuted by the supreme court along with the right wing.
I'm increasingly resigned to the idea that immigration is the only option by now.