This is the bloke who wants to give the (totally incorruptible naturally) Brazilian police licence to kill 'suspected drug dealers and violent criminals' without due process of law.
It's not really a very surprising result though is it? Violent crime is extremely high in Brazil, and people there can't turn to their government to fix it because they're so corrupt. People are scared and Bolsonaro offers them hope that the things that directly affect them might change. The fact he's a horrible, hateful, dreadful little man is a very unfortunate part of it, and he will almost certainly make Brazil a worse place. The reality with populism is though that people will quite happily turn a blind eye to racism, sexism and homophobia if they're not immediately going to suffer for those views in exchange for a big change in their lives. They won't be so cheerful when Bolsonaro starts putting together his military regime and his views on torture and brutal prisons do become a reality for the voters, but hindsight won't help unelect him.
This is the time of extremes, and the logical people need to come up with a better plan than screeching at the voters that they're stupid for thinking the bad people can help them, because it's clearly not working.
But if you vote for a right wing authoritarian leader you're being stupid however you dress it up. Authoritarian leaders have been a disaster throughout history unless this guy is somehow going to be different?
If in a few years time he's proved us all wrong and has turned Brazil around then I will obviously be witnessing the birth of a new style of politics.
It's not really a very surprising result though is it? Violent crime is extremely high in Brazil, and people there can't turn to their government to fix it because they're so corrupt. People are scared and Bolsonaro offers them hope that the things that directly affect them might change. The fact he's a horrible, hateful, dreadful little man is a very unfortunate part of it, and he will almost certainly make Brazil a worse place. The reality with populism is though that people will quite happily turn a blind eye to racism, sexism and homophobia if they're not immediately going to suffer for those views in exchange for a big change in their lives. They won't be so cheerful when Bolsonaro starts putting together his military regime and his views on torture and brutal prisons do become a reality for the voters, but hindsight won't help unelect him.
This is the time of extremes, and the logical people need to come up with a better plan than screeching at the voters that they're stupid for thinking the bad people can help them, because it's clearly not working.
But if you vote for a right wing authoritarian leader you're being stupid however you dress it up. Authoritarian leaders have been a disaster throughout history unless this guy is somehow going to be different?
If in a few years time he's proved us all wrong and has turned Brazil around then I will obviously be witnessing the birth of a new style of politics.
Singapore has a right wing authoritarian government which most people in the world would envy (compared to whatever flavour of democracy/despotism they have to endure). It is however the exception that proves the rule.
My wife is from Brazil, so I have followed this election with quite a bit of interest.
As others have said, people want change and when the first choice opponent is in prison, and the one who ended up on the ballot paper in his place is someone who failed to get re-elected as Mayor of Sao Paulo, you can start to see how Bolsonaro won.
My wife's friends voted for him, and apparently they're certainly not extreme in their political views.
But Brazil is not as liberal as here, and scratch the surface and a lot of what he is saying and promising will appeal to a lot of people.
It's not really a very surprising result though is it? Violent crime is extremely high in Brazil, and people there can't turn to their government to fix it because they're so corrupt. People are scared and Bolsonaro offers them hope that the things that directly affect them might change. The fact he's a horrible, hateful, dreadful little man is a very unfortunate part of it, and he will almost certainly make Brazil a worse place. The reality with populism is though that people will quite happily turn a blind eye to racism, sexism and homophobia if they're not immediately going to suffer for those views in exchange for a big change in their lives. They won't be so cheerful when Bolsonaro starts putting together his military regime and his views on torture and brutal prisons do become a reality for the voters, but hindsight won't help unelect him.
This is the time of extremes, and the logical people need to come up with a better plan than screeching at the voters that they're stupid for thinking the bad people can help them, because it's clearly not working.
But if you vote for a right wing authoritarian leader you're being stupid however you dress it up. Authoritarian leaders have been a disaster throughout history unless this guy is somehow going to be different?
If in a few years time he's proved us all wrong and has turned Brazil around then I will obviously be witnessing the birth of a new style of politics.
Singapore has a right wing authoritarian government which most people in the world would envy (compared to whatever flavour of democracy/despotism they have to endure). It is however the exception that proves the rule.
