Jair Bolsonaro declares Brazil's 'liberation from socialism'

[Mardla]

Aren't those addressed on a local level?

They can be addressed on the national.

Then wouldn't they be national, rather than community, concerns?

[Sudbrazil]

The last governing party called itself 'The Workers Party' (Partido dos Trabalhadores). They had several welfare and wealth redistribution programs, supported Cuba, Venezuela along with other communist and socialist countries.

If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is.

It isn't socialism, it is social democracy. There's one hella difference.

No. Democracy is the rule by the people. Socialism is a branch of Marxism that defends the redistribution of wealth and care for the poor through welfare programs. Your statement is categorically wrong.

[The South Falls]

Protection cannot be against anything but people?

I guess you need protection from animals, too.

Discrimination doesn't need protection. I take it you don't like the 1960s civil rights movement.

[The New California Republic]

I am reserving judgement for the time being. But for now I will just say that I find it hard to believe that Brazil can be defined as socialist, meaning that it is impossible to liberate a country from something that doesn't exist in said country. It just seems to me that Bolsonaro needed a convenient enemy to target during his campaigns, and creating a caricature of Brazilian socialism fit the bill perfectly.

The last governing party called itself 'The Workers Party' (Partido dos Trabalhadores). They had several welfare and wealth redistribution programs, supported Cuba, Venezuela along with other communist and socialist countries.

If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is.

Widespread nationalisation of industries? No? Then you are talking about social democracy, not socialism.

The notion that Brazil is socialist, and Bolsonaro is liberating Brazil from it is fucking ludicrous.

[Barbatum]

I guess you need protection from animals, too.

Discrimination doesn't need protection. I take it you don't like the 1960s civil rights movement.

The difference there is that segregation was a part of the law codes in the Southern US. It required legislation to overturn it.

[The New California Republic]

It isn't socialism, it is social democracy. There's one hella difference.

No. Democracy is the rule by the people. Socialism is a branch of Marxism that defends the redistribution of wealth and care for the poor through welfare programs. Your statement is categorically wrong.

Your definition fails miserably. Is the means of production controlled and self-managed by the workers? No? Then Brazil isn't socialist...

[Great Minarchistan]

Good, we can finally take a step in the right direction after four decades of social-democracy

[Greater Gilead]

Because LGBT people are more at-risk than the average Brazilian?

First off, 58 were suicides. Second off, that happened under Temer, not Bolsonaro. Third off, what else to you expect from a country that still upholds traditional values and sees LGBT folks as untouchables, regardless of the leader?

For some people (including me, and any other fundamentalist Christians as well as Orthodox Jews) this is a pro, not a con.
The Bible instructs the death penalty for homosexuality [Leviticus 20:13] (New Testament too for Christians, in Romans 1).
I'm not a Brazilian, so while I could not vote for the man, I did pray for his victory.

[The South Falls]

Discrimination doesn't need protection. I take it you don't like the 1960s civil rights movement.

The difference there is that segregation was a part of the law codes in the Southern US. It required legislation to overturn it.

And southerners would lynch black folks. That's extrajudicial killing, no?

[Hakons]

The last governing party called itself 'The Workers Party' (Partido dos Trabalhadores). They had several welfare and wealth redistribution programs, supported Cuba, Venezuela along with other communist and socialist countries.

If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is.

It isn't socialism, it is social democracy. There's one hella difference.

Well, Democratic socialists. Their goal was socialism, which is why they supported other socialist regimes. Social democracy is a bit different, and doesn't have socialism as a goal.

[The South Falls]

First off, 58 were suicides. Second off, that happened under Temer, not Bolsonaro. Third off, what else to you expect from a country that still upholds traditional values and sees LGBT folks as untouchables, regardless of the leader?

For some people (including me, and any other fundamentalist Christians as well as Orthodox Jews) this is a pro, not a con.
The Bible instructs the death penalty for homosexuality [Leviticus 20:13] (New Testament too for Christians, in Romans 1).
I'm not a Brazilian, so while I could not vote for the man, I did pray for his victory.

That part might have been a mistranslation. As in "men shall not sleep with boys".

[San Carlos Islands]

First off, 58 were suicides. Second off, that happened under Temer, not Bolsonaro. Third off, what else to you expect from a country that still upholds traditional values and sees LGBT folks as untouchables, regardless of the leader?

For some people (including me, and any other fundamentalist Christians as well as Orthodox Jews) this is a pro, not a con.
The Bible instructs the death penalty for homosexuality [Leviticus 20:13] (New Testament too for Christians, in Romans 1).
I'm not a Brazilian, so while I could not vote for the man, I did pray for his victory.

Are you seriously trolling? If you aren't I'll be happy, as a Christian, to debate the fact that you're wrong.

[Sudbrazil]

No. Democracy is the rule by the people. Socialism is a branch of Marxism that defends the redistribution of wealth and care for the poor through welfare programs. Your statement is categorically wrong.

Your definition fails miserably. Is the means of production controlled and self-managed by the workers? No? Then Brazil isn't socialist...

I do apologize, as I had misread social-democracy as simple democracy. The fact is that the Worker's Party pushed for a state-directed mixed economy as well as social justice. As far as I am concerned, social-democracy is a type of socialism, and the definition you are employing is the strictest available, which I doubt a politician would use in a simple speech to communicate with those not well-versed in political doctrine.

[Barbatum]

First off, 58 were suicides. Second off, that happened under Temer, not Bolsonaro. Third off, what else to you expect from a country that still upholds traditional values and sees LGBT folks as untouchables, regardless of the leader?

