Drain the Swamp? Oh, that is so yesterday.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Dec 21, 2016.

  1. wellwisher Banned Banned

    This is from fact check ;

    Debt – The U.S. government’s debt owed to the public has more than doubled. It is now more than $13.6 trillion, an increase of 116 percent since Obama first took office.

    And the debt also has grown dramatically even when measured as a percentage of the growing economy, from 52 percent of gross domestic product at the end of fiscal year 2009 to just under 74 percent at the end of fiscal 2015, according to the most recent estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

    The current modest economy is an illusion based on deficit spending. The analogy is someone spending their week's pay, over the weekend, living it up, creating the illusion they have a lot more disposable money, than they actually do. Or it is like the neighbor who works the same job, yet has a boat, motor cycle, camper and a large swimming pool in their yard. It is done by with credit cards.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    G.W. Bush………….11.9 trillion

    Barack Obama…....19.5 trillion

    19.5/11.9 = 1.64
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Well you obviously have a memory problem then. When you have tried to impress and bully people with big bad Mother Russia as you have repeatedly done, I have reminded you that your big bad Mother Putina is a two bit dictator who is writing checks he cannot cash, and that your beloved Mother Russia is a backwater country with dreams of imperial domination and glory.

    I have reminded you that the US economy is ten times larger than your beloved Mother Russia's one horse economy, and that Mother Russia can never compete with the US economically or militarily. It's in the numbers. It's in the facts. Right now Mother Russia has it's only aircraft carrier, one small dilapidated diesel burning carrier, off the coast of Syria which has already lost 2 of its 15 aircraft due to Russian inability to land airplanes on its carrier.

    This is what your beloved Putina is trying to impress the world with, this is the flag ship of the Russian Navy:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Hell you don't need radar to find that ship; you just need to follow the smoke trail.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Dec 25, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Russia, as a continental power, without the aim to rule the whole world, but to defend the own state, does not really need aircraft carriers. The situation of the US is completely different. Without aircraft carriers, who would have to care about them except Canadians and Mexicans? For Russians, ships are secondary. They need some good submarines as part of their nuclear triade, that's all.

    Once there was one remaining from Soviet time, why not use it in Syria? But not scraping it was certainly not done with the intention to impress the world. Russia cared about modernizing their air defense, aircraft, the nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, all what one needs against American aggression, and now they care about a lot of different things one can use for defense and for selling on the world market, like tanks and so on. News from the Turkey/IS front, with lots of easily burning German Leos, are, of course, not nice from point of view of fighting Daesh, but for the Russian tank industry it is good news.
  8. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Bullshit, Mother Russia has desires to rule the world. That's why it has illegally invaded, occupied, and annexed the lands of its neighbors. It doesn't have the ability to rule the world much less become a global power. You don't need a carrier to defend your borders. If Russia truly didn't have any global ambitions, it wouldn't need a carrier. It really is that simple. A carrier is only necessary to project military force beyond your borders as Russia is attempting to do in Syria.

    LOL....Yes with the US it's a completely different situation. The US plays the role of global policeman, because it has earn the trust of world powers. That's why countries extend like Australia, Latvia, et al. request a US troop presence. They want a US troop presence to protect them from countries like Russia and China.

    As previously explained to you, Russia doesn't need a military. It doesn't need a navy. No one wants Russia. Western Europe doesn't want Russia. The US doesn't want Russia. Russia has virtually no commerce other than petroleum products. It has no need of a navy. If the US wanted Russia it would have taken it a very long time ago. The US has had many opportunities to take Russia and it hasn't.

    You Ruskies delude yourselves. You are more of a headache than anything else. Militarism is how your leaders control you. That's why Russia has a military. Fascism requires an enemy and a military. Russia has both.

    Why be in Syria if Russia doesn't have global ambitions as you have repeatedly asserted? Syria isn't a threat to Russia. Why does Russia have a naval base in Syria if Russia doesn't need surface ships as you have asserted? Do you ever think your yourself comrade?

