Russian Women Discussion
RWD Discussion Groups => Introductions and Ice-Breaker => Topic started by: 2tallbill on March 02, 2018, 07:55:08 PM
-
That can be explained by one of two alternatives.
You know what the alternatives are.
There are 143 million people in Russia. Let's say there are 70 million voters.
If 50 million voters voted for somebody else Putin would still win by a landslide
and the polls would show him as being loved by 80% of the people and the people
who ran against him would be in prison.
Putin is dictator/czar/king of Russia for life. He is more popular than Yeltsin or
Gorbachev who were worse. So what's your problem with some girl who stops
by the forum?
Sodamn Insane won by larger margins and his poll numbers were higher and
NOBODY ran against him. So you would terrorize any Iraqi who stopped by too?
-
There are 143 million people in Russia. Let's say there are 70 million voters.
If 50 million voters voted for somebody else Putin would still win by a landslide
and the polls would show him as being loved by 80% of the people and the people
who ran against him would be in prison.
Putin is dictator/czar/king of Russia for life. He is more popular than Yeltsin or
Gorbachev who were worse. So what's your problem with some girl who stops
by the forum?
Sodamn Insane won by larger margins and his poll numbers were higher and
NOBODY ran against him. So you would terrorize any Iraqi who stopped by too?
I disagree to some degree about Yeltsin.
Your analogy is flawed. Most Russians support Putin. He’s not a dictator.
-
I disagree to some degree about Yeltsin.
Your analogy is flawed. Most Russians support Putin. He’s not a dictator.
What would you call a leader that ensures any opposition candidate / party cannot gain momentum on bogus political charges designed to exclude them from.running?
This is the finding of the ECHR
-
Not a dictator.
-
So leaders deliberately stifling opposition aren't dictators in your eyes ?
-
Autocratic perhaps. Dishonest, definitely. But dictatorial? No.
I suspect Putin would win even if Navalny were on the ballot and everything was above board.
-
Autocratic perhaps. Dishonest, definitely. But dictatorial? No.
I suspect Putin would win even if Navalny were on the ballot and everything was above board.
I disagree
If the likes of Navalny were allowed to publish their evidence - note the Russian media regulator forced the removal of long standing vid / photographic evidence of the dep RU PM's questionable associations - and campaign without restrictions
Many Russians feel they cannot influence their country and the suits VVP just fine
-
I disagree to some degree about Yeltsin.
Your analogy is flawed. Most Russians support Putin. He’s not a dictator.
Let's take it to another thread. This is Lena's intro thread.
http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?action=post;board=10.0
-
I disagree to some degree about Yeltsin.
Your analogy is flawed. Most Russians support Putin. He’s not a dictator.
Yeltsin presided over a period of much turmoil and was definitely less popular.
Putin is president for life and ZERO of his proclamations aren't acted upon.
Zero of his programs are overturned by the Duma or the courts and everybody
who runs against him is thrown in prison.
Where was I wrong?
Yes, most Russians support Putin however if his support lags there is nobody to
report it is there? There are no daily tracking polls that 7 different polling companies
conduct and they are not averaged at Real Politics are they? There are no news stories
that explain or predict why his numbers are up or down.
-
That can be explained by one of two alternatives.
You know what the alternatives are.
Explain or don't
-
I guess someone will have to show me where I attacked personally an individual Russian girl.
As I recall, I have advised a few of them that they were in for heartbreak in trying to match up with a WM when they and the WM realize down the road their different viewpoints on Russian actions against neighbors.
This should be viewed as trying to help, even where not received well; not to attack.
And, I have criticized the Russian people in general for supporting a leader and his policies and actions which have killed and injured many Ukrainians.
But personally attacking a Russian girl here . . . don't think so.
-
I am not sure what constitutes a dictatorship. To me, I had always thought that a dictatorship meant that the person in power was the rule of law and that he/she could not be challenged. While I believe that Putin's cadre of friends who make up his oligarchy have previously had some say in what laws were enacted, and the Governors of the Oblasts have some degree of autonomy, and Putin plays the role of politician, I guess it could be said he is a dictator. I think I would better characterize his position as the head of a ruling oligarchy.
