He's even worse than his quote sounds. Quotes don't really do much other than tarnish his reputation and show that he's not the nicest guy around. But nice and naughty, in politics, are things you might as well disconsider.

So, why is he worse?

His economic policy includes linear taxation and he expects to solve most deficits by selling state property - which works on the short term, provided investments are made (spoiler: they won't be made).

His security policy is arm the populace to have them fight crime themselves while allowing cops to fire at will more often.

He defended a dictatorship that amounted to the USA's cultural and economic colonization, and seems willing to give said dictatorship another chance if need be.

He seeks to weaken protections on the amazon rainforest; whether or not you believe climate change and/or importance of preservation, the rainforest still has a lot of unknown plants and substances yet to be discovered that would be lost entirely for the sake of creating soy farms. One of the substances found in the amazon elatively recently? Viagra.

Fascist? Nope, not even close. Yelling fascism at anything remotely authoritarian is pretty silly. Yet, he's still an authoritarian, and one whose ideas are not bright nor have much of a chance to work to begin with. Frankly, we'd probably be better with an actual fascist - at least these know better than selling out our national sovereignty.

TL;DR

• His economic policy includes linear taxation and he expects to solve most deficits by selling state property - which works on the short term, provided investments are made (spoiler: they won't be made).

sure, ignore cabinet shrinking, no free stuff for mercosul (a.k.a. latinamerican USSR), breaking the king's friends monopolies (internet, phone services, construction, energy and industries - spoiler: this is why investments are not made), no more keynesian state loopholes, getting rid of useless pseudo-wins in labor onuses to allow the 13 million unemployed to get jobs so they can roll that currency

why wouldnt you want linear taxation? current income tax is a burden to anyone who wants their company to be bigger and more profitable because if they get close to the next level they'll actually lose money, not to mention the current system is a discouragement to personal achievements and a quality source of evasion

• His security policy is arm the populace to have them fight crime themselves while allowing cops to fire at will more often.

Plenty of americans in here, ask any of them whether owning guns in 2018 is mainly a matter of public order or a matter of freedom - guess what, owning guns has little to do with fighting crime

extremely relevant reference, the red buddies you love so much threw your opinion in the garbage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_firearms_and_ammunition_referendum,_2005#Results

since this is still debatable why don't we go further;


source: https://g1.globo.com/rio-de-janeiro/noticia/policia-civil-apreende-60-fuzis-de-guerra-no-aeroporto-internacional-do-rio.ghtml

this is what criminals own and in poorer areas even kids can wield these, are you telling me you really want cops to fuck around with these guys? have you seen the casuality rate in anti-criminal operations? we're not France or Germany we're a fucking 3rd world country with drug castles everywhere, i've some bad news for you, a civil war is taking place for a long time now

but even then if you're not convinced why don't we talk a bit about how human rights loopholes allow bizarre things such as murderers being free in less than 24 hours after being taken in custody, sentence progressions that allow a rapist to read a book and have years reduced, no death/life sentence which means you're never truly risking yourself being a criminal? your favorite websites didnt tell you any of this, or maybe you chose to not pay attention because it's inhuman to think this away about those who kill over 60 thousand a year?

• He defended a dictatorship that amounted to the USA's cultural and economic colonization, and seems willing to give said dictatorship another chance if need be.

first, we already live in a dictatorship that amounts to cuban culture, in case you havent noticed the same group is in power for over 20 years and they love getting inside universities
second, did you choose to believe that because it's convenient or because you don't take your time to read or watch interviews before talking about something?

• He seeks to weaken protections on the amazon rainforest; (...)

so you think this is all about waking up one day and going "Hey, i don't care if this is the only place in the world where this <insert specimen here> can live, let's build something in here"? it's more like "Hey, there is an absurd amount of useless land (yes, it is useless and there's scientific evidence proving that), why not make something with it since, you know, people is already doing this illegally?" is there even a law project going on already for you to criticize this? are you sure that over 1/3 of our territory should be bounded and that it's impossible to reduce that area in a responsible way?

• Frankly, we'd probably be better with an actual fascist

That's why you'd rather vote for Fernando Haddad or Ciro Gomes

if you're going to criticize someone at least get yourself some content

if he fucks up badly i'll be the first to say i was wrong but i'm not willing to pay for your misinformation, stop spreading that your president is a dick in the internet before he even sits in the chair. be a good person and have the least amount of hope that his term can be good, the last thing this country need is weeping pessimism

Edited 11/2/2018 12:10:27

This thread makes me sad.

It's okay, everything is polarized enough globally that we can just nuke some geographic regions and everything will be civilized again. Think 500-600 nukes will do the job.