I think Brazil might struggle to follow the Singaporean model.
It's not really a very surprising result though is it? Violent crime is extremely high in Brazil, and people there can't turn to their government to fix it because they're so corrupt. People are scared and Bolsonaro offers them hope that the things that directly affect them might change. The fact he's a horrible, hateful, dreadful little man is a very unfortunate part of it, and he will almost certainly make Brazil a worse place. The reality with populism is though that people will quite happily turn a blind eye to racism, sexism and homophobia if they're not immediately going to suffer for those views in exchange for a big change in their lives. They won't be so cheerful when Bolsonaro starts putting together his military regime and his views on torture and brutal prisons do become a reality for the voters, but hindsight won't help unelect him.
This is the time of extremes, and the logical people need to come up with a better plan than screeching at the voters that they're stupid for thinking the bad people can help them, because it's clearly not working.
But if you vote for a right wing authoritarian leader you're being stupid however you dress it up. Authoritarian leaders have been a disaster throughout history unless this guy is somehow going to be different?
If in a few years time he's proved us all wrong and has turned Brazil around then I will obviously be witnessing the birth of a new style of politics.
Yes, absolutely agreed, you're wrong if you think electing a nutter like Bolsonaro will help. The thing is though, we really are in a time where discourse is completely toxic and neither side is willing to listen to the other anymore. We've developed this unhelpful 'educated' people approach to delivering opinion, which is generally more common on the left, where people's opinions - and most importantly the people themselves - are dismissed as stupid and ignorant for holding a view. We don't take into account people's level of education or access to the information we have at our fingertips, or even their choice to use it and call them thick or evil or whatever for feeling the way they do. This then gets chucked up on Twitter because now every waking thought apparently has to be broadcast and before you know it there's a divide where people feel personally attacked for having a view that often relates to their economic circumstances and start sticking to their guns regardless of facts. In America they're referred to as 'high emotion, low information' voters. Trump told them he would fix their lives, and instead of rationally explaining why this was wrong and what they could offer, the Democrats called potential Trump voters 'deplorables'. That unsurprisingly didn't change their minds.
That's what I mean when i say there needs to be a new plan. We saw it with Trump and then with Brexit, shouting at voters that they're stupid or racist or whatever just seems to really lock in that voter's decision on what they already thought. There needs to be a better way of communicating the positives of immigration other than 'you're racist if you don't believe me', a better way of communicating the importance of funding for vulnerable parts of society other than 'you're evil if you don't agree' and a better way of discussing how to approach crime and terrorism beyond 'you're racist again'. There's plenty of good arguments for all those things, and at the end of the conversation no-one has to agree, they can hold their own view and you can count up who you've convinced and who you haven't. We seem to have sort of forgotten that, and the populists are saying whatever they think the voters want to hear regardless of if it's true, and sweeping up across the world because the conversation has broken down before the votes are cast.
It's not really a very surprising result though is it? Violent crime is extremely high in Brazil, and people there can't turn to their government to fix it because they're so corrupt. People are scared and Bolsonaro offers them hope that the things that directly affect them might change. The fact he's a horrible, hateful, dreadful little man is a very unfortunate part of it, and he will almost certainly make Brazil a worse place. The reality with populism is though that people will quite happily turn a blind eye to racism, sexism and homophobia if they're not immediately going to suffer for those views in exchange for a big change in their lives. They won't be so cheerful when Bolsonaro starts putting together his military regime and his views on torture and brutal prisons do become a reality for the voters, but hindsight won't help unelect him.
This is the time of extremes, and the logical people need to come up with a better plan than screeching at the voters that they're stupid for thinking the bad people can help them, because it's clearly not working.
But if you vote for a right wing authoritarian leader you're being stupid however you dress it up. Authoritarian leaders have been a disaster throughout history unless this guy is somehow going to be different?
If in a few years time he's proved us all wrong and has turned Brazil around then I will obviously be witnessing the birth of a new style of politics.