-
Yeltsin presided over a period of much turmoil and was definitely less popular.
Putin is president for life and ZERO of his proclamations aren't acted upon.
Zero of his programs are overturned by the Duma or the courts and everybody
who runs against him is thrown in prison.
Where was I wrong?
Yes, most Russians support Putin however if his support lags there is nobody to
report it is there? There are no daily tracking polls that 7 different polling companies
conduct and they are not averaged at Real Politics are they? There are no news stories
that explain or predict why his numbers are up or down.
Yeltsin was also dealing with a the Supreme Soviet and a Duma ruled by commies who blocked moving the country forward in any way, and were attempting to restore the USSR.
-
I'm not being disrespectful as I've read many of your posts ML and you offer great advice, but I read your comments in Elena's post as attacking her. She's a young single mother and politics that she has no influence on, is probably the last thing on her mind. Being a single parent myself she's got far more important things to be concerned about.
My advice to any woman who treats a man with kindness, honesty and has a caring heart, is she should run as quick as she can if her husband's going to judge her on her political views and create issues for petty reasons.
99% of men would do anything to keep a good woman and would probably never even discuss this sensitive issue. I have never once mentioned it, I don't want to destroy my chances with a wonderful woman, because they are hard to find.
The last women I dated caused big issues for me. One hid a social cocaine habit. Another wanted an open relationship and the third wanted to move in with her 3 kids and defraud welfare.
The worst was my Ex wife. Like your wife, she was a teacher, dedicated and highly regarded by her peers and we also had an issue regarding time together and what she was doing in our precious time. My ultimatum was "Stop drinking, partying, hanging out with drug addicts and stop having an open affair in front of me and our children" ... She made her choice and I kicked her out. Before that I had been beaten up by two of her drinking buddies and left in the gutter bleeding, as she drove away to hook up with a man. After I was arrested and acquitted on false DV charges, because she broke a finger nail when I slammed a door in her face and then I was left raising our kids as I was awarded custody, due to her mental problems...... the kids I had to in the past have paternity tests on as she was a serial cheater. Finally without going into details a family member committed suicide due to my ex's behaviour. These are reasons to bring your wife to task over, not politics.
Pretty f#@cked up shit and i know there are guys in here who have been through similar marriages. It makes me appreciate genuine women with empathy and morals, when you are lucky enough for them to let you into their lives. Throwing that away for political differences is shows a deficiency in the mans personality.
Realistically most of our countries have essentially invaded other countries and killed many thousands of innocent men, women and children, far more than Russia. We are the not the best examples to be walking the moral high road.
-
It’s a very different thing when you are from, or in love with someone from, the country invaded.
-
It’s a very different thing when you are from, or in love with someone from, the country invaded.
I understand that completely, judge their politicians, but don't tell them her husband who loves her is suddenly going to cause her heart break, because of politics, that's simply not going to happen in 99.9 percent of cases. If you truly love someone you put a a side these differences. How would you come across if you said " yeah I dumped the most beautiful, kind and caring woman, because I don't agree with her countries actions.... You would look like a callous arsehole. If I took this attitude, I couldn't date half the single women in Australia.
-
Maybe we have a different view here. I watched Russians and Ukrainians marching and interacting together in our Australia day parade, earlier this year. They put their differences aside and marched as human beings who weren't divided by politics. Everyone should take a leaf from their book.
-
Not even the case on this forum. FTR, the better half is from Ukraine, has some Ukrainian ancestry, but has far more Russian ancestry. All his grandparents are from Russia. He speaks Ukrainian fluently, but no one else is his family can speak it.
-
I guess someone will have to show me where I attacked personally an individual Russian girl.
Selective reading issues, ML ? ! ;)
Elena is but one example - it is now your default position - and none too savvy. ((
But personally attacking a Russian girl here . . . don't think so.
Think, again - but REALLY think this time ;)
-
Autocratic perhaps. Dishonest, definitely. But dictatorial? No.
I suspect Putin would win even if Navalny were on the ballot and everything was above board.
