protests in Russia

Tzar Chasm

So, Putin has been called out by international observers on perceived irregularaties in the last election.there are reports of people massing to protest In Moscow and other cities

What do people think will happen?

Will vlad put his hands up and say ' dang ye got me, i'll quietly step aside now

will he crush all dissent with an iron fist

Will he simply ignore them and carry on ruling anyway

Will he pretend o ignore them whilst having his FSB take names and round them up later

Will the international community intervene to spread flaming shards of red hot Democracy


Well????

jackiebaron

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

So, Putin has been called out by international observers on perceived irregularaties in the last election.there are reports of people massing to protest In Moscow and other cities

What do people think will happen?

Will vlad put his hands up and say ' dang ye got me, i'll quietly step aside now

will he crush all dissent with an iron fist

Will he simply ignore them and carry on ruling anyway

Will he pretend o ignore them whilst having his FSB take names and round them up later

Will the international community intervene to spread flaming shards of red hot Democracy


Well????

Considering the "international observers" were crying foul for months before the elections even took place I wouldn't listen to a damn word they say.
These observers simply want another drunk like Yeltsin in power so that they can get their Goldman Sachs vultures in there in cahoots with scumbags like Roman Abramovich and completely gut Russia's entire infrastructure all over again.

davoxx

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

Well????

firstly i hope he tells usa to go f*** itself over syria and demand that they be charged for war crimes over iraq and libya ...

but to be honest, i'd settle for him fixing russia up and kicking usa in the ass at the same time ... then perhaps the world would be one step closer to a better place to live in?

the best way to get things done is with a benevolent dictator ... the worst is with paid for politics ...

humanji

I have no doubt the elections were rigged and also that Putin will ignore all complaints against him. He doesn't have to do anything because Russia is a hell of a corrupt place and there's no one to complain to. No outside force will invade them, and no internal force is strong enough to compete against him.

I'm kind of just surprised he's let these protests go ahead when he usually cracks down on them before they can begin.

davoxx

humanji wrote: »

I'm kind of just surprised he's let these protests go ahead when he usually cracks down on them before they can begin.

maybe it is the beginning of the end? or that they want the protests to be visible lest they go completely underground?

wingsof daun

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

So, Putin has been called out by international observers on perceived irregularaties in the last election.there are reports of people massing to protest In Moscow and other cities

What do people think will happen?

Will vlad put his hands up and say ' dang ye got me, i'll quietly step aside now

will he crush all dissent with an iron fist

Will he simply ignore them and carry on ruling anyway

Will he pretend o ignore them whilst having his FSB take names and round them up later

Will the international community intervene to spread flaming shards of red hot Democracy


Well????

What conspiracy are you highlighting?

kryogen

No huge issue with Putin myself, he seems to be the only one genuinely capable of standing up to the US, I have no doubt the elections are rigged in his favour, but I would contend that they do not need to be that much, he is quite popular with plenty in Russia.

His pr machine is amazing, up there with Obamas. He is of course corrupt, like all who have so much power, but there is another side to the coin when it comes to Russia, he is the best option they have. He is painted as a villain constantly in the Western media, but that is the only spin they will put on it. There is two sides to a story and Putin, though far far from perfect, is not the worst guy in power right now.

Jonny7

Unfortunately the other candidates are pretty weak.

Completely free and fair elections would probably see Putin win anyway - even with a run-off. Hopefully the protests will shake him up a bit.

jackiebaron

humanji wrote: »

I have no doubt the elections were rigged and also that Putin will ignore all complaints against him. He doesn't have to do anything because Russia is a hell of a corrupt place and there's no one to complain to. No outside force will invade them, and no internal force is strong enough to compete against him.

I'm kind of just surprised he's let these protests go ahead when he usually cracks down on them before they can begin.

You have no doubt.
That means you are absolutely sure.
Will you provide evidence?

"INVADE" them????

Can you please tell us all what you mean by this statement?

"A hell of a corrupt place"???

Why on EARTH are you even entertaining the thought of INVADING a country??



And you're a moderator!

humanji

davoxx wrote:

maybe it is the beginning of the end? or that they want the protests to be visible lest they go completely underground?

Possibly. I suppose with a strict clampdown he runs the risk of having to deal with minor sanctions and constant questioning from Western states, and by allowing protests, but controlling the Russian media's view of it, he can back up his claims that it's a Western conspiracy against his government.

