Vladimir Putin wins Russian election with about 77% of vote

[Silvestru]

What are your thoughts over this ping-pong of power to get around the two consecutive terms law between  Medvedev and Putin? How democratic is that objectively speaking? 

And what are your thoughts over Putin's win here. (I'm surprised a thread about this has not yet been opened.) 

Quote

The President of Russia is directly elected for a term of six years, since being extended from four years in 2008 during Dmitry Medvedev's administration.^[7] According to Article 81 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, a candidate for president must be at least 35 years old, hold no dual nationality, have permanently resided in Russia for the past 10 years, and cannot serve more than two terms consecutively.

 

[Sensei]

21 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

And what are your thoughts over Putin's win here.

In one word? Bullshit..

 

True opponents were disallowed to participate in the presidential election, remained only some sockpuppets..

 

[swansont]

"The opponent conceded in exchange for the antidote" (paraphrase from twitter)

I fail to see why his win would be worthy of discussion, as it was a foregone conclusion.

[Silvestru]

5 minutes ago, Sensei said:

In one word? Bullshit..

True opponents were disallowed to participate in the presidential election, remained only some sockpuppets..

I agree but at this point, this behaviour is just ignored. Doping in Olympics, Crimea, Russian deserters getting off'ed in UK and really so so much more...

It's clear that there are no real consequences by this point. We have a saying in my country: 

"The dogs bark but the bear keeps walking." 

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

"The opponent conceded in exchange for the antidote" (paraphrase from twitter)

I fail to see why his win would be worthy of discussion, as it was a foregone conclusion.

Love the quote haha

 For the second part, of course it is worthy of discussion. Some people think they should be against Russia just because everyone else is but they have no idea why, if you stop and talk to them about it. Making a good choice without any though background behind it is no less sheep-like than following and believing a dictator.

[Ten oz]

Took seems like a more appropriate word "wins" but it is all a matter of perspective. Putin's strongest challengers were kept off the ballot. Russia's GDP has been declining year over year for the last few years. In 1995 there were 148 million people in Russia and today there is 143 million so the population is also in decline. Putin's reign, from the outside looking in, hasn't been good for Russia. 

[Silvestru]

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Took seems like a more appropriate word "wins" but it is all a matter of perspective. Putin's strongest challengers were kept off the ballot. Russia's GDP has been declining year over year for the last few years. In 1995 there were 148 million people in Russia and today there is 143 million so the population is also in decline. Putin's reign, from the outside looking in, hasn't been good for Russia. 

Quoted the article I was reading. Didn't really think about the term used but you are right.

This is exactly the kind of information I am looking for. Factual. But Ten oz what is your opinion on why no country or union is taking a strong enough stance against this?

To preserve the global balance of power? To avoid a 3'rd world war?

This reminds me of the plot to Doctor Strangelove where the Soviet Union had a doomsday device and they planned to make it public to the world so no one would mess with them or else...

[Ten oz]

12 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Quoted the article I was reading. Didn't really think about the term used but you are right.

This is exactly the kind of information I am looking for. Factual. But Ten oz what is your opinion on why no country or union is taking a strong enough stance against this?

To preserve the global balance of power? To avoid a 3'rd world war?

This reminds me of the plot to Doctor Strangelove where the Soviet Union had a doomsday device and they planned to make it public to the world so no one would mess with them or else...

The UK expelled Russian Diplomats last week as did the U.S. back in 2016. Additionally both the U.S.and UK have put sanctions in place. So the response hasn't been nothing. I think there are a couple of factors at play. Putin has done a terrific job using intelligence to support different political factions in the West. Those groups supported don't consider themselves compromised yet do lean on the support they are provided. That makes then slow to respond against Putin as he is both an important anonymous political ally and a national foe. Then there is the matter of sovereignty. Whose responsibility is it to dispose corrupt leaders in Russia; it own citizens. Let's not forget that it took a holocaust and other atrocities to get full commitment for WW2. I don't think the world community has a taste for WW3 if there might be normal democratic processes that might resolve the issue. Citizens in Russia will need to act first though. 

[Silvestru]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Whose responsibility is it to dispose corrupt leaders in Russia; it own citizens. Let's not forget that it took a holocaust and other atrocities to get full commitment for WW2. I don't think the world community has a taste for WW3 if there might be normal democratic processes that might resolve the issue. Citizens in Russia will need to act first though. 

It's pretty hard to pierce the veil of national propaganda so I am not holding my breath on that one. And even if a big number of citizens would go to the streets I think it would look a bit  differently that a protest in my country or yours. I think they would be welcomed with water cannons, smoke grenades and rubber bullets and of course it wouldn't show up on the local media and social media. I heard Russian hackers are pretty capable.  Pretty hard to rally up a big group without media these days...

[Ten oz]

17 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

It's pretty hard to pierce the veil of national propaganda so I am not holding my breath on that one. And even if a big number of citizens would go to the streets I think it would look a bit  differently that a protest in my country or yours. I think they would be welcomed with water cannons, smoke grenades and rubber bullets and of course it wouldn't show up on the local media and social media. I heard Russian hackers are pretty capable.  Pretty hard to rally up a big group without media these days...

 

In the U.S. our citizens had to protest through fire hoses, dogs, and battens. Change is hard. 

[StringJunky]

Change has to come from within. At the end of the day, the population of an oppressed country are complicit in allowing it to happen. sometimes you've got lay your life on the line for what you believe in. External interference just makes a mess; look at Iraq. One thing we could do though is start getting quality information to the oppressed populations so that they are correctly informed about the state of things in their country. I was thinking something along the lines of  infiltrating their mass communications with satellite transmissions and the like. Information is power. China, Russia, N. Korea etc do their damnedest to keep control of the movement of information. 

