[POLITICS] Right-Wing Hypocrisy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Actually Saelune is right about this to an extent.

Since Hillary is right-wing and Trump is further to the right, a centrist between the two would inherently be right-wing.

crimson5pheonix:
Since Hillary is right-wing and Trump is further to the right, a centrist between the two would inherently be right-wing.

Pretty much

So like, people say the American parties flipped, but did they really, or did the Democrats not change all the much from a centre right party and still, while the Republicans went from a left wing party to a far right one?

Fieldy409:
So like, people say the American parties flipped, but did they really, or did the Democrats not change all the much from a centre right party and still, while the Republicans went from a left wing party to a far right one?

The Republican party was always right wing. The Democratic party was always left wing.

Fieldy409:
So like, people say the American parties flipped, but did they really, or did the Democrats not change all the much from a centre right party and still, while the Republicans went from a left wing party to a far right one?

Along with a shift in what is considered left and right due to social norms, that's not a bad way of looking at it.

Fieldy409:
So like, people say the American parties flipped, but did they really, or did the Democrats not change all the much from a centre right party and still, while the Republicans went from a left wing party to a far right one?

Thaluikhain:

Along with a shift in what is considered left and right due to social norms, that's not a bad way of looking at it.

It's a terrible way of looking at it. These words have meaning, and can be traced to their roots. The assembly during the French Revolution split itself left and right, the right side supporting some amount of monarchical power and left rejecting that. Thus, left and right became those for democracy against those for hierarchy. The two major American parties carry this legacy right in their names: Democrats, for majority rule, want to elect officials to enact the will of the people. Republicans, for leadership, want officials to act in the interests of the people with their own wisdom. That is the difference between democracy and republic after all.

That the parties "switched" in any way is because Democrats have moved wildly on issues, but the truth is the core principles of the Democratic party have remained the same: enact the will of the people. The Democratic Party swings on policies swiftly with the era because public opinion changes. The Republican Party has fixed principles, the principles on which America was founded, that it governs by even when it isn't popular to do so, believing that to be in the best interest of the people whether or not the people are asking for it. But that is the essence of left vs right, democracy vs hierarchy. Democrats have been the left as long as Republicans were the right, just as Democratic-Republicans (the Democrats before name change) were the left when the Federalists were the right.

tstorm823:
The Republican party was always right wing. The Democratic party was always left wing.

Strom Thurmond was a left-winger?

Fieldy409:
So like, people say the American parties flipped, but did they really, or did the Democrats not change all the much from a centre right party and still, while the Republicans went from a left wing party to a far right one?

Seeing how the Democratic Party used to be in favour of slavery I think we can assume that it's moved to the left since then.

Fieldy409:
So like, people say the American parties flipped, but did they really, or did the Democrats not change all the much from a centre right party and still, while the Republicans went from a left wing party to a far right one?

Pretty much everything before the rise of the New Deal coalition is irrelevant to the conversation, but conservative Republicans weren't too happy with Eisenhower being a stealth centrist, and Nixon losing to Kennedy. Barry Goldwater and William Buckley decided to "correct" the issue by running moderate ("Rockefeller") Republicans out of the party, because Jesus and Communism, and courted pissed-off Southern Democrats to pick up the slack. That'd come to fruition in '68 when Nixon employed the Southern Strategy to win the Presidency.

Rockefeller Republicans were kind of a mixed bag. In favor of a moderate safety net and unionization out of economic expedience, but pro-deregulation and pro-business. Generally anti-government spending, but pro-taxation to ensure balanced budgets. Socially liberal (for their time), but not anything one could seriously call progressive. Best way to explain them is "Northern assholes".

Basically, Democrats and Republicans traded demographics they no longer wanted for what they did. Democrats got the Northern corporatist assholes, Republicans got the Southern racist assholes. The traded demographics would go on to take over the party.

Eacaraxe:

Strom Thurmond was a left-winger?

Yes. Segregation was popular.

