Truly Dubya saw into this man's soul! :cry:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gC6uNWOZbzqGxy9Fr5cSLIdd7_Pw?docId=3719e530175843d981a7ecd748bf1287
QuoteA tearful Putin claims Russian election victory
By LYNN BERRY, Associated Press – 25 minutes ago
MOSCOW (AP) — Vladimir Putin scored a decisive victory in Russia's presidential election Sunday to return to the Kremlin and extend his hold on power for six more years. His eyes brimming with tears, he defiantly proclaimed to a sea of supporters that they had triumphed over opponents intent on "destroying Russia's statehood and usurping power."
Putin's win was never in doubt as many across the vast country still see him as a guarantor of stability and the defender of a strong Russia against a hostile world, an image he has carefully cultivated during 12 years in power.
Accounts by independent observers of extensive vote-rigging, however, looked set to strengthen the resolve of opposition forces whose unprecedented protests in recent months have posed the first serious challenge to Putin's heavy-handed rule. Another huge demonstration was set for Monday evening in central Moscow.
Putin claimed victory Sunday night when fewer than a quarter of the votes had been counted. He spoke to a rally just outside the Kremlin walls of tens of thousands of supporters, many of them government workers or employees of state-owned companies who had been ordered to attend.
"I promised that we would win and we have won!" Putin shouted to the flag-waving crowd. "We have won in an open and honest struggle."
Putin, 59, said the election showed that "our people can easily distinguish a desire for renewal and revival from political provocations aimed at destroying Russia's statehood and usurping power."
He ended his speech with the triumphant declaration: "Glory to Russia!"
The West can expect Putin to continue the tough policies he has pursued even as prime minister, including opposing U.S. plans to build a missile shield in Europe and resisting international military intervention in Syria.
Exit polls cited by state television predicted Putin would get about 59 percent of the vote. With more than 90 percent of precincts counted nationwide, Putin was leading with 65 percent, the Central Election Commission said. Complete results were expected Monday.
Communist Party candidate Gennady Zyuganov was a distant second, followed by Mikhail Prokhorov, the billionaire owner of the New Jersey Nets basketball team whose candidacy was approved by the Kremlin in what was seen as an effort to channel some of the protest sentiment. The clownish nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky and socialist Sergei Mironov trailed behind. The leader of the liberal opposition Yabloko party was barred from the race.
"These elections are not free. ... That's why we'll have protests tomorrow. We will not recognize the president as legitimate," said Mikhail Kasyanov, who was Putin's first prime minister before going into opposition.
The wave of protests began after a December parliamentary election in which observers produced evidence of widespread vote fraud. Protest rallies in Moscow drew tens of thousands in the largest outburst of public anger in post-Soviet Russia, demonstrating growing exasperation with the pervasive corruption and tight controls over political life under Putin, who was president from 2000 to 2008 before moving into the prime minister's office due to term limits.
Golos, Russia's leading independent elections watchdog, said it received numerous reports of "carousel voting," in which busloads of voters are driven around to cast ballots multiple times.
After the polls closed, Golos said the number of violations appeared just as high as in December.
"If during the parliamentary elections, we saw a great deal of ballot-box stuffing and carousel voting ... this time we saw the deployment of more subtle technologies," said Andrei Buzin, who heads the monitoring operations at Golos.
Alexei Navalny, one of the opposition's most charismatic leaders, said observers trained by his organization also reported seeing carousel voting and other violations.
A first-round victory was politically important for Putin, serving as proof that he retains majority support.
"They decided that a second round would be bad, unreliable and would show weakness," Navalny said. "That's why they ... falsified the elections."
There was no evidence that the scale of any election fraud was high enough to have pushed Putin over the 50 percent mark and saved him from a runoff.
Putin's campaign chief, Stanislav Govorukhin, rejected the claims of violations, calling them "ridiculous."
Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, has become increasingly critical of Putin's rule. "These are not going to be honest elections, but we must not relent," he said after casting his ballot.