It could also be a way of finding out who the protestors are, like they do if you protest in the US, or outside a US embassy, where they have all that facial recognition stuff.

kryogen wrote:

His pr machine is amazing, up there with Obamas. He is of course corrupt, like all who have so much power, but there is another side to the coin when it comes to Russia, he is the best option they have. He is painted as a villain constantly in the Western media, but that is the only spin they will put on it. There is two sides to a story and Putin, though far far from perfect, is not the worst guy in power right now.

Very true. Although it is kind of like saying Fine Gael are better than Fine Fail; you still would rather someone else. I think it's just a case that every government wants to undermine their rivals. The US has a chance to make Russia look weak and hopefully make some gains when it comes to deciding where to invade next. Since Russia currently wants no military action against Iran or Syria, making Russia's opinion seem tainted would be the way to go for them.

jackiebaron wrote: »

You have no doubt.
That means you are absolutely sure.
Will you provide evidence?

Can you back up, with evidence, everything you have said on this forum? But instead of being obtuse you could just accept that it is my opinion that the voting was rigged and I have no doubt of that. For what it's worth, I'm also sure gravity exists but can't prove that either.

jackiebaron wrote: »

"INVADE" them????

Can you please tell us all what you mean by this statement?

Not sure what you need explaining. But my point is that Putin doesn't have to worry about anyone invading Russia to overturn the government, unlike countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Syria etc. So he has pretty much free reign to do what he wants.

jackiebaron wrote: »

"A hell of a corrupt place"???

Why on EARTH are you even entertaining the thought of INVADING a country??

I'm at a loss as to how you came to that conclusion.

jackiebaron wrote: »

And you're a moderator!

And I'm also a user. And I have given my opinion. I'm unsure as to why you could have such an issue with that.

humanji

wingsof daun wrote: »

What conspiracy are you highlighting?

There's two fairly clear possible conspiracies: either Putin has rigged the election or the Western states are conspiring against him.

pacquiao

humanji wrote: »

There's two fairly clear possible conspiracies: either Putin has rigged the election or the Western states are conspiring against him.

NATO has Russia surrounded.

Tzar Chasm

Report from RT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtNAQPfH_oA

'Only a small few stragglers who overstayed their welcome'

Jaysus ya cant beat state sponsored media when they are reporting on the goings on of their own state.

kryogen

Who said only a small few stragglers who overstayed their welcome?

Also, the report looks pretty balanced tbh, he describes what happened pretty well, says up to a thousand stayed, they were told to leave repeatedly, the police came, most ran off then. Those who didnt were arrested/ moved on.

What part is innacurate?

Jonny7

kryogen wrote: »

Who said only a small few stragglers who overstayed their welcome?

Also, the report looks pretty balanced tbh, he describes what happened pretty well, says up to a thousand stayed, they were told to leave repeatedly, the police came, most ran off then. Those who didnt were arrested/ moved on.

What part is innacurate?

What did you compare it with?

jackiebaron

humanji wrote: »

Possibly. I suppose with a strict clampdown he runs the risk of having to deal with minor sanctions and constant questioning from Western states, and by allowing protests, but controlling the Russian media's view of it, he can back up his claims that it's a Western conspiracy against his government.

It could also be a way of finding out who the protestors are, like they do if you protest in the US, or outside a US embassy, where they have all that facial recognition stuff.



Very true. Although it is kind of like saying Fine Gael are better than Fine Fail; you still would rather someone else. I think it's just a case that every government wants to undermine their rivals. The US has a chance to make Russia look weak and hopefully make some gains when it comes to deciding where to invade next. Since Russia currently wants no military action against Iran or Syria, making Russia's opinion seem tainted would be the way to go for them.


Can you back up, with evidence, everything you have said on this forum? But instead of being obtuse you could just accept that it is my opinion that the voting was rigged and I have no doubt of that. For what it's worth, I'm also sure gravity exists but can't prove that either.

Not sure what you need explaining. But my point is that Putin doesn't have to worry about anyone invading Russia to overturn the government, unlike countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Syria etc. So he has pretty much free reign to do what he wants.



I'm at a loss as to how you came to that conclusion.


And I'm also a user. And I have given my opinion. I'm unsure as to why you could have such an issue with that.

Point taken. I overreacted. Your issues are clear and lucid. (hat on floor)

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

What did you compare it with?