To be specific, Southern Democrats were pro-segregation because the south as a whole was pro-segregation. When the south as a whole turned against segregation, the vast majority of Democratic politicians turned against it following public opinion. Strom Thurmond himself was not a typical Democratic politician, he was actually a ideological segregationist, a coincidental ally of the left in that era, not particularly left himself. But he was a member of the left-wing party.

tstorm823:
To be specific, Southern Democrats were pro-segregation because the south as a whole was pro-segregation. When the south as a whole turned against segregation, the vast majority of Democratic politicians turned against it following public opinion. Strom Thurmond himself was not a typical Democratic politician, he was actually a ideological segregationist, a coincidental ally of the left in that era, not particularly left himself. But he was a member of the left-wing party.

Populism-elitism is a separate axis from left-right. Just as authoritarianism-libertarianism and progressivism-conservatism are other, separate and distinct axes. One of the biggest failures in American politics is muddying the waters and trying to conflate different ideological axes, so that everything fits into a neat little single-axis paradigm which doesn't work. Most of the time, it's done with ulterior motives -- idealizing one ideology while demonizing others.

Fieldy409:
So like, people say the American parties flipped, but did they really, or did the Democrats not change all the much from a centre right party and still, while the Republicans went from a left wing party to a far right one?

Lincoln was a Free Soiler. He wanted slavery diminished so that white settlers without slaves could earn more of a living. He also didn't ban slavery in areas he could have during the war, making his emancipation proclamation pretty pointless. Free Soilers had set up Liberia in the 1850s to send African Americans back, but that experiment turned out to be... problematic.

Edit: They have swapped, Dems used to be Far-Right, and Republicans Centre-Right. And now Dems are more in the centre.

Eacaraxe:
Populism-elitism is a separate axis from left-right. Just as authoritarianism-libertarianism and progressivism-conservatism are other, separate and distinct axes. One of the biggest failures in American politics is muddying the waters and trying to conflate different ideological axes, so that everything fits into a neat little single-axis paradigm which doesn't work. Most of the time, it's done with ulterior motives -- idealizing one ideology while demonizing others.

I would not put Libertarian on the opposite axis of authoritarianism. Libertarians tend to like Capitalism and haven't figured out that people don't like it forced on them, whether it be workers, CEOs, producers or consumers. And I really going to emphasis that Libertarians forced it on people, because none of us asked for Capitalism. It was put on us and we either had to like it or complain about it. And they keep saying its about "Freedom." Unironically.

Just because your economic model is more free than others, does not make it about freedom.

tstorm823:

It's a terrible way of looking at it. These words have meaning, and can be traced to their roots. The assembly during the French Revolution split itself left and right, the right side supporting some amount of monarchical power and left rejecting that. Thus, left and right became those for democracy against those for hierarchy.

I think a more accurate way of putting it is that the left has traditionally stood for egalitarianism (not necessarily democracy) and the right for social hierarchy. On a global scale left has, after all, produced some impressively politically hierachical regimes.

After that, right-wing parties are normally also more conservative and individualist than left-wing parties, although there are exceptions.

Agema:

I think a more accurate way of putting it is that the left has traditionally stood for egalitarianism (not necessarily democracy) and the right for social hierarchy. On a global scale left has, after all, produced some impressively politically hierachical regimes.

After that, right-wing parties are normally also more conservative and individualist than left-wing parties, although there are exceptions.

I agree it gets kind of muddly, but the point is what people view the government as and what the purpose of government should be. Regardless of whether the government is a million person pyramid with a dictator on top or a 5 person counsel, the left-wing view is that the government is collective action of the people and must reflect the will of the people, the right-wing view is that the government is a paternal entity meant to protect the people. This subtle distinction is why arguments like "taxation is theft" fall flat on the left, because the government taxes the people and is the people and you can't steal from yourself. And also why the right acts like a grounded teenager when the government makes them do something (particularly something they think doesn't benefit them), because they view the government as a separate entity from themselves.

