Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dramaking37 t1_j840sqp wrote

Reply to comment by mattz300 in Deforestation in Brazil falls by 60% in first month under Lula by Competitive-Wall2473

You've clearly read about the situation since you're up to date on what happened

24

mattz300 t1_j842226 wrote

I have read the situation and just spent a week there last week. I was shocked to hear people across 3 different cities tell me how disappointed they are to have Lula in office. The only thing that prompted this convo was saying “wow everything looks a lot nicer since last time I was here” (2019).

So ya first hand accts are usually pretty good sources

−51

Nemesysbr t1_j847sfr wrote

Three cities in a country of 210 million, lol.

The country voted him in. And the reason he isn't arrested is because operation car wash was proven to be biased and fraudulent in how they gathered evidence.

25

dramaking37 t1_j84e67m wrote

Don't worry though, they talked to everyone in each city and not just the type of people they're predisposed to meet.

22

mateustunes t1_j8563ns wrote

That's a lie. The car wash operation was never proven "fraudulent" or "biased".

Lula was sentenced to prison by 3 different instances, being released only later by the ministers of supreme federal court (who were appointed by Lula himself).

Anyone knows that he is corrupt, including a large part of his electorate. He even put a bunch of friends involved in corruption cases back in power.

It's disgusting to read people defending the biggest corrupt in the history of Brazil.

−4

viniciusbfonseca t1_j85c3ii wrote

Brazilian lawyer here:

Judge Moro was quite literally ruled biased by the Supreme Court as he and the prosecutor would literally text each other with ideas on how to best proceed to condem Lula, and Moro would give the prosecutor tips on what to file. If Lula was so corrupt and if there were so much proof against him, why would it be necessary for the judge and the prosecutor to do that?

The Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of Justice both used the cases and evidence gathered in the first degree to base their rulings, sonit really doesn't count.

Lula did indeed apoint many judges to the Supreme Court, but unlike Bolsonaro and Temer, Lula (and Dilma) always selected a candidated from a list of three that was compiled by other jurists, exactly so that whoever reaches the seat doesn't owe anything to the president and can be unbiased towards them. The whole reason that Car Wash wasn't archived the moment that it reached the Attorney General's desk is precisely because, just like Supreme Court justices, the Attorney General was always picked from such a list (that stopped with Temer and Bolsonaro, who picked people that would have their backs).

As for most corrupt: have you seen Bolsonaro's card expenses? Have you seen all of the corrupt practices that he was involved in? The guy literally delayed the purchase of COVID vaccines because he wanted to get a few dollars for each one. Hell, his whole family is involved in hundreds of corruption scandals, just a few weeks ago we learned that the former first lady had the fish from the Planalto Palace killed so that she could collect the coins that were thrown in its pond.

But even so, I'd rather have a corrupt in office than a genocidaire (especially a corrupt genocidaire)

14

Nemesysbr t1_j856tgp wrote

Judge was legally deemed biased and all further attempts to implicate lula were thrown out due to lack of proof.

Evidence being considered inadmissible is quite literally due to operation car wash being criminal in their approach and hurting defendants' right to a fair trial.

Right-wingers can cope in whichever way they want.

Edit: for those in doubt, just read the intercept's coverage on operation car wash. They're the ones who first broke leaks on some of the more concerning actions.

7

pm_me_your_uwus t1_j8535gg wrote

Depending on the places you went to, that could be like saying you've been in 3 different cities in Texas and got shocked when you heard how much people would rather have Trump instead of Biden.

7

mattz300 t1_j857836 wrote

Sure nice subjective thought if you don’t like the info being told to you. Are you able to divide out which towns like Bols vs Lula?

It really doesn’t matter to me. My only point was to add a tad of perspective to some readers. Obviously people in upliftingnews are extremely up to date on Brazilian politics and know more.

−8

pm_me_your_uwus t1_j85aosx wrote

I'm Brazilian so I know what I'm talking about when I tell you how divided the country is about this, it's not a matter of " nice subjective thoughts" or finding excuses to push a narrative, it's just how things are. The close election results reflect that, it was 51% vs. 49% for Lula.

Generally speaking, the southern states are predominantly pro Bolsonaro and the northeastern states are predominantly pro Lula. Everything else in between is a toss up, it really depends on the people you talked to, which by no means can represent the overall opinion of the Brazilian population.

Edit: also the richer and whiter the brazilians, the bigger the chances of them being a Bolsonaro supporter.

3

viniciusbfonseca t1_j85e12r wrote

First hand account from someone that is actually from and lives in Brazil:

A lot of people don't like Lula because he is more left-wing and has many government policies that favors the poor, so the middle class sees that and clutches their (fake) pearls. What matters is that the majority of the population chose Lula over Bolsonaro (even of it was a tight election).

Brazil was at its peak during Lula and Dilma's administrations and at its lowest in decades during Bolsonaro's (Brazil is actually the first and only country to leave the UN' world hunger map - which happened during Dilma's administration - and return to it - which happened during Bolsonaro's).

You really shouldn't use the opinion you received from a few people from - at most - three states (of 27) in a country with over 210 million people and an area that is larger than the contiguous United States, as a measure of what Brazilians think about Lula returning. He has been back for a little more than a month and he won the elections, hence it would seem that over 50% of voter's are - at least - happier that he has returned over Bolsonaro continuing to rule.

3

mattz300 t1_j86nemg wrote

Thanks for your insight. That’s what I’m trying to do here is provide prospective to people who are usually void of thought. Wasted now and will return to discuss ur 2nd paragraph. Again thanks for weighing in

1

mattz300 t1_j8ecz1i wrote

For clarity I was in the group that believed Bolsonaro sucked.

But when I was down there as soon as I landed at GRU, something I couldn’t pinpoint made me think the quality of living had improved since I was last there in 19. Went to Sorocaba then over to Sao Jose dos campos. Sjk was noticeably cleaned up, old store fronts painted, cleaned, vacant areas very clean, new stores, bars and restaurants.

From that experience i was told it was done by the ministry of interior under Bols. That made sense to me since almost all of my trips were under prev admins going back to 2011.

1