When you throw all your competitors in prison that sorta gets
you a check by your name. If you totally control the press you
get another check mark. If 100% of your positions become law
you get another check mark. If anyone in the Duma resists
blindly following you and they suddenly get investigated and
thrown in prison then you get another check mark.
If you can make it illegal for protests against you in defiance
of the constitution you get another check mark. If you get the
constitution changed so that you can run indefinitely you get
a check mark. If you get to keep billions of the countries money
in your own private accounts then you get another check mark.
If you can throw any businessman in jail for not being paying
sufficient homage to you, then you get another check mark.
If you have enough check marks then you get dictator status.
Putin has enough check marks, he is a dictator.
-
Quote from: ML on March 03, 2018, 03:27:42 PM
I guess someone will have to show me where I attacked personally an individual Russian girl.
Selective reading issues, ML ? ! ;)
Well someone please help me in selecting which of my posts I should be reading.
So far I have been accused of personally attacking RW by 3 people, but none can refer me to my words that do such.
Advising someone of the potential problems they may encounter is not attacking.
-
My advice to any woman who treats a man with kindness, honesty and has a caring heart, is she should run as quick as she can if her husband's going to judge her on her political views and create issues for petty reasons.
You are mischaracterising my ideas.
You don't dump a partner (or friend) because you don't agree on politics.
You don't dump a partner (or friend) because you don't agree with his/her country's actions.
You do have a problem when his/her country is invading, attacking and killing persons in your country . . . and he/she says . . . I am completely in support of it.
I see nothing petty about killing.
-
Realistically most of our countries have essentially invaded other countries and killed many thousands of innocent men, women and children, far more than Russia. We are the not the best examples to be walking the moral high road.
And I am completely symmetrical in this regard.
If a person from outside the USA is involved with a USA person, and USA is invading, attacking and killing persons within that other country . . .
and when USA person says they completely agree with that action . . . then the person from that other country will not be happy living with the USA person . . . unless they happen to agree with the USA person's opinion.
-
When you throw all your competitors in prison that sorta gets you a check by your name. If you totally control the press you get another check mark. If 100% of your positions become law you get another check mark. If anyone in the Duma resists blindly following you and they suddenly get investigated and thrown in prison then you get another check mark.
Not all Putin's competitors are jailed. He faced 3 opponents in the 2012 presidential election, and will face more in 2018.
The press is not totally controlled. Television is totally controlled by the Russian government.
Not all his positions become law, either. Look at debates in the Duma. There is debate there, and at time, they descend into fistfights. He has opponents who are never investigated, such as Zhirinovsky and Grudinin.
If you can make it illegal for protests against you in defiance of the constitution you get another check mark. If you get the constitution changed so that you can run indefinitely you get a check mark. If you get to keep billions of the countries money in your own private accounts then you get another check mark.
Protests are not illegal. They have to be registered. I don't know if he has billions of dollars stashed away. But look at your own political system. Foreign leaders and diplomats who visit the US believe they are compelled to stay at Trump's DC hotel in order to see him - a hotel he is supposed to have divested himself of on winning the election. His son in law appears to have used his position and proximity to the president to obtain loans, and his daughter received an impossible to obtain Chines trademark registration on the eve of an official Chinese visit. So is your president a dictator as well?
If you can throw any businessman in jail for not being paying sufficient homage to you, then you get another check mark.
Who is that?
If you have enough check marks then you get dictator status. Putin has enough check marks, he is a dictator.
Dictatorship means absolute power over unwilling subjects. If you examine all criteria, by that definition, Putin is not a dictator. He is probably, however, authoritarian.
-
putin will be there for life , he will either die in the job , or be overthrown
he is by all definitions a dictator imo even though he technically is voted in
having family in both countires and a wife born in one , but a citizen of the other it is a very difficult minfield to navigate , russian /ukrainian politics
best not talked about if you wish for a harmonius relationship
SX
-
Well someone please help me in selecting which of my posts I should be reading.
So far I have been accused of personally attacking RW by 3 people, but none can refer me to my words that do such.
Advising someone of the potential problems they may encounter is not attacking.
