Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

fuliculifulicula t1_iug7e28 wrote

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck I'm so fucking relieved

152

jello1990 t1_iujbcwn wrote

Don't be relieved yet. Bolsonaro is 100% going to attempt a coup

8

martinswesley9 t1_iujhst2 wrote

He is not. His allies have already acknowledged Lula's victory and the high ranking military are not in the slighest inclined into doing any kind of coup. He only has his dumbass supporters now and that's not enough for a coup

6

MastersonMcFee t1_iug90q2 wrote

Good news for the rainforest, and the entire planet!

140

[deleted] t1_iugxhja wrote

[removed]

−138

IVLA2022 t1_iugzzkf wrote

Wrong. That was 2004 - 2005 was when it started coming down again: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-55130304.amp

63

[deleted] t1_iuh1ez9 wrote

[removed]

−86

[deleted] t1_iuh2rck wrote

[removed]

71

[deleted] t1_iuh3bfg wrote

[removed]

−90

[deleted] t1_iuh0w9s wrote

[deleted]

27

[deleted] t1_iuh1oxo wrote

[removed]

−25

[deleted] t1_iuh1t5q wrote

[deleted]

47

IVLA2022 t1_iuh2wpj wrote

He can’t seem to read - his own link says it peaked in 2004 and started to come down under Lula.

39

[deleted] t1_iuh2aot wrote

[removed]

−14

CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_iuh766s wrote

You know full well it’s perfectly reasonable for the massive logging trade in Brazil to take a year or more to turn around like that.

24

Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iuiv2yp wrote

Is that what happened? he signed the paper but the delivery was slow argument?

The second he walked in the office deforestation increased the first year , the second year was higher than his first year

How do you account that?

−1

CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_iuj6tvx wrote

He isn’t in direct control over those companies. He isn’t a king.

Aren’t you sick of getting annihilated? Every argument you make gets crushed.

2

Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iujcdhu wrote

By that logic , how do you hold Bolsonaro responsible of deforestation as a president but not Lula as a president?

People can down-vote me as much as they want , doesn't mean anything , I will continue standing by the truth. The ones don't have any argument are being crushed by the facts , not by emotionally driven fanatics

−1

CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_iujevnq wrote

>By that logic , how do you hold Bolsonaro responsible of deforestation as a president but not Lula as a president?

Now you’re conflating two different ideas. I didn’t say Lula could not change the logging industry. I said he couldn’t totally turn it around in one year.

On that note, removing restrictions and letting the logging companies do whatever they want is A LOT easier than reining them in.

>The ones don't have any argument are being crushed by the facts

I’ve been through your comment history. You haven’t crushed one person with facts. YOU have gotten crushed left and right by irrefutable evidence that you’re wrong.

2

Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iujofn5 wrote

When Lula walked into the office deforestation increased first year in comparison to the previous president , in his second year deforestation increased in comparison to his first year , so we are talking about two years consistently increasing. Numbers don't lie !

So your argument he couldn't in one year is not true

In fact first 4 years of deforestation of Lula's term is more than double of 4 years of Bolsonaro deforestation

You are a fanatic , can't be argued even with facts

0

CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_iujqmat wrote

>in his second year deforestation increased in comparison to his first year

This is an inane and pedantic point. I did not literally mean that deforestation started to drop on 1 January 2004. This distinction you’re trying to make changes absolutely nothing about my point.

>Numbers don't lie !

The numbers show that deforestation fell by 75% while he was president. Why on earth are you only focusing on when he was initially in office and totally ignoring his entire tenure?

>In fact first 4 years of deforestation of Lula's term is more than double of 4 years of Bolsonaro deforestation

Only because bolsenaro had such a low staring point to start from…thanks to his predecessors.

If mayor A managed to reduce the murder rate from 1000 per year to 100 per year, and then mayor B comes in and changes things to where the rate goes up to 500 per year, it would be unequivocally asinine to try to argue that mayor B did a better job at dealing with murder because “more murders happened under mayor A.”

2

Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iujvp4g wrote

Fernando Henrique Cardoso (president of Brazil before Lula)

1999 total loss 17,259
2000 total loss 18,226
2001 total loss 18,165
2002 total loss 21,651

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula)

2003 total loss 25,396
2004 total loss 27,772
2005 total loss 19,014
2006 total loss 14,285

Does that look like 75% less to you?

−1

CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_iujxeag wrote

This is so pedantic.

Lula —> significant net reduction in deforestation.

Bolsenaro —> significant net increase in deforestation.

If mayor A managed to reduce the murder rate from 1000 per year to 100 per year, and then mayor B comes in and changes things to where the rate goes up to 500 per year, it would be unequivocally asinine to try to argue that mayor B did a better job at dealing with murder because “more murders happened under mayor A” even if murders initially jumped to 110 per year for the first two years of mayor A’s tenure.