There's nothing contradictory about someone desiring social egalitarianism but deferring to decisions of individual leaders to establish such a society. Nor is there anything contradictory about thinking of government as an extension of a people even while people demand social hierarchy.

Ya know, I'd never have guessed it, but when you ignore the "saelune" parts of a saelune thread, there's usually an informative and interesting discussion happening.

trunkage:
I would not put Libertarian on the opposite axis of authoritarianism. Libertarians tend to like Capitalism and haven't figured out that people don't like it forced on them, whether it be workers, CEOs, producers or consumers...

Now you're starting to go into the economic versus civil libertarian divide. Sure, American libertarianism is decidedly on the economic side of that divide, as influenced by Spencer and Nozick they are. However, one must be careful to not dismiss the existence of civil libertarianism as American pundits on left and right are wont to do -- especially as one could very easily make the argument civil libertarianism is the original, "true" form, and economic libertarianism is a Gilded Age corruption to justify corporatism.

Either way, civil and economic libertarianism are both libertarian ideologies. That one branch focuses on economic rights, does not mean it ceases to be a libertarian theory. This is analogous to the group-individual rights divide on either left or right -- in the left's case, individual versus identity, and in the right's, individual versus corporate.

And, that aside, all you're ultimately arguing is the iron law of oligarchy applies to libertarianism as a political or economic theory. Which is true of all applicable theories and ideologies.

trunkage:
I would not put Libertarian on the opposite axis of authoritarianism. Libertarians tend to like Capitalism and haven't figured out that people don't like it forced on them, whether it be workers, CEOs, producers or consumers.

Well, I think that's because a bunch of assholes stole the term Libetarian because they wanted to be cool conservatives who smoke weed.

"Libetarian socialism" is a whole thing, for example.

evilthecat:
"Libetarian socialism" is a whole thing, for example.

Left-wing. That's literally just being left-wing. That is to say, once you cut the shit and look at the theories at play, as opposed to propaganda and pundits' incessant stream of verbal diarrhea.

Government as a guarantor of civil liberties, employing mixed economic policies to maximize equality.

Eacaraxe:

evilthecat:
"Libetarian socialism" is a whole thing, for example.

Left-wing. That's literally just being left-wing. That is to say, once you cut the shit and look at the theories at play, as opposed to propaganda and pundits' incessant stream of verbal diarrhea.

Government as a guarantor of civil liberties, employing mixed economic policies to maximize equality.

.
I think those guys don't want a government to do that, and instead opt out of a government so they could have a decentralized structure.

TheIronRuler:
I think those guys don't want a government to do that, and instead opt out of a government so they could have a decentralized structure.

That's anarcho-syndicalism. [Or, as I like to call it, "naive stupidity".]

Eacaraxe:

TheIronRuler:
I think those guys don't want a government to do that, and instead opt out of a government so they could have a decentralized structure.

That's anarcho-syndicalism. [Or, as I like to call it, "naive stupidity".]

.
I like to call them one of my favorite Kaiserreich mod factions.

A cursory glance at the wiki told me otherwise. I'll give it a longer read... I do think some libertarians would support having no central government authority, though... but that's besides the point.

TheIronRuler:
A cursory glance at the wiki told me otherwise. I'll give it a longer read... I do think some libertarians would support having no central government authority, though... but that's besides the point.

Never, ever use Wikipedia for information on politics or political theories. You can use it for a list of sources to read if you wish, but never use it as a source in and of itself.

Probably the best, most accessible, online source for political theory is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Editorial board made up of experts, the composition of which is publicly available. Authors are vetted by the editorial board, entries are subject to editorial review before publication, authorship is publicly available, and citations and sources must stand up to academic rigor.

Eacaraxe:

Never, ever use Wikipedia for information on politics or political theories. You can use it for a list of sources to read if you wish, but never use it as a source in and of itself.

