Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 06 Aug '10 17:58
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10892582
    The four main candidates in Brazil's presidential election have taken part in the first televised debate
    "Attention focused on the two front-runners in recent opinion polls, Dilma Rousseff of the Workers' Party and Jose Serra of the Social Democracy Party
    ....
    "The BBC's Paulo Cabral in Sao Paulo says Mr Serra carefully avoided criticising President's Lula's highly popular government but told voters he was the best person to build on its economic achievements.
    He also promised to improve the health system and infrastructure.
    "Travelling on federal highways in Brazil today is a public danger," said the 68-year-old, who only six months ago had a 20-percentage point advantage over his nearest rival in the polls.

    Ms Rousseff, 62, who Mr Serra now trails by 10-percentage points, meanwhile sought to show that she had her own ideas in an effort to counter criticism that her campaign has been based almost solely on the president's popularity, our correspondent says.
    But she nevertheless vowed to continue the government's economic policies, which have brought growth of about 7%.
    "We have lifted 24 million people out of poverty and brought 31 million people into the middle class. In the middle of the crisis in 2009, we created 1.7 million jobs"


    now here's some interesting information on ms roussef's background:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10461959
    "[i]...Critics have dismissed Ms Rousseff as merely Lula's choice, a career civil servant never elected to public office.
    ...As a student, she became involved in left-wing politics and joined the underground resistance to the military dictatorship that ruled Brazil from 1964 until 1985.[/b]

    ....

    any thoughts?
  2. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    06 Aug '10 18:02
    If the most quotable line of the main opposition party is about highway safety, then it sounds like the incumbents will keep power.
  3. 06 Aug '10 18:05
    Originally posted by Palynka
    If the most quotable line of the main opposition party is about highway safety, then it sounds like the incumbents will keep power.
    The PSDB (main opposition party) does have a fame for having lame candidates, but at least in this case it will be a competition of equals.
  4. 06 Aug '10 18:05
    It's the economy, stupid.
  5. 06 Aug '10 18:06
    The more important question is how much money they aim at the arts. Every country to strive to rise above and lower the number of peons in its population.
  6. 06 Aug '10 18:09
    Originally posted by Eladar
    The more important question is how much money they aim at the arts. Every country to strive to rise above and lower the number of peons in its population.
    well, that is important too, I certainly don't think whoever wins the election should cut spending in the arts.
  7. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    06 Aug '10 18:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    The PSDB (main opposition party) does have a fame for having lame candidates, but at least in this case it will be a competition of equals.
    I think the last two Presidents have done pretty well for Brazil. I think FHC was the turning point that Brazil had longed for decades and Lula picked up on there quite well.

    I don't know much about the new candidates, though. What's your view?
  8. 06 Aug '10 18:17
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    well, that is important too, I certainly don't think whoever wins the election should cut spending in the arts.
    If they want to win, they need to make expansion of the arts a main issue. It is the only way to save Brazil. It is the only way to save the world. The more people we can enlighten, the better the world will be.
  9. 06 Aug '10 18:17
    Originally posted by Palynka
    I think the last two Presidents have done pretty well for Brazil. I think FHC was the turning point that Brazil had longed for decades and Lula picked up on there quite well.

    I don't know much about the new candidates, though. What's your view?
    Indeed. I believe that despite the ideological differences, Im content with the achievements accomplished by Lula in the area of poverty, however, Im deeply disappointed with the several politically-motivated moves by the current administration in foreign policy and other national issues.

    The second link I posted does offer some background to these. Personally I don't think they're worthy of any great degree of attention, as they don't have a real chance of winning and are effectively single-issue candidates (marina silva).
  10. 06 Aug '10 18:22
    Originally posted by Eladar
    If they want to win, they need to make expansion of the arts a main issue. It is the only way to save Brazil. It is the only way to save the world. The more people we can enlighten, the better the world will be.
    Im starting to find your new obsession with the arts worrying, I understand your frustration following your ignorant outbursts on that other thread, but seriously, this spamming of yours is uncalled for.
  11. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    06 Aug '10 18:26
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    Indeed. I believe that despite the ideological differences, Im content with the achievements accomplished by Lula in the area of poverty, however, Im deeply disappointed with the several politically-motivated moves by the current administration in foreign policy and other national issues.