Yes, absolutely agreed, you're wrong if you think electing a nutter like Bolsonaro will help. The thing is though, we really are in a time where discourse is completely toxic and neither side is willing to listen to the other anymore. We've developed this unhelpful 'educated' people approach to delivering opinion, which is generally more common on the left, where people's opinions - and most importantly the people themselves - are dismissed as stupid and ignorant for holding a view. We don't take into account people's level of education or access to the information we have at our fingertips, or even their choice to use it and call them thick or evil or whatever for feeling the way they do. This then gets chucked up on Twitter because now every waking thought apparently has to be broadcast and before you know it there's a divide where people feel personally attacked for having a view that often relates to their economic circumstances and start sticking to their guns regardless of facts. In America they're referred to as 'high emotion, low information' voters. Trump told them he would fix their lives, and instead of rationally explaining why this was wrong and what they could offer, the Democrats called potential Trump voters 'deplorables'. That unsurprisingly didn't change their minds.
That's what I mean when i say there needs to be a new plan. We saw it with Trump and then with Brexit, shouting at voters that they're stupid or racist or whatever just seems to really lock in that voter's decision on what they already thought. There needs to be a better way of communicating the positives of immigration other than 'you're racist if you don't believe me', a better way of communicating the importance of funding for vulnerable parts of society other than 'you're evil if you don't agree' and a better way of discussing how to approach crime and terrorism beyond 'you're racist again'. There's plenty of good arguments for all those things, and at the end of the conversation no-one has to agree, they can hold their own view and you can count up who you've convinced and who you haven't. We seem to have sort of forgotten that, and the populists are saying whatever they think the voters want to hear regardless of if it's true, and sweeping up across the world because the conversation has broken down before the votes are cast.
Agree,
The hard left here call for unity against fascists but screams "Blairite" "Red Tory", "Centralist" at any moderates and social democrats who don't fall in line with their doctrinaire point of view, all while supporting Russia and other objectionable states and groups who they see as "anti-west". So it becomes harder and harder to form any form of broad coalition and oppose the far right.
The opposite of fascism isn't the revolutionary socialism as preached by the Dear Leader but liberal democracy.
And while liberal democracy is having a bit of a rough time of late it is still alive. Trump didn't win the popular vote for example and macron won in France.
Brazil has had military rule in living memory so is not as established a democracy as many other states.
It's not really a very surprising result though is it? Violent crime is extremely high in Brazil, and people there can't turn to their government to fix it because they're so corrupt. People are scared and Bolsonaro offers them hope that the things that directly affect them might change. The fact he's a horrible, hateful, dreadful little man is a very unfortunate part of it, and he will almost certainly make Brazil a worse place. The reality with populism is though that people will quite happily turn a blind eye to racism, sexism and homophobia if they're not immediately going to suffer for those views in exchange for a big change in their lives. They won't be so cheerful when Bolsonaro starts putting together his military regime and his views on torture and brutal prisons do become a reality for the voters, but hindsight won't help unelect him.
This is the time of extremes, and the logical people need to come up with a better plan than screeching at the voters that they're stupid for thinking the bad people can help them, because it's clearly not working.
But if you vote for a right wing authoritarian leader you're being stupid however you dress it up. Authoritarian leaders have been a disaster throughout history unless this guy is somehow going to be different?
If in a few years time he's proved us all wrong and has turned Brazil around then I will obviously be witnessing the birth of a new style of politics.
Yes, absolutely agreed, you're wrong if you think electing a nutter like Bolsonaro will help. The thing is though, we really are in a time where discourse is completely toxic and neither side is willing to listen to the other anymore. We've developed this unhelpful 'educated' people approach to delivering opinion, which is generally more common on the left, where people's opinions - and most importantly the people themselves - are dismissed as stupid and ignorant for holding a view. We don't take into account people's level of education or access to the information we have at our fingertips, or even their choice to use it and call them thick or evil or whatever for feeling the way they do. This then gets chucked up on Twitter because now every waking thought apparently has to be broadcast and before you know it there's a divide where people feel personally attacked for having a view that often relates to their economic circumstances and start sticking to their guns regardless of facts. In America they're referred to as 'high emotion, low information' voters. Trump told them he would fix their lives, and instead of rationally explaining why this was wrong and what they could offer, the Democrats called potential Trump voters 'deplorables'. That unsurprisingly didn't change their minds.
