Alarm Grows over 'Clearly Illegal' US Election Meddling in Brazil
Thread
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
Alarm Grows over 'Clearly Illegal' US Election Meddling in Brazil
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
sanex · · focus · HN ↗
matheusmoreira · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
piva00 · · focus · HN ↗
I don't see any news mentioning this, at all, the only reason I found for the debate to be cancelled was the inclusion of 2 candidates over the 4 initially invited for it.
Sources?
matheusmoreira · · focus · HN ↗
Current president Lula of the worker's party decided not to go to the debate. The debate rules say that in these cases an empty podium is shown and those who actually showed up can direct questions towards the absent candidate as though he was there all along.
Then some electoral court judge comes in and makes the rule illegal so Lula can save some face.
And the best part is this judge has openly declared her support for Lula.
<a href="https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2026/10/ministra-do-tse-que-proibiu-globo-de-exibir-pulpito-vazio-ja-declarou-voto-em-lula.shtml" rel="nofollow">https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2026/10/ministra-do-tse-...
This is so egregious the blatantly pro-Lula television network Globo simply cancelled the debate and spoke out against the judge.
Yet another sign of just how far gone this country is.
piva00 · · focus · HN ↗
The Folha link is behind a paywall, can't read it, otherwise the Valor one states Gilmar Mendes is also responsible for a change in the debate format which caused Flávio Bolsonaro to withdraw. Seems more like a shitshow being played by all sides to score points with their own camps.
And yup, Brazil is far gone after the whole soft coup of Dilma putting Temer in power, getting Bolsonaro elected and having Lula a third time. Brazilian politics is stuck, a huge share of the blame also goes to the Evangelicals who are, for a lack of better words, a pretty stupid cohort of voters.
matheusmoreira · · focus · HN ↗
... OK.
> The Folha link is behind a paywall
Simply disable javascript.
> Gilmar Mendes is also responsible for a change in the debate format which caused Flávio Bolsonaro to withdraw.
Yeah, apparently he put some other guy nobody really cares about in the debate. Supreme court judges micromanaging presidential debates.
> Seems more like a shitshow
Yup.
> soft coup of Dilma
I'm not even gonna argue with this.
piva00 · · focus · HN ↗
> I'm not even gonna argue with this.
Shutting down a conversation is not a good look for your argumentation. There was a soft coup, politically orchestrated to use a budgeting maneuver done by almost all previous administrations as an impeachable offense. I also didn't like Dilma as a leader but denying this is denying reality.
Just so I know who I'm arguing with: did you vote for Bolsonaro and would vote again for him?
matheusmoreira · · focus · HN ↗
Disable javascript. They send you the full article for free, then javascript deletes the content and puts up the paywall. Activating reader mode after the content's been deleted won't bring it back.
> Shutting down a conversation is not a good look for your argumentation.
Sorry. This is necessary to preserve my own mental health. I can't assume good faith from brazilians. Too often they flag my comments to oblivion without any debate whatsoever. Guy further up the thread dismissed me as a whatsapp uncle once.
Just look up my posts if you really want to know what I think. I've posted far too many and they are my honest thoughts. Here's a recent one:
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49854480">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49854480
In short: whatever "coup" this is, it's literally nothing compared to the one perpetrated by the supreme court, which by this point is known for a fact to be aligned with Lula and his party. There is no way to deny this after the Vorcaro leaks.
The unelected supreme court has essentially usurped all power, and this country will never be fixed until the entire institution is abolished straight up. It's pointless to even discuss elections until these people have been deposed.
> did you vote for Bolsonaro and would vote again for him?
Yes, and I would again if I had no better option.
Don't mistake me for a "bolsonarist" though. It's more of a not-worker's party thing. There is exactly one politician that once upon a time represented me: Enéas Carneiro. He's dead, and all the others are complete disappointments.
Currently, I'm most aligned with Novo. Oddly enough I also keep track of PCO due to their ideological purity and consistency. They are extremely coherent in their positions, and their candidacy includes a proposal to abolish the supreme court, the only party to propose such a thing. If only they weren't communists.
piva00 · · focus · HN ↗
Sorry but I do understand why someone else dismissed you in other comments, you're a nutcase and so we should stop this right now.
I have absolutely no respect, no patience anymore (since I've spent too much of it trying to empathise and engage in good faith) to engage or converse with someone who votes for Bolsonaro, and would continued voting for him.
No matter your dislike of the Worker's Party, you're being anti-human by giving your support to someone like him just for hatred over a party. Unfortunately you're just another side of the same problem of this plagued country that Brazil is, and you won't ever be able to see that.
matheusmoreira · · focus · HN ↗
Yeah, I know. Honestly it's my fault for thinking this time it would have been different. Have a nice weekend.
cassianoleal · · focus · HN ↗
This is blatantly false. They ruled that the other candidates could not _direct questions at Lula_. Not that he couldn't be mentioned. Those are very different things.
matheusmoreira · · focus · HN ↗
> Aranha ruled that the broadcaster’s rules could create an imbalance in the debate by providing “an independent space for references to an absent candidate without observing the dialectical dynamic that characterizes the institution of an electoral debate.”
In other words, according to this judge, Lula can only be referenced if the "dialectical dynamic that characterizes the institution of an electoral debate" is preserved. In other words, "if he's physically there to respond".
Go argue with her if you disagree, not me.