Hacker News Reader

> _What kind of coups is done with ample defense opportunity and full validation of the Supreme Court?_

Ermmm.. defense opportunity? A totally partisan-biased Supreme Court does not leave much for a defense strategy. That's like putting Benghazi to be judged by the GOP.

>_It's funny because in 92 the same politicians who are now claiming a coup is going on have voted in favor of impeachment_

Maybe because they're being consistent on their stances?

> Ermmm.. defense opportunity?

Yes. Multiple opportunities for the defense to expose its views and interview witnesses, both in congress and senate.

> A totally partisan-biased Supreme Court

The majority of the current Supreme Court has been appointed by in the Lula and Dilma governments and are strongly tied to their party, including a former lawyer of a party member who is now in jail.

If there's any bias, it's in favor of the accused.

The defense had N opportunities to proof (and they proved) that Rousseff didn't commit any crime. But it doesn't matter, because it's not a real judgement. It's a theatrical judgement for stupid guys like you to have a justificativa. But yeah, no stupid personagens believe it. It was a coup. And I should have Said, in the beginning, first thing: Temer out.

Thanks for the ad hominem, it shows the depth of your arguments.

LOL at "Temer out". This is really all that you people know how to do, right? "Itamar out", "FHC out", "Temer out"... It's only a coup attempt when it turns against you.

:-) there's some argument that could be used, but people don't know enough to use then except for the "that's a coup", "temer out" or any other crying...

Your comments, otoh, are well done. Voted up

The impeachment process isn't judged by the Supreme Court.

There were multuple appeals to the Supreme Court, which has always let the process continue.

And in senate, the president of the Supreme Court leads the final judgement.

Those are recourses claiming the process itself is wrong, but the impeachment isn't judged by the Supreme Court.

And remember, 8 of the 11 judges were appointed by Dilma's party. So if you'd expect bias, it would be towards supporting Dilma.

Yep, that's what I said above.

> everyone wants their own government tit to suck from.

That is the general schema by which statist ("socialist") regimes hang on to power... that is until they have inflated themselves out of existence.

Yet people are conditioned in schools to love the state and hate the "all evil" capitalism.

In Brazil it's political suicide to suggest cutting government expenses such as bloated programs and agencies (even though they are known to be infested by corruption). People are hit hard by our extremely high taxes but don't make the connection to the government inefficacy and corruption. They keep asking for more government services and programs. People hate our postal service (which has a monopoly on some sorts of deliveries), yet freak out at the idea of opening it to the free market.

The current president attempted to end the "ministry of culture" (which basically is a money gateway from our pockets to already-rich artists with political connections) and replace it with a smaller department. Teachers and university students brainwashed by the state-worshiping religion kept protesting until the president gave up and bought the ministry back. That has been happening to all his attempts at fixing things.

Perfect reading and reproduction of the market-fundamentalist-pamphlet! Who are you to call anyone brainwashed? Talking in truisms, uncharitable to any disagreeing point of view, turning anyone who opposes your points of view into caricatures. Give me a break.

It's funny how idiots here in Brazil thinks that the neoliberalism BS is a serious econômica thesis. Parent post probably studied in a federal university, but hates "big bad state".

Well I think the biggest problem is that we're not really used to reading and trying to understand stuff more deeply, and debating etc so we need simple truths to cling to and for quite a long time there was something homogeneous here, everybody had the same information, everybody watched Jornal Nacional and Novelas, etc. But when you start to read and honestly try to develop understanding of stuff you need to deal with conflicting ideas without cracking lol, and you start to see it's a lot of work and it takes time... But this shouldn't be something for "college people" only, it should be for everyone(and I'm not one of the humanities or who is from the universities). But now we're getting anti-intellectual like the US...

I'm sorry, but I can't see how being pro free markets is being anti intellectual. Using myself as an example, I used to believe government intervention was usually a good thing if done right. But then this whole mess happened in Brazil and I started to actually study economics to understand what was going on, and that changed my view completely.

Economics is not the only issue at play in this whole thing, there's a lot more. This talk of "state worship", "school indoctrination", plus the all sorts of mcarthism, left-dehumanizing(also important to note: center-left) and etc is 100% pure authoritharianism. If you're capable of being charitable to different arguments, seeing the nuances, recognizing the valid points someone from another point-of-view can provide and etc it's one thing but there's a lot of people that are way over the edge.

State worshipping and school/university indoctrination are very real things in Brazil, though.

The center-left that you mention is demonized as "neoliberals" by the extreme left here, so I'm not really sure what your point is about that.

I'm not convinced and it was not my experience. Plus it doesn't make any sense, nobody actually worships the state so this is already politically charged wording with little substance and it's what is used to bash people with, not for sincere discussion. If people want to be taken seriously they should use precise and neutral language as much as possible.

You know what is meant when we say "worship the state". You can't be naive to the point of thinking we mean people kneeling in the altar of the state.

But there is an undeniable anti-market anti-individual freedom anti-conservatism bias in Brazilian schools. Examples of that are readily available if you google for it.

Well, I do think Brazil has a serious problem with state worship and school indoctrination. I can't remember being exposed to any sort of liberal economics thinking when I was at school or in college. Many of my colleagues never really questioned the ideas they learned, and some of them deepened them during their college years. I don't think that pointing this out as a problem is dehumanizing nor authoritarian. For one, I'm completely against the "Escola sem Partido" project, because it is actually authoritarian and limits freedom of speech.

I do agree, though, that many people with right wing ideals dehumanize progressives, but those are more linked with the conservative and religious right than with libertarian or classical liberal ideals.

I consider myself a classical liberal and when exposing my views to left wing people have been called a fascist and many other adjectives that actually are dehumanizing and are the extreme opposite of what I believe in. I just don't care when people say that, because it just shows they don't have a clue of what my ideals are about and don't even care to listen.

Well, the burden of proof is on the accuser, if people can make the case objectively then of course something should be done and educators themselves should care about the integrity of the knowledge, but it's not as simple as that, to call someone indoctrinated or brainwashed or indocrinator/brainwasher/dishonest is quite a tall call IMO, it's easy to claim, backing it up is another story... The reality I see is that most people just take sides without really reading stuff in depth or don't care at all about politics and that's it, to me that's true for all and I didn't leave school with any defined political positioning, Personally, I don't think state worship is a thing and what I said to the other reply above applies here, too.

The fact that you use the "neoliberal" card on disagreeing opinions and resort to ad hominem attacks shows how deep you understanding of economics is.

Your reply is a good fit for that caricature though. No substance, not a single argument to oppose his points. Is anything said by the parent false?

All you did was giving an angry retort.

> that is until they have inflated themselves out of existence.

Inflation doesn't matter to socialists, because as long as the Mint's printers work they have all the cash they need to conduct a reverse osmosis on the nation's wealth directly into their cronies' pockets.

Then the cronies just save the money in some offshore bank, and the inflation works twice in their favor.

With socialism, the people is the only part getting the shaft. This has been like this for decades now.

Of course, with capitalism in most countries, exactly the same thing happens in reality... it's almost like when you have entities with huge amounts of power that are almost entirely disconnected from the population, the population gets the short end of the stick, no matter what propaganda is pushed on them.

I like how in Brazil the ones that really suck in government tits are the riches, but their sons keep coming here in HN to Tell that the problema is the expending with the poors.

I didn't get this from the parent post at all. How is giving taxpayer money to rich artists spending with the poor?