    The second link I posted does offer some background to these. ...[text shortened]... n't have a real chance of winning and are effectively single-issue candidates (marina silva).
    I am puzzled that being politically motivated is a criticism of an elected Government but maybe that could be expanded on a bit?
  12. 06 Aug '10 18:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan
    I am puzzled that being politically motivated is a criticism of an elected Government but maybe that could be expanded on a bit?
    Don't you believe they should have the country, rather than ideology, as a priority?
  13. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    06 Aug '10 18:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan
    I am puzzled that being politically motivated is a criticism of an elected Government but maybe that could be expanded on a bit?
    generalissimo doesn't think it's wise to conduct foreign policy based on populist reasons. I tend to agree.
  14. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    06 Aug '10 21:01 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Palynka
    generalissimo doesn't think it's wise to conduct foreign policy based on populist reasons. I tend to agree.
    "Populist" naturally is a poor substitute for considered policy making. However, the point of politics and elections is that there are different, usually conflicting ideas about the nature of a country's interests and the priorities within them. If there was an agreed, objective definition of the interests of a country that might carry more weight. In our world, we accept that often the democratic process is the most acceptable (least worst) way to make choices.

    For example, some countries prioritize the interests of business corporations, to the extent that foreign interests get excessive influence. Similarly, we know that US policy explicitly prioritizes the interests of the USA, so that it is plausible that other (South) American countries might perceive a conflict with their own interests and make a point of dealing with that conflict. We also know that big, wise USA likes to patronize their neighbours with advice that, in reality, is poorly judged and accuse those countries that seek autonomy of being - well, usually of being communist.

    I wonder of any of these ideas are floating around behind this "debate." Perhaps "populist" politics are those that appeal to the wrong people?
  15. 07 Aug '10 16:46 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan
    "Populist" naturally is a poor substitute for considered policy making. However, the point of politics and elections is that there are different, usually conflicting ideas about the nature of a country's interests and the priorities within them. If there was an agreed, objective definition of the interests of a country that might carry more weight. In our ...[text shortened]... ind this "debate." Perhaps "populist" politics are those that appeal to the wrong people?
    The current administration has been criticized heavily by the national media for decisions which have unquestionably been made in the name of ideology as opposed to national interest. These criticisms don't always get international attention but are widely noted within the country. There are numerous examples of these, to cite one of them I'd say lula's ingratiations with the MST (landless workers' movement) and effective condonation of their criminal acts is perhaps the most obvious example of these decisions. It doesn't stop there, Lula's questionable behavior extends beyond national issues, for instance, there was this incident during a visit to cuba where he was asked about the treatment of a certain political prisoner, and his reply was (Im paraphrasing) "Im sure he must have done something to deserve his incarceration...he is no different than a common criminal". Then there is his closeness with hugo chavez, and constant defense of his actions, among other infamous stances of Lula's.

    Similarly, we know that US policy explicitly prioritizes the interests of the USA, so that it is plausible that other (South) American countries might perceive a conflict with their own interests and make a point of dealing with that conflict
    Indeed, and thats a fair point, however, the ideological moves Im referring to regard other latin american countries, and obviously Iran. I haven't seen anything by Lula that would suggest he has some serious disagreement with the US.

    We also know that big, wise USA likes to patronize their neighbours with advice that, in reality, is poorly judged and accuse those countries that seek autonomy of being - well, usually of being communist.
    There is some truth to this statement, but I don't think we should ignore the fact that most of the time these countries who according to you "seek autonomy" do have socialistic tendencies indeed, venezuela being the best example, wouldn't you say the takeovers and vitriolic anti-american rhetoric justify criticism from the US?
    Furthermore, I wish we wouldn't have to rely on generalizations and vague assumptions like this one you just presented, do you have an example of these so-called "poorly judged" advices?