Putin has dismissed the protesters' demands, casting them as a coddled minority of urban elites manipulated by leaders working at the behest of the West. His claims that the United States was behind the protests spoke to his base of blue-collar workers, farmers and state employees, who are suspicious of Western intentions after years of state propaganda.
"Putin is a brave and persistent man who can resist the U.S. and EU pressure," said Anastasia Lushnikova, a 20-year-old student who voted for Putin in the southern city of Rostov-on-Don.
Putin played the same polarizing tune on Sunday, thanking the workers at a tank factory in Nizhny Tagil for their support, saying that "a man of labor is a head above any loafer or windbag."
He made generous social promises during his campaign and initiated limited political reforms to try to assuage public anger. His spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said Sunday that Putin will push ahead with the reforms, but he firmly ruled out any "Gorbachev-style liberal spasms."
Putin had promised that the vote would be fair, and election officials allowed more observers to monitor the vote. Tens of thousands of Russians, most of them politically active for the first time, volunteered to be election observers, receiving training on how to recognize vote-rigging and record and report violations.
Zyuganov, the Communist candidate, told reporters after the polls closed that he would not recognize the vote, calling it "illegitimate, unfair and non-transparent."
His campaign chief, Ivan Melnikov, claimed that election officials had set up numerous additional polling stations and alleged that hundreds of thousands of voters cast ballots at the ones in Moscow alone.
Prokhorov said on Channel One television after the vote that his observers had been kept away from some polling stations and were beaten on two occasions.
Oksana Dmitriyeva, a parliamentary deputy from Mironov's party, tweeted that they saw "numerous cases of observers being expelled from polling stations" across St. Petersburg just before the vote count.
Web cameras were installed in Russia's more than 90,000 polling stations, a move initiated by Putin in response to complaints of ballot stuffing and falsified vote counts in December's parliamentary elections.
It was unclear to what extent the cameras were effective. The election observation mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe noted skepticism in a report on election preparations.
The OSCE, which fielded about 220 observers, was to present its findings on Monday.
Unlike in Moscow and other big cities, where independent observers showed up en masse, in Russia's North Caucasus and some other regions election officials were largely left to their own devices.
A web camera at a polling station in Dagestan, a Caucasus province near Chechnya, registered unidentified people tossing ballot after ballot into boxes. The Central Election Commission quickly responded to the video, which was posted on the Internet, saying the results from the station will be invalidated.
Putin got more than 90 percent of the vote in several Caucasus provinces, including 99.8 percent in Chechnya.
The police presence was heavy throughout Moscow and other Russian cities Sunday. There were no immediate reports of trouble, although police arrested three young women who stripped to the waist at the polling station where Putin cast his ballot; one of them had the word "thief" written on her bare body.
In Dagestan, where attacks by Islamic militants occur on a daily basis, gunmen raided a polling station, killing three police officers. One of the assailants was also killed, according to police.
Associated Press writers Jim Heintz, Maria Danilova, Nataliya Vasilyeva, Mansur Mirovalev, Peter Leonard and Sofia Javed in Moscow and Sergei Venyavsky in Rostov-on-Don contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
John Boehner must be pissed that Putin has stolen his schtick.
Quote from: Viking on March 04, 2012, 08:19:29 PM
John Boehner must be pissed that Putin has stolen his schtick.
I think you confused Boehner with someone else.
Poor Russia. The Russian national nightmare continues. They can't get rid of this guy. :glare:
Stalin wasn't the last czar, after all. I look forward to more Putin PR photo ops. The man is capable of literally anything.
What happens to Medvedev now? Will he be liquidated now that he's of no use?
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 11:08:48 AM
Stalin wasn't the last czar, after all. I look forward to more Putin PR photo ops. The man is capable of literally anything.
What happens to Medvedev now? Will he be liquidated now that he's of no use?
I imagine there is always a place for a loyal crony.
