Brazzil

Well... In your text you asked why don't we consider Lula (the actual president of Brazil) the winner of these elections...
In my opinion we don't do this because it's kind of our last chance to save the country we leave of another man which will steal everything that he can care on his pockets...
We don't consider this election ended because it would be nothing more than a sign telling that we don't care about who "comands" this nation....

Well... Maybe I'm wrong... But this is the opinion of a 16 years old boy... :-

Bye all... And sorry for my bad english... I still learning it..

Lula is the only politician thoroughly investigated and found to be clean. Of course he'll win. And he should win. The economy is better than ever. If corruption in Brazilian politics seems bad, it's because it is. The only difference now is that it's being investigated and prosecuted more than ever. And it should be. The poor of Brazil cannot seriously have expected that in four years Brazil would become a model of democracy and equality. Lula has done much good for the people of Brazil, and he will continue to do so in his next term. Viva Lula.

PS No one cares what John Fitzpatrick says about anything.

Bring back Collor. He was also throughly investigated and nothing was found about him :lol:

Quite the opposite about Collor, as you know. Lula was, in fact, thoroughly investigated and is clean. That's a fact. Sorry, crybaby.

As Brazil campaign kicks into gear, Lula cruises
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-08-25T201737Z_01_N24371103_RTRUKOC_0_US-BRAZIL-ELECTION-LULA.xml&archived=False

Nah, Collor was throughly investigated by brazilian Supreme Court and "proved" inocent. Lula was not even investigated by Supreme Court...

I guess you don't understand the difference between the two. Oh, well.

I guess you don't understand the difference between the two. Oh, well.

The difference is that Collor was investigated by his peers, congress and supreme court and "found" inocent. Not Lula. He was not investigated by his peers, nor by congress, nor by anyone. He was everything but throughly investigated.

I don't defend Collor. He was a bad president. He commited a great "mistake" by confiscating bank savings of the people (that should be considered a crime in a serious country). He tried to establish an impossible coalision government which eventually failed. And I strongly believe he was corrupt too (look at Casa da Dinda stuff), despite his claimed inocence by everyone else. But when we compare Lula to Collor, it's clear that the first is much more corrupt than the latter.