Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,797 
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Mar 17, 2024 18:31:17 GMT
I am not concerned with how I come across to utter fools such as yourself. I realise that in your childlike view of the world it is the free west (the good guys) on one side and dictators (the bad guys) on the other side. In reality things are much more complicated than that. There is no reason for the West to be against Russia and with the possible exception of the US it is not in our interests to be. We would have been much better off staying out of this conflict Ignorance dressed up as nuance. Putin used chemical weaponry against us, he shot British citizens out of the sky, he continually threatens nuclear war against us and his military harassed the Defence Secretary's plane as it was flying across allied airspace. Putin is very much a threat to the UK, and when you compare a free and democratic nation like the UK to the likes of Putin's Russia, Xi's China, Kim's DPRK, the Mullahs' Iran, Hamas and the Houthis, we are the good guys. For all our faults, we are free, we are democratic and, even with the threat of wokery, our values are superior. People like you are useful idiots And just like the pro-Soviet communist agitators of the 1980s, you will lose Ad democratic: EurAsia's illiberal demoCracies have more right to be called that, as our demoCracies can represent only the majority (and often not even this, cf. opinionPolls during terms). Ad liberal: Yes, freedom is important and as such i am generally on the western side. But here You cannot discuss any longer in public the imPlications of genetics or whether climateChange is entirely human-made or quote certain parts of the Bible. In (parts of) the East You still can. I know several people, who have or intend to emigrate for that reason from WestEurope (and sadly even from the country based on faith-freedom) to Russia. |
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Mar 17, 2024 18:53:07 GMT
Totally believable Saddam Hussein margin here It arguably is a believable margin given the various factors. 1. For various reasons Putin is genuinely popular and would probably win a free and fair election, albeit not by anything like such a margin. 2. The classic rally around the leader during war effect. 3. None of the other candidates offer any alternatives on the major issue of the day. I did think Kharitonov would do better but he is a weak candidate and Gennady Zyuganov would have almost certainly done much better. As I said early Slutsky has some potential but he is pale shadow of Zhironovsky. There no doubt will have been a bit of ballot stuffing in more remote areas as local officials try and impress the boss but is unlikely to have been that widespread. Elections in Russia aren't exactly rigged but the playing field is tilted to such a degree that the favoured candidate would be hard pressed to lose even if he wasn't genuinely popular. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Mar 17, 2024 18:59:22 GMT
You have to wonder - what exactly the point of rigging it to this degree? Putin is personally popular enough to piss the whole thing.
Is it a show to say that opposition of any sort isn't acceptable? That's one line but seems far too transparent and unsubtle.
Or is it a longer term way of getting people to accept the managed democracy? Next time it won't be Putin - it will be an obvious sycophant like Medvedev, or a lunatic like Patrushev senior, or someone we've never heard of getting out of an empty taxi. And that's when the rigging will need to be used.
|
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Mar 17, 2024 19:00:08 GMT
I am not concerned with how I come across to utter fools such as yourself. I realise that in your childlike view of the world it is the free west (the good guys) on one side and dictators (the bad guys) on the other side. In reality things are much more complicated than that. There is no reason for the West to be against Russia and with the possible exception of the US it is not in our interests to be. We would have been much better off staying out of this conflict Ignorance dressed up as nuance. Putin used chemical weaponry against us, he shot British citizens out of the sky, he continually threatens nuclear war against us and his military harassed the Defence Secretary's plane as it was flying across allied airspace. Putin is very much a threat to the UK, and when you compare a free and democratic nation like the UK to the likes of Putin's Russia, Xi's China, Kim's DPRK, the Mullahs' Iran, Hamas and the Houthis, we are the good guys. For all our faults, we are free, we are democratic and, even with the threat of wokery, our values are superior. People like you are useful idiots And just like the pro-Soviet communist agitators of the 1980s, you will lose He did not use chemical weapons against us, he took out Russian traitors on British soil. A reckless action for sure but not an attack on us. As for the shooting down on of MH17, exactly what happened is far from clear but it seems all but certain that it was neither a deliberate act or that Putin knew anything about it. The threats of nuclear war are rhetoric and given the UK's involvement in the Ukrainian conflict harassing Shapp's plane is not an unreasonably aggressive act. To the extent that Putin is a threat to the UK it is only because we choose to stick our nose in Russia's business. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,426