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 11:08:48 AM
Stalin wasn't the last czar, after all. I look forward to more Putin PR photo ops. The man is capable of literally anything.
What happens to Medvedev now? Will he be liquidated now that he's of no use?
Why would you liquidate him? Medvedev is known to be reform-minded, and is also utterly ineffective and powerless: he's perfect for the role of Putin's #2.
He was only crying because the Botox prevents him from blinking.
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2012, 11:23:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 11:08:48 AM
Stalin wasn't the last czar, after all. I look forward to more Putin PR photo ops. The man is capable of literally anything.
What happens to Medvedev now? Will he be liquidated now that he's of no use?
Why would you liquidate him? Medvedev is known to be reform-minded, and is also utterly ineffective and powerless: he's perfect for the role of Putin's #2.
Plus he fits easily into most overhead storage bins.
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 11:08:48 AM
Stalin wasn't the last czar, after all. I look forward to more Putin PR photo ops. The man is capable of literally anything.
What happens to Medvedev now? Will he be liquidated now that he's of no use?
Medvedev is supposed to swap into the PM's chair that Putin had...but probably unlikely to sit there for Putin's entire reign.
I think he is safe though...Medvedev has been loyal, and Putin tends to reward loyalty (and punish disloyalty harshly, of course).
Hey DG, any idea what the average Russian thinks of Putin? There are some positive things in his reign. The economy has done much better and the Chechens have been suppressed. Many of the hated Oligarchs have been destroyed (if only to be replaced by more loyal, lower profile ones). All it cost was a bit of liberty. I wonder how a Putin type figure would do in the US. It's not something pleasant to think of.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2012, 10:17:18 PM
I wonder how a Putin type figure would do in the US. It's not something pleasant to think of.
Going by what Putin did the first time around, he wouldn't last half his term.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2012, 10:17:18 PM
Hey DG, any idea what the average Russian thinks of Putin? There are some positive things in his reign. The economy has done much better and the Chechens have been suppressed. Many of the hated Oligarchs have been destroyed (if only to be replaced by more loyal, lower profile ones). All it cost was a bit of liberty. I wonder how a Putin type figure would do in the US. It's not something pleasant to think of.
I don't know what the average Russian thinks. Internet and social media can only give you a glimpse into the mind of an above-average Russian. My guess, given my knowledge of Russian psyche, is that the average Russian is happy to diss Putin in the kitchen from time to time with moderate annoyance, but doesn't think that Russia has an alternative. The average Russian doesn't realize that having Putins in power is one way to ensure that there will never be an alternative to Putins.
Putin.. :lol:
Would you like some butterscotch putin
I'm putin my pants.
Jello-Putin
Putin on the Ritz.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2012, 10:17:18 PM
I wonder how a Putin type figure would do in the US. It's not something pleasant to think of.
We may have had a number of Putins in our history as presidents. The difference is that the level of power US president has in domestic politics is not enough to usurp power so nakedly and so obviously, and US populace, for all its faults, is way less likely to let him get away with it without destroying his legitimacy.
Still dont like Russians. Probably never will. Just Euro-Hillbillies.
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 10:37:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2012, 10:17:18 PM
I wonder how a Putin type figure would do in the US. It's not something pleasant to think of.
Going by what Putin did the first time around, he wouldn't last half his term.
Really? What do you mean?
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 05, 2012, 10:42:56 PM
Putin on the Ritz.
Haven't we Putin huff puns on the page already?
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2012, 10:40:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2012, 10:17:18 PM
Hey DG, any idea what the average Russian thinks of Putin? There are some positive things in his reign. The economy has done much better and the Chechens have been suppressed. Many of the hated Oligarchs have been destroyed (if only to be replaced by more loyal, lower profile ones). All it cost was a bit of liberty. I wonder how a Putin type figure would do in the US. It's not something pleasant to think of.
