It's entirely clear from Tneduts' edit history that they're a fascist, actively backing a pro military dictatorship scumbag.
Given that, I'm not exactly about to jump on board with edits that contain things like "Lula is his nickname and Dilma is her first name. Notice the populist attempt to sound simple and close to the people with informal short names" bullshitty nonsense.
We absolutely do need to cover the corruption scandals, with maybe more focus on how they were played up by a right-wing owned media, far above center right corruption of far worse nature, and how it led to the public attacks on leftist and liberal civilians by military and police, in but not in the short-breathed "it's the worst scandal ever" bullshit way, that also takes the blame from the primarily center-right parties who actually benefited most from the bribes and put them the president who no evidence actually showed significant involvement.
- I see you're interested in contributing to this article, but please stop removing large chunks of sourced text only because you think I'm a "fascist". If you want the content removed, you are welcome to start a discussion and explain why you think it should be removed, what would require input from other users as well. If you want to discuss Brazilian politics, I'm here and I have reasonable knowledge on the subject. Do not revert others' work because you don't agree with them. Thank you. - Tneduts (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I can tell that this article was drafted by a
professional bullshitter intellectually dishonest very biased editor. Now don't get me wrong; I'm not a big fan of PT myself. (In fact, I actually kinda support Bolsonaro.) However, I think it's quite disingenuous to only talk about the bad things of PT and leave out the good stuff, such as when Brazil was removed from the UN world hunger map (even right wing outlets such as Washington Examiner and The Daily Mail acknowledged this) and when the country was recognized as an emerging economic power. I feel that adding such good things would serve the article well, even if they are few and far in between.
By the way, I know I'm beating the dead horse with this, but mentioning the short names was unnecessary and irrelevant. Whoever wrote that probably meant it in a patronizing and condescending way. I guess they forgot about "Abe" Lincoln, "Teddy" Roosevelt, and "Ike" Eisenhower in their little snarky remark. G Man (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)