What's important?

[hoosboot]

The simplest example that came to mind earlier is the World Cup. A failed state is lucky to have a functional domestic football stadium. In the event that they do have a functional stadium, they are lucky if games are able to take place without being subject to terrorism/shooting.

The classic cases of failed states are places like Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan outside of Kabul. NW Pakistan. Lack of control is exactly it. There is basically no functioning state. it's borderline anarchy. The standard to be a failed state is rather high. (or rather low if you know what I mean)

There are tons of states without free and fair elections that are no where near failed states. There are also states with relatively free and fair elections who are closer to failed status. I.e. Philippines. India is arguably closer to a failed state than Russia.

About IP laws... In guessing you mention that because of your company business. That's not one of the main criteria for a failed state. Very far down the list. Typical things in a failed state are lack of access to potable water, electricity, toilets that flush, and actual warlords.

@hoosboot what on Earth is my worldview?! It's funny because I just asked myself that question and could not immediately come up with an answer. If I don't have an immediate answer, then how did you determine that our worldviews are diametrically opposed? How do you even define worldview? In what context?

Furthermore, why the need for the potshot in a completely unrelated topic? That's unbecoming of you.

Apologies if I offended, but I think your offense is unwarranted. It was not intended as a potshot in any way. I just find I don't generally agree with you on a great many things politically. So, I was merely saying that, while I don't agree with you on many things, I agree with you that Russia is not a "failed state". My bad if I expressed that ineffectively, but FWIW there are plenty of people here whose worldview I don't agree with (and who don't agree with mine.)

 

[toastedbread]

Apologies if I offended, but I think your offense is unwarranted. It was not intended as a potshot in any way. I just find I don't generally agree with you on a great many things politically. So, I was merely saying that, while I don't agree with you on many things, I agree with you that Russia is not a "failed state". My bad if I expressed that ineffectively, but FWIW there are plenty of people here whose worldview I don't agree with (and who don't agree with mine.)

No worries. I just found the qualifier be a bit odd as if there is something inherently wrong about agreeing with me. Plus, we were discussing a definition and not something explicitly subjective.

Fyi, polticial views and world views are not necessarily the same. I'm still confused what exactly ones world view is. Anyhow, wrt our political differences... We both voted for the same presidential candidate and probably we share much more in common politically than you think. Actually, I would guarantee we agree on the majority of issues. In all likelihood, the cases where we differ appear more visible to you and thus you recall them, but the issues/instances where we agree are less visible/controversial so you dont notice/remember them. The same applies to myself as well. Also, I will add that some of my views have evolved over the past number of years.

 

[toastedbread]

@hoosboot

N.B. this idea about the highlighting of differences extends beyond our small tribe.

See here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...u-think/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f67206af0d2d

In all likelihood, most cooler posters across parties agree on issues more than they disagree(Even Trump v Hillary supporters), but what's raised here is always the juicy stuff that pits one against another. Boring, agreeable issues don't sell.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

The simplest example that came to mind earlier is the World Cup. A failed state is lucky to have a functional domestic football stadium. In the event that they do have a functional stadium, they are lucky if games are able to take place without being subject to terrorism/shooting.

The classic cases of failed states are places like Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan outside of Kabul. NW Pakistan. Lack of control is exactly it. There is basically no functioning state. it's borderline anarchy.

I think, while you may be right that those meet the textbook definition of “failed state”, it doesn’t inform anything to list those as examples of true failures. Those are countries that are so far down the rabbit hole that they’re essentially hopeless states for the foreseeable future. I’m much more interested in resource-rich countries that deprive human rights, rig elections, and are combative to the outside world that doesn’t think like them. Let’s agree to call them something like “hostile non-democracies.”

To your elections point, anybody can say “Da, we has eleyections dat are fair, da”. But that doesn’t make it true. Anybody living in Turkey and Russia - except for those in power - will tell you they aren’t fair elections and are thus not a democracy.