I don't know what the average Russian thinks. Internet and social media can only give you a glimpse into the mind of an above-average Russian. My guess, given my knowledge of Russian psyche, is that the average Russian is happy to diss Putin in the kitchen from time to time with moderate annoyance, but doesn't think that Russia has an alternative. The average Russian doesn't realize that having Putins in power is one way to ensure that there will never be an alternative to Putins.
Was at a speech here recently by a professor at the local grad school discussing the then upcoming election, and she was showing polling data (from what she considered probably the only independent, and somewhat anti-government polling organization)...most interesting was from the question "Who do think would best solve Russia's problems?"....Putin got about 14%, with the rest not more than 5%. The big winner was "None of them" at 40%-ish.
I tend to think Putin is mostly considered among most Russians to be the "safe" choice for managing stability, something I tend to think Russians desire most these days. The second-placing communist candidate, Zyuganov probably well represents mostly the older generation (and to a much lesser extent, young commies).
Also interesting to note...districts in the northern Caucuses were pulling in over 90% for Putin. I guess terrorists and combatants don't vote, and those that do want Putin around to knock them around when necessary. :P
But for the most part, I get the impression that the elections in Russia are not really rigged that much (for localized shenanigans, our suck pretty well too)....but then, I think Putin knows very well that they don't need to be, and is suave enough to know that unrealistically high numbers would just be stupid (like the Kazakhstani president's last results well over 90%, or Lukashenko's).
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 05, 2012, 11:25:47 PM
Also interesting to note...districts in the northern Caucuses were pulling in over 90% for Putin. I guess terrorists and combatants don't vote, and those that do want Putin around to knock them around when necessary. :P
I think in Chechnya Putin got 99.57% of the vote with 95% turnout. Outstanding.
They're rigged, they're just rigged long before the voting ever starts. When it comes time to vote, they are only rigged a little bit on the election day.
What a surprise result :o
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 06, 2012, 12:25:21 AM
Fashion sits in Putin's lap? :unsure:
Yes.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fweb05%2F2012%2F3%2F4%2F15%2Fenhanced-buzz-22854-1330891883-51.jpg&hash=0b2dbdb469650b3bd970a7cc6e3df5cd03e86fbb)
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/27-reasons-why-putin-definitely-won-the-russian-pr
Is he really cleaning the teeth in #8? Looks like interrogation to me. And :lol: at #25.
I love number 12.
11 my favourite for some reason
Putin is such a great villain.
#7 was my favorite.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2012, 10:17:18 PM
I wonder how a Putin type figure would do in the US.
He resigned on August 9, 1974.
He appears to be the Russian version of, "The Most Interesting Man in the World."
He should do beer commercials
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2012, 07:23:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2012, 10:17:18 PM
I wonder how a Putin type figure would do in the US.
He resigned on August 9, 1974.
I don't think so. While both are center right politicians, Nixons flaw was that he lacked the supreme self-confidence of other Presidents. He never thought he was good enough, so he would cut corners and overstep boundaries. He seemed to feel he needed to do this to even the odds.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 07:58:51 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2012, 07:23:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2012, 10:17:18 PM
I wonder how a Putin type figure would do in the US.
He resigned on August 9, 1974.
I don't think so. While both are center right politicians, Nixons flaw was that he lacked the supreme self-confidence of other Presidents. He never thought he was good enough, so he would cut corners and overstep boundaries. He seemed to feel he needed to do this to even the odds.
You've watched too many sympathetic bio pics, you fucking tool. Never thought he was good enough. Nigger, please.
How many sympathetic bio pics have there been? The man was wasted most of his second term. He was self medicating. He just couldn't handle it anymore. That guy was neurotic all his life and the Presidency caused him to have a nervous breakdown. This does not excuse his actions, but he wasn't some sort of evil overlord type villain or cackling maniac. He was Woody Allen who instead of fucking his daughter was spying on perceived enemies.
Nixon4NFLCommissioner
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2012, 11:03:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 10:37:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2012, 10:17:18 PM
I wonder how a Putin type figure would do in the US. It's not something pleasant to think of.