    Russia tries to mimic western powers in military capability. But it cannot. Russia is a third rate power with global ambitions. It's global ambitions exceed its abilities. That is the truth of the matter comrade.
  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    So, after the typical hallucinations ("facts") we see now also clear signs of paranoia.
    The terrorist international is a threat to Russia.
    Some ships in this region are, of course, useful even for a continental power, once it has some ports which may be attacked by enemies.
  10. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Yet Russia has repeatedly shown it is willing to simply go and take land it wants... (Crimea, for example).

    You don't prevent domestic terrorism with an Army or Navy... and conversely, Russia has repeatedly bombed the wrong bloody people...

    Those same ports can just as easily be secured with littoral vessels and land based defenses. An Carrier Task Force has a singular purpose - force projection beyond the mainland.
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    And where did you get those numbers? Below are the real numbers:

    2009: 6,308,564,856,414.67

    2016: 14,434,841,520,928.37

    But those numbers don't include US federal debt held by the Federal Reserve, so they are a bit overstated. The US Federal Reserve currently holds about 3 trillion dollars of US debt. Owing to the Great Recession and Republican stupidity and partisanship, federal debt held by the Federal Reserve has expanded greatly under Obama's presidency. So the actual US debt is about 11 trillion dollars rather than 14 trillion dollars.

    Yes, under Obama's administration US debt increased significantly, but as you should know, there were some very good reasons for that.

    Obama inherited the following fiscal obligations from this Republican predecessor:

    1) 2 active ongoing wars which were completely unfunded
    2) the largest expansion in crony capital social programs since the creation of Medicare (e.g. Medicare Part D) - also unfunded
    3) and the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression; nearly a million people a month were losing their jobs and going from tax payers to tax takers.

    Those are the things you forgot to mention and each one of those things was tremendously expensive in its own right. What you are doing is analogous to the guy who eats the cake and then blames his brother for his wrong doings.

    And here is something you're omitting, under Clinton federal debt held by the public declined from 48% to 31%. Clinton inherited a public debt to GDP ratio of 48%. Clinton left his Republican successor with a budget surplus. Democrats generally have a much better record of economic growth and fiscal responsibility than Republicans. That's a simple matter of historical fact.

    And you know this how? The fact is you know nothing of economics. If you did, you wouldn't make such stupid statements. The current economy isn't an illusion. It's very real. And as much as that distresses Republicans like you, the economic growth we have witnessed since Obama took office is very real. Millions of people aren't losing their jobs as they were when he was sworn into office. People don't pay their bills with illusions. The only delusions here are yours and those of your Republican fellows.

    You just don't like the many good economic numbers produced under this Democratic administration, hence it's illusion. It's yet another right wing denial of reality. When you don't like reality, you just deny it and invent elaborate excuses and conspiracies.

    And this is the kicker, your man Trump has proposed spending a trillion dollars on infrastructure, a trillion dollars more on defense spending, and 645 billion more building and maintaining a wall and kicking out illegal aliens who are holding jobs and contributing to our economy. And on top of that your man The Donald wants to cut taxes, mostly for the richest residents, by 12 trillion dollars. Your man Trump wants to spend far more than the Democrats and at a time when it isn't needed, when the nation is at or very near full employment.

    Here is the difference between Democrats and Republicans, Democrats want to spend money when it's needed and appropriate and not spend when appropriate. Republicans on the other hand want to spend whether its appropriate or not all the while preaching fiscal austerity. Republicans want to spend when they are in power and preach fiscal austerity when they are not in power. Republicans like to spend in order to pay off their cronies. Republicans don't like ethics in government, e.g. their first order of business was to gut the congressional ethics agency. The only president in recent history to have a budget surplus was a Democrat, e.g. Clinton.

    If you need an additional reminder, and I think you do; remember Dick Cheney, the preceding Republican vice president famously said, "You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due." - 2004.