|
Post by iain on Mar 17, 2024 19:02:34 GMT
Ignorance dressed up as nuance. Putin used chemical weaponry against us, he shot British citizens out of the sky, he continually threatens nuclear war against us and his military harassed the Defence Secretary's plane as it was flying across allied airspace. Putin is very much a threat to the UK, and when you compare a free and democratic nation like the UK to the likes of Putin's Russia, Xi's China, Kim's DPRK, the Mullahs' Iran, Hamas and the Houthis, we are the good guys. For all our faults, we are free, we are democratic and, even with the threat of wokery, our values are superior. People like you are useful idiots And just like the pro-Soviet communist agitators of the 1980s, you will lose Ad democratic: EurAsia's illiberal demoCracies have more right to be called that, as our demoCracies can represent only the majority (and often not even this, cf. opinionPolls during terms). Ad liberal: Yes, freedom is important and as such i am generally on the western side. But here You cannot discuss any longer in public the imPlications of genetics or whether climateChange is entirely human-made or quote certain parts of the Bible. In (parts of) the East You still can. I know several people, who have or intend to emigrate for that reason from WestEurope (and sadly even from the country based on faith-freedom) to Russia. Of course you can. The fact people might not agree with you, or even, horror of horrors, call you names, doesn’t mean you can’t discuss those things. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Mar 17, 2024 19:04:00 GMT
You have to wonder - what exactly the point of rigging it to this degree? Putin is personally popular enough to piss the whole thing. Is it a show to say that opposition of any sort isn't acceptable? That's one line but seems far too transparent and unsubtle. Or is it a longer term way of getting people to accept the managed democracy? Next time it won't be Putin - it will be an obvious sycophant like Medvedev, or a lunatic like Patrushev senior, or someone we've never heard of getting out of an empty taxi. And that's when the rigging will need to be used. It's such a fake result, and I think looking at it, they have managed to mess up trying to engineer it looking genuine. Just go for 90%, that's what everybody expected. Of course this result is a good way to bury bad news: protesters have been rounded up and opposition supporters arrested for daring to conduct themselves in a democratic election. Forget the election figures, how many people are being disappeared while "ballots" are "counted"? |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Mar 17, 2024 19:07:00 GMT
Ignorance dressed up as nuance. Putin used chemical weaponry against us, he shot British citizens out of the sky, he continually threatens nuclear war against us and his military harassed the Defence Secretary's plane as it was flying across allied airspace. Putin is very much a threat to the UK, and when you compare a free and democratic nation like the UK to the likes of Putin's Russia, Xi's China, Kim's DPRK, the Mullahs' Iran, Hamas and the Houthis, we are the good guys. For all our faults, we are free, we are democratic and, even with the threat of wokery, our values are superior. People like you are useful idiots And just like the pro-Soviet communist agitators of the 1980s, you will lose He did not use chemical weapons against us, he took out Russian traitors on British soil. A reckless action for sure but not an attack on us. As for the shooting down on of MH17, exactly what happened is far from clear but it seems all but certain that it was neither a deliberate act or that Putin knew anything about it. The threats of nuclear war are rhetoric and given the UK's involvement in the Ukrainian conflict harassing Shapp's plane is not an unreasonably aggressive act. To the extent that Putin is a threat to the UK it is only because we choose to stick our nose in Russia's business. "Russia's business" being: invading a sovereign country in an illegal war, annexing regions under the blanket of fake referendums, and murdering opposition leaders. This sham election bolsters Putin to invade eastern Europe and if it wasn't our issue before, it certainly will be then. Hungary, arguably Slovakia, are turned to the dark side. We can't allow any other country to join them. |
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Mar 17, 2024 19:07:34 GMT
Donetsk (100% reporting): Putin 95.23%
Lugansk (100% reporting): Putin 94.12%