ML - the interesting 'fact' is that 3 of us think that way and I alluded to the person you attacked and the thread - hence 'selective reading ?'
Don't be obtuse ! ;)
-
Don't know how true this is, I have been told by more than a few Russians that a few years after the Maastricht Treaty was established there was serious talk within the Russian government of Russia applying to join the EU.
The EU might have even allowed it despite all of Russia's problems. The advantages of having Russia in the EU are many. It would have meant an enlargement of the EU population by about 140 million people. An EU that stretched all the way to the Pacific with natural resources that dwarfed those of the US.
Disadvantages are of course a weak Russian economy along with human rights abuses and a chronic system of political corruption. However, the real veto of Russia joining the EU was from of all places the US and to a much lesser extent the Baltic States.
-
A dictator has total control. Putin stepped down in the Prime Minister role and allowed Mevedev to hold the highest title in Russia for awhile but still pulling most the strings. No dictator would allow anybody but himself on the throne. One of the reasons I don't believe Putin is a true dictator.
-
One of the reasons I don't believe Putin is a true dictator.
I would look at this from another point. Is Putin true dictator or not is the question that does not concern Russians. I'm pretty sure Putin could rule as a tsar till his passing because of popular support (though he has in plans to go into legislative activity after 2024). The discussed points which make him look like a dictator in eyes of Westerners bring him the support inside Russia.
I can illustrate the appoach of Russians roughly in the following way. Russia and Ukraine are the states with similar background, similar level of economics at starting point of USSR demise and very close culture and mentality. Crucial difference lays in how these states are ruled, democracy in pure form in Ukraine vs so called dictatorship in Russia. Then they compare the results of state developments by the present time, and vote for Putin of course.
Then, Putin as a true or not dictator can be the problem for West, not for Russians.
-
..or rather for the Russians who want an active opposition / accountability ? ..
-
..or rather for the Russians who want an active opposition / accountability ? ..
The electoral percentage of Russians who want an active opposition / accountability as the first priority is well below 10% according to vote results or public surveys. They are concentrated within Moscow mainly.
-
..and you believe those results ?!
-
..and you believe those results ?!
I believe any spiritual belief requires confirmation 8)
-
Not all Putin's competitors are jailed. He faced 3 opponents in the 2012 presidential election, and will face more in 2018.
So in your mind all his opponents must be jailed? or he doesn't get
a check mark on one side of the ledger?
The press is not totally controlled. Television is totally controlled by the Russian government.
He controls the press and has his biggest critics killed or jailed,
but you are saying that he doesn't do this 100%? So therefore
doesn't get a check mark in the ledger.
1. Not all his positions become law, either.
2. Look at debates in the Duma. There is debate there,
and at time, they descend into fistfights.
3. He has opponents who are never investigated, such as
Zhirinovsky and Grudinin.
4. Protests are not illegal. They have to be registered.
5. I don't know if he has billions of dollars stashed away.
6. But look at your own political system.
Dictatorship means absolute power over unwilling subjects.
If you examine all criteria, by that definition, Putin is not a dictator.
He is probably, however, authoritarian.
1. Name one of his decisions that didn't become law
2. None of the fist fight debates are about enacting or
not enacting Putin's decisions.
3. A few of Putin's political adversaries aren't jailed and
you are trying to use that as a point?
4. There is free assembly in the Russian constitution and
yet NOW all assemblies must be approved first and guess
what? They don't get approved if they are opposition protests.
5. You don't know? others know.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/31/financier-bill-browder-says-vladimir-putin-is-worth-200-billion.html
http://fortune.com/2017/07/29/vladimir-putin-russia-jeff-bezos-bill-gates-worlds-richest-man/
6. Others do it too argument?
My argument is that Putin has many check marks on the dictator side
of the ledger. He has some check marks on the popular politician side
of the ledger as well. The dictator side has many more.
-
6. Others do it too argument?
Isn't this line of argumentation a little silly, considering it is one of your favorite arguments when it comes to Trump, (Obama or Hillary) do it too!
Fathertime!