Going by what Putin did the first time around, he wouldn't last half his term.
Really? What do you mean?
He'd be impeached for, among other things, grabbing so much power for the executive branch. Nixon doesn't come anywhere close to Putin.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 06, 2012, 12:40:57 AM
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/27-reasons-why-putin-definitely-won-the-russian-pr
His shirtless thing is straight out of Mussolini's photo op playbook.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 07:58:51 AM
I don't think so. While both are center right politicians, Nixons flaw was that he lacked the supreme self-confidence of other Presidents. He never thought he was good enough, so he would cut corners and overstep boundaries. He seemed to feel he needed to do this to even the odds.
This is nonsense. You don't become President if you lack supreme self-confidence. You certainly don't become President and try to be a twentieth century Metternich if you lack it. Also you don't have crazy things like CREEP and breaking into Watergate unless you've got a lot of self confidence. He cut corners and overstepped because he thought he could.
Nixon's politics may have been motivated by resentment and paranoia. He may have been an exceptionally needy man. But none of that suggests he lacked self confidence. He was not overawed by anyone in his time in office that I can think of, unlike, say Kennedy or Reagan at times.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 10:15:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2012, 11:03:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2012, 10:37:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2012, 10:17:18 PM
I wonder how a Putin type figure would do in the US. It's not something pleasant to think of.
Going by what Putin did the first time around, he wouldn't last half his term.
Really? What do you mean?
He'd be impeached for, among other things, grabbing so much power for the executive branch. Nixon doesn't come anywhere close to Putin.
I'm not so sure. During the last decade conservatives were writing about how we need a more "muscular" presidency, and cheered the grabbing of power by Bush.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2012, 05:57:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 07:58:51 AM
I don't think so. While both are center right politicians, Nixons flaw was that he lacked the supreme self-confidence of other Presidents. He never thought he was good enough, so he would cut corners and overstep boundaries. He seemed to feel he needed to do this to even the odds.
This is nonsense. You don't become President if you lack supreme self-confidence. You certainly don't become President and try to be a twentieth century Metternich if you lack it. Also you don't have crazy things like CREEP and breaking into Watergate unless you've got a lot of self confidence. He cut corners and overstepped because he thought he could.
Nixon's politics may have been motivated by resentment and paranoia. He may have been an exceptionally needy man. But none of that suggests he lacked self confidence. He was not overawed by anyone in his time in office that I can think of, unlike, say Kennedy or Reagan at times.
I didn't say he lacked any self confidence, I said he lacked that almost messianic self confidence you see in Presidents. Watergate was not an act of confident man. It was an act of a man who felt persecuted and desperate. You don't engage in desperate measures if you think you are invincible.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 06:19:24 PM
I'm not so sure. During the last decade conservatives were writing about how we need a more "muscular" presidency, and cheered the grabbing of power by Bush.
I buy into the whole Imperial Presidency theory. I think the executive does far too much and Congress has allowed itself to be emasculated. But nothing on the scale of Putin's changes. For example he replaced elections for Governors (and I think Mayors) with appointment by the Kremlin which isn't subject to scrutiny by the Duma. That's a million miles from what conservatives would want in the US or what would be plausible in the US.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 06:23:34 PM
I didn't say he lacked any self confidence, I said he lacked that almost messianic self confidence you see in Presidents. Watergate was not an act of confident man. It was an act of a man who felt persecuted and desperate. You don't engage in desperate measures if you think you are invincible.
QuoteNixons flaw was that he lacked the supreme self-confidence
He had that. He became President. He saw his role as President as being a chess grandmaster on the world stage not dealing with pissant issues like domestic politics. He went for Watergate and the like because he thought he could get away with it.
Watergate wasn't an act of desperation. The checkers speech and the end of his Presidency are desperate, self-effacing, humiliating attempts at keeping power. Watergate ain't. It's the act of a man who feels invincible and immune. It's what a confident gangster, like Putin, would do.