Plus I for one am looking forward to a future without Alabama or Cornwall. And tbqh maybe all of Brazil is acceptable collateral damage at this point.

Edited 11/2/2018 13:40:01

NPC image

>vote is shared by 55% of the population
>thinks he's special in some way

sure, ignore cabinet shrinking, no free stuff for mercosul (a.k.a. latinamerican USSR), breaking the king's friends monopolies (internet, phone services, construction, energy and industries - spoiler: this is why investments are not made), no more keynesian state loopholes, getting rid of useless pseudo-wins in labor onuses to allow the 13 million unemployed to get jobs so they can roll that currency

Cabinet shrinking is not an economic policy. It's an administrative one that tries to slash the state budget, but also reduces the state machine's capacity to control bribes and corruption.

Comparing the MERCOSUL, founded by neoliberal presidents like Collor and Menem, to the USSR, really? Even after the left wing took over, it still functioned to provide new markets for all of the countries involved. Take NAFTA, for example; all of the three members get fairly good trade deals with each other. It was the case with the MERCOSUL until it became a mess due to ideological differences amongts it's members.

Quite a lot of naiveté on your end if you think ending the state protections on worker's rights will result in greater wages; I'm against their implementation, but now that they are a thing, removing them is a shot on the foot. These companies are not going to provide raises to the regular payments to compensate for the losses, specially since we're going out of recession just now and wages are generally lower than they were before.

why wouldnt you want linear taxation? current income tax is a burden to anyone who wants their company to be bigger and more profitable because if they get close to the next level they'll actually lose money, not to mention the current system is a discouragement to personal achievements and a quality source of evasion

Because linear taxation doesn't work. It's either too taxing on the lower class or too lenient on the upper class. The result is a further increase on state deficit and/or reduction of the quality of life of the bottom 50%. Taxation in general is a massive burden, but just trying to draw a line for income tax will not solve the issue; income tax is merely one of the many absurd taxes we have in here, which he seemed to have absolutely ignored during his entire campaign. The ICMS and ISS, for example, if reduced, would have a far more positive effect on our lives.

Plenty of americans in here, ask any of them whether owning guns in 2018 is mainly a matter of public order or a matter of freedom - guess what, owning guns has little to do with fighting crime

Regardless, he doesn't have an actual security plan besides giving cops freedom to shoot and people weapons. I'm pro-gun, personally, for the reasons above + the referendum back in ~2005, but assuming it'll just end crime immediately as Bolsonaro seems to believe? lul.

extremely relevant reference, the red buddies you love so much threw your opinion in the garbage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_firearms_and_ammunition_referendum,_2005#Results

So, following your assumption I did vote Haddad/PT - to which you have no base whatsoever - I might as well go ahead and say that they at least had a security plan. Extra development of police intelligence, targetting of the higher-ups in criminal activity (such as PCC leaders) and integration of the Federal Police on peacekeeping on the streets.

this is what criminals own and in poorer areas even kids can wield these, are you telling me you really want cops to fuck around with these guys? have you seen the casuality rate in anti-criminal operations? we're not France or Germany we're a fucking 3rd world country with drug castles everywhere, i've some bad news for you, a civil war is taking place for a long time now

but even then if you're not convinced why don't we talk a bit about how human rights loopholes allow bizarre things such as murderers being free in less than 24 hours after being taken in custody, sentence progressions that allow a rapist to read a book and have years reduced, no death/life sentence which means you're never truly risking yourself being a criminal? your favorite websites didnt tell you any of this, or maybe you chose to not pay attention because it's inhuman to think this away about those who kill over 60 thousand a year?

Yup, but "fire at will" doesn't do jackshit on the long term. That takes down the lower end of the criminals, so long as the higher-ups are still in charge and rich, more poor people will still be recruited. I'm not particularly against heavier police action, but you should know better than just assuming that a kill count will solve all of the security issues; the police needs further development on their capacity to actually solve cases and destroy criminal activity from it's roots, not from it's limbs.

first, we already live in a dictatorship that amounts to cuban culture, in case you havent noticed the same group is in power for over 20 years and they love getting inside universities
second, did you choose to believe that because it's convenient or because you don't take your time to read or watch interviews before talking about something?