Maybe to other fakery and farces:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMgEc9Qds8M

Tzar Chasm

OK I dont think he said the Word Stragglers, he did say
"a Small group, maybe a few Hundred, no more than a Thousand" thats some vauge numbers there

They definitley used the phrase 'overstayed their Welcome' for those who were arrested at the end of the protest

Tzar Chasm

heres another spin on things
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/230218.html

Scores of supporters of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have held a rally in the Manezhnaya Square in central Moscow to celebrate triumpgh of the president-elect in the country’s presidential election.


Some 15,000 supporters gathered in the famous square, waving pro-Putin flags and banners on Monday. They expressed confidence that Putin would lead Russia forward and bring more stability to their country.

The official result showed that Putin received 63.6 percent of the vote while his main rival, the Communist Party chief Gennady Zyuganov, garnered 17.2 percent.

Meanwhile, thousands of anti-Putin protesters held rallies against the election results in Moscow and the city of Saint Petersburg.

The protesters claimed voter fraud, but Putin assured Russians he “won in honest and fair combat.”

Putin also promised to have the Central Election Commission investigate all allegations of fraud in the voting process.

Police officers arrested more than 500 protesters, including three prominent opposition activists, as tensions appeared to intensify on Monday.

Putin served as president for two consecutive terms from 2000 to 2008. The victory gives him another six-year term in the Kremlin.

PM/MB Share this article

Altho they claim the Pro Putin march was much larger than the Anti they do also give a figure of 500+ arrests

Jonny7

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

heres another spin on things
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/230218.html
Altho they claim the Pro Putin march was much larger than the Anti they do also give a figure of 500+ arrests

That's Iran's very own Russia Today, e.g. Fox News - take either with pinch of salt when reporting on "sensitive" issues.

In other news, Chechnya - 107% turnout for Putin

Monty Burnz

Jonny7 wrote: »

In other news, Chechnya - 107% turnout for Putin

That'll put the doubters to shame. Why bother with election fraud when he gets such massive support at the polls?

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

That's Iran's very own Russia Today, e.g. Fox News - take either with pinch of salt when reporting on "sensitive" issues.

In other news, Chechnya - 107% turnout for Putin

but that link is america's very own russia today ... do you have any non russia today type sources?

but if that 107% is true, you have to admit that professional election riggers would never have made that mistake, therefore the election was not rigged but a count error was introduced or the author of the article made a mistake... i call that the "dancing israeli" defence

ps: yeah i know it's wrong, but sometimes you have to use broken logic backwards to show it's broken logic.

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

but that link is america's very own russia today ... do you have any non russia today type sources?

Um..nope, it's the NY Times. A liberal leftie rag.

davoxx wrote: »

but if that 107% is true, you have to admit that professional election riggers would never have made that mistake

Are you genuinely arguing that there wasn't massive fraud in the Russian elections? Or is this about a running battle on another thread or something?

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Um..nope, it's the NY Times. A liberal leftie rag.

at that means it can't possibly be compared to russia today?
my point which was missed, is that you can't go dismissing news sources based on who controls it. you can based on content.

either way i'd like to see some other sources to verify this, surely there must be loads of anti russian news sources?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are you genuinely arguing that there wasn't massive fraud in the Russian elections? Or is this about a running battle on another thread or something?

no i'm clearly stating that it might not be fraud.
i am then using the fact that in other circumstances, dancing isrealis for example, when the same logic is applied a different result is obtained.

to clarify, i'm not convinced that it was fraud or that nytimes have the correct facts at the current moment. it might be a western smear campaign, it might be actual fraud, but it does not make sense to me for putin to cheat when he was guaranteed victory.

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

to clarify, i'm not convinced that it was fraud or that nytimes have the correct facts at the current moment. it might be a western smear campaign, it might be actual fraud, but it does not make sense to me for putin to cheat when he was guaranteed victory.

Ok, just two points:

1. Do you think that the reason Putin was 'guaranteed victory' might have something to do with government control of the press in Russia, up to and including the 'mysterious' murders of journalists who attempt to investigate corruption or human rights abuses?

2. Do you think that the reason he was 'guaranteed victory' may have something to do with the widespread election fraud and the tolerance of that fraud as was seen in the elections held last year?

He would have won without cheating, in no small part due to point 1. The reason he did cheat was because he wanted to win the election in the first round of voting to make his position appear unassailable.

And of course it's entirely possible that Putin's Russia is so corrupt, election officials wouldn't know how to run a fair election even if they wanted to.

I've no interest in 'dancing Israelis' () but I can assure you that the NY Times is as good a source of information as any as they trade on their reputation for reporting accuracy. Comparing the NY Times to the modern equivalent of Pravda is just silly.

