> So you're just restating what I said? No, you literally said: > I'm arguing that according to common sense, he is guilty of corruption. That's what I was d

> So you're just restating what I said? No, you literally said: > I'm arguing that according to common sense, he is guilty of corruption. That's what I was disagreeing with. > I'm saying people generally shouldn't have voted for him because it's illogical to support such a bad candidate. That's fair. It's also a personal opinion which seems to go against common sense, given that he was in fact voted in. > I also said I understand that people voted for him because the only other alternative was Bolsonaro Yep, a lot of people did that. In fact, I suspect a lot of people did the opposite as well - voted for Bolsonaro thinking he was the least bad of 2 bad choices. > The corollary to that being that we shouldn't celebrate Lula's victory. Again, an opinion. In my personal opinion, one of the greater tragedies is having Alckmin for vice-president. Having Temer with Dilma was a grave mistake. I just hope this time around they've learned something. > feels like you have an agenda to convince others (me?) that Lula is great because he's "innocent" (for some value of "innocent"). Not at all, I was arguing about his innocence. Everything else are personal opinions on how good or bad a candidate he is and I'm not in any way trying to convince you to change yours. In fact, I do think we mostly agree with regards to the facts. We do seem to disagree with regards to his actual innocence (as opposed to technical) but I'm not quite arguing about that either. In any case, I do see your point-of-view clearly (I think) and I absolutely respect it, even where I might disagree. Or perhaps even more so, as it enriches the debate.