Democratic countries do not fight each other. Monarchies and hostile non-democracies are the fight pickers. We shouldn’t conform to their world views. We stick to ours, because we are right.

 

[IUINSB]

I vote my Wallet, and Trump is doing an excellent job. People don’t have to look to a socialist government for a handout!

So, I take it you've invested heavily in rubles.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

So, I take it you've invested heavily in rubles.

Dinars

 

[toastedbread]

I think, while you may be right that those meet the textbook definition of “failed state”, it doesn’t inform anything to list those as examples of true failures. Those are countries that are so far down the rabbit hole that they’re essentially hopeless states for the foreseeable future. I’m much more interested in resource-rich countries that deprive human rights, rig elections, and are combative to the outside world that doesn’t think like them. Let’s agree to call them something like “hostile non-democracies.”

To your elections point, anybody can say “Da, we has eleyections dat are fair, da”. But that doesn’t make it true. Anybody living in Turkey and Russia - except for those in power - will tell you they aren’t fair elections and are thus not a democracy.

Democratic countries do not fight each other. Monarchies and hostile non-democracies are the fight pickers. We shouldn’t conform to their world views. We stick to ours, because we are right.

Again, that's how you define democracy. There is a continuum on which democracies/non-democracies exist. You and some experts define democracy one way, while other experts have different views. Those aren't textbook definitions. There isn't a right or wrong answer. It's a rich debate.

There are a number of countries who meet the list of resource rich, dying economy, democratically illiberal Russia is the only one with nukes.

Also, my limited understanding is that many liberal, free market capitalist Western democracies are facing the same major problem as Russia, which is that of an aging and dying population.

Re elections: again, that's your opinion. I would argue that there is a continuum. Russia is much more Democratic than Turkmenistan and North Korea. It's debatable it it meets the standard of democracy. Again, there isn't an agreed upon definition of what a democratic state is.

Your last bit is actually called the Democratic peace theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

I think you are onto something about Democratic countries not fighting each other, but it requires more variables and nuance. That's my opinion.

On an unrelated note, I would argue that countries who have trade agreements are less likely to go to war.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Again, that's how you define democracy. There is a continuum on which democracies/non-democracies exist. You and some experts define democracy one way, while other experts have different views. Those aren't textbook definitions. There isn't a right or wrong answer. It's a rich debate.

There are a number of countries who meet the list of resource rich, dying economy, democratically illiberal Russia is the only one with nukes.

Also, my limited understanding is that many liberal, free market capitalist Western democracies are facing the same major problem as Russia, which is that of an aging and dying population.

Re elections: again, that's your opinion. I would argue that there is a continuum. Russia is much more Democratic than Turkmenistan and North Korea. It's debatable it it meets the standard of democracy. Again, there isn't an agreed upon definition of what a democratic state is.

Your last bit is actually called the Democratic peace theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

I think you are onto something about Democratic countries not fighting each other, but it requires more variables and nuance. That's my opinion.

On an unrelated note, I would argue that countries who have trade agreements are less likely to go to war.

I truly don’t understand how you’re arguing about fair elections and saying that the presence of rigged elections can still mean democracy. It can’t and it doesn’t.

And yes, I single Russia out as our number one geopolitical foe because they are the least democratic (approaching zero) nation with long range high yield nuclear weapons and they are hellbent on weakening our alliances and shifting more countries to their way of life.

Rigged elections are not elections. Period. I don’t see how this is “my opinion.”

 

[toastedbread]

I truly don’t understand how you’re arguing about fair elections and saying that the presence of rigged elections can still mean democracy. It can’t and it doesn’t.

And yes, I single Russia out as our number one geopolitical for because they are the least democratic (approaching zero) nation with long range high yield nuclear weapons and they are hellbent on weakening our alliances and shifting more countries to their way of life.

Rigged elections are not elections. Period. I don’t see how this is “my opinion.”