First; if we're in a dictatorship, then how did your candidate, which tries so hard to be considered the outcast, won? Is he part of the scheme too or is your idea inherently flawed?
Second; It takes less than 5 minutes "reading or watching interviews" by none other than Bolsonaro himself to see that he's very enthusiastic about military rule and misses the "good" old days when they were in charge.

so you think this is all about waking up one day and going "Hey, i don't care if this is the only place in the world where this <insert specimen here> can live, let's build something in here"? it's more like "Hey, there is an absurd amount of useless land (yes, it is useless and there's scientific evidence proving that), why not make something with it since, you know, people is already doing this illegally?" is there even a law project going on already for you to criticize this? are you sure that over 1/3 of our territory should be bounded and that it's impossible to reduce that area in a responsible way?

Pretty sure there is, but it's hard to believe someone as aggressive and invasive as Bolsonaro is would bet he rigth man to try and do something slowly and responsibly.

Whatever is your "scientific evidence", you probably need to review your sources; a large chunk of the humidity on the southeast of the country comes from vapor created by the perspiration of the trees in the amazon. Even if it's truly "useless" economically (spoiler: it isn't), it still feeds water into the industrial heartlands of the country, and damaging it is bound to cause an hydric crisis greater than the recent one that, together with the political scandals, ignited the recession.

That's why you'd rather vote for Fernando Haddad or Ciro Gomes

Nice; comparing the opposition to fascism blindly. Pretty much the right-wing following the left-wing's mistake. All the while blindly assuming what my vote was without any evidence whatsoever.

if he fucks up badly i'll be the first to say i was wrong but i'm not willing to pay for your misinformation, stop spreading that your president is a dick in the internet before he even sits in the chair. be a good person and have the least amount of hope that his term can be good, the last thing this country need is weeping pessimism

There's a large gap between optimism and being naive. I do want him to succeed for obvious reasons, doesn't mean I think he will; he has the perfect formula to fuck up on just about every end. There have been warnings both before, during, and now, after the elections of that, so it shouldn't come as a surprise to his voters when shit starts hitting the fan.

if they get close to the next level they'll actually lose money

This is a common misconception about non-linear taxation and tax brackets in general. Unless the tax system in Brazil is very unusual (it could be, i haven't looked into it) this is always false. Consider this hypothetical tax bracket system with three tax brackets.

• Top bracket: Income greater than $100,000 taxed at 40%
• Middle bracket: Income between $30,000 and $100,000 taxed at 20%
• Bottom bracket: Income less than $30,000 taxed at 10%

In this scenario, if you make $29,900 your tax bill will be $2,990 and your after tax income will be $26,910.

If you get a $200 raise that will bump you up to the middle tax bracket, so you might think you would actually lose money. If you had all of your income taxed at the higher rate (20%) you would be in fact make less money ($30,100 - $30,100 * 20% = $30,100 - $6,020 = $24,080).

However, that is not how these tax bracket actually work. What actually happens is that the first $30,000 of your income is taxed at the bottom rate (10%), the rest of your income up to $100,000 is taxed at the middle rate, and then all income past $100,000 is taxed at the top rate.

So our hypothetical person who got the $200 raise to have a pre-tax income of $30,100 will actually have a tax bill of $30,000 * 10% + $100 * 20% = $3,020. This means that after the raise their after tax income will be $27,080

---

I don't know enough about Brazilian affairs to comment on the rest, but I do have a good amount of knowledge about the rainforest and soil science here. With regard to that there are two quick points I will make.

First, there has been extensive documentation regarding the soil science of tropical rainforests. To summarize briefly, there is obviously a huge amount of richness within the rainforest such that it can support such a huge concentration of biomass. However, very little of that richness is actually found within the soil itself. Most if it is within the organic matter of plants, either living or dead and decomposing. Once you perform a slash and burn development of the area, the potency of the plant matter is quickly exhausted once the burnt matter is used up and you are left with only the soil itself, which as I mentioned is very poor on its own. This is why farmers who do slash and burn find that their fields fail after a short time and must move further into the rainforest to slash and burn more land.

The second point is that we have to take a broader view of the economic value of undeveloped land. Zephyrum mentioned the importance it has a source of water for the rest of the country. It also serves as a important carbon sink and reinvigorates soil, not to mention its value as a tourism draw, a source of potential new organisms that could be beneficial to science and medicine, etc.

Edited 11/2/2018 20:17:22

That was a good point but on paper our current system nets more revenue for the government

They want to raise the exemption to 5 salaries (something close to R$ 5000) sp it is a reduction for everyone and helps with evasion-current exemptipn is up to R$2000, if you take a closer look at the table you can also tell how ridiculously close the levels are and how those who achieve personal success are punished by it, already taking part in a linear system that lacks better progression

We could argue for days about amazon but i'll limit myself in saying theres intelectual terrorism about it. The chinese want to do it themselves and the illegals were already at it while the government neglected its duty for years. Its happening, it's a matter of who, and even then, its absurdly large, even gping out of brazilian territory, if you want to trust chinese or illegals to preserve your own ground im not.