That's what I mean when i say there needs to be a new plan. We saw it with Trump and then with Brexit, shouting at voters that they're stupid or racist or whatever just seems to really lock in that voter's decision on what they already thought. There needs to be a better way of communicating the positives of immigration other than 'you're racist if you don't believe me', a better way of communicating the importance of funding for vulnerable parts of society other than 'you're evil if you don't agree' and a better way of discussing how to approach crime and terrorism beyond 'you're racist again'. There's plenty of good arguments for all those things, and at the end of the conversation no-one has to agree, they can hold their own view and you can count up who you've convinced and who you haven't. We seem to have sort of forgotten that, and the populists are saying whatever they think the voters want to hear regardless of if it's true, and sweeping up across the world because the conversation has broken down before the votes are cast.
I think serious debate left the building a long time ago. Populists have a few catchy slogans and say they'll fix everything - the average voter isn't interested in debate.
Using inflammatory language against your opponents in public debate is just a race to the bottom but sadly that's the way we're going.
This time it isn't about gammon or culture wars or whatever. Brazilian corruption is endemic; strange to see some people here prefer it with a side-order of unspeakably evil intent and planetary-scale ecological destruction
Take it from your last sentence this chap is for tearing down the rainforest? Poor if so.
This is probably understatement of the website
Add his ecological standpoint to his open homophobia, misogyny, racism and inflammatory position on Middle-East politics (like that is of any relevance to the Brazilian populous) to say nothing of his interpretation of law and justice, he begins to make Trump look like someone you could talk to. A senior politician in Brazil who isn't corrupt? Pull the other one! His military background informs as to his motivation or indeed 'motivators'.
Ronald Reagan unequivocally supported Britain during the Falklands War. Does anyone think that we could rely on Donald Trump in similar circumstances? I personally think he would shaft us.
Ronald Reagan unequivocally supported Britain during the Falklands War. Does anyone think that we could rely on Donald Trump in similar circumstances? I personally think he would shaft us.
Yeah Donald Trump is known for siding with Latin Americans over white people...
Ronald Reagan unequivocally supported Britain during the Falklands War. Does anyone think that we could rely on Donald Trump in similar circumstances? I personally think he would shaft us.
Yeah Donald Trump is known for siding with Latin Americans over white people...
I fear to step into US racial classification but Argentinians are, mainly, white.
Ronald Reagan unequivocally supported Britain during the Falklands War. Does anyone think that we could rely on Donald Trump in similar circumstances? I personally think he would shaft us.
Yeah Donald Trump is known for siding with Latin Americans over white people...
I wasn't thinking of that angle. Simply that Trump is an unreliable friend. I was no fan of Reagan's politics but he was consistent in his support for the UK. He prioritised NATO over South America.
I am not sure Trump has the wherewithal to make such a choice. He will do whatever is expedient in the nanosecond he makes up his mind.
We're so up our own arses in this culture war bollocks that we'll cheer on actual self-confessed fascism if it triggers the libs. I guess in Britain we're first-world snowflakes though, coasting on a cushion of relative national prosperity, enjoying our yucks away from the humanitarian frontline. If only something were to come along inside the next few months and puncture our complacency
Oh, and I wouldn't cheer on a Chavez. I'd cheer on liberal democracy with a strong social program and worker empowerment initiatives. The thing is, Corbyn IS the social-democrat option here (an imperfect one, but the closest we've got). Labour's manifesto is definitively not communist. The Overton window has shifted so far that we think of David Cameron as a liberal, rather than an austerity-wielding prick
We're so up our own arses in this culture war bollocks that we'll cheer on actual self-confessed fascism if it triggers the libs. I guess in Britain we're first-world snowflakes though, coasting on a cushion of relative national prosperity, enjoying our yucks away from the humanitarian frontline. If only something were to come along inside the next few months and puncture our complacency
Like you becoming jobless and homeless? That might do it.
