You can't lose the Lula

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-politics-lula/brazils-lula-bolsonaro-fire-starting-gun-on-2022-presidential-race-idUSKBN2B21ZM

Go Jair!!!

Wow. It’s the Brazilian version of 2016.

One massively corrupt person with a long history in politics and one megalomaniacal nut ball.

Sounds more like the Brazilian version of 2020?

Nah.

Almost every one of Lula’s old lieutenants was convicted or heavily implicated in corruption scandals directly. Biden has never been directly implicated. Family members activities stink to high heaven, but not good ol’ Joe himself.

The entire Clinton machine stank of influence pedaling up one side and down the other.

1 Like

This isn’t remotely true.

1 Like

So what charges were ever brought against Hillary, who was probably the most investigated person in the history of this country. Or do you believe she was corrupt because a megalomaniacal nut ball said he was going to lock her up.

1 Like

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/lula-reaches-44-voter-support-ahead-brazil-election-bolsonaro-has-32-poll-2022-08-16/

Somewhere jaskent is crying

And now Brazil will lurch to far left policies after lurching to far right policies after the previous regieme change.

This is why I want the filibuster to stay in the Senate. Yes, it makes it ahrd to get some things done, but it also means that you don’t have massive policy changes on a 50.8% majority.

2 Likes

No that takes about a 35% minority with very effective voter suppression and some deaths on the supreme court.

1 Like

Bolsonaro has been MIA since his defeat. Now we hear the alleged reason: he can’t wear pants

But Bolsonaro supporters have been active.

Would you say the US has become more stable since we started using it?

V bad analysis, showing little to no understanding of human nature.

The lurching is mostly related to the narrow margins in party based elections. Even if one party slips into the minority, it can reasonably look towards the next election to reverse its fortunes. This makes it very difficult to get incremental movements in any policy. Why take a thin slice when in a year or two you can have the whole pie?

The filibuster ahs been around a long time. I think both sides need to scale back on its use. But it does help keep the US governmental policies more stable.

Now if we could just keep POTUS’s from trying to implement policies they know are unconstitutional without congressional approval that would help as well.

Correct. Why compromise when in 2-4 years you can have the whole ball of wax?

The filibuster means no party can count on that unless they honestly believe they will get 60 Senate seats in the next cycle or 2. It encourages compromise.

Apparently not.
Next argument?