[andrenth]

> Just allegations with no substantiality.

The article I’ve linked lists are least five reasons his actions are illegal, with the respective citations explaining why they are illegal. Just because you chose to ignore that, doesn’t make it unsubstantiated.

> He has an injunction that allows him to "censure" people and media

At least you admit Brazil is under a censorship regime. Dictatorships are always backed by the law.

By the way, any injunction that contradicts the constitution is by definition illegal.

[gverri]

Unless you want to have a childish view of reality you have to agree that if it's done under the law there's not much you can do. Our history is filled with such cases. From all sides of the political spectrum. The proclamation of the republic, the Getulio dictatorship, the military dictatorship, Dilma's impeachment, etc...

[andrenth]

So should we just accept that the country is now a dictatorship and move on?