Zaporozhye (100% reporting): Putin 92.83%
Kherson (100% reporting): Putin 88.12%
|
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Mar 17, 2024 19:10:06 GMT
Ignorance dressed up as nuance. Putin used chemical weaponry against us, he shot British citizens out of the sky, he continually threatens nuclear war against us and his military harassed the Defence Secretary's plane as it was flying across allied airspace. Putin is very much a threat to the UK, and when you compare a free and democratic nation like the UK to the likes of Putin's Russia, Xi's China, Kim's DPRK, the Mullahs' Iran, Hamas and the Houthis, we are the good guys. For all our faults, we are free, we are democratic and, even with the threat of wokery, our values are superior. People like you are useful idiots And just like the pro-Soviet communist agitators of the 1980s, you will lose Ad democratic: EurAsia's illiberal demoCracies have more right to be called that, as our demoCracies can represent only the majority (and often not even this, cf. opinionPolls during terms). Ad liberal: Yes, freedom is important and as such i am generally on the western side. But here You cannot discuss any longer in public the imPlications of genetics or whether climateChange is entirely human-made or quote certain parts of the Bible. In (parts of) the East You still can. I know several people, who have or intend to emigrate for that reason from WestEurope (and sadly even from the country based on faith-freedom) to Russia. "You can't say anything these days" is certainly true in Russia, where opposition leaders and dissidents are jailed or murdered. Not sure it's the same thing as having a column written about you in the Telegraph. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Mar 17, 2024 19:10:32 GMT
Donetsk (100% reporting): Putin 95.23% Lugansk (100% reporting): Putin 94.12% Kherson (100% reporting): Putin 88.12% 😂. Funny! |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Mar 17, 2024 19:12:40 GMT
He did not use chemical weapons against us, he took out Russian traitors on British soil. A reckless action for sure but not an attack on us. As for the shooting down on of MH17, exactly what happened is far from clear but it seems all but certain that it was neither a deliberate act or that Putin knew anything about it. The threats of nuclear war are rhetoric and given the UK's involvement in the Ukrainian conflict harassing Shapp's plane is not an unreasonably aggressive act. To the extent that Putin is a threat to the UK it is only because we choose to stick our nose in Russia's business. "Russia's business" being: invading a sovereign country in an illegal war, annexing regions under the blanket of fake referendums, and murdering opposition leaders. This sham election bolsters Putin to invade eastern Europe and if it wasn't our issue before, it certainly will be then. Hungary, arguably Slovakia, are turned to the dark side. We can't allow any other country to join them. Meddling in the affairs of sovereign countries is none of our business. And I'll give you a few reasons why our criticism of Russia's actions is perceived as hypocritical around the world: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Mar 17, 2024 19:14:25 GMT
You have to wonder - what exactly the point of rigging it to this degree? Putin is personally popular enough to piss the whole thing. Is it a show to say that opposition of any sort isn't acceptable? That's one line but seems far too transparent and unsubtle. Or is it a longer term way of getting people to accept the managed democracy? Next time it won't be Putin - it will be an obvious sycophant like Medvedev, or a lunatic like Patrushev senior, or someone we've never heard of getting out of an empty taxi. And that's when the rigging will need to be used. It's such a fake result, and I think looking at it, they have managed to mess up trying to engineer it looking genuine. Just go for 90%, that's what everybody expected. Of course this result is a good way to bury bad news: protesters have been rounded up and opposition supporters arrested for daring to conduct themselves in a democratic election. Forget the election figures, how many people are being disappeared while "ballots" are "counted"? The thing with all of this is that is isn't new news, even if the degree to which it is happening is. And it continued to become more obvious even as Merkel and her acolytes kept claiming that their approach was paying dividends, and continued to force critics off the stage? I'm confident that however this plays out in the long term, Putin isn't the man to ask questions of. He didn't do anything that he didn't hint he would. But why did certain European leaders either enable this behaviour or blind themselves to it? What was in it for them? And who else did they force out of politics to keep their Ostpolitik on the road? |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Mar 17, 2024 19:20:16 GMT
"Congratulstions". Even writes like he's drunk.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelarden on Mar 17, 2024 19:29:22 GMT