It's not really a very surprising result though is it? Violent crime is extremely high in Brazil, and people there can't turn to their government to fix it because they're so corrupt. People are scared and Bolsonaro offers them hope that the things that directly affect them might change. The fact he's a horrible, hateful, dreadful little man is a very unfortunate part of it, and he will almost certainly make Brazil a worse place. The reality with populism is though that people will quite happily turn a blind eye to racism, sexism and homophobia if they're not immediately going to suffer for those views in exchange for a big change in their lives. They won't be so cheerful when Bolsonaro starts putting together his military regime and his views on torture and brutal prisons do become a reality for the voters, but hindsight won't help unelect him.
This is the time of extremes, and the logical people need to come up with a better plan than screeching at the voters that they're stupid for thinking the bad people can help them, because it's clearly not working.
But if you vote for a right wing authoritarian leader you're being stupid however you dress it up. Authoritarian leaders have been a disaster throughout history unless this guy is somehow going to be different?
If in a few years time he's proved us all wrong and has turned Brazil around then I will obviously be witnessing the birth of a new style of politics.
Yes, absolutely agreed, you're wrong if you think electing a nutter like Bolsonaro will help. The thing is though, we really are in a time where discourse is completely toxic and neither side is willing to listen to the other anymore. We've developed this unhelpful 'educated' people approach to delivering opinion, which is generally more common on the left, where people's opinions - and most importantly the people themselves - are dismissed as stupid and ignorant for holding a view. We don't take into account people's level of education or access to the information we have at our fingertips, or even their choice to use it and call them thick or evil or whatever for feeling the way they do. This then gets chucked up on Twitter because now every waking thought apparently has to be broadcast and before you know it there's a divide where people feel personally attacked for having a view that often relates to their economic circumstances and start sticking to their guns regardless of facts. In America they're referred to as 'high emotion, low information' voters. Trump told them he would fix their lives, and instead of rationally explaining why this was wrong and what they could offer, the Democrats called potential Trump voters 'deplorables'. That unsurprisingly didn't change their minds.
That's what I mean when i say there needs to be a new plan. We saw it with Trump and then with Brexit, shouting at voters that they're stupid or racist or whatever just seems to really lock in that voter's decision on what they already thought. There needs to be a better way of communicating the positives of immigration other than 'you're racist if you don't believe me', a better way of communicating the importance of funding for vulnerable parts of society other than 'you're evil if you don't agree' and a better way of discussing how to approach crime and terrorism beyond 'you're racist again'. There's plenty of good arguments for all those things, and at the end of the conversation no-one has to agree, they can hold their own view and you can count up who you've convinced and who you haven't. We seem to have sort of forgotten that, and the populists are saying whatever they think the voters want to hear regardless of if it's true, and sweeping up across the world because the conversation has broken down before the votes are cast.
Agree,
The hard left here call for unity against fascists but screams "Blairite" "Red Tory", "Centralist" at any moderates and social democrats who don't fall in line with their doctrinaire point of view, all while supporting Russia and other objectionable states and groups who they see as "anti-west". So it becomes harder and harder to form any form of broad coalition and oppose the far right.
The opposite of fascism isn't the revolutionary socialism as preached by the Dear Leader but liberal democracy.
And while liberal democracy is having a bit of a rough time of late it is still alive. Trump didn't win the popular vote for example and macron won in France.
Brazil has had military rule in living memory so is not as established a democracy as many other states.
Yes but how will Liberal democracy protect itself from neo feudalism in the form of corporate big business that isn't democratic nor liberal, from circumnavigate humanism by exploiting anything that can be exploited by the system (all very leagal), promote inequality and ferments discontent, which give rise to fuckers from the right or from the left (like me)
Breath....
In other words,in modern times when true participatory democracy doesn't exist, Where ignorance and conflict is good for business, Isn't Liberal Democracy just a fluffy stage (afforded to the comfortables) in between authoritative regimes..?
It seems we now live in an age where if you are of a certain political persuasion you are more than entitled to oppose democracy, whilst claiming that you have the moral highground. Also, everyone who has an opinion that differs, not even right out opposes yours, makes them either a) immoral b) misled c) evil.
Someone in this thread said that people get the governments they deserve, that is completely true. I don't like the Brazilian guy, but it is a very different set of circumstances over there.
We should bring back the Empire and impose our righteous views on them in my opinion, that would work wouldn't it @Leuth ?