Probably the best, most accessible, online source for political theory is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Editorial board made up of experts, the composition of which is publicly available. Authors are vetted by the editorial board, entries are subject to editorial review before publication, authorship is publicly available, and citations and sources must stand up to academic rigor.

But if I don't use Wikipedia, how would I get easily hyperlinked to "Anarcha-feminism"? That 3rd "A" is an impressive level of dedication.

Eacaraxe:

TheIronRuler:
I think those guys don't want a government to do that, and instead opt out of a government so they could have a decentralized structure.

That's anarcho-syndicalism. [Or, as I like to call it, "naive stupidity".]

Hey, that's what I call Capitalism. And Communism. Stop taking my ideas.

tstorm823:

Eacaraxe:

Strom Thurmond was a left-winger?

Yes. Segregation was popular.

To be specific, Southern Democrats were pro-segregation because the south as a whole was pro-segregation. When the south as a whole turned against segregation, the vast majority of Democratic politicians turned against it following public opinion. Strom Thurmond himself was not a typical Democratic politician, he was actually a ideological segregationist, a coincidental ally of the left in that era, not particularly left himself. But he was a member of the left-wing party.

I think a better way to explain it is that up until the Southern Strategy in the '60s, you can essentially think of the Democrats as two separate parties ideologically fused by necessity into one very strange but functional coalition. The northern state Dems were the ones like FDR and Kennedy who you'd associate with the current DNC, relatively liberal (by the standards of their time), while in the south you had Strom Thurmond and George "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" Wallace, with the only real shared point being both factions didn't like Republicans.

Or to use one of my favourite oddities in military history for an example, sort of a Battle for Castle Itter situation. Wherein an improbable motley assortment of US Army, Wehrmacht, local resistance fighters and a bunch of newly-freed French POWs fought together against several hundred Waffen-SS troops who were basically on a standard spree of looting and murdering.

Ravinoff:

tstorm823:

Eacaraxe:

Strom Thurmond was a left-winger?

Yes. Segregation was popular.

To be specific, Southern Democrats were pro-segregation because the south as a whole was pro-segregation. When the south as a whole turned against segregation, the vast majority of Democratic politicians turned against it following public opinion. Strom Thurmond himself was not a typical Democratic politician, he was actually a ideological segregationist, a coincidental ally of the left in that era, not particularly left himself. But he was a member of the left-wing party.

I think a better way to explain it is that up until the Southern Strategy in the '60s, you can essentially think of the Democrats as two separate parties ideologically fused by necessity into one very strange but functional coalition. The northern state Dems were the ones like FDR and Kennedy who you'd associate with the current DNC, relatively liberal (by the standards of their time), while in the south you had Strom Thurmond and George "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" Wallace, with the only real shared point being both factions didn't like Republicans.

Or to use one of my favourite oddities in military history for an example, sort of a Battle for Castle Itter situation. Wherein an improbable motley assortment of US Army, Wehrmacht, local resistance fighters and a bunch of newly-freed French POWs fought together against several hundred Waffen-SS troops who were basically on a standard spree of looting and murdering.

You get an internet cookie for Sabaton.

Ravinoff:

I think a better way to explain it is that up until the Southern Strategy in the '60s, you can essentially think of the Democrats as two separate parties ideologically fused by necessity into one very strange but functional coalition. The northern state Dems were the ones like FDR and Kennedy who you'd associate with the current DNC, relatively liberal (by the standards of their time), while in the south you had Strom Thurmond and George "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" Wallace, with the only real shared point being both factions didn't like Republicans.

Or to use one of my favourite oddities in military history for an example, sort of a Battle for Castle Itter situation. Wherein an improbable motley assortment of US Army, Wehrmacht, local resistance fighters and a bunch of newly-freed French POWs fought together against several hundred Waffen-SS troops who were basically on a standard spree of looting and murdering.