-
I'm pretty sure Putin could rule as a tsar till his passing because of popular support (though he has in plans to go into legislative activity after 2024).
Putin cares about Russians think about him. He cares about his legacy and how the history books will record him. He cares about his rule being legal. If he continues to rule Russia after the next two terms is over he will do it only if the law is changed to allow him to server more terms or he will do it behind another president.
-
2 tall bill ..My argument is that Putin has many check marks on the dictator side
of the ledger. He has some check marks on the popular politician side
of the ledger as well. The dictator side has many more.
totally agree by all indicators he is a dictator
Putin cares about Russians think about him.
he cares about his image , not really what the average russian thinks about him imo
He cares about his legacy and how the history books will record him
yes and he wants to be seen as a great leader who made strong choices to make russia great
If he continues to rule Russia after the next two terms is over he will do it only if the law is changed to allow him to server more terms or he will do it behind another president.
he will change the law once he is elected this year to make it legal , possibly even cite china as an example of why he should follow suit in russia
SX
-
So in your mind all his opponents must be jailed? or he doesn't get a check mark on one side of the ledger?
I was responding to your assertion that all Putin's competitors are in jail.
He controls the press and has his biggest critics killed or jailed, but you are saying that he doesn't do this 100%? So therefore doesn't get a check mark in the ledger.
No, IMHO, he doesn't get a check mark as a dictator.
1. Name one of his decisions that didn't become law
The president doesn't make the law in Russia. The Duma does, and if you've watched debates there, it is not monolithic. A dictatorship would be.
Frankly, I have always believed that there are powers behind Putin making the real decisions. Putin doesn't strike me as bright enough to guide the policies being implemented. I believe he is a figurehead.
None of the fist fight debates are about enacting or not enacting Putin's decisions.
The debates in the Duma are in fact, about enacting legislation.
3. A few of Putin's political adversaries aren't jailed and you are trying to use that as a point?
See above re responding to your post.
4. There is free assembly in the Russian constitution and yet NOW all assemblies must be approved first and guess what? They don't get approved if they are opposition protests.
Some states have enacted such laws as well.
http://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/anti-protest-bills-around-country
5. You don't know? others know.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/31/financier-bill-browder-says-vladimir-putin-is-worth-200-billion.html (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/31/financier-bill-browder-says-vladimir-putin-is-worth-200-billion.html)
http://fortune.com/2017/07/29/vladimir-putin-russia-jeff-bezos-bill-gates-worlds-richest-man/ (http://fortune.com/2017/07/29/vladimir-putin-russia-jeff-bezos-bill-gates-worlds-richest-man/)
They don't KNOW. That is speculation on their part.
6. Others do it too argument?
No, that is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that this may be an indication of corruption, which seems to be spreading among politicians in the West, as well, but it is not proof of a dictatorship.
My argument is that Putin has many check marks on the dictator side of the ledger. He has some check marks on the popular politician side of the ledger as well. The dictator side has many more.
I know. I just disagree that he is a dictator. I would agree were you to assert his time in office (both PM and president) has resulted in Russia becoming more authoritarian.
-
I'm just worried how all of this assassinations of our spies is going to affect my FSW dating chances this year. I do hope it won't get in the way and I'll be welcomed through customs as a genuine western male dater and not a potential spy :o
-
The president doesn't make the law in Russia. The Duma does, and if you've watched debates there, it is not monolithic. A dictatorship would be.
Frankly, I have always believed that there are powers behind Putin making the real decisions. Putin doesn't strike me as bright enough to guide the policies being implemented. I believe he is a figurehead.
I don't see how Putin could be a figurehead? I've never heard of anyone or any group of people that have been around for the last 18 years who could be powerful enough to dominate Putin yet remain hidden from the prying eyes of the western intelligence agencies? After 20 years in the shadows if such a person or persons existed some intelligence agency or news organization would have found them and revealed them to the world.
Putin has a law degree so he understands the basics of Russian law. He was a colonel in the KGB so he would also know how to lead and delegate. Add in experience gained from years in power and Putin knows who to trust to fulfill whatever agenda he plans. Just because he has a cadre of trusted lieutenants doesn't mean he isn't a dictator. Even a dictator needs help with the paperwork and making sure his orders are carried out.