I don't doubt that he had a sense of persecution. You maybe right that he didn't have that messianic zeal to change the world and America that most other politicians have, at least not in a straightforward way. But I don't think that's the largest of his flaws.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2012, 06:23:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 06:19:24 PM
I'm not so sure. During the last decade conservatives were writing about how we need a more "muscular" presidency, and cheered the grabbing of power by Bush.
I buy into the whole Imperial Presidency theory. I think the executive does far too much and Congress has allowed itself to be emasculated. But nothing on the scale of Putin's changes. For example he replaced elections for Governors (and I think Mayors) with appointment by the Kremlin which isn't subject to scrutiny by the Duma. That's a million miles from what conservatives would want in the US or what would be plausible in the US.
The US is not in dire straits. Russia had just collapsed in the 1990's and was in really bad shape. If the US was in bad shape, would people go for a Putin? I think it's possible. After all, who did he target? Journalists, Muslims, and robber barons. Not exactly the most popular people in the US. Remember, the US once incarcerated 100,000 of it's own citizens due to their Japanese background. A bit more distantly a US President illegally force migrated the Cherokee.
Remember when I created a poll that asked if you would rather be rich in an unfree state or poor in a free one? Most people on Languish chose to be rich in an unfree state. The standard of living has risen in Russia quite a bit since 1999...
Watergate didn't happen because Nixon underestimated himself. Watergate happened because he overestimated both himself and his enemies.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2012, 06:28:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 06:23:34 PM
I didn't say he lacked any self confidence, I said he lacked that almost messianic self confidence you see in Presidents. Watergate was not an act of confident man. It was an act of a man who felt persecuted and desperate. You don't engage in desperate measures if you think you are invincible.
QuoteNixons flaw was that he lacked the supreme self-confidence
He had that. He became President. He saw his role as President as being a chess grandmaster on the world stage not dealing with pissant issues like domestic politics. He went for Watergate and the like because he thought he could get away with it.
Watergate wasn't an act of desperation. The checkers speech and the end of his Presidency are desperate, self-effacing, humiliating attempts at keeping power. Watergate ain't. It's the act of a man who feels invincible and immune. It's what a confident gangster, like Putin, would do.
I don't doubt that he had a sense of persecution. You maybe right that he didn't have that messianic zeal to change the world and America that most other politicians have, at least not in a straightforward way. But I don't think that's the largest of his flaws.
A confident gangster doesn't worry about pissant psychologists and things like that. As the tole of the Presidency weighed on him, he was took to heavy drinking. He didn't think he was up to the task, and he was afraid everyone else would find that out. The irony was, that he was in fact more competent then say JFK. It was this insecurity that destroyed him.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 06:34:00 PM
The US is not in dire straits. Russia had just collapsed in the 1990's and was in really bad shape. If the US was in bad shape, would people go for a Putin? I think it's possible. After all, who did he target? Journalists, Muslims, and robber barons. Not exactly the most popular people in the US. Remember, the US once incarcerated 100,000 of it's own citizens due to their Japanese background. A bit more distantly a US President illegally force migrated the Cherokee.
Remember when I created a poll that asked if you would rather be rich in an unfree state or poor in a free one? Most people on Languish chose to be rich in an unfree state. The standard of living has risen in Russia quite a bit since 1999...
Ok. This is changing the subject though. What does the internment of the Japanese or the Trail of Tears have to do with conservatives arguing for a muscular executive? All countries can commit atrocities and they can all fall for a dangerous anti-democratic national saviour.
But I don't think American conservatives are a natural constituency for that sort of an executive and I think culture and institutions matter. The culture, the constitution, the heritage and the institutions of the US create a lot of buffers between electing someone like Putin and him being able to achieve what he has in Russia, without being impeached. As I say there is a world of difference between the Bush era imperial Presidency and the trend towards increased executive power, and the sort of executive power that the Russian President has.
Bluntly I think if your point is that Putin could happen in the US and have similar effects, not least because of the dangerous yearnings of American conservatives then it's wrong. If it's that all nations can do bad things and fall for a dodgy guy in a leather jacket, then it's banal.