    Unfortunately for you and your Republican cohorts, facts do matter.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Jan 6, 2017
  12. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Crimea was far away "taken simply". This has happened after a coup against the legitimate, democratically elected president, in a situation where it was clear that if Russia does not help the legal government of Crimea, the outbreak of a civil war is almost unavoidable. It was also well-known that the population was against the coup in Kiev and ready to fight.
    Wrong. Domestic terrorism has been prevented in Russia with the Army. Of course, not only with the Army, but the Army played a quite important role. And in Syria, where the terrorists have already quite large armies with lots of tanks and so on, thanks to some states who have supported them, police is clearly insufficient.
    And that's why all was Russia has done was to preserve one from Soviet times. Instead of building new ones. With the littoral vessels and land based defenses useful to defend the own ports against US aircraft carriers the situation is already much better, Russia has quite modern ones.
  13. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Then why did Russia have to go in and take over? Why not go in, oust the illegitimate government, and let the people take it from there? Seems like they have a rather different interest (or are you claiming Crimea WANTED to be annexed?)

    Do you have any examples of this?

    Surely you don't actually believe that? If your claim here is true, then why is it currently deployed in the Syrian event? Are you claiming US Carriers are in position to threaten Russia, and that the Admiral Kuznetsov is able to defend Russia against them?
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Russia's invasion, occupation and annexation of Crimea came after Russia had illegally invaded, occupied, and annexed portions of Georgia: another neighboring state. And it occurred after the Ukrainian people indicted and charged it's corrupt president with murder, a leader which was closely aligned with Putina (AKA Putin) and fled to Putina when his people wanted to impeach and arrest him.

    As much as it vexes you and your beloved Mother Putina, the people of Ukraine and the people of Syria have the right to self-determination. It's up to the Ukrianians and Syrians to determine their fates, not you, not Putina.

    Why does Mother Russia need an army to do what Western countries do what ordinary police officers do each and every day? Are Russian's really that incompetent? In the West armed forces are not used to combat domestic terrorism.

    In Syria ISIS had an army of a few thousand men, and it had tanks. But that's not the people your beloved Mother Russia is fighting in Syria. It's bombing civilians and propping up the Assad regime. Russia isn't fighting terrorists in Syria. It's fighting Syrian rebels.

    We have been through this numerous times before comrade. Your beloved Mother Russia cannot afford to build and support new carriers. That's why it hasn't built them, and that has nothing to do with terrorism. If Russia was actually fighting terrorists in Syria your case would be stronger, but that isn't the case. It's simply a matter of numbers comrade. Compared to the US, Russia has less than half the population and its economy is a small fraction of that of the US. Russia is a declining power which wants to act like a major power. Unfortunately for you and your fellow comrades the world is not without eyes and isn't as dumb as you and Putina need them to be. Contrary to your assertions Russia's economy is deeply mired in a recession. It's economy continues to shrink year after year, and it tries to impress the world with its military adventurism. It ain't working...just saying. Because people aren't as dumb or as blind as you and Putina need them to be.

    China, India, and Egypt, have modern carriers; your beloved Mother Russia doesn't. What Russia has is an embarrassment. If Russia doesn't need or want carriers, then why does Russia have plans to build them? The 2 carriers now active in the Egyptian fleet are the two vessels Russia wanted to purchase from France, but the deal was terminated by French government when Russia began invading, occupying, and annexing the lands of its neighbors.

    If Russia cannot play nice, the West will take away your toys, and it has. Contrary to your assertions Russia wants more toys, including carriers, but it cannot afford them, and if even if it could, no one will sell them to Russia. So it's stuck with a dilapidated old scow it calls a carrier which should have been turned in razor blades a very long time ago. Russia's carrier sails with a tender to tow it to port when it breaks down. What nation does that? Russia does that.
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2017
  15. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    To oust the illegitimate government, Russia would have to start a war with the Ukraine. But Russia wanted to prevent a civil war, not to start it. The straightforward way to prevent a civil war was federalization, so that the locals no longer depend that much on who rules in Kiev. But the Crimean people were no longer ready, after the coup, to wait for some federalization. They wanted either independence or joining Russia. So, the only chance for peace was to support the separatists.