There is a difference between literally "rigged" elections and elections that are not free and not fair, but also not rigged.

I would argue that Russian elections are not free and not fair, but they do reflect the Democratic will of the people. That is not a rigged election. A rigged election is when the ballots are thrown out in the trash and the state media announces whatever result they desire.

Edit: by not free and not fair, I'm talking about things like no free press reporting of electoral candidates, limiting opposition candidates, etc.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Again, that's how you define democracy. There is a continuum on which democracies/non-democracies exist. You and some experts define democracy one way, while other experts have different views. Those aren't textbook definitions. There isn't a right or wrong answer. It's a rich debate.

There are a number of countries who meet the list of resource rich, dying economy, democratically illiberal Russia is the only one with nukes.

Also, my limited understanding is that many liberal, free market capitalist Western democracies are facing the same major problem as Russia, which is that of an aging and dying population.

Re elections: again, that's your opinion. I would argue that there is a continuum. Russia is much more Democratic than Turkmenistan and North Korea. It's debatable it it meets the standard of democracy. Again, there isn't an agreed upon definition of what a democratic state is.

Your last bit is actually called the Democratic peace theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

I think you are onto something about Democratic countries not fighting each other, but it requires more variables and nuance. That's my opinion.

On an unrelated note, I would argue that countries who have trade agreements are less likely to go to war.

You think Iran is a democracy?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

There is a difference between literally "rigged" elections and elections that are not free and not fair, but also not rigged.

I would argue that Russian elections are not free and not fair, but they do reflect the Democratic will of the people. That is not a rigged election. A rigged election is when the ballots are thrown out in the trash and the state media announces whatever result they desire.

Edit: by not free and not fair, I'm talking about things like no free press reporting of electoral candidates, limiting opposition candidates, etc.

Cite some experts that agree that Russian election reflect the democratic (it shouldn't be capitalized) of the people.

 

[toastedbread]

You think Iran is a democracy?

Iran is not a democracy. It's a theocracy with some Democratic elements. The Democratic part of Iran's domestic politics is more Democratic than most people realize. The parliamentary elections do matter and they do influence policy. One of the reasons Iran came to the negotiating table was because Rouhanis election reflected the will of the people and the non-democractically elected branch of Iran had to respond accordingly.

No offense, but you guys need to do some reading on democratization because you are basically speaking emotionally and giving off talking points

 

[toastedbread]

Cite some experts that agree that Russian election reflect the democratic (it shouldn't be capitalized) of the people.

That's my phone's spell check.

Putin is overwhelmingly popular in Russia. Are you actually debating that? Please just Google this.

Talk to your average Russian person and they probably support Putin.

Russians historically yearn for a strong leader. Putin is also fantastic at manging his image with affective propaganda. The invasion of Ukraine also significantly increased his popularity.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Iran is not a democracy. It's a theocracy with some Democratic elements. The Democratic part of Iran's domestic politics is more Democratic than most people realize. The parliamentary elections do matter and they do influence policy. One of the reasons Iran came to the negotiating table was because Rouhanis election reflected the will of the people and the non-democractically elected branch of Iran had to respond accordingly.

No offense, but you guys need to do some reading on democratization because you are basically speaking emotionally and giving off talking points

No I’m not being clear. There’s no middle road for democracy when I use the term. I’m talking full democracies. Not autocracies or anocracies. Russia is somewhere in between.

The Russians I speak to, weekly basis, are supportive and afraid of Putin. They talk about Putin in the way that people pipe up for our politicians overseas if they’re being bashed (not that I bash Putin to them - that’s not why I’m there).

