be honest, do you just like him because of the political party/ideology affiliated with him?
based on what i know of the guy it's not like i think he was solely a bad politician or anything and i'm he did some good for brazil, but if someone of an opposing ideology had similar things happen under their administration I feel like people would brazenly be against him and wouldn't be as dismissive of criticisms

I don't sure the same ideology as him, he turned into a reformist social democrat, but the fact remains that as a president, he has done more to reduce poverty in his country than almost any other leader in the 21st century.

But of course the fact that I'm a leftist makes me more sympathetic to him, that's not something I would want to hide or anything.

You probably haven't heard of it because MSM is being quiet on this story (what a surprise), but the fact that his imprisonment was politically motivated is by now undisputed, it's been documented through leaked text messages between the judges and prosecutors, Glenn Greenwald has done great work on this, at the cost of risking his own safety since he lives in Brazil:

theintercept.com/2019/06/09/brazil-lula-operation-car-wash-sergio-moro

I'm aware that the case against him was prosecuted in a way to prevent him for running for president again. I again don't deny that that, or the fact that the guy did a lot of good for Brazil. But things like the mensalao scandal (just one example) in a general sense i can't see flying with most people if this guy was from any other party.
I get that you can weigh in a sense of like amount of bad done vs amount of good done under his administration, but I just don't see a general consistency with this (not saying from you, just in general sense again).
Like you can easily say the same thing about a lot of US Presidents who did offensive things but the country benefited altogether outside of those scandals, or you can say "well it was his party who was involved, not him", but similarly I see projection of party from say, republicans onto republican individuals or democrats onto democrat individuals. I don't really have an issue with people liking the guy but there's just a level of consistency I don't really see in such.

Brazil's political system is full of corruption, yes, but that's not at all limited to the PT. And honestly, if one has to make peace with certain corrupted forces that have become such powerful players in the political life of your country in order to be able to make some reforms, then I'm not so concerned about whether there have been some violations made here and there. Of course it's not sustainable, because this could backfire on you, as it now has against PT, but in order to end the corruption in Brazil, there will have to be an entire political and social revolution, and that will have to go much further than bourgeois democracy anyway.

And you absolutely cannot compare Lula to any US presidents (except maybe Bernie if he gets elected inshallah), Lula was a radical leftist who made a decision to put his radicalism to the side and make peace with the ruling class in order to be able to enact some reforms without getting ousted by CIA-backed coup. This is not applicable to any US president ever, in fact the most revered Social Democratic president in US history, FDR, enacted his reforms for the exact opposite reason, namely to make peace with the radical labor movement in the US to prevent a more radical change. Remember he famously bragged about how his reforms saved the institution of private property in the US.

I'm not saying he's specifically at fault moreso than anyone else, only that I think it's only fair to hold a universal standard. Anyone pissed at the corruption in Bolsonaro's party for example needs to hold the same standard for the PT. The right is guilty of this for Bolsonaro as well, it's just that I don't see anything getting accomplished if people can't acknowledge the faults of their "side". This is why I tend to dislike the pseudo-political idolization of political figures over individual policies/philosophies.
As far as the second paragraph, I don't agree with that because you've already made an ethical appeal to the fact that it was okay (or at least ignorable/negligable) because of the party's goals (if I'm understanding that correctly). It's not like anyone tends to ever think they're doing bad things ideologically (with exceptions), which is kind of my point. If you're going to ignore a section of poor associated things because of the good things you agree with, you have to be able to do so as well for those elsewhere, assuming you can come to a consensus on what the ideological roots of those actions. Now that said, I'm not saying what was done on the level of like, the s*** that happened under Reagan for example; of course there are levels to this. It's just altogether I don't find it especially compelling of an argument.
Like for example on the flip side, I like a lot of what FDR enacted quite a bit, but I'm also not going to use this as some universal springboard; I dislike the general hyper-personalization/"celebrity" surrounding politicians because it causes people to ignore poor efforts or bad actors due to ideological alignment. In my opinions things should be viewed on a per-policy/per-action basis; if not inversely, you need to at least be consistent with how you view individual politicians/parties overall.

