Hell, the main two alternatives are a politician who admires right-wing military dictatorships and a politician who admires left-wing military dictatorships. What could go wrong?
Bolsanero, who wasn't convicted of any crimes, is more of a threat to Brazil than the guy who was charged and only not convicted over a technicality... Who else will liberals side with just to make sure their much hated enemies don't get power.
This is a joke. Don't you guys have any values or standards?
Dude, there's plenty of proof that Joe Biden was colluding using his power as VP to get his son out of legal trouble on a number of occasions (some pretty gross stuff, to say the least), but that's fine because Donald Trump should never be president. How far are you guys willing to take this?
Seems like people are willing to keep actually dangerous people in power so as to avoid having metaphorically dangerous people in power. Wake up.
Corruption, illegal activity, and downright immorality should never be considered permissible for political reasons (or any reasons, for that matter). Disgusting. No wonder "populism" is on the rise.
Please be civil guys. Jim, please no name calling. Randy, given that so much of what is published here makes you so angry and accusatory, perhaps this is not a good site for you? Maybe there is not enough common ground for a constructive conversation.
I'm not angry. I just find it pretty bothersome when people are more than willing to ignore the clear faults (many illegal) of political leaders so as to avoid the allegedly dangerous populist leaders who lack said faults (particularly of the illegal kind).
Believe me, if a "populist" who I may have sentiments for was a convicted felon, I think I'd hold back my enthusiasm for said person just to make sure the other guy didn't get in.
I think we should all be holding to the same standards, but it's the double standard that is bothersome to me. The willingness to turn a blind eye to clear crimes in the name of somehow protecting liberal democracy (which, ironically, holds to the rules of law as one of its key principles) seems like an oxymoron to me, and I just like to point that out.
Unfortunately, pointing that out today sends one to the digital Gulag.
As a Canadian, I can't help recall this publication's need to call out the "dangerous" trucker convoy of this past winter all while ignoring the truly dangerous rhetoric spewed out by our Prime Minister (you know, the one who holds real power) questioning whether we should "tolerate" these people (people against the therapy that was called a vaccine). I'm sorry, but it seems to me that that's actually dangerous to democracy, unlike a trucker protest against such a leader and such statements.
Well said.
Hell, the main two alternatives are a politician who admires right-wing military dictatorships and a politician who admires left-wing military dictatorships. What could go wrong?
Excellent article!
Wow, what a mess. About as bad as the choice we had here in the US in 2020.
Worse
Bolsanero, who wasn't convicted of any crimes, is more of a threat to Brazil than the guy who was charged and only not convicted over a technicality... Who else will liberals side with just to make sure their much hated enemies don't get power.
This is a joke. Don't you guys have any values or standards?
Freak
Dude, there's plenty of proof that Joe Biden was colluding using his power as VP to get his son out of legal trouble on a number of occasions (some pretty gross stuff, to say the least), but that's fine because Donald Trump should never be president. How far are you guys willing to take this?
Seems like people are willing to keep actually dangerous people in power so as to avoid having metaphorically dangerous people in power. Wake up.
Corruption, illegal activity, and downright immorality should never be considered permissible for political reasons (or any reasons, for that matter). Disgusting. No wonder "populism" is on the rise.
QAnon nut
Please be civil guys. Jim, please no name calling. Randy, given that so much of what is published here makes you so angry and accusatory, perhaps this is not a good site for you? Maybe there is not enough common ground for a constructive conversation.
If site becomes a troll farm which it seems to be...no one actually engaging other than to mock and insult all the posts...it will not last.
I'm not angry. I just find it pretty bothersome when people are more than willing to ignore the clear faults (many illegal) of political leaders so as to avoid the allegedly dangerous populist leaders who lack said faults (particularly of the illegal kind).
Believe me, if a "populist" who I may have sentiments for was a convicted felon, I think I'd hold back my enthusiasm for said person just to make sure the other guy didn't get in.
I think we should all be holding to the same standards, but it's the double standard that is bothersome to me. The willingness to turn a blind eye to clear crimes in the name of somehow protecting liberal democracy (which, ironically, holds to the rules of law as one of its key principles) seems like an oxymoron to me, and I just like to point that out.
Unfortunately, pointing that out today sends one to the digital Gulag.
As a Canadian, I can't help recall this publication's need to call out the "dangerous" trucker convoy of this past winter all while ignoring the truly dangerous rhetoric spewed out by our Prime Minister (you know, the one who holds real power) questioning whether we should "tolerate" these people (people against the therapy that was called a vaccine). I'm sorry, but it seems to me that that's actually dangerous to democracy, unlike a trucker protest against such a leader and such statements.
But I digress.
You're extremely angry. Seek help immediately.
Incoherent ramblings. Not surprised.