I agree that life's got better in Russia and that pride has been restored. I don't think it's madness for many Russians genuinely to vote for Putin despite the corruption and the gangsterism that's rife in the state. It was better than what went before. Those memories will still be raw. He just games the system by making sure there's no credible opposition.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 06:37:45 PM
A confident gangster doesn't worry about pissant psychologists and things like that.
You've clearly never seen The Sopranos :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2012, 06:43:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 06:37:45 PM
A confident gangster doesn't worry about pissant psychologists and things like that.
You've clearly never seen The Sopranos :P
Not the best gauge on how organized crime works. Trust me.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 06:37:45 PMHe didn't think he was up to the task, and he was afraid everyone else would find that out.
Sounds like the man was a good judge of character.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2012, 06:43:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 06:34:00 PM
The US is not in dire straits. Russia had just collapsed in the 1990's and was in really bad shape. If the US was in bad shape, would people go for a Putin? I think it's possible. After all, who did he target? Journalists, Muslims, and robber barons. Not exactly the most popular people in the US. Remember, the US once incarcerated 100,000 of it's own citizens due to their Japanese background. A bit more distantly a US President illegally force migrated the Cherokee.
Remember when I created a poll that asked if you would rather be rich in an unfree state or poor in a free one? Most people on Languish chose to be rich in an unfree state. The standard of living has risen in Russia quite a bit since 1999...
Ok. This is changing the subject though. What does the internment of the Japanese or the Trail of Tears have to do with conservatives arguing for a muscular executive? All countries can commit atrocities and they can all fall for a dangerous anti-democratic national saviour.
But I don't think American conservatives are a natural constituency for that sort of an executive and I think culture and institutions matter. The culture, the constitution, the heritage and the institutions of the US create a lot of buffers between electing someone like Putin and him being able to achieve what he has in Russia, without being impeached. As I say there is a world of difference between the Bush era imperial Presidency and the trend towards increased executive power, and the sort of executive power that the Russian President has.
Bluntly I think if your point is that Putin could happen in the US and have similar effects, not least because of the dangerous yearnings of American conservatives then it's wrong. If it's that all nations can do bad things and fall for a dodgy guy in a leather jacket, then it's banal.
I agree that life's got better in Russia and that pride has been restored. I don't think it's madness for many Russians genuinely to vote for Putin despite the corruption and the gangsterism that's rife in the state. It was better than what went before. Those memories will still be raw. He just games the system by making sure there's no credible opposition.
I think some countries and some people are more susceptible to this sort of thing. I think the US is more susceptible then we'd like to believe. I also think that some people in the conservative camp aren't that keen on Democracy. I remember Hans posted one of articles from the NRO about Hong Kong. The author argued that the government there should not engage in democratic reforms as it threatened the purity of the free market. I remember Hans himself railing against the social contract. These things bother me. I kept his rant in my sig all of last year. I fear a distrust of democracy in Conservative camp. Particularly in the libertarian side. I think they see the poor masses as parasites who will use their superior numbers to vote the affluent or the potentially affluent out of their income.
As to your question of what Japanese internment has to do with it, I remember Ms. Malkin, a Conservative pundit used the internment of Japanese as a positive example during the Bush administration. It seems to me the sort manifestation of the "Muscular Presidency", they were talking about.
lol
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 08:53:54 PM
lol
Which would you rather be? Rich and powerful in an unfree state or poor and impotent in a free one?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 09:06:08 PMWhich would you rather be? Rich and powerful in an unfree state or poor and impotent in a free one?
Which of those describes Putin's Russia? Even the rich are only as powerful as their sponsor, whoever that is, in the Kremlin or FSB allows them to be.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 09:06:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 08:53:54 PM
lol
Which would you rather be? Rich and powerful in an unfree state or poor and impotent in a free one?