I'm not a liberal with this proceduralist conception of democracy that you're basing your argumentation on, I'm more concerned with substantive outcomes, so this argument that I should be just as condemning of PT as of Bolsonaro doesn't work with me, because whatever Bolsonaro does, it will never lead to the social changes that I advocate for.

And I don't think you understand why I regard Lula and FDR differently, it's not just weighing the overall good actions against the bad, but it's the ideological and political motivations for their actions as presidents. As I've said before, Lula became a socdem reformist in order to make peace with the ruling class and to be able to enact some reforms, and thus have some material gains for the working class of his country. With FDR it's quite literally the opposite: his reforms were made in order to make peace with the radical labor movement in the US, in order to protect the ruling class and the capitalist social order which allows them to live so comfortably off other peoples labor.

As FDR himself said: “It was this administration which saved the system of private profit and free enterprise after it had been dragged to the brink of ruin.”

FDR wanted to save capitalism, Lula wanted to make capitalism less brutal for the workers of Brazil, since he found it politically unrealistic to do away with the system altogether, that's an enormous difference.

twitter.com/queeninyeiiow/status/1193264968604499968?s=21

Can we get this b**** outta here already

Media trying their hardest to make Bernie look bad and make warren look good

Goofy Elizabeth's true colors start to show

You don't have to be a liberal to be consistent argumentatively, I don't see how that's relevant - I'm not even basing my argument about democracy, only about judgemental action.
I understand you basically admit it's about outcome, or in other words, it's more because you agree with the motivations of the PT's (and his) ideology. All I'm really saying moreso is that if that's the direction of your arguments, you're going to hit a wall in any form of debate or evangelizing of your ideology; and to me that's also inconsistent and seemingly self-defeating of the point of the ideology in a meta-sense if the consistency in philosophy only regards itself on the objectivity of an ideology as an end-goal. That's circular reasoning, which opens the opportunity of virtually additional logical argument so long as you attach this to it as a precursor.
While you may say that this is all sophistry or semantic games or something, to me it's representative of a weak underpinning of the ideology's philosophical roots. It's also a disconnection from Marxism in my opinion.
I'm going to be honest with you, my foundational philosophical values are probably vastly different from yours despite us likely agreeing on certain individual policies, and I'm not trying to necessarily discredit your view holistically, but I think that there are pretty big issues in the implied underpinnings of it

But you are making an argument about democracy if your opposition to corruption comes from a concern for democratic principles, if that's not the case then you can correct me.

With regards to the outcomes being used as a justification for pretty much everything, I could make the exact same argument about your focus on corruption. If all politics is to be judged on whether rules are being followed, what would prevent somebody from making the argument that he was "just following orders"?

In reality, procedural integrity is not something that can be ignored. Even if you're extremely focused on substantive outcomes like me, there will need to be rules in place that ensure that those goals will be reached. As I've said before, corruption is a big problem that needs to be addressed, and that it will even require an entire political and social revolution that goes far beyond Lula's reformism. But I'm not going to equate a social democratic party and a far-right politician like Bolsonaro, simply because both parties broke some rules, that's a very nihilistic view of politics in my opinion.

My argumentation is not a disconnection from Marxism, insofar as I'm not as concerned with the integrity of bourgeois democratic rules, if anything it would be my support for a reformist like Lula that would be a break from Marxism, from an ultraleft persepective at least.

You didn't really explain how my argument is circular, how exactly is that the case?