    Annexed is the wrong word - but the people of Crimea wanted to join Russia. And the numbers are quite clear. Of course, not the 97% who voted in the referendum for joining Russia - simply because the opponents have called up to boycott the referendum. So, the relevant number is the participation in the referendum, which was over 80%.
    Of what? Syrian terrorists with tanks? Or the West and Saudis/Qatar openly supporting terrorists with money and weapons?
    No. It made some sense to have, for some time, some more planes in Syria fighting the terrorists there, and Admiral Kuznetsov was able to provide this. Moreover, it is always useful to test the own ships in real war conditions.

    Actually the US aircraft carriers are sitting nicely at home, doing nothing. What has been put to Syria to make sure that US aircraft carriers behave in a nice peaceful way were the S-300 and S-400 air defense systems. And, yes, they are able to defend Russia and Syria against a conventional attack from US aircraft carriers. Together with the calibre cruise missiles on various other Russian ships around Syria. (Admiral Kuznetsov is not alone. US carriers also do not travel alone.)

    In Russia, this job is done today by the police too.
    In the Chechen war, the terrorists have been, as now in Syria, heavily supported by the West and Saudi Arabia. If terrorists are heavily supported by the US, the attacked state needs the army to fight this.
    And in Syria, as Russia, as the US use the airforce to fight terrorists.
    It is fighting the childheadcutters supported by the US https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/761248812254031872 I don't care if you name the "rebels", I'm happy that these childheadcutters are now expelled from Aleppo, and I hope they have been killed in the process of liberating Aleppo. But I'm afraid they have run away. Whatever, one can kill them in Idlib too.
    It is not a priority for Russia. China is a different situation, it heavily depends on import and export by ship, thus, has to care much more about the security of their trade routes.
    Of course, Russia has a lot of sea borders too, so that they are not useless. But as far as I know it is not high priority. There are more important things to do. I know that many people in the Russian Navy have been against that deal with France, and considered these carriers as unnecessary. And were very happy when France has cancelled that. It was fine for Russia - it got back all the money already paid, and some more, and all this at a time when it was under attack, so that these money have been useful. That it has, additionally, obtained some knowledge how to build such things for free is a nice side effect. Sometimes sanctions can be really stupid.
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    I'm listening to the Sessions confirmation hearing this morning. It's really not so much of a hearing as it is a bullshit session. It has been almost an hour now and Sessions has yet to be asked a single question. Thus far all Republicans have done is idolize Sessions. Now Sessions is idolizing himself.

    It was reported last evening that Trump is investing heavily in these hearings. His nominees are being schooled. They are being taught what to say and how to say it. They are being schooled in things like the price of milk. Since many if not most of his nominees are multi-billionaires they don't know the price of milk. Trump has gone so far as to use mock hearings in order to prepare his nominees for questioning. It's very apparent that Sessions's hearing this morning has been staged to the nines in support of Sessions.
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    What does that mean? Just because you and your beloved Putina don't like a government, it doesn't follow that government is illegitimate. The unfortunate fact for you comrade, there is no good reason which justifies Putina's invasion, occupation, and annexation of portions of Georgia and Ukraine.

    The people of Crimea didn't have a choice. They were invaded under the cover of night by armed Russian troops. They were subsequently given a referendum while under the barrel of guns that had only two options: annexation now or later. Russia conducted the polling and we all know how fair Russian elections under Putin are, don't we? So it's not surprising Russia refused to allow an independent audit of the vote.

    Just who do you think you are fooling comrade? We aren't Russians.