The Southern Strategy: still not real. Republicans had no exceptional success in the south in the 60s. The vast majority of southern democrats remained exactly that. State and local elections remained mostly blue until around the end of the 20th century.

tstorm823:

Ravinoff:

I think a better way to explain it is that up until the Southern Strategy in the '60s, you can essentially think of the Democrats as two separate parties ideologically fused by necessity into one very strange but functional coalition. The northern state Dems were the ones like FDR and Kennedy who you'd associate with the current DNC, relatively liberal (by the standards of their time), while in the south you had Strom Thurmond and George "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" Wallace, with the only real shared point being both factions didn't like Republicans.

Or to use one of my favourite oddities in military history for an example, sort of a Battle for Castle Itter situation. Wherein an improbable motley assortment of US Army, Wehrmacht, local resistance fighters and a bunch of newly-freed French POWs fought together against several hundred Waffen-SS troops who were basically on a standard spree of looting and murdering.

The Southern Strategy: still not real. Republicans had no exceptional success in the south in the 60s. The vast majority of southern democrats remained exactly that. State and local elections remained mostly blue until around the end of the 20th century.

You're literally rejecting fact.

This sort of hypocrisy isn't limited to the United States by any means. And sometimes it's not just hypocrisy, but also false charges. Here we see an example from Brazil: https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/brazil-lula-operation-car-wash-sergio-moro/
https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/brazil-car-wash-prosecutors-workers-party-lula/

The Intercept:
Overall, the documents depict a task force of prosecutors seemingly intent on exploiting its legal powers for blatantly political ends, led by its goal of preventing a return to power of the Workers' Party generally, and Lula specifically.

For those who don't like clicking things: Former President of Brazil Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva who, among other things, is Brazil's most popular politician was falsely accused by a group of "anti-corruption" investigators who are now revealed to have 1)doubted the strength of their evidence, and 2)illegally conspired and colluded with the judge that convicted him, and 3)oh by the way, that judge is now the current right-wing President's justice minister and has also been promised the earliest available seat on Brazil's Supreme Court. All this in order to prevent Lula from running in the last election (or saying anything publicly about it) which he would have handily won over the bargain basement Pinochet otherwise known as Jair Bolsonaro.

Trump likes Bolsonaro, though. "Drain the swamp" indeed.

tstorm823:
The Southern Strategy: still not real. Republicans had no exceptional success in the south in the 60s. The vast majority of southern democrats remained exactly that. State and local elections remained mostly blue until around the end of the 20th century.

"As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now you don't have to do that. All that you need to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues that he's campaigned on since 1964, and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

[...]

You start out in 1954 by saying, "N-, n-, n-." By 1968 you can't say "n-"; that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N-, n-. So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the backbone."

-Lee Atwater, Republican strategists and member of Reagan administration in 1981

Fuck it, I'll keep going.

"No exceptional success in the South in the '60s", you say?

In 1964, other than his home state of Arizona, the only states Goldwater, a Republican, carried against a Democratic incumbent from Texas were Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina.

In 1968, no Southern state except Texas went Democratic, because Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia went for George Wallace. Nixon carried Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Oklahoma.

Eacaraxe:

"As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now you don't have to do that. All that you need to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues that he's campaigned on since 1964, and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

[...]

You start out in 1954 by saying, "N-, n-, n-." By 1968 you can't say "n-"; that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N-, n-. So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the backbone."

-Lee Atwater, Republican strategists and member of Reagan administration in 1981

There are two problems with your justification:

1) You're deferring to a retrospective statement by the 1980 equivalent of Steve Bannon. Not only is he a questionable source of information to begin with, he was also 3 years old in 1954 and a high schooler in a rock band in 1968. He had no more first hand experience with the presidential campaigns of the 60s than you or I do.

2) The overall message of that interview, the point Lee Atwater was attempting to make, was that race ceased to be the central issue for southern voters after the 60s. He declared his generation the first generation to not be racist in the south. I think that's grossly ambitious in retrospect, but I think if you look at how the region turned red over the 20 years after he did this interview, it's not a baseless statement to suggest that it took until his parents generation was dying off completely, people born in the 20s or 30s, before the political makeup of the south really flipped. To use an interview that's centrally claiming that racism wasn't a valuable campaign technique in the south after the 60s and use it as the key piece of evidence that Republicans flipped the south by courting the racists is blind to context.