These are people that know Putin as a pseudo-elected leader which they prefer to their communist and autocratic upbringing. All of my colleagues were raised in the USSR and Putin is a free man to them. Except he’s voted in via rigged elections. Thy are not on a democratic spectrum (constitutional monarchy - parliamentary- republic - true democracy, etc). They live in an auto-anocracy and they know it - but they prefer it to the USSR. This doesn’t mean they can’t and shouldn’t further evolve into a real democracy.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Iran is not a democracy. It's a theocracy with some Democratic elements. The Democratic part of Iran's domestic politics is more Democratic than most people realize. The parliamentary elections do matter and they do influence policy. One of the reasons Iran came to the negotiating table was because Rouhanis election reflected the will of the people and the non-democractically elected branch of Iran had to respond accordingly.

No offense, but you guys need to do some reading on democratization because you are basically speaking emotionally and giving off talking points

Really? You think WE are speaking emotionally?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I would argue that Russian elections are not free and not fair, but they do reflect the Democratic will of the people.

In the same way that the rule of Henry VIII reflected the democratic will of the English people, when they largely supported him because they knew he could whip off their heads at a moment's notice?

 

[toastedbread]

No I’m not being clear. There’s no middle road for democracy when I use the term. I’m talking full democracies. Not autocracies or anocracies. Russia is somewhere in between.

The Russians I speak to, weekly basis, are supportive and afraid of Putin. They talk about Putin in the way that people pipe up for our politicians overseas if they’re being bashed (not that I bash Putin to them - that’s not why I’m there).

These are people that know Putin as a pseudo-elected leader which they prefer to their communist and autocratic upbringing. All of my colleagues were raised in the USSR and Putin is a free man to them. Except he’s voted in via rigged elections. Thy are not on a democratic spectrum (constitutional monarchy - parliamentary- republic - true democracy, etc). They live in an auto-anocracy and they know it - but they prefer it to the USSR. This doesn’t mean they can’t and shouldn’t further evolve into a real democracy.

You are referring to liberal democracies. That is its own continuum. Depending on your criteria there are as few as 20 countries that are liberal democracies. For the sake of clarity, do you consider Hungary under Orban to be a full democracy? How about Poland under the PIS?

I must again note that there is a major difference between "rigged elections" and elections that are not free and fair. As best we know, Russia's elections are not rigged. Otherwise, I'll drop my point about Russia arguably being a democracy for the sake of this thread.

Your colleagues are probably educated and they live in either St. Petersburg or Moscow. Those are the largest, richest, and most liberal cities in Russia.They are the bastions of Putin opposition. Even your colleagues are kinda ok with Putin. How do you think the guys in the Russia village are feeling? Hint: He's overwhelming popular. You need to get out of the two big metros. Putin's control of the state airwaves is equivalent to seniors turning into Fox every night.

Fyi, one of the best ways to measure theoretical opposition is voter apathy. That's why leaders like Putin and Khamenei are obsessed with voter turnout.

I don't understand why you, but especially @Aloha Hoosier view everything in this context as black and white. There is a huge amount of grey with tons of nuance. And frankly you both appear pollyanna about a worldwide desire for liberal democratic governance. If we have learned anything since 9/11, it's that not all people and cultures are thirsting for Western democracy.

Really? You think WE are speaking emotionally?

I was being too generous. You haven't contributed much of anything in this thread, but the dribble you did post was absolute rubbish.

Your Iran question was prima facie emotional, baseless posting. You apparently expected that I would call Iran a democracy. I've given substantial detail in this thread and the best you've got is one line gotcha posting. Up your game.

In the same way that the rule of Henry VIII reflected the democratic will of the English people, when they largely supported him because they knew he could whip off their heads at a moment's notice?

Russians support Putin. Its not a controversial statement. There is no proverbial sword over the average Russians head. Do you get many Russians out in FW?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

You are referring to liberal democracies. That is its own continuum. Depending on your criteria there are as few as 20 countries that are liberal democracies. For the sake of clarity, do you consider Hungary under Orban to be a full democracy? How about Poland under the PIS?