    Annexation is the right word for it comrade. I suggest you pick up a dictionary. Even it the people of Crimea wanted to be annexed, it's still an annexation. And has been repeatedly explained to you over the course of years, the people of Crimea wasn't ever considered, nor is it known. Because the people of Crimea never had the opportunity to make their opinion known. A choice of annexation now or latter really isn't much of a choice. And the fact is Russia under Putin has history of conducting fraudulent polling. Russia refused independent auditors to witness the referendum to which you reference. So, given Russia's history, the referendum just isn't credible. Additionally there was no evidence that before Russia's invasion of Crimea Crimeans wanted to be annexed by Russia. These separatist movements don't begin in the middle of the night with little green Russian troops invading your country.

    You have contradicted yourself several times now on this issue. Why does Russia need it's army to suppress domestic terrorism? As previously pointed out to you, most countries don't need an army to put down domestic terrorism. Russia does as you have stated on several occasions.

    As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the terrorists with tanks are ISIS. But Russia isn't fighting ISIS in Syria. It's fighting Syrian rebels. It's fighting the people who stood up to a brutal dictator: the dictator your beloved Mother Russia supports, the dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, the dictator who has gassed innocent children, women, and men, the dictator who has dropped barrel bombs his own people. And to that end, Russia has repeatedly and intentionally bombed hospitals.

    Dropping bombs on civilians and hospitals isn't fighting terrorists comrade. That's what your beloved Mother Russia has done with its warplanes. The Admiral Kuznetsov, the Russian flag ship, would be an embarrassment to any country but Mother Russia. It looses most of its warplanes trying to takeoff and land on the damn thing. It always sails with a repair ship because the damn thing breaks down so often. The Admiral Kuznetsov provides no strategic value. The only reason it is off the Syrian coast is to show Russia has a carrier. It's an appeal to the feeble minded.

    That's not true either comrade. Surprise me some time comrade; be honest on occasion. The US Navy isn't like your beloved Russian navy. It is always forward deployed 24 hours a day 365 days a year. Unlike your beloved Mother Russia, the US has several fleets that are always deployed across the globe.

    The s-300 and s-400 defenses are silly, useless, and are only impressive to Russians. We've seen how unpressive Russian cruise missiles are in Syria. A good many of them never make it to their targets.

    And your evidence for this is where? You have been repeatedly challenged to support your accusations with evidence and reason, but to date you have provided none. Therefore, one must conclude you have none. You are doing what you always do , making shit up comrade.

    The US doesn't support terrorists. It's American law.

    Again you have no credible evidence comrade, and unfortunately for you and your beloved Mother Putina, most of the world requires credible fact and not warmed over Russian propaganda.

    It's not a priority for Russia because Russia cannot afford carriers. As previously pointed out to you, Russia's two carriers are now sailing in the Egyptian Navy. Contrary to your assertions Russia wants carriers, it just cannot afford them, nor can it build them.

    Do you now? Yes Russia needs all the money it can get. It's desperate. It's a state in decline.
  18. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Of course, not. It follows from the fact that the government before, with president Janukovich, was legitime, democratically elected, and the coup was not in agreement with any legal constitutional procedure of a legal impeachment of the president. What is required for a legal impeachment is prescribed by the Ukrainian constitution, and this prescription was clearly and openly violated.
    No. They had a choice. There was a referendum about this.
    You obviously don't know. To fake Russian elections, in the actual way the Russian elections are provided, is much harder than to fake American elections.

    You should know that Putin is a quite clever guy. He knows that he has the majority support, and that it is not endangered in near future, but that the Western propaganda thesis that the elections are faked is not good for Russia. So he has put one such fighter against election fraud quite acknowledged by the West and made her the chief of the election commission. With the aim to make the Russian elections the most safe against fraud elections possible.
    It allowed. Many independent forces, all the European parliament, the OSCE and others have been invited to audit the referendum.