It seems we now live in an age where if you are of a certain political persuasion you are more than entitled to oppose democracy, whilst claiming that you have the moral highground. Also, everyone who has an opinion that differs, not even right out opposes yours, makes them either a) immoral b) misled c) evil.
Someone in this thread said that people get the governments they deserve, that is completely true. I don't like the Brazilian guy, but it is a very different set of circumstances over there.
We should bring back the Empire and impose our righteous views on them in my opinion, that would work wouldn't it @Leuth ?
In the spirit of your post I would suggest a slight broadening of the term 'empire' to multinational commercial interests . I would argue it is already being imposed, especially on places such as Brazil.
It seems we now live in an age where if you are of a certain political persuasion you are more than entitled to oppose democracy, whilst claiming that you have the moral highground. Also, everyone who has an opinion that differs, not even right out opposes yours, makes them either a) immoral b) misled c) evil.
Someone in this thread said that people get the governments they deserve, that is completely true. I don't like the Brazilian guy, but it is a very different set of circumstances over there.
We should bring back the Empire and impose our righteous views on them in my opinion, that would work wouldn't it @Leuth ?
In the spirit of your post I would suggest a slight broadening of the term 'empire' to multinational commercial interests . I would argue it is already being imposed, especially on places such as Brazil.
Got it. Down with democracy and capitalism. Sign me up comrade. I'm going to start a petition right now to get Coca cola and Nestle to stop arming the drug gangs in Brazil.
Comments
If in a few years time he's proved us all wrong and has turned Brazil around then I will obviously be witnessing the birth of a new style of politics.
Braxit - the son of Brexit.
As others have said, people want change and when the first choice opponent is in prison, and the one who ended up on the ballot paper in his place is someone who failed to get re-elected as Mayor of Sao Paulo, you can start to see how Bolsonaro won.
My wife's friends voted for him, and apparently they're certainly not extreme in their political views.
But Brazil is not as liberal as here, and scratch the surface and a lot of what he is saying and promising will appeal to a lot of people.
That's what I mean when i say there needs to be a new plan. We saw it with Trump and then with Brexit, shouting at voters that they're stupid or racist or whatever just seems to really lock in that voter's decision on what they already thought. There needs to be a better way of communicating the positives of immigration other than 'you're racist if you don't believe me', a better way of communicating the importance of funding for vulnerable parts of society other than 'you're evil if you don't agree' and a better way of discussing how to approach crime and terrorism beyond 'you're racist again'. There's plenty of good arguments for all those things, and at the end of the conversation no-one has to agree, they can hold their own view and you can count up who you've convinced and who you haven't. We seem to have sort of forgotten that, and the populists are saying whatever they think the voters want to hear regardless of if it's true, and sweeping up across the world because the conversation has broken down before the votes are cast.
The hard left here call for unity against fascists but screams "Blairite" "Red Tory", "Centralist" at any moderates and social democrats who don't fall in line with their doctrinaire point of view, all while supporting Russia and other objectionable states and groups who they see as "anti-west". So it becomes harder and harder to form any form of broad coalition and oppose the far right.
The opposite of fascism isn't the revolutionary socialism as preached by the Dear Leader but liberal democracy.
And while liberal democracy is having a bit of a rough time of late it is still alive. Trump didn't win the popular vote for example and macron won in France.
Brazil has had military rule in living memory so is not as established a democracy as many other states.
Using inflammatory language against your opponents in public debate is just a race to the bottom but sadly that's the way we're going.
Not sure how this trend will end...
I am not sure Trump has the wherewithal to make such a choice. He will do whatever is expedient in the nanosecond he makes up his mind.
That might do it.
Breath....
In other words,in modern times when true participatory democracy doesn't exist, Where ignorance and conflict is good for business, Isn't Liberal Democracy just a fluffy stage (afforded to the comfortables) in between authoritative regimes..?
Someone in this thread said that people get the governments they deserve, that is completely true. I don't like the Brazilian guy, but it is a very different set of circumstances over there.
We should bring back the Empire and impose our righteous views on them in my opinion, that would work wouldn't it @Leuth ?