Putin does at times appear to be cartoonish at times by western standards. Such as riding a horse while barechested but from what I've seen while in Russia these PR stunts usually go over well with the Russian people. The stunts tend to show off Putin's virility, his manliness. A physically weak man, such as FDR in a wheelchair, could never be president of Russia in the current Russia culture.
-
There was a KGB general during Putin’s years as PM who was purported to be the brains behind Russia. I knew his name years ago, but it escapes me now. Certainly, the former KGB took control of the country from Yeltsin. I suspect they are still making most policy. If you know your Russian history, you can see when they’ve been combing the pre Revolution archives.
-
There was a KGB general that during Putin’s years as PM who was purported to be the brains behind Russia. I knew his name years ago, but it escapes me now. Certainly, the former KGB took control of the country from Yeltsin.
I suspect they are still making most policy. If you know your Russian history, you can see when they’ve been combing the pre Revolution archives.
Boethius do you know how big the FSB is? According to Wikipedia, "The FSB employs about 66,200 uniformed staff, including about 4,000 special forces troops. It also employs about 160,000–200,000 border guards" I have no doubt the Federal Security Service (FSB in Russian) is run by its current director Alexander Bortnikov (according to Wikipedia). Even though Putin, was at one time in charge of the FSB, it would be impossible for him to be informed of everything that happens in the FSB and all of the other government ministries. After all Putin can't do everything and be everywhere. However, just because the FSB is run by its management team doesn't mean Putin isn't a dictator.
Putin is simply taking their advice on matters that relate to the FSB and then he makes a decision. However the FSB does the daily running of the FSB. Just as Putin takes advice from the Ministry of Defense in areas that concern the Ministry of Defense. Dictators still need a management team to run a country.
-
I've never heard of anyone or any group of people that have been around for the last 18 years who could be powerful enough to dominate Putin yet remain hidden from the prying eyes of the western intelligence agencies? After 20 years in the shadows if such a person or persons existed some intelligence agency or news organization would have found them and revealed them to the world.
Over many decades people have speculated there is a person or persons that is/are in charge of a World leader. Many times I've heard of these people are in control of our own presidents and will form a New World Order. Presidents come, go and die and I'm sure those mysterious people in charge are dead too. Their dream of a New World Order never materializes and they never received recognition for running their country or the World's economy. They all have two things in common. They are in charge of people who are in charge and nobody has ever discovered who they are.
Today, our intelligence agencies intercept so many calls from World leaders, if there were anybody over known leaders heads, they would've been found out. Other countries spies who's turned would've reported who those super secret people are to us. Hasn't happened since there's nobody to report. I'm with you on this one Dave.
-
Putin cares about Russians think about him. He cares about his legacy and how the history books will record him. He cares about his rule being legal. If he continues to rule Russia after the next two terms is over he will do it only if the law is changed to allow him to server more terms or he will do it behind another president.
Ah, BillyB - you 'know' him so well - you've clearly got each others' WhatsApp ;)
-
Boethius do you know how big the FSB is? According to Wikipedia, "The FSB employs about 66,200 uniformed staff, including about 4,000 special forces troops. It also employs about 160,000–200,000 border guards" I have no doubt the Federal Security Service (FSB in Russian) is run by its current director Alexander Bortnikov (according to Wikipedia). Even though Putin, was at one time in charge of the FSB, it would be impossible for him to be informed of everything that happens in the FSB and all of the other government ministries. After all Putin can't do everything and be everywhere. However, just because the FSB is run by its management team doesn't mean Putin isn't a dictator.
Putin is simply taking their advice on matters that relate to the FSB and then he makes a decision. However the FSB does the daily running of the FSB. Just as Putin takes advice from the Ministry of Defense in areas that concern the Ministry of Defense. Dictators still need a management team to run a country.
I’m not referring to the FSB. I am referring to the analytical division of the KGB, which researched and established policies, and even chose the CPSU party secretary in the USSR. Among them was a select elite of officers.