I must again note that there is a major difference between "rigged elections" and elections that are not free and fair. As best we know, Russia's elections are not rigged. Otherwise, I'll drop my point about Russia arguably being a democracy for the sake of this thread.

Your colleagues are probably educated and they live in either St. Petersburg or Moscow. Those are the largest, richest, and most liberal cities in Russia.They are the bastions of Putin opposition. Even your colleagues are kinda ok with Putin. How do you think the guys in the Russia village are feeling? Hint: He's overwhelming popular. You need to get out of the two big metros. Putin's control of the state airwaves is equivalent to seniors turning into Fox every night.

Fyi, one of the best ways to measure theoretical opposition is voter apathy. That's why leaders like Putin and Khamenei are obsessed with voter turnout.

I don't understand why you, but especially @Aloha Hoosier view everything in this context as black and white. There is a huge amount of grey with tons of nuance. And frankly you both appear pollyanna about a worldwide desire for liberal democratic governance. If we have learned anything since 9/11, it's that not all people and cultures are thirsting for Western democracy.


I was being too generous. You haven't contributed much of anything in this thread, but the dribble you did post was absolute rubbish.

Your Iran question was prima facie emotional, baseless posting. You apparently expected that I would call Iran a democracy. I've given substantial detail in this thread and the best you've got is one line gotcha posting. Up your game.



Russians support Putin. Its not a controversial statement. There is no proverbial sword over the average Russians head. Do you get many Russians out in FW?

I’m not looking at this in black and white. You and I are obviously not going to agree on a simple fulcrum point of this whole conversation which is that Russian elections are clearly not fair. Everything I read says that Putin does not allow for any real competition and thus voters have no real choice. We can argue philosophically about what would happen if somebody did get more votes than he did, but that’s not going for happen because people don’t really have choices.

https://www.ft.com/content/e37624f4-2b95-11e8-9b4b-bc4b9f08f381

 

[toastedbread]

I’m not looking at this in black and white. You and I are obviously not going to agree on a simple fulcrum point of this whole conversation which is that Russian elections are clearly not fair. Everything I read says that Putin does not allow for any real competition and thus voters have no real choice. We can argue philosophically about what would happen if somebody did get more votes than he did, but that’s not going for happen because people don’t really have choices.

https://www.ft.com/content/e37624f4-2b95-11e8-9b4b-bc4b9f08f381

I agree that Russian elections are "clearly not fair" and I have state repeatedly that they are not fair. No one is even arguing that point. I took issue with your use of the phrase rigged elections. You can have an unfair election without rigged results.

My issue writ large is that it appears to me that both you and Aloha Hoosier believe that all citizens of the world desire liberal democracies. By black and I white I mean that there are continuums. It's not simply a question of democracy/autocracy. On both of these points, I strongly disagree.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I agree that Russian elections are "clearly not fair" and I have state repeatedly that they are not fair. No one is even arguing that point. I took issue with your use of the phrase rigged elections. You can have an unfair election without rigged results.

My issue writ large is that it appears to me that both you and Aloha Hoosier believe that all citizens of the world desire liberal democracies. By black and I white I mean that there are continuums. It's not simply a question of democracy/autocracy. On both of these points, I strongly disagree.

Any difference between unfair and rigged is academic at best.

Also, any citizen that desires a form of government other than democracy is one that has not experienced life in a functioning democracy. The tired trope of “some people just want to be ruled” is asinine. Historical lenses have nothing to do with ideal government for auto/anocracies.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Any difference between unfair and rigged is academic at best.

Also, any citizen that desires a form of government other than democracy is one that has not experienced life in a functioning democracy. The tired trope of “some people just want to be ruled” is asinine. Historical lenses have nothing to do with ideal government for auto/anocracies.

The entire debate reminds of a French ambassador to Russia in the 1800's saying, "Every nation gets the government it deserves".

 

[toastedbread]

Any difference between unfair and rigged is academic at best.