Eacaraxe:
Fuck it, I'll keep going.

"No exceptional success in the South in the '60s", you say?

In 1964, other than his home state of Arizona, the only states Goldwater, a Republican, carried against a Democratic incumbent from Texas were Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina.

In 1968, no Southern state except Texas went Democratic, because Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia went for George Wallace. Nixon carried Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Oklahoma.

Barry Goldwater was not a racist. He voted for every piece of civil rights legislation he could up until the one he thought was beyond constitutional authority. Barry Goldwater did not court racists, he did not want racist support, he denounced those who did support him, and he avoided the topic of race whenever possible. His opponent, Lyndon Johnson, was super racist. He worked against civil rights legislation until Kennedy was assassinated and then it became politically advantageous to support it. He published downright offensive TV ads trying to connect Goldwater to the KKK in people's minds. Johnson ran likely the most shameless campaign in history, and as Kennedy's successor, he had almost no chance of losing, so he gleefully chased the racists toward Goldwater, beginning a string of propaganda that Republicans are racist that hasn't stopped to this day. To call any aspect of the 1964 campaign a Republican success is downright foolish. Additionally, this vote for Goldwater was only reflected in the presidential race, state and local races remained deep blue in the south.

In 1968, after the south had voted for Goldwater, they chose instead to vote for a Democrat running an independent campaign rather than vote for a Republican. Nixon, supposedly courting southern racists on purpose (since that's the whole idea of the Southern Strategy) was so successful that he lost the entire south to a 3rd party candidate.

I repeat, the Republican Party had no exceptional success in the South in the 1960s. And, if you're so keen to listen to the wisdom of that interview with Atwater, Republicans made no real gains into the south until people stopped voting based on race issues.

Eacaraxe:
You start out in 1954 by saying, "N-, n-, n-." By 1968 you can't say "n-"; that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N-, n-. So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the backbone."

I'm not proposing this as a counterexample because I think most of Joe Biden's career has been nearly indistinguishable from a Republican as it comes to policy, but... it's notable that Joe Biden also said "stuff like... forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff".

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/11/politics/joe-biden-busing-letters-2020/index.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/445832-joe-biden-in-2007-it-was-the-biden-crime-bill-that-became-the-clinton-crime

The Southern Strategy is absolutely a thing, and Third Way triangulation meant that Democrats (quite foolishly) tried to employ it too.

Seanchaidh:
This sort of hypocrisy isn't limited to the United States by any means. And sometimes it's not just hypocrisy, but also false charges. Here we see an example from Brazil: https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/brazil-lula-operation-car-wash-sergio-moro/
https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/brazil-car-wash-prosecutors-workers-party-lula/

The Intercept:
Overall, the documents depict a task force of prosecutors seemingly intent on exploiting its legal powers for blatantly political ends, led by its goal of preventing a return to power of the Workers' Party generally, and Lula specifically.

For those who don't like clicking things: Former President of Brazil Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva who, among other things, is Brazil's most popular politician was falsely accused by a group of "anti-corruption" investigators who are now revealed to have 1)doubted the strength of their evidence, and 2)illegally conspired and colluded with the judge that convicted him, and 3)oh by the way, that judge is now the current right-wing President's justice minister and has also been promised the earliest available seat on Brazil's Supreme Court. All this in order to prevent Lula from running in the last election (or saying anything publicly about it) which he would have handily won over the bargain basement Pinochet otherwise known as Jair Bolsonaro.

Trump likes Bolsonaro, though. "Drain the swamp" indeed.

.
Wasn't it easy to associate Lula with corruption because of what his heir (Roussof) did in her time at the ministry of energy and her presidency? She mismanaged the national energy company, getting charged with corruption in a big scandal. When she was president she also fudged the numbers on the budget...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here