[rbanffy]

Think of you as someone on a boat in the middle of a nasty storm. The fire alarm is sounding, but you have no evidence there is actually a fire at the engine room or whether it's serious. Do you issue an abandon ship order and head right away to the lifeboats knowing they probably cannot withstand the storm or you try to assess the fire before doing so?

Also, mind you, the impeachment has no legal basis as it can only be based on misconduct that occurred during the current term. This doctrine has been tested and established right after the reelection amendment was introduced.

And, finally, this is the first time the fire alarm sounded, despite the fact we had numerous immense fires all over the place (we all know that, right?). Do we really want to shoot the person who turned the alarms on? For the first time we actually seem to have a fire alarm and teams actually assessing its extent and causes. By running to the lifeboats we'd turn our backs on all that, as the people who would run the country are the very people at the center of the fire.

[andrenth]

The impeachment has legal basis on administrative improbity. This is what the law says:

"Acts of the President against the Constitution, and, especially, against the guard and legal use of public money".

The definition of "against the guard and legal use of public money" is given as, among other things,

"neglect the collection of rents, taxes and fees, as well as the conservation of national patrimony."

Futhermore:

"Are crimes of liability against the probity of administration: (...) Not make effective the responsibility of his subordinates, considered manifested in functional offenses or the practice of acts contrary to the Constitution."

and

"Constitutes an act of improper conduct which infringes upon the principles of government action or omission that violates the duties of honesty, impartiality, legality and loyalty to the institutions"

I'm not sure what you mean with your fire alarm allegory, but I suppose you're trying to say that all the investigations are only happening because the government (and the President in particular) let them happen. This is false. The Federal Police and the Public Attorney's Office are independent of the government and do not require it to allow any kind of investigation.

Edit: by the way, weather the impeachment is legal or not is irrelevant to the point of weather the protesters are representative of Brazil's population (they are). You seemed to imply that somehow due to who organized part of the protests, they are not, but then nothing in your latest reply addresses that.

[rbanffy]

The crime has to be committed during the present term. The right to impeach the president for crimes committed during the presidency ceases when the term ends (although this law predates the reelection amendment, it is understood a reelected president starts a new term). That's the end of it.

I agree this law has its issues, but this is what's written.

Again, I am not sure the protesters are that representative. It's much harder to generate a positive response from people who are between neutral and satisfied than it is to obtain the same response from people who are dissatisfied. While approval rates are as low as they ever were for Dilma, strong disapproval like this is not unprecedented. Add to that that the reasons for protesting were all over the spectrum: from stronger economic action in the trickle-down doctrine all the way to "we want our dictatorship back". More than 80% of the protesters declared themselves voters for the candidate who lost the election and most of the protesters were white upper urban middle-class professionals.

I live in São Paulo, and, as difficult as it may be to grasp that, I must understand what I see around me is not typical Brazil. I live in a bubble.

[andrenth]

You are assuming that nothing that has happened or is related to the president's second term has or will be uncovered by the investigation, which I believe is a very strong assumption. For example, there's the use of illegal money disguised as campaign donations for the reelection.

The current popularity numbers are another indicator that the protests are representative, much like the protests in favor of direct elections in the 80s. We're those not representative either?

By the way, her approval rates are as low as they have ever been for any president since Collor, who was impeached, and the numbers are low in all segments of society. And that's by Datafolha's numbers, an institute known to publish numbers biased towards the government.

I can only speak for the protests in Rio, of which I took part. I've seen people from all social and cultural spheres. I saw bus and truck drivers honking in support, and people waving Brazilian flags from their windows. I also saw the pan and pot protests that happened while her ministers were on TV giving the same old disconnected from reality speech.

I think it's this government that is living in a bubble, and hopefully it's about to burst.