-
The president doesn't make the law in Russia. The Duma does
Ple-EASe, Boethius
I don't understand all the nuances of the conversations - but even I recognise that the Duma is a sham.
The Communists have their say and Zhironovsky entertains - but certain subjects - foreign policy - seem to get little debate and if one strays from the nationalist line ( Crimea) you are suddenly yet another corrupt politician ..(
-
I suspect relatively few Russians have issues with the invasion of Crimea, both inside and outside the political sphere. As I have posted previously, it was acquired with a lot of Russian blood.
-
I suspect relatively few Russians have issues with the invasion of Crimea, both inside and outside the political sphere. As I have posted previously, it was acquired with a lot of Russian blood.
You are - of course correct re the sentiment on Crimea - given the imminent threat from the 'Nazi Junta'....
I'm presuming you meant Crimea being acquired in the 18th - as the only blood lost was Ukrainian, this time ?
-
Yes, I mean historically.
-
:welcome:
-
Isn't this line of argumentation a little silly, considering it is one of your favorite arguments when it comes to Trump, (Obama or Hillary) do it too!
Fathertime!
Not at all,
1. A similar investigation into Obama without evidence of a crime
just to see if he did anything wrong would cause riots in the streets.
I never said or implied that Obama did something wrong to get elected,
What I said is that the left would have burned down cities IF HE WERE
INVESTIGATED WITH NO EVIDENCE OF WRONG DOING.
2. There is no evidence that Trump did anything wrong in relation
to Russians. There is evidence that Hillary did, but look at who is
being investigated.
In both situations there is NO evidence against Trump. Therefore
it's not an "others did it too argument."
-
Not at all,
1. A similar investigation into Obama without evidence of a crime
just to see if he did anything wrong would cause riots in the streets.
I never said or implied that Obama did something wrong to get elected,
What I said is that the left would have burned down cities IF HE WERE
INVESTIGATED WITH NO EVIDENCE OF WRONG DOING.
2. There is no evidence that Trump did anything wrong in relation
to Russians. There is evidence that Hillary did, but look at who is
being investigated.
In both situations there is NO evidence against Trump. Therefore
it's not an "others did it too argument."
I think there is some evidence. I imagine after the investigation is over, the public will know what the basis was for the investigation. It wouldn't be appropriate to spill the beans before everything is sorted out a little more. I don't see a problem with that.
Fathertime!
-
I think there is some evidence. I imagine after the investigation is over, the public will know what the basis was for the investigation. It wouldn't be appropriate to spill the beans before everything is sorted out a little more. I don't see a problem with that.
Fathertime!
The Obama administration used it's justice department and FBI to spy on
a rival campaign, using fabricated stories paid for by a campaign that they
were friendly with. Then they used these fabricated stories as a basis for
an investigation that is still going on today.
They did this to undermine a duly elected President of the United States.
If there was ANY evidence of a crime it would have been made public.
-
The Obama administration used it's justice department and FBI to spy on
a rival campaign, using fabricated stories paid for by a campaign that they
were friendly with. Then they used these fabricated stories as a basis for
an investigation that is still going on today.
They did this to undermine a duly elected President of the United States.
If there was ANY evidence of a crime it would have been made public.
I don't agree, any evidence would not necessarily be made public at this point. Also many republicans would disagree with your version of events, and have determined the investigation has indeed been necessary.
Fathertime!
-
Ah, BillyB - you 'know' him so well - you've clearly got each others' WhatsApp ;)
Everybody is giving their opinion on how Putin thinks and acts yet you target me so I assume you disagree with what I said about Putin cares what his people think of him. You've always claimed you lived there more than others here and know the people well. I'm sure you know Putin well too.
-
You've always claimed you lived there more than others here and know the people well. I'm sure you know Putin well too.
I can (mostly) understand what he says in Russian and see his activities in Russia and particularly, Sochi ..so Yep - I'm pretty sure I DO know better than you ...
-
I can (mostly) understand what he says in Russian and see his activities in Russia and particularly, Sochi ..so Yep - I'm pretty sure I DO know better than you ...