For some people (including me, and any other fundamentalist Christians as well as Orthodox Jews) this is a pro, not a con.
The Bible instructs the death penalty for homosexuality [Leviticus 20:13] (New Testament too for Christians, in Romans 1).
I'm not a Brazilian, so while I could not vote for the man, I did pray for his victory.

Your example in Romans 1 does not explicitly direct Christians to murder homosexuals. It merely outlines those acts as shameful and unnatural. Levitical laws applied during the days of wandering in the desert, and such harsh measures were required to make the Israelites a people set apart.

[Petrolheadia]

It isn't socialism, it is social democracy. There's one hella difference.

No. Democracy is the rule by the people. Socialism is a branch of Marxism that defends the redistribution of wealth and care for the poor through welfare programs. Your statement is categorically wrong.

Have you just confused a political system with an economic one?

Also, Marxism is only tangentially related to socialism.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

The marginalization of the LGBT community and the trampling of certain civil rights leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth, but it seems that he has a relatively sane-ish economical plan as leverage.

He hasn't exactly deployed the LGBT-hunting death squads just yet though, so I'll keep just wiggling my eyebrows. Hopefully he can fix the economy, deal with the excessive violence numbers, and crack down on corruption (that's kinda why he was voted to power in the first place), so I'll leave him the benefit of the doubt.

[Hakons]

First off, 58 were suicides. Second off, that happened under Temer, not Bolsonaro. Third off, what else to you expect from a country that still upholds traditional values and sees LGBT folks as untouchables, regardless of the leader?

For some people (including me, and any other fundamentalist Christians as well as Orthodox Jews) this is a pro, not a con.
The Bible instructs the death penalty for homosexuality [Leviticus 20:13] (New Testament too for Christians, in Romans 1).
I'm not a Brazilian, so while I could not vote for the man, I did pray for his victory.

As a traditional Christian, you should know the Old Law punishments are not part of Christianity. I agree that we are against the homosexual movement, but death for sexual sins has never been part of Christian theology.

[The South Falls]

The marginalization of the LGBT community and the trampling of certain civil rights leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth, but it seems that he has a relatively sane-ish economical plan as leverage.

He hasn't exactly deployed the LGBT-hunting death squads just yet though, so I'll keep just wiggling my eyebrows. Hopefully he can fix the economy, deal with the excessive violence numbers, and crack down on corruption (that's kinda why he was voted to power in the first place), so I'll leave him the benefit of the doubt.

Yea, we gotta wait and see his actions first.

[San Carlos Islands]

First off, 58 were suicides. Second off, that happened under Temer, not Bolsonaro. Third off, what else to you expect from a country that still upholds traditional values and sees LGBT folks as untouchables, regardless of the leader?

For some people (including me, and any other fundamentalist Christians as well as Orthodox Jews) this is a pro, not a con.
The Bible instructs the death penalty for homosexuality [Leviticus 20:13] (New Testament too for Christians, in Romans 1).
I'm not a Brazilian, so while I could not vote for the man, I did pray for his victory.

Romans 3:23

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 14:1-23

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. ...

[Greater Gilead]

For some people (including me, and any other fundamentalist Christians as well as Orthodox Jews) this is a pro, not a con.
The Bible instructs the death penalty for homosexuality [Leviticus 20:13] (New Testament too for Christians, in Romans 1).
I'm not a Brazilian, so while I could not vote for the man, I did pray for his victory.

Are you seriously trolling? If you aren't I'll be happy, as a Christian, to debate the fact that you're wrong.

I'm not. Just look at my history to see that. TG me, let's not cause a threadjack aka moderator headache.
(Anyone else wanting to debate the above, also TG, for same reason)

[The New California Republic]

Your definition fails miserably. Is the means of production controlled and self-managed by the workers? No? Then Brazil isn't socialist...

I do apologize, as I had misread social-democracy as simple democracy. The fact is that the Worker's Party pushed for a state-directed mixed economy as well as social justice. As far as I am concerned, social-democracy is a type of socialism, and the definition you are employing is the strictest available, which I doubt a politician would use in a simple speech to communicate with those not well-versed in political doctrine.

It isn't a strict definition at all, it is the base definition of socialism, of which the conditions in Brazil do not satisfy.

[Hrythingland]

This is excellent news for Brazil, a country that was poised to be a significant power before being throttled by socialism and corruption. Once again the Anglophone and Lusophone worlds lead the fight against leftist tyranny.

[Sudbrazil]

No. Democracy is the rule by the people. Socialism is a branch of Marxism that defends the redistribution of wealth and care for the poor through welfare programs. Your statement is categorically wrong.

Have you just confused a political system with an economic one?

Also, Marxism is only tangentially related to socialism.

Please see my post above, I had misread your reply. While I am not versed in Marxist theory, as far as I know socialism was originally designed as a possible transition towards communism. It is an amorphous blob of ideologies nowadays, but many of them originate from Marxist ideologies or are directly implicit in some branches.

[Mardla]

It isn't socialism, it is social democracy. There's one hella difference.

No. Democracy is the rule by the people. Socialism is a branch of Marxism that defends the redistribution of wealth and care for the poor through welfare programs. Your statement is categorically wrong.

Marxism is a branch of socialism. Socialism in the technical sense means abolishing private property and replacing it with social property. Socialism in the popular sense in the New World (see Bernie Sanders) is social democracy.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

This is excellent news for Brazil, a country that was poised to be a significant power before being throttled by socialism and corruption. Once again the Anglophone and Lusophone worlds lead the fight against leftist tyranny.

Calling Brazil Anglophone is a bloody insult to their origins.

It's Lusophone, and Lusophone only.