2

Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iuk79so wrote

what happened to "deforestation rate plummeted the second he walked in" argument? it became 2 years now?
Bolsonaro did a better job protecting the forest than Lula did according to the numbers
Lula tripled in deforestation , besides the guy is a thief , you don't even know what he is selling from his country
You are such a mindless champagne socialists lot

−1

IVLA2022 t1_iuh3ols wrote

https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/2022/9/29/23373427/amazon-rainforest-brazil-jair-bolsonaro-lula-deforestation

9

Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iuiu977 wrote

Lula came into the office in 2003 not in 2005
so how do you account for :

2003 total loss 25,396 km2

2004 total loss 27,772 km2

Apply that logic here please

0

IVLA2022 t1_iuiug0g wrote

Read the article if you need logic.

Just like you deleted all your other comments for being wrong - so are you wrong here again!

2

Warm_Ad_7572 t1_iujv3ub wrote

This type of policies take time to get results, it might have increased a little in the seconda year, but then it started to reduce drastically.

1

Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iujw77h wrote

Fernando Henrique Cardoso (president of Brazil before Lula)

1999 total loss 17,259

2000 total loss 18,226

2001 total loss 18,165

2002 total loss 21,651

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula)

2003 total loss 25,396

2004 total loss 27,772

2005 total loss 19,014

2006 total loss 14,285

Does this look like an improvement to you?

0

arbitraryairship t1_iugevrw wrote

Democracy is nice. Good to see it's still a thing.

123

TypicalExpert6 t1_iuglu0h wrote

Sad I’m sitting here in America wishing and hoping our next elections don’t get burned down.

52

GreatMasol t1_iuh7yuw wrote

Americans are too angry to learn how to not be angry

19

SkeletonCheerleader t1_iuhlijk wrote

Nah. They’re just stupid bullies. Won’t go after the rich who are actually making their lives worse, it’s just easier to blame and bully people they feel are more low status than them.

20

justforthearticles20 t1_iuimt2u wrote

In the US, we live in a country where 1 in 4 is a wildly fascist fuck, while 1 in 3 don't give a shit, and just over 1 in 3 oppose Fascism. The remaining 7% or so say they oppose Fascism, but most vote for the fascists anyway, because of some other flavor of hate that appeals to them.

5

anlumo t1_iui4zgj wrote

The US failed to update its democratic system for the modern times, so it slowly failed. So slowly in fact that the people there only start to realize this now, decades after it happened.

2

Seregrauko41 t1_iuhkr89 wrote

Sad though, that you have to realise that you live in a country where basically every other person is a fascist fuck..

20

DrBrisha t1_iuhmxgx wrote

Very sad. It’s always been this way. Now they just have a microphone and they shout stupid stuff really really loud.

6

MoscaMosquete t1_iuhpce6 wrote

We must still wait for Bolsonaro tho. It's been only one night and nothing from him yet. His followers tho, it only took 10 minutes for them to ask for military intervention...

3

Aleashed t1_iui6lo9 wrote

I thought Bolsillo is not leaving except to jail or the morgue?

1

dianavan20 t1_iugc392 wrote

Bolsonaro is still crying locked in his bedroom and doesn't want to see anyone including his allies. Let's hope he concedes and leaves without inciting violence. Brazil is polarized and the days to come are very challenging but hopefully things will get better.

72

DonDove t1_iuhid7i wrote

Has he conceded since?

3

dianavan20 t1_iuhy2p8 wrote

Rádio silence so far. But a juicy gossip is that he and his wife unfollowed each other on Instagram 🤷🏻‍♀️

8

No-Owl9201 t1_iug9l6v wrote

The best news for the Amazon, Climate Change and Democracy, I heard for along while!!!!!!!!!

45

SurpriseImpressive54 t1_iuih9ta wrote

Maybe, but the like of Macron support Lula, and that french dude wants to internationalize the Amazon to "protect", we ALL know they Just want the resources for them.

2

[deleted] t1_iugxmsk wrote

[removed]

−26

No-Owl9201 t1_iuh1e9h wrote

Yep, I'm so gullible I already know the history and the actual figures.. though of course I'm sure you know much better than (so called) experts..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest

30

[deleted] t1_iuh1lz5 wrote

[removed]

−13

No-Owl9201 t1_iuh2a8u wrote

You need help reading?

https://learnenglishkids.britishcouncil.org/reading-practice

26

[deleted] t1_iuh37qi wrote

[removed]

−7

No-Owl9201 t1_iuh5851 wrote

Pity your confirmation biase, means you didn't read the entire list.