Yes, I know you lived there so you've practically grew up with Putin living in the same house. So translate for me what you are saying. Does Putin care about what his people think of him or not?
-
Does Putin care about what his people think of him or not?
IMHO - he saw the revolutions in E.Germany and the fall of the USSR and set about making sure that e could stay in power and control the people
so NO - he doesn't care
-
The Obama administration used it's justice department and FBI to spy on a rival campaign, using fabricated stories paid for by a campaign that they were friendly with. Then they used these fabricated stories as a basis for an investigation that is still going on today.
Assuming that you're alluding to the Steele "dossier," where is your evidence that these stories were fabricated? You've posted in the past that they weren't VERIFIED by someone else, or some organisation which may have been the appropriate authority, and therefore shouldn't have been acted upon. I do actually agree with that to some extent, because verification of anything is normally prudent, but all the subsequent reports I've seen quoting European intelligence agencies do stress that they believe the information in Steele's dossier was correct.
They did this to undermine a duly elected President of the United States.
The dossier (or whatever else you wish to call it) was presented long before Trump was elected.
If there was ANY evidence of a crime it would have been made public.
Tell that to the team which prosecuted Al Capone. Making such evidence public too early may not necessarily be the wisest, or safest, course for those involved. Far better to have everything wrapped up before jumping in with indictments for all and sundry.
-
Assuming that you're alluding to the Steele "dossier,"
We moved this discussion to the Trump thread. I copied your quote
and answered it there
-
Well it looks like with the spy assassination/attempts in the UK visas to Russia & vice versa may get hit. We will know more on Wednesday & thereafter when the UK is expected to take action. With the Russian missile program viewing Florida/US as a target things aren't looking too rosy there either. The way things are going if they continue this way we could be looking at a new cold war. Either way I'm thinking it's not looking great for those on here with women in Russia. If we end back in a situation where visas are severely restricted then they may be cit off altogether.
Putin is up for re-election but it looks like it's all a phoney put up job and Putin will be re-elected as a matter of due course. Would be interesting to here what others on here make of all of this.
-
Putin is up for re-election but it looks like it's all a phoney put up job
Do you think Putin will meddle in the Russian election?
-
Do you think Putin will meddle in the Russian election?
Well all the talk here on the news is that Putin presidential election is him up against a few candidates that have been let through because they stand no chance, all the contenders with a chance have been banned from running due to some trumped up reason or another. Hence Putin's re-election in a few days is seen as almost certain.
-
Not all Putin's competitors are jailed. He faced 3 opponents in the 2012 presidential election, and will face more in 2018.
The press is not totally controlled. Television is totally controlled by the Russian government.
Not all his positions become law, either. Look at debates in the Duma. There is debate there, and at time, they descend into fistfights. He has opponents who are never investigated, such as Zhirinovsky and Grudinin.
Protests are not illegal. They have to be registered.
The ballot this year was absent the typical "none of these listed" column.
The only meaningful opposition would have been Navalny, and while he would not have won a rigged election nor was he popular enough to win even an honest election-and this one was not, the possibility that he might have gotten 20 to 30% of the vote was enough to keep him off the ballot.
Zhirinovsky and Grudinin are there for window dressing. As long as they know their place, they give Russians the false sense that Russia has not yet fallen back into a one-party state.
As for candidate Kseniya Sobchak, I sat in a Russian jail one night in 2010 as an observer to make sure that she and another then-popular female opposition member were going to be okay. That Kseniya's late father Anatoly was at one time the boss and close friend of Mr. Putin's early political days in Piter, still allows her some flexibility, but if she ever became sufficient popular to really challenge the status quo, all bets are off. She no longer enjoys periodic holiday dinners with Mr Putin, but remains close to Ludmila, the ex first lady. This year I struggled internally as to whether she was really in the opposition, or had become a part of the window dressing along with Zhirinovsky, etc.
It could be argued that all the positions that are really important to him do become law.
As for protests, getting them registered is an uphill battle. Even if approved, pro-Kremlin rallies are granted prime real estate. Opposition rallies, rarely approved, are assigned to the swamps.