So firing at will does nothing in longterm. Lets watch a narco-state take over with civilians as hostages and cops dying so they dont break the law.

"Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." - The fascist system by Mussolini, make your own conclusions. Its easy to dodge a debate by pointing the finger but sadly theres enough evidence to claim this as the motto followed by the governemtn in the past 20 years, the indrpendant and impartial press already got there, the finger pointers generalized me and over 100 million as nazis and this is unacceptable, even mentioning the word fascist in 2018 is enough to make me dislike you because well you're on the sweet side, try having an opinion and being called a fascist five days a week and then tell me im the one who supports an authoritarian

if you dont want to be called a npc dont be one, youre literally judging someone guilty before the act and the trial, guess what, this is what the establishment preaches to the people

Edited 11/2/2018 22:42:52

They want to raise the exemption to 5 salaries (something close to R$ 5000) sp it is a reduction for everyone and helps with evasion-current exemptipn is up to R$2000, if you take a closer look at the table you can also tell how ridiculously close the levels are and how those who achieve personal success are punished by it, already taking part in a linear system that lacks better progression

Tax dodgers aren't really going to stop evading taxation because laws changed...

The new exemption level is nice, but that's about it. The linearity means that the state, currently suffering deficits, will have further deficit. If the state wants to slash the budget, more than linear taxation and some ministry cuts need to be implemented. Starting with large-scale sales of state property (which are not going to be executed by well-intended people, rest assured - those in charge of making those sales are likely to be bribed) and many more administrative cuts, including but not limited to lowering the number of politicians and their paychecks (which isn't in the President's powers).

We could argue for days about amazon but i'll limit myself in saying theres intelectual terrorism about it. The chinese want to do it themselves and the illegals were already at it while the government neglected its duty for years. Its happening, it's a matter of who, and even then, its absurdly large, even gping out of brazilian territory, if you want to trust chinese or illegals to preserve your own ground im not.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the PT and Temer governments failed to protect the Amazon, doesn't mean we might as well just give up on it. Beren raised several excellent points on why such.

So firing at will does nothing in longterm. Lets watch a narco-state take over with civilians as hostages and cops dying so they dont break the law.

Stop with the alarmism; as said, the police getting rougher is just trying to keep a boat afloat by using buckets to remove the water on it. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, else the boat drowns, but just like the taxation linearity, it's not a measure that has to come alone, without long-term planning which Bolsonaro's project seems to completely ignore in favor of the short-term.

"Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." - The fascist system by Mussolini, make your own conclusions. Its easy to dodge a debate by pointing the finger but sadly theres enough evidence to claim this as the motto followed by the governemtn in the past 20 years, the indrpendant and impartial press already got there, the finger pointers generalized me and over 100 million as nazis and this is unacceptable, even mentioning the word fascist in 2018 is enough to make me dislike you because well you're on the sweet side, try having an opinion and being called a fascist five days a week and then tell me im the one who supports an authoritarian

if you dont want to be called a npc dont be one, youre literally judging someone guilty before the act and the trial, guess what, this is what the establishment preaches to the people

Yet, earlier, you pointed at Haddad/Ciro as fascists, while claiming that I voted/supported either of them; indirectly, you called me a fascist(-supporter).

I feel so bad for Brazil. Hang in there...

It's ok now ZBD, most of us expect an improvement



haha while you're worried about alarmism 7 people just died without any means of legitimate defense, the police will solve the case in 5% of the case and even if they do, there will be a human rights NGO right in front of the station to afford them a lawyer to exploit the soft laws

i mean, i would be upset if owning guns was the sole measure to reduce violence but i actually read newspapers, i happen to watch the congress sessions in tv since 2015 (i was outraged by 2014 election results) and i happen to know what the people i voted for really want to do, be youtube's guest before **spreading nonsense in the internet**, stop talking as if great promises are the only measures to be taken and start looking at the bigger picture already, it seems to me that you watched 2 days of news report and suddenly became an expert that can state for certain that we'd be better off with a fascist **before he's even in office**

you're the living example of how Bolsonaro won the election, your narrative for criticism is unsustainable

i wish we had a 200 IQ president who wouldnt piss off anyone with outrageous speeches but not everything happens the way i want to
i apologize for the bullying but the npc analogy has never been so close to reality

there will be a human rights NGO right in front of the station to afford them a lawyer to exploit the soft laws

I, too, believe that human rights NGOs are to blame for your country's murder problem.