    The "politically correct" guys have refused, to avoid to legitimate the referendum in such a way. But there have been, nonetheless, a lot of the politically incorrect which have been invited.
    It needed it around 2000, during the Chechen war. Actually it does not need the army for this purpose. In 2000 it was necessary, because Saudi-Arabia has heavily supported Chechen terrorists, and US puppet Jeltsin has done nothing against them for several years, after losing the First Chechen War.
    What you name "rebels" are a different branch of the same terrorists, with a similar number of tanks. You know, these child head cutters, which have been supported by the US even after they have proudly distributed that video of cutting the head of that 12yo boy. https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/761248812254031872
    Tell this the US airforce. Russia is not doing such things.
    Who cares? It was build in Soviet times, in this sense it was for free for Putin. To use it here was, first of all, an important exercise in real war conditions. Then, nobody knows if it has played a role in preventing some escalation by Obama. Remember, Obama has, via Fashington Post, almost openly threatened to start an open war against Syria. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...istration-considering-strikes-on-assad-again/ A quite resolute reaction (relocation of more S-300 to Syria and officially declaring that any attack on the Syrian army would be considered as endangering Russian officers and answered, shooting or the plane, or the rocket together with their starting platform, followed immediately. Then came also Admiral Kuznetsov.

    After this, Obama has forgotten about the idea of attacking Syrian forces. So, live with it, the chicken was Obama.
    Lol. But, ok, we all know that only the US can afford a military budget of 10 times the Russian one without getting anything useful out of it.
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    You are lying again comrade. You know this; this isn't the first time this has been pointed out to you. Yanukovych was legally impeached and removed from office by the legally elected Ukrainian parliament.

    "In late February 2014, Yanukovych and many other high government officials fled the country. Protesters gained control of the presidential administration and Yanukovych's private estate. Subsequently, the parliament removed Yanukovych from office, replaced the government with a pro-European one, and ordered that former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko be released from prison.[82] Events in Kiev were soon followed by the Crimean crisis and pro-Russian unrest in Eastern Ukraine. Despite the impeachment of Yanukovych,[83] the installation of a new government, and the adoption of the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement's political provisions, the protests have sustained pressure on the government to reject Russian influence in Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan

    Only in your beloved Mother Russia is now or a little later under the threat of guns a choice. Crimeans had no choice. Unfortunately for you comrade the world doesn't believe your story. The referendum was widely condemned by nations around the globe. The United Nations voted 13 to 1, with Russia being the only member to oppose, a resolution condemning the referendum. The United Nations General Assembly roundly condemned the referendum. Just who do you think you are fooling comrade? Not everyone is as dumb as you and your beloved Mother Putina need them to be.

    Your story doesn't even make sense. If the people of Crimea wanted to be annexed by Russia they could have said so before Putin's unmarked little green troops invaded Crimea under the cover of darkness. But they didn't.

    Who do you think you are communicating with comrade? I ain't drunk and I ain't Russian. The truth belies you.

    "International observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) found that although all competitors had access to the media, Putin was given clear prominence.[7] Strict candidate registration requirements also limited "genuine competition".[7] According to Tonino Picula, the Special Co-ordinator to lead the short-term OSCE observer mission,

    “There were serious problems from the very start of this election. The point of elections is that the outcome should be uncertain. This was not the case in Russia. There was no real competition and abuse of government resources ensured that the ultimate winner of the election was never in doubt.”[7]

    The OCSE observers concluded that voting on the day of the election was assessed positively overall, but the "process deteriorated during the vote count which was assessed negatively in almost one-third of polling stations observed due to procedural irregularities."[7] The OSCE called for a thorough investigation of the electoral violations and urged citizens to actively oversee future elections in order to increase confidence.[7]

    Allegations were made that Putin supporters had been driven around in coaches in order to vote for him in multiple constituencies (which is known as carousel voting).[30] These practices were documented by video monitoring systems installed on most voting stations.[31]