Nope. Huge difference between unfair electoral practices and directly rigging results. You are basically claiming that Turkmenistan and Tajikistan are as democratic as Russia. They aren't. Again, why must everything be black and white?

Also, any citizen that desires a form of government other than democracy is one that has not experienced life in a functioning democracy. The tired trope of “some people just want to be ruled” is asinine. Historical lenses have nothing to do with ideal government for auto/anocracies

We will just have to agree to disagree. For crying out loud 1/4 of Americans claim to prefer authoritarian rule.

https://qz.com/1228323/american-sup...e-has-dropped-for-the-first-time-in-23-years/

Edit: your post about democracy is exactly how you end up with an Iraq.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Nope. Huge difference between unfair electoral practices and directly rigging results. You are basically claiming that Turkmenistan and Tajikistan are as democratic as Russia. They aren't. Again, why must everything be black and white?


We will just have to agree to disagree. For crying out loud 1/4 of Americans claim to prefer authoritarian rule.

https://qz.com/1228323/american-sup...e-has-dropped-for-the-first-time-in-23-years/

Edit: your post about democracy is exactly how you end up with an Iraq.

It’s not about being black or white, it’s about no being pedantic and academic.

So if I’m Johnny Turkmen or Johnny Tajiki- what is the salient difference to me on the ground from Ivan Russky if I don’t have a choice in who becomes my president / premier / dictator? Because Ivan Russky doesn’t really have a choice either.

And to your edit: No. I would never force democracy on anybody militarily.

 

[hoosboot]

You are referring to liberal democracies. That is its own continuum. Depending on your criteria there are as few as 20 countries that are liberal democracies. For the sake of clarity, do you consider Hungary under Orban to be a full democracy? How about Poland under the PIS?

I must again note that there is a major difference between "rigged elections" and elections that are not free and fair. As best we know, Russia's elections are not rigged. Otherwise, I'll drop my point about Russia arguably being a democracy for the sake of this thread.

Your colleagues are probably educated and they live in either St. Petersburg or Moscow. Those are the largest, richest, and most liberal cities in Russia.They are the bastions of Putin opposition. Even your colleagues are kinda ok with Putin. How do you think the guys in the Russia village are feeling? Hint: He's overwhelming popular. You need to get out of the two big metros. Putin's control of the state airwaves is equivalent to seniors turning into Fox every night.

Fyi, one of the best ways to measure theoretical opposition is voter apathy. That's why leaders like Putin and Khamenei are obsessed with voter turnout.

I don't understand why you, but especially @Aloha Hoosier view everything in this context as black and white. There is a huge amount of grey with tons of nuance. And frankly you both appear pollyanna about a worldwide desire for liberal democratic governance. If we have learned anything since 9/11, it's that not all people and cultures are thirsting for Western democracy.


I was being too generous. You haven't contributed much of anything in this thread, but the dribble you did post was absolute rubbish.

Your Iran question was prima facie emotional, baseless posting. You apparently expected that I would call Iran a democracy. I've given substantial detail in this thread and the best you've got is one line gotcha posting. Up your game.



Russians support Putin. Its not a controversial statement. There is no proverbial sword over the average Russians head. Do you get many Russians out in FW?

FWIW, if I had a time machine, I would have pointed to this post as an example where I disagree with your worldview.

 

[toastedbread]

So if I’m Johnny Turkmen or Johnny Tajiki- what is the salient difference to me on the ground from Ivan Russky if I don’t have a choice in who becomes my president / premier / dictator? Because Ivan Russky doesn’t really have a choice either.

The fundamental difference is that policy wise the Russian government better reflects the will of the people. The Kremlin cares deeply about public opinion.

In Turkmenistan and Tajikistan public opinion is completely ignored. That's a major difference.

What is your response to the huge degree of support for authoritarianism in the United States. That must be suprising to you?

 

[toastedbread]

FWIW, if I had a time machine, I would have pointed to this post as an example where I disagree with your worldview.