Free 3rd party lawyers that can retaliate cops for their MO? Its a factor

Theres an entire conjuncture behind the murder problem

NGO workers get murdered in your country every five days.

This narrative has popped up before in other corrupt failed societies that like to murder humanitarians and cover up (or prepare for) state abuses. Obviously your failed society doesn't have policemen or other state actors that are actually committing these abuses- nope, these NGOs- whose employees, I must stress, are literally getting murdered every week- must be frivolously using their limited resources to counter-productively defend obvious murderers.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that this narrative means in Brazil what it's meant in every other country that's peddled it. Human rights and legal protections for accused perpetrators are the last thing you go after if you're attempting to build a peaceful, prosperous society.

And soft laws? The safest places to live in aren't the ones who rile up lynch mobs to dehumanize and wipe out perceived offenders. Adopting the societal and human rights attitudes of Pakistan is not the path to becoming more like Denmark. I'd posit that your country's problem has more to do with its institutional corruption and undereducated, overzealous, dysfunctional population than it does with all the things that make developed Western societies prosperous and functional.

Do you think police officers exist to prosecute criminals? Of course not. Mob chaos could easily take care of that itself- albeit with collateral damage. No, the point of policemen is to ensure order, civil protection, and fundamental rights. If you're going to go after rights and those who protect them, you might as well get rid of the cops too. If you want a mob state, it costs a hell of a lot less to just go out and kill accused people yourself instead of paying for a police force to mask and legitimize a failed society.

A police force that must commit abuses and violate rights in order to function is worse than no police force at all.

If you want to know what's wrong with your country, I think the first step should be to look in a mirror. Societies fail from the bottom up and must be fixed in that direction too- not with fantasies of "high IQ" strongmen.

Edited 11/3/2018 00:52:45

Suddenly everyone's an expert on Brazil's internal affairs.

i mean, i would be upset if owning guns was the sole measure to reduce violence but i actually read newspapers, i happen to watch the congress sessions in tv since 2015 (i was outraged by 2014 election results) and i happen to know what the people i voted for really want to do, be youtube's guest before **spreading nonsense in the internet**, stop talking as if great promises are the only measures to be taken and start looking at the bigger picture already, it seems to me that you watched 2 days of news report and suddenly became an expert that can state for certain that we'd be better off with a fascist **before he's even in office**

That's some quite strong words for someone using Wikipedia screenshots as points. You've had plenty of space to tell me what other security measures Bolsonaro aims to taking in your 3 replies to me thus far - yet you took advantage of none. Go ahead and tell me any - I haven't seen them floating around in anywhere near enough detail as is needed.

Adopting the societal and human rights attitudes of Pakistan is not the path to becoming more like Denmark.

we adopted human rights from Denmark and became more like Pakistan? the need is not for shaping society because society isn't staying alive for that, there's a war going on and if you think soft laws are the way to go i'm glad you don't live in here because people is sick of going out in the morning and having no idea on whether they're coming home missing a phone or a hand

be my guest and search for brazilian criminal factions videos, you'll see the true reality of a narco-community. NSFW warning

and honestly if you want more detail than that i'm afraid you're not looking for a direction but actual law projects and documents explaining every single technicality, you like to criticise the lack of depth in these but when you do that it's not very convenient to recognize such projects as a delicate matter that is way more complex than "allowing cops to fire at will", is it? just sit back and at least wait for something to happen so you can criticise it instead of disseminating humanitary ideology against "ThE TyRaNt"

@Tito: I watch Brazilian murder videos every day; snuff porn just didn't cut it for me anymore, and ISIS videos really lost their production value by mid-2017.

They still don't justify the narrative of blaming it on human rights and NGOs that stand up for human rights. I'm not saying it's about allowing cops to fire at will- but repealing legal protections (poorly-constructed loopholes are a different matter, but fundamental protections are what I'm talking about here) is not the right path to take. Even if targeting NGOs gives you a nice drop in the crime rate- which I'd be doubtful about, given that human rights protections, if anything, correlate with less crime globally- you're also opening yourself and your country up to much bigger threats. The state always has the motive, means, and opportunity to take advantage of your society and is much more dangerous than any murderer.

Even if it were Mother Teresa and Gandhi jointly running your government, that would not justify repealing human rights protections and the means to ensure they stay in place. They're fundamental to any society founded on the rule of law.

Bolsonaro looks like a DC villain but sure hell will fix the God forsaken country.
He is almost as good as Trump but the god himself can never be overshadowed.

Why was taggy unbanned? Wth fizzer?!

Ban the schizo again