15

Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iuitrvd wrote

1- it's not my information

2- I gave you the link , you are the one who is not looking at numbers

3- you are just a fanatic who is denying numbers blatantly because they don't agree with you

0

All_I_See_Is_Teeth t1_iuhn63a wrote

Deforestation rates plummeted pretty much the second Lula walked in. The data is so simple to read a toddler could do It.

You're bad at this whole misinformation thing.

14

Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iuiroav wrote

so how do you account for :

2003 total loss 25,396 km2

2004 total loss 27,772 km2

Apply that logic here please , and explain it to me how is that plummeted the second he walked in ?

Data is so simple and , you don't / can't even read yet calling me toddler

0

All_I_See_Is_Teeth t1_iujl3cp wrote

You. Are a fucking toddler.

This is government. Shit doesn't happen at the snap of a finger. The data is clear.

1

Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iujotr2 wrote

I am giving you stats

Deforestation of Lula's term is more than the double of Bolsonaro's term of deforestation , first two years consistently increasing , how's that the "second he walked in plummeted" for an argument?

Data is clear is the only part I can agree with you ! you should look at it sometimes

When you start name calling someone, it's a sign of losing an argument , what a loser .... hahahaa

0

All_I_See_Is_Teeth t1_iujwar1 wrote

Oh you're definitely giving false and misleading stats

The numbers you seem to love throwing in people's faces don't hold up past the first glance. 2 entire terms of decreasing deforestation and yet you think people are stupid enough to look at your numbers and not be able to immediatley see the truth?

They're higher because he came into power when deforestation was at an all time high. You're the exact same kind of person who argues Obama dropped more bombs than trump. Yeah. No shit. Double the time and way more combat during Said time.

The arguement you so desperately prop up is made of paper. Its over. Lula won. Youve lost. You're either a bot or You're paid to do this.

1

Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iuk68yu wrote

Let's just say for a second that I am misleading
There is something called fact checking , you can always google rates and see yourself , nobody is stopping you
Here is a link for you , unless you claim I invented Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Brazil?fbclid=IwAR2NlH3GqYRlde70XofgAHJNYuujsG3YuyyLwIl-Fdb6gqojTwvmgOxAd0k#Rates

1

All_I_See_Is_Teeth t1_iukar76 wrote

Yes, yes dodge the rebuttal and present the same information with your misleading narrative.

How much do you make doing this?

1

Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iukbbdc wrote

Exposing mindless fanatics , watching them crumble with facts , seeing them not having arguments and consorting name callings is priceless , it gives me immense pleasure

It not my information , it's not my chart , just pure facts you can't stand

1

craiger_123 t1_iugh126 wrote

It's about time Brazil got rid of this JERK.

38

TheRainbowpill93 t1_iuge5z3 wrote

Congratulations Brazil ! The world is getting somewhat back on track now that the fascists are getting voted out. We as a world community still have much more work to do though , we can’t get too comfortable again.

33

Rogue100 t1_iugq64s wrote

Italy just voted them in, and the US seems set to do the same in a little over a week. I'm happy for the little bit of sanity in Brazil, but I'm not at all convinced the world as a whole is moving in the same direction.

11

The-paper-invader t1_iugwma2 wrote

Given Italy’s track record of government I’m not even sure this going to last this long

11

Da_Vader t1_iugbeth wrote

Did Bolso concede? He is really unpredictable devil.

22

AkamiAhaisu t1_iugbq3o wrote

He apparently went to sleep without giving any remarks

26

Pilosuh t1_iuheb5y wrote

He refused to talk with allies for hours and went to sleep without making any public remarks.

6

DonDove t1_iuhif9b wrote

I thought they loved me, waaaaa!

3

yagotlima t1_iuhvczp wrote

This made my day. Here sir, have an update

2

Locke_Fucking_Lamora t1_iughsiv wrote

Faux News headline:

One of the worlds largest democracies elects leftist ex-con as president

Wouldn’t expect any other type of headline from that POS “news” source.

18

Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iugxouf wrote

Isn't he an ex-con?

−1

Aj_Caramba t1_iuh05v9 wrote

I don't know the situation in Brasil, but for example in Czechoslovakia, our first post Soviet occupation president was also en ex-con, but he was jailed by the totalitarian regime for being against it, so..

21

[deleted] t1_iuh1xcg wrote

[removed]

−14

CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_iuh7av6 wrote

> countless witnesses and tapes and money trail

Source

13

DragonDai t1_iuhpjbv wrote

There isn't one. The only person who went on record to testify against him has since legally retracted all his statements as being false testimony.

See here for more info:

https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/yhvgif/_/iug7q22

8

CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_iui1lf2 wrote

So by “countless witnesses and tapes” he meant “one single witness who retracted their testimony under scrutiny”?

8

DragonDai t1_iuhpgpa wrote

He was convicted but the conviction was overturned because it was fraudulent. So he is technically an ex-con but not in the traditional sense. He was once convicted of a crime, but he was later cleared of the charges.