Edited March 20, 2018 by StringJunky

[Silvestru]

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I was thinking something along the lines of  infiltrating their mass communications with satellite transmissions and the like. Information is power. China, Russia, N. Korea etc do their damnedest to keep control of the movement of information.

The scary part is that the first two countries you mention are in the top of the most weaponized and have some of the strongest armies in the world. They would not take lightly to infiltration of their mass communication.  

People with wool over their eyes tend to fight with more fervour for their "country" . To be honest, if there would be a vote in my country that sounds like: "We acknowledge that the people in North Korea(let's say) are being controlled, manipulated and oppressed so we want to inform them of this by broadcasting "real objective" news that tells it how it is to these people. As this is dangerous we want you, the population of South Korea(lets say) to vote for or against this initiative." - I think I would vote No... It's easy to type from my desk chair but the truth is that such countries that do not hesitate to use aggressive methods are scary and  the first thought is to not get involved and hope you are not caught in the crossfire. 

 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

 

In the U.S. our citizens had to protest through fire hoses, dogs, and battens. Change is hard. 

I forget which guy ordered that.

 

2 hours ago, Silvestru said:

It's pretty hard to pierce the veil of national propaganda so I am not holding my breath on that one. And even if a big number of citizens would go to the streets I think it would look a bit  differently that a protest in my country or yours. I think they would be welcomed with water cannons, smoke grenades and rubber bullets and of course it wouldn't show up on the local media and social media. I heard Russian hackers are pretty capable.  Pretty hard to rally up a big group without media these days...

I'm gonna get hung for saying this but......

 

If only they had the second amendment to protect their right to carry firearms and use them against an oppressive government.....

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

If only they had the second amendment to protect their right to carry firearms and use them against an oppressive government.....

Dream on.

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm gonna get hung for saying this but......

If only they had the second amendment to protect their right to carry firearms and use them against an oppressive government.....

 

Violence doesn't work against an oppressive government, but martyrdom does. 

Besides a musket v musket is a winnable fight with enough numbers, sidearm v tanks/drones aren't, despite numbers.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Change has to come from within. At the end of the day, the population of an oppressed country are complicit in allowing it to happen. sometimes you've got lay your life on the line for what you believe in. External interference just makes a mess; look at Iraq. One thing we could do though is start getting quality information to the oppressed populations so that they are correctly informed about the state of things in their country. I was thinking something along the lines of  infiltrating their mass communications with satellite transmissions and the like. Information is power. China, Russia, N. Korea etc do their damnedest to keep control of the movement of information. 

The reality is that in an oppressed society there are always significant portions of the country that benefit from the corruption. So on all levels (local and national) you have people working to ensure the status quo. Under Saddam Baath party members had it good for example. Today in Russia it seems the oligarchs are enjoying Putin's reign. 

[Raider5678]

42 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Besides a musket v musket is a winnable fight with enough numbers, sidearm v tanks/drones aren't, despite numbers.

 

Because nothing is worth fighting unless you can win.

 

 

Also, there have been 6 revolutions in the world against regimes since 1990 that have succeeded. Albeit, Russia is definitely more equipped than them, but even then they lost Ukraine.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Raider5678

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The reality is that in an oppressed society there are always significant portions of the country that benefit from the corruption. So on all levels (local and national) you have people working to ensure the status quo. Under Saddam Baath party members had it good for example. Today in Russia it seems the oligarchs are enjoying Putin's reign. 

There's always more people than oligarchs and oligarchs would rather kill for their beliefs than die for them.

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

Because nothing is worth fighting unless you can win.

And that's why the oppressive government will eventually fail because a martyr fights anyway. 

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And that's why the oppressive government will eventually fail because a martyr fights anyway. 

 

Define eventually.

50 years?

100 years?

200 years?

500 years?

 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

Define eventually.

50 years?

100 years?

200 years?

500 years?

 

Does it matter?

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Does it matter?

Yes.

How many generations are you willing to allow to be suppressed before you say "No more."

How many generations are you willing to allow to be slaves before you say "No more."

How many generations have to live in darkness and suffering before you say "No more."

 

Violence isn't always the answer. I agree.

However sometimes it is.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Raider5678

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

Yes.

How many generations are you willing to allow to be suppressed before you say "No more."

How many generations are you willing to allow to be slaves before you say "No more."

How many generations have to live in darkness and suffering before you say "No more."

Once more with the strawman:

You say no more and point a gun at a tank, how does that help?

I say no more and stand unarmed in front of one; Which do you think will be successful?

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Once more with the strawman:

You say no more and point a gun at a tank, how does that help?

I say no more and stand unarmed in front of one; Which do you think will be successful?

 

You ever hear of a Molotov cocktail? Very effective against tanks.

 

And in a reigme that will just shoot you and move on, which do you think will be successful?

 

 

If you, and a hundred others do it, and just get executed, what does that help?

The government doesn't care if you die, so at which point do you realize that yes, martyrs make a point, but no, they aren't helping anyone.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Raider5678

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

You ever hear of a Molotov cocktail? Very effective against tanks.

 

Really?

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

And in a reigme that will just shoot you and move on, which do you think will be successful?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

 

Yes. Now they have a government controlled internet.

Government-controlled media.

And best of all, a justice system that makes suggestions instead of rulings.

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The government doesn't care if you die, so at which point do you realize that yes, martyrs make a point, but no, they aren't helping anyone.

 

How come they didn't just shoot him and move on (or just move on)?
 

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Yes. Now they have a government controlled internet.

Government-controlled media.

And best of all, a justice system that makes suggestions instead of rulings.

What makes you think that's new?

Edited March 20, 2018 by dimreepr