This might be a misunderstanding on one of our ends; I'm definitely not saying it from a concern for democratic principles (I'm not especially attached to democracy myself), I'm more saying it from the perspective of universal justification. For example, I have no theoretical issue with an attempt to influence an election subversively if the influence is done for the greater good; but the idea of a "greater good" is a fairly arbitrary factor. This is why how I brought up the concept of no one usually thinking their ideology is inherently bad and thus circular logic. It's a bit hard for me to go into detail solely over text without making this like a dissertation, which I don't think is helpful for either of us.
I'll try to simply it; what I'm saying is if you're justifying the fact that subversive actions were done with the idea that it was for the greater good (a substantive outcome), you have to be convinced your ideology is the sole beacon of the greater good (which is possible to believe), or else you'd need to be consistent with this concept across any ideologies (any actions taken toward substantive outcome are for the greater good). But if you believe in the former, that any actions can be justified as long as they work toward this greater good, it also opens a can of worms from the perspective of how arbitrary the limits become on transgression or subversion.
For example, theoretically Strasserite philosophy (more modern strasserites, but there are other historical examples) affirmed a similar ethical foundation, and used abolishment against capitalism as a justification for antisemitism, pointing to transgressive action against jewish people being justified from an economic perspective (in their eyes, just parroting their views as an example, of course not my own). While this might sound like a slippery slope fallacy, I'm not attempting to point out a slope of sorts, but more about the arbitrary nature of justification through substantive outcome without consistency for such in opposing ideologies; this might sound absolutist as well, but the level of applicable nuance here I think is too dependent on other factors to bring into the discussion.
The issue is I ultimately don't see an inherent difference between parties attempting to reach "substantive outcomes" assuming the supporters of both parties are acting in good faith (Bolsanaro might be acting for self-gain, I'm not defending him specifically, but let's say in a blind sense where this couldn't be determined). It might sound nihilistic, but it's more an appeal to a lack of determinate objectivity. I don't see from a foundational standpoint that objectivity can be determined from anything other than universality without separately invoking relativism or constructs, which is why I keep bringing up consistency. I suppose this also depends on your acceptance of Marx's dialectics, which is a separate can of worms.
I will say maybe this is just talking in circles since you even said that procedural integrity is important in reality, but to me (maybe unreasonably), I don't see a good reason to create a distinction between reality and philosophy.

sorry, i actually realize i didn't answer the circular reasoning thing in full above. To me this seemed to be circular reasoning because the rejection of consistency for opposition is based on the assumed truth of the ideology, and the actions in this case are an extension of this.
But the justification for the ideology is essentially an appeal to it's own foundations, as consistency across the board for duty-based ethics is being rejected (so relativism isn't valid), but universality is also being rejected, unless you believe the extent to which transgressions can be taken is unlimited; the issue with the latter is if you do believe it is unlimited, you'd still need an explanation for why the ideology has an objective justification that allows limitless transgression, for which you'd need to invoke a justification outside of the ideology itself for it not to be circular (which of course is possible), but because of the rejection of consistency in other ideologies, you'd need to assume that justification was solely tied to justifying this ideology (which appears to be true based on your rejection of other ideologies). This means you'd have to imply your justification and ideology are perfect appeals to each other, which would be circular thinking.
sorry for the walls of text here as well, it's like 4:30 AM so hopefully that all makes sense

Bro you're left. Left = liberal. You're a liberal.

why is the politics thread locked?

you'd think they wouldn't make the same mistake twice yet here we are

And the s*** is not working either, lol. Bernie surging...rallies with The Squad doing numbers..his social media game been on point lately...it's lit.

mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1193192673429131264

"Hes not a white nationalist!"

nationalism has nothing to do with race, the basis of nationalism is supposed to be nationality over racial/misc identity (not that some people confuse the distinctions, but in a general sense). actual white supremacists in the US hate trump for a lot of reasons, namely his friendliness with Israel for one. that said i think Trump is a dumbass but I don't think misnomers help anyone's situation

Nationalism has never been a good thing. Trump is a white supremacist. Simple

'trump is a white supremacist hurr durr'

You're 16 and don't know what nationalism or white supremacy is

Ahahahahha nice assumption buddy

there are times when nationalism could have worked fine without any form of racist elements but the West sabotaged these governments under the guise of pseudo-egalitarianism and spreading "democracy".
I don't think Trump is smart enough to understand this level of nuance, but I also don't think Trump is a white supremacist, just an idiot. These things have hard definitions and casting him as one simultaneously de-emphasizes the ills of actual white supremacy while also legitimizing white supremacists by association