See here for more info:

https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/yhvgif/_/iug7q22

6

Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iuirl8u wrote

case was dropped due to loophole , not because he was acquitted of the crimes

2

DragonDai t1_iuis9se wrote

You are wrong. Again, I'll refer you to that link, but the general gist is that the only material witness recounted his testimony and the judge was crooked.

2

Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iuisl9q wrote

there were 8 judges and they read his crimes for 4 hours , the only crook was his friend in the supreme court got him out of prison because the trial was supposed to take place in Brasilia instead of Curitiba , he got him out on technicality , not because he was proven innocent

1

DragonDai t1_iuisv0x wrote

You can deny the truth all you like, it doesn't make it not the truth. The man was convicted by a crooked judge, the conviction was overturned because the only material evidence was fabricated, and he is a free man without that crime on his record.

Keep believing the lies you're being fed of you want. We're done here.

1

Kptn_Obv5 t1_iuhtkbf wrote

Where the judge presiding Lula’s case passed on 'advice, investigative leads, and inside information to the prosecutors to 'prevent Lula's Workers' Party from winning' the 2018 elections. His case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Definitive case tampering.

3

Perfect_Ability_1190 t1_iugkk2m wrote

The Amazon is saved

11

Schwartzy94 t1_iuho0zh wrote

Not really... But hopefully things turn for the better.

6

anava_ t1_iugec78 wrote

Good riddance to that prick.

10

my20cworth t1_iugozmo wrote

Here we go "the election was stolen".

6

dakinekine t1_iugk7bm wrote

I’m sure Neymar is crushed.

2

fabulin t1_iuhdug5 wrote

he's in great form though. hopefully he decides to protest bolsonaro's failed election by refusing to go to the WC. infact all the bolsonaro footballers should do the same, and the lula supporters in the squad should take the WC off to celebrate lula's win.

as an englishman that's something i would heavily endorse. just need a reason for the french and germans to give it a miss now and we're set.

2

JayR_97 t1_iuh50j3 wrote

It's says a lot about Brazilians that the election was this close... :/

2

WildFurball2118 t1_iuh6587 wrote

Great! May the Amazon Forest will be preserved well.

2

Bagor519 t1_iuhb7mx wrote

I like seeing how Brazil has gotten back on track, they need to fight for democracy and keep it with them. As much as I hope he stays in office, I fear that another dictator will quickly take his place pretty soon.

2

-Clayburn t1_iuhwq42 wrote

Looking forward to the biopic on this.

1

No-Owl9201 t1_iuis201 wrote

Exactly, and a tremendous amount before both of them as well..

1

Ipeewhenithurts t1_iuhynm9 wrote

Both are horrible, Bolsonaro being worse. This picture makes Lula a nice guy and he is just a prick.

−4

EMP_Jeffrey_Dahmer t1_iugzwki wrote

Remember Lula went to jail for embezzlement of billions of dollars.

−33

LeoGoldfox t1_iuh7ywh wrote

You can stop with the propaganda, the election is over.

13

jorsiem t1_iugdcmw wrote

And reddit will tell me this is a good thing.

−57

moon_fairy t1_iuge5zy wrote

I'm brazilian and I am also telling you it is a good thing

52

jorsiem t1_iugegh8 wrote

Neither of those were good, it's going to be shit either way or did you forget all the shit Lula has done. All the Odebrecht bullshit etc ?

−55

moon_fairy t1_iugewl8 wrote

Bolsonaro was going to have too much power if he was elected, the congress is filled with his people and he had plans to put more members on the supreme court so he'd have more power. God knows what he was going to be capable of doing, there is something Bolsonaro currently uses to fund his corruption called "orçamento secreto" or "secret budget" which makes him and his people able to direct funding anywhere they want without repercussion. Imagine what he could do if he had the supreme court on the palm of his hand. Lula was corrupt yes, but Bolsonaro is a whole different breed of evil

24

jorsiem t1_iugf12i wrote

So what Bolsonaro was also shit doesn't make Lula winning a good thing, I don't get the celebration here.

−46

moon_fairy t1_iugf9ix wrote

Well, we're just glad we got rid of Bolsonaro's constant attacks to our democracy

29

Plenty-Picture-9445 t1_iugg63r wrote

One is a christofascist. That's all that matters pure evil that cannot gain power in any corner of the planet

21

riplikash t1_iugg7eq wrote

It does if shit person one would have control of all branches of govt and #2 would be facing an oppositional party.

14

hunsnotdead t1_iugy7dq wrote

Look, in hindsight if Weimar Germany could choose between Nazis + WWII and constant political clusterfuck, "Neither of those were good", im pretty sure what they would choose.

11