    Pravda alleged that industrial plants with a continuous-cycle production have violated the law by bussing workers to polling centres.[32] The chairman of the Moscow Election Committee Valentin Gorbunov countered the accusation saying that this was normal practice and did not constitute a violation. According to Iosif Diskin, a member of the Public Chamber of Russia, there were special observers who controlled that workers have legal absentee certificates. Information about carousel voting was, according to him, not confirmed.[33] Georgy Fyodorov, director of the NGO "Citizens Watch" ("Гражданский контроль"), said that statements from the monitoring group GOLOS about carousel voting in Strogino District were false,[34] however, Citizens Watch never addressed the evidence of the electoral fraud presented by GOLOS. The level of electoral manipulation is substantial. According to GOLOS, one third of all electoral commissions had substantial irregularities at the stage of vote counting and tabulation.[35]

    Claims that Putin's share of the vote was inflated by up to 10% were dismissed by Putin in a talk with journalists: "It's possible there were irregularities, probably there were some. But they can only influence hundredths of a per cent. Well, maybe one per cent; that I can imagine. But no more."[36] Ruža Tomašić, OSCE observer from Croatia, noted that there were no irregularities at five polling stations near Kaluga.[37] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_2012#Claims_of_electoral_irregularities

    Well he is obviously not clever enough because he has gotten his hands caught in the proverbial cookie jar on multiple occasions. If he had majority support, he would not need to rig elections as he had repeatedly done. The rigging of his 2012 election led to wide spread protests within Russia which were eventually brutally suppressed by Putin's thugs.
  20. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Except it didn't per the previously and repeatedly cited references. You need to stop lying comrade.

    The world has widely debunked your "legitimate referendum" as illegitimate. The UN Security Council has rejected it and the UN General Assembly as rejected the referendum as illegitimate. Again comrade, this isn't your beloved Mother Russia. Facts matter here. This isn't the land of fake news.

    So Russia needed its military to crack down on domestic terrorists, but now it doesn't, is that your current story? Where is your evidence Saudi Arabia supported Chechen terrorists and why does that justify the use of Russian military? The fact is, other than in Russia, terrorists are handled with police forces.

    And you have no evidenced Yeltsin was a US puppet, because he wasn't. You may not like him, but that doesn't mean he was anybody's puppet. The US and other Western powers came to Russia's aid when the Soviet Union collapsed. The provided charity. They helped Russia get back on its feet. Would you rather the West let Russian's starve and freeze?

    The Syrian rebels aren't ISIS, nor are they in any way related to ISIS. Facts matter comrade.

    Why? The US Air Force already knows Russia has intentionally bombed Syrian civilians and hospitals. Unfortunately for you comrade facts matter. This isn't Mother Russia where you can just make crap up and expect people to believe it.

    Yeah who cares about the truth? You're Russian. You don't need no damn truths! In real war conditions Russia's flag ship would be blown to smithereens within seconds. It's a floating joke.

    Obama only threatened to use force against Syria once: after Syria used gassed his own people. The US demanded Syria surrender all of its weapons of mass destruction to the United States, and Syria complied. The US subsequently destroyed those weapons at sea.

    If you are worried about chickens, you need to look no further than your beloved Putin and his buddy Assad comrade.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Do you now? Well your beloved Mother Putina thinks otherwise comrade. Facts matter comrade.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    The legal procedure of an impeachment was not accomplished. Which is what matters.
    They did. http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1434742.html from 26.2.2014 with my translation:
    1. In Simferopol we are the majority and we are pressing, but we need more people ... the number of tatars and fascists remains the same, our people become more. The fascists and tatar radicals we have now pressed into a half circle.
    2. About Sevastopol. Tshaly [the leader of the pro-Russians] is working in the administration of the town. ... At the entry our guards. Tshaly will not disband the Berkut forces [Ukrainian elite police forces, very much hated by the Maidan, and therefore disbanded, those from Crimea were heavily pro-Russian. And had weapons.] ... Before the administration and at Nachimov square our people. At 18.00 were will be a big meeting, all who cannot go to Simferopol, go to the Sevastopol meeting. Only in this way we can reach our aims, every day on the street to defend our choice.