He did not use chemical weapons against us, he took out Russian traitors on British soil. A reckless action for sure but not an attack on us. As for the shooting down on of MH17, exactly what happened is far from clear but it seems all but certain that it was neither a deliberate act or that Putin knew anything about it. The threats of nuclear war are rhetoric and given the UK's involvement in the Ukrainian conflict harassing Shapp's plane is not an unreasonably aggressive act. To the extent that Putin is a threat to the UK it is only because we choose to stick our nose in Russia's business. No he didn't - he failed to take out the so called 'traitors' who survived but his agents did kill UK citizen Dawn Sturgess. Her death had nothing to do with the UK sticking its nose in Russia's business - it was a consequence of Putin's henchmen wandering around Wiltshire with nerve agents specifically outlawed by international treaty. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Mar 17, 2024 20:02:25 GMT
"Congratulstions". Even writes like he's drunk. Medvedev must attract the mockery of even Putin himself. It's almost sad to see an obviously intelligent man debase himself, even when you're the boss. |
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Mar 17, 2024 20:24:02 GMT
Best result for Putin so far is in Tuva where he got 95.96%. Worst result so far is Arkhangelsk where he got 78.14%.
|
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Mar 17, 2024 20:24:58 GMT
He did not use chemical weapons against us, he took out Russian traitors on British soil. A reckless action for sure but not an attack on us. As for the shooting down on of MH17, exactly what happened is far from clear but it seems all but certain that it was neither a deliberate act or that Putin knew anything about it. The threats of nuclear war are rhetoric and given the UK's involvement in the Ukrainian conflict harassing Shapp's plane is not an unreasonably aggressive act. To the extent that Putin is a threat to the UK it is only because we choose to stick our nose in Russia's business. No he didn't - he failed to take out the so called 'traitors' who survived but his agents did kill UK citizen Dawn Sturgess. Her death had nothing to do with the UK sticking its nose in Russia's business - it was a consequence of Putin's henchmen wandering around Wiltshire with nerve agents specifically outlawed by international treaty. I have acknowledged that it was a reckless act, that is very different to an attack on the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Mar 17, 2024 20:33:22 GMT
No he didn't - he failed to take out the so called 'traitors' who survived but his agents did kill UK citizen Dawn Sturgess. Her death had nothing to do with the UK sticking its nose in Russia's business - it was a consequence of Putin's henchmen wandering around Wiltshire with nerve agents specifically outlawed by international treaty. I have acknowledged that it was a reckless act, that is very different to an attack on the UK. So if we used chemical weaponry, which are technically WMD, to kill somebody like Snowden, that would not be an attack on Russia? |
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 12,363
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Mar 17, 2024 20:33:28 GMT
He did not use chemical weapons against us, he took out Russian traitors on British soil. A reckless action for sure but not an attack on us. As for the shooting down on of MH17, exactly what happened is far from clear but it seems all but certain that it was neither a deliberate act or that Putin knew anything about it. The threats of nuclear war are rhetoric and given the UK's involvement in the Ukrainian conflict harassing Shapp's plane is not an unreasonably aggressive act. To the extent that Putin is a threat to the UK it is only because we choose to stick our nose in Russia's business. No he didn't - he failed to take out the so called 'traitors' who survived but his agents did kill UK citizen Dawn Sturgess. Her death had nothing to do with the UK sticking its nose in Russia's business - it was a consequence of Putin's henchmen wandering around Wiltshire with nerve agents specifically outlawed by international treaty. thank you Michael, I was going to point out that British civilians have been caught up in Putin's war against "traitors". It's bad enough to kill your own nationals in other countries, it's worse still to do it in a way which harms people who have no interest in Russia whatsoever & have done nothing apart from being unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I strongly agree with forfarshireconservative's previous comments too. |
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Mar 17, 2024 20:39:08 GMT
I have acknowledged that it was a reckless act, that is very different to an attack on the UK. So if we used chemical weaponry, which are technically WMD, to kill somebody like Snowden, that would not be an attack on Russia? Correct |
|