Ok, but which part specifically do you disagree with ,and why? I haven't made a single normative judgement. I.e. I'm not claiming that what's taking place in Russia is good. It's horrendous. However, we are having a discussion about the underlying facts and assumptions.

Edit: and assuming I know where you are coming from... I ask you the same questions I'm waiting on a response from @INRanger27... Is Hungary under Orban a democracy? Is Poland under the PIS a democracy? If you say yes, I will suggest that Orban is beginning to approach Putin's level of undemocratic behavior. If you say no, then you must recognize that there are very few democracies under your definition.

 

[hoosboot]

Ok, but which part specifically do you disagree with ,and why? I haven't made a single normative judgement. I.e. I'm not claiming that what's taking place in Russia is good. It's horrendous. However, we are having a discussion about the underlying facts and assumptions.

Edit: and assuming I know where you are coming from... I ask you the same questions I'm waiting on a response from @INRanger27... Is Hungary under Orban a democracy? Is Poland under the PIS a democracy? If you say yes, I will suggest that Orban is beginning to approach Putin's level of undemocratic behavior. If you say no, then you must recognize that there are very few democracies under your definition.

"I must again note that there is a major difference between "rigged elections" and elections that are not free and fair."

"Russians support Putin. Its not a controversial statement. There is no proverbial sword over the average Russians head."

"You haven't contributed much of anything in this thread, but the dribble you did post was absolute rubbish. "

"And frankly you both appear pollyanna about a worldwide desire for liberal democratic governance."

"Your Iran question was prima facie emotional, baseless posting."

I don't know enough detail about Poland and Hungary's political constructs to offer an opinion.

 

[toastedbread]

"I must again note that there is a major difference between "rigged elections" and elections that are not free and fair."

"Russians support Putin. Its not a controversial statement. There is no proverbial sword over the average Russians head."

"You haven't contributed much of anything in this thread, but the dribble you did post was absolute rubbish. "

"And frankly you both appear pollyanna about a worldwide desire for liberal democratic governance."

"Your Iran question was prima facie emotional, baseless posting."

I don't know enough detail about Poland and Hungary's political constructs to offer an opinion.

I'm finished with this thread.

 

[hoosboot]

I'm finished with this thread.

That's probably a good idea. Don't ask the question if you don't want the answer.

 

[toastedbread]

That's probably a good idea. Don't ask the question if you don't want the answer.

Except you didn't answer the question... later.

 

[hoosboot]

Except you didn't answer the question... later.

I'm sorry you don't like the answer. I've never seen someone so distraught that I disagree with them.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Only days before Helsinki, Putin was met with the huge humiliation that Russia's F-35 countermeasure aircraft is a miserable technical failure. The Russians won't produce it. Notably, the link mentions that the SU-57 is the result of a Russian budget crunch. A crunch that will be aggravated with sanctions and competition for its sale of gas. Meanwhile, the F-35 is dominating the modern world of military aircraft.

Yesterday Russia started running video of their new wonder weapons again. A couple months ago it was footage of them hitting near Mar-a-Lago.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/07/20/eu...videos-intl/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/

 

[IUCrazy2]

Yesterday Russia started running video of their new wonder weapons again. A couple months ago it was footage of them hitting near Mar-a-Lago.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/07/20/europe/russia-new-weapons-videos-intl/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/

We have a long history of overinflating their capabilities. Like that nuclear powered cruise missile they talked about, it is basically something we thought of decades ago and it us a terrible idea.

Some articles:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/t...ggerated-russias-cold-war-super-weapons-16468

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/9/27/gap-missile-cia-soviets/#.ToOeNYsw8IQ.email

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-02/putin-nuclear-revelations-ring-hollow

I wish I could find the article now but it ran through a list of times when the Soviets had an "oh my God!" type of new weapon system and in every case it was basically a failure.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

We have a long history of overinflating their capabilities. Like that nuclear powered cruise missile they talked about, it is basically something we thought of decades ago and it us a terrible idea.