    All this without any little green men visible. They were first seen at 28. 2.2014. So, you see, two days before they have already taken full power in Sevastopol and were fighting against fascists in Simferopol.

    Unfortunately, because communicating with a stupid American propagandist you can only on a much lower intellectual level in comparison with a Russian, drunken or not.
    What I have written was about the last elections, not about 2012. There was not much reason to care about elections before. And certainly no need to rig them. But in 2012 the elections have been used as a pretense to start a color revolution (the color was white). Putin was strong enough to win against this color revolution. Live with it. And he was clever enough to modify the system in such a way that a repetition of such accusations will not make sense.
    It has always been my story. That the army was used in the Chechen war is well-known. But this war was won, Chechnya is peaceful today.
    LOL, you want evidence for what everybody knows because it was not even hidden. One of the two main leaders, al-Khattab, was from Saudi-Arabia himself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Khattab
    Why do you think Russia needs a justification to use the army on its own territory to fight terrorists? Anyway, this started already in Jeltsin time, thus, without America seeing a problem with this.
    They have starved. They were freezing. Thousands of homeless children on the streets were the result of Jeltsin's rule. Street children, in the Russian winter, imagine?
    And, no, Russia was not getting back on its feet during Jeltsin time. This started only with Putin.
    Al Nusra was originally the same organization as IS, they split later because of differences in the strategy of fighting - declaring a khalifat (a state) or to continue the old Al Qaida strategy. And Al Nusra, now renamed, remains the main force of the "rebels", essentially unified in the same fronts with many of them. This was the main problem with Kerry, who appeared unable to tell the "moderate rebels" that they have to split from Al Nusra.

    Actually we look, with interest, if Turkey is better in enforcing such a split.
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    It except it was accomplished. The truth matters comrade. This ain't your beloved Mother Russia. The truth matters here.

    Fake news doesn't work here comrade. Now if you have some credible sources, let's see them. But I think we both know you don't have anything more than your run of the mill fake news sources.

    They weren't hungry and cold because of Yeltsin. They were hungry because the Soviet, i.e. Russian, state collapsed. They had no government. They had no economy. Everything collapsed. That's a pretty bad place to be in, and that is what Yeltsin inherited. He inherited a mess. He had to create a new government, a new constitution. It was a mess. Yeltsin needed to lay a few foundation for a new Russia. Yeltsin hired Putin. Were there no Yeltsin there would be no Putin.

    Putin benefited from the oil boom. That's it. Putin didn't create Russia's oil reserves. Putin didn't drill the oil wells or pipelines. He did none of that. He had the good fortune of being in office when oil and natural gas prices were surging, and he owes his office to Yeltsin. That's Putin's claim to fame. It's not much of a claim comrade. But that's all he's got.

    Ignorance is bliss...comrade? Things were bad during Yeltsin's presidency, but things would have been bad regardless. At that time, Russia was a failed nation state. Russia had no government as the Soviet Union had disintegrated.

    Ignoring the veracity, how is any of that relevant? It isn't. The fact is Russia has done virtually nothing to fight terrorists in Syria. What Russia has done is to intentionally bomb civilians and hospitals in order to kill Syrian rebels opposed to Assad. This gets to a core Russian inability, the inability to understand the difference between dissidents and terrorists.
  23. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Wrong. They had a state, they had an economy. A lot of factories were collapsing because Jeltsin following bad ideas about the transition, ideas which were told him by American advisers. If you follow American advisers, you have to expect the worst.
    China had the same problem of transition, from the same type of communist economy, if there was a difference then it was even worse, but had no such decline in their transition period.
    With Putin from the start, there would have been a transition period similar to the Chinese. Without a decade of decline, robbery, criminality, street children and all this.

Share This Page