I would have thrived in the Reich. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 06, 2012, 09:09:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 09:06:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 08:53:54 PM
lol
Which would you rather be? Rich and powerful in an unfree state or poor and impotent in a free one?
I would have thrived in the Reich. :)
You would've been a Goering, all bloated and collecting shit.
:D
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2012, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 09:06:08 PMWhich would you rather be? Rich and powerful in an unfree state or poor and impotent in a free one?
Which of those describes Putin's Russia? Even the rich are only as powerful as their sponsor, whoever that is, in the Kremlin or FSB allows them to be.
Did you see that recent 4-part bbc documentary about Putin, there's a classic scene were he descends on a cement factor at the centre of a conflict between the workers and the billionaire owner; he summons them to a meeting and insists the owner reopens to factory, demands he sign it then and there, and you can almost see the fear in the eyes of this hugely wealthy man. Of whom in western democracies would be routinely fated by the political classes.
I missed it, which is a shame. I heard it was brilliant.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2012, 09:31:57 PM
I missed it, which is a shame. I heard it was brilliant.
Yes it was. The insider talking heads about Georgia were fascinating.
edit:
Looks like a couple of people have uploaded the whole series onto youtube here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-NgW3Q7OYU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-NgW3Q7OYU&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS1sGhdt-Xk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS1sGhdt-Xk)
best to watch them quick before the bbc takes them down.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2012, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 09:06:08 PMWhich would you rather be? Rich and powerful in an unfree state or poor and impotent in a free one?
Which of those describes Putin's Russia? Even the rich are only as powerful as their sponsor, whoever that is, in the Kremlin or FSB allows them to be.
I think the standard of living has increased rather dramatically since 1999. Rich and powerful is more broad though, that was addressing my suspicions of libertarian conservatism.
There is a dichotomy here that has haunted the US since it's birth. The conflict where a man will shout about any perceived transgression of their rights while being uninterested in the plight of a neighbor who lives in chattel slavery. Libertarianism of the Conservative variety embodies some of these problems. It is inherently selfish and regards property rights over political rights. Or perhaps it simply does not care about the rights of others.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 10:09:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2012, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 09:06:08 PMWhich would you rather be? Rich and powerful in an unfree state or poor and impotent in a free one?
Which of those describes Putin's Russia? Even the rich are only as powerful as their sponsor, whoever that is, in the Kremlin or FSB allows them to be.
I think the standard of living has increased rather dramatically since 1999. Rich and powerful is more broad though, that was addressing my suspicions of libertarian conservatism.
There is a dichotomy here that has haunted the US since it's birth. The conflict where a man will shout about any perceived transgression of their rights while being uninterested in the plight of a neighbor who lives in chattel slavery. Libertarianism of the Conservative variety embodies some of these problems. It is inherently selfish and regards property rights over political rights. Or perhaps it simply does not care about the rights of others.
Free market would've freed the slaves if we just gave it a chance. Slaves would've weighed their options, and then decided that being free would be more profitable than being enslaved.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 10:09:59 PM
I think the standard of living has increased rather dramatically since 1999. Rich and powerful is more broad though, that was addressing my suspicions of libertarian conservatism.
There is a dichotomy here that has haunted the US since it's birth. The conflict where a man will shout about any perceived transgression of their rights while being uninterested in the plight of a neighbor who lives in chattel slavery. Libertarianism of the Conservative variety embodies some of these problems. It is inherently selfish and regards property rights over political rights. Or perhaps it simply does not care about the rights of others.
Standard of living's hugely increased. As I said earlier I think there's many good reasons for Russians to vote Putin (not least the lack of effective opposition, which is by design).
I think you're wrong on the rest. You've an axe to grind, which is fine. But I think you've gone off in the wrong direction with this whole Putin-Libertarianism-Conservatism-Undemocracy tangent. I just don't get it.
On Libertarianism and the Presidency, Cato are giving free downloads of the Cult of the Presidency, which is worth reading:
http://www.cato.org/cult-of-the-presidency/