Some articles:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/t...ggerated-russias-cold-war-super-weapons-16468

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/9/27/gap-missile-cia-soviets/#.ToOeNYsw8IQ.email

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-02/putin-nuclear-revelations-ring-hollow

I wish I could find the article now but it ran through a list of times when the Soviermts had an "oh my God!" type of new weapon system and in every case it was basically a failure.

I think you are 100% right. In this case I think Russia is sending a message to their people, and to the world. And I think they want Trump to use that promo to beat Germany over the head with on funding.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I think you are 100% right. In this case I think Russia is sending a message to their people, and to the world. And I think they want Trump to use that promo to beat Germany over the head with on funding.

Possibly, I also wanted to add that in each instance of one of these "super weapons" the U.S. always came up with either a countermeasure or a weapons system that was on par with the myth of the Soviet system that it was supposed to counteract. So the propaganda win for the Soviets was short lived because the fear it caused on our end led us to develop weapons systems that actually worked.

This, among other reasons, is the basic superiority of our system of government. At times we have failures and the failures look ugly. When the rubber meets the road though, the acknowledgement of those failures leads to corrective action and eventually usually a good outcome. In the case of the Soviets, you have a scary looking bomber that never flies in anything more than a military parade and you now face a U.S. with the B-1 bomber.

 

[Stuffshot]

Possibly, I also wanted to add that in each instance of one of these "super weapons" the U.S. always came up with either a countermeasure or a weapons system that was on par with the myth of the Soviet system that it was supposed to counteract. So the propaganda win for the Soviets was short lived because the fear it caused on our end led us to develop weapons systems that actually worked.

This, among other reasons, is the basic superiority of our system of government. At times we have failures and the failures look ugly. When the rubber meets the road though, the acknowledgement of those failures leads to corrective action and eventually usually a good outcome. In the case of the Soviets, you have a scary looking bomber that never flies in anything more than a military parade and you now face a U.S. with the B-1 bomber.

That's OK but I think Russian election tampering is a real threat and I think Russian poisoning of political candidates in Europe and former Russian spies in the U.K. Is a real threat. Not everything the Russians do is a failure, and the mere threat and likelihood of continued Russian activity will cost this country billions.

 

[IUCrazy2]

That's OK but I think Russian election tampering is a real threat and I think Russian poisoning of political candidates in Europe and former Russian spies in the U.K. Is a real threat. Not everything the Russians do is a failure, and the mere threat and likelihood of continued Russian activity will cost this country billions.

I am talking weapons systems in direct response to a propaganda video that is promoting new weapons systems.

Ok, you think those are threats. Personally I think the election meddling is overblown and has been a part of our elections for at least 100 years...the interesting thing being that in the past the help was usually for those on the left side of the political spectrum, now that it is the right side, you all are freaking out. In the past it was seen as a nuisance and now "Ermagerd!"

https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-the-left-longed-for-russian-political-interference

I agree that poisoning dissidents is a threat, particularly when carried out on our allies soil. Out of everything the Russians have done lately, that personally comes closest to triggering Article V of the NATO agreement.

 

[dahldc]

...and has been a part of our elections for at least 100 years...the interesting thing being that in the past the help was usually for those on the left side of the political spectrum, now that it is the right side, you all are freaking out. In the past it was seen as a nuisance and now "Ermagerd!"

Edit: Nevermind. It isn't worth it.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Edit: Nevermind. It isn't worth it.

It isn't. Neither of us are changing the other's mind. I was not happy with President Trump's performance in Helsinki but the way people react to Trump is so over the top...

 

[hoosboot]

It isn't. Neither of us are changing the other's mind. I was not happy with President Trump's performance in Helsinki but the way people react to Trump is so over the top...

What specifically in the reaction to Trump's performance in Helsinki was over the top?