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

1. Do you think that the reason Putin was 'guaranteed victory' might have something to do with government control of the press in Russia, up to and including the 'mysterious' murders of journalists who attempt to investigate corruption or human rights abuses?

that's irrelevant to whether he actually had the guaranteed victory.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

2. Do you think that the reason he was 'guaranteed victory' may have something to do with the widespread election fraud and the tolerance of that fraud as was seen in the elections held last year?

no, i think if anything the allegations of fraud would have harmed his popularity. it is not in his interest to cheat.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

He would have won without cheating, in no small part due to point 1. The reason he did cheat was because he wanted to win the election in the first round of voting to make his position appear unassailable.

that's a reason he would have cheated, but it not clear if he did cheat, and cheat in such an obvious manner.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And of course it's entirely possible that Putin's Russia is so corrupt, election officials wouldn't know how to run a fair election even if they wanted to.

that is a possibility, as is the fact the western media could be portraying him as corrupt to make their own endeavours seem more legit.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I've no interest in 'dancing Israelis' () but I can assure you that the NY Times is as good a source of information as any as they trade on their reputation for reporting accuracy. Comparing the NY Times to the modern equivalent of Pravda is just silly.

denying the similarity is foolish. each article must be examined as well as the source. to dismiss an article or promote another one purely based on who said it incorrect unless the source is proven to be unreliable.

far enough, the dancing israelies is of no interest to you, but it is to me as it clearly shows that when presented with a similar set of facts, the same people draw different conclusions, which suggests that the information it not the crucial part, rather it is who said it.

this is highlighted by the incorrect constant claim that russia today is a propaganda spewing machine consisting of only rubbish. challenge the facts, not the source. once the facts are disproved, you can challenge the source.

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

this is highlighted by the incorrect constant claim that russia today is a propaganda spewing machine consisting of only rubbish. challenge the facts, not the source. once the facts are disproved, you can challenge the source.

Your argument is a bit like those folks who claim that since evolution is 'only a theory' then it should be taught in schools alongside (and given the same credibility as) creationism. You've got millions of peer-reviewed research papers arguing for evolution, and a handful of non-reviewed papers arguing against. I don't know where I'd start trying to convince those folks.

I genuinely don't know if you are a reasonable person who needs to be convinced or a zealot who will never be convinced. On the basis that proving what should be self-evident would take way too much time, I'll leave you to it and trust you will reach a good conclusion in your own time.

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Your argument is a bit like those folks who claim that since evolution is 'only a theory' then it should be taught in schools alongside (and given the same credibility as) creationism. You've got millions of peer-reviewed research papers arguing for evolution, and a handful of non-reviewed papers arguing against. I don't know where I'd start trying to convince those folks.

no my argument is different. you are assuming that russia today is incorrect and then retrospectively dismissing the articles.
evaluate the article to evaluate the source.

in terms of your analogy, it is similar to saying that creationism is correct because the guy who said so is a respected person of the church while the person who believe in evolution is wrong because he has no influence in society.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I genuinely don't know if you are a reasonable person who needs to be convinced or a zealot who will never be convinced. On the basis that proving what should be self-evident would take way too much time, I'll leave you to it and trust you will reach a good conclusion in your own time.

i'm a benevolent scientist, i don't need to be convinced, i need evidence

Eggy Baby!

NATO has Russia surrounded.

The USA has done the same with China too, using SEATO etc. Clearly it sees these countries as damaging to their long term interests of global hegemony.

Um..nope, it's the NY Times. A liberal leftie rag.

Most US media is severely biased. Read "Manufacturing Consent" by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. Very enlightening.

Monty Burnz

All media is biased. The trick is to be aware of the degree of bias, and its nature.

The Ochs-Sulzberger family, one of the United States's newspaper dynasties, has owned The New York Times since 1896.[13] After the publisher went public in the 1960s, the family continued to exert control through its ownership of the vast majority of Class B voting shares. Class A shareholders are permitted restrictive voting rights while Class B shareholders are allowed open voting rights. Dual-class structures caught on in the mid-20th century as families such as the Grahams of The Washington Post Company sought to gain access to public capital without losing control. Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, had a similar structure and was controlled by the Bancroft family; the company was later bought by the News Corporation in 2007.[39]
The Ochs-Sulzberger family trust controls roughly 88 percent of the company's class B shares. Any alteration to the dual-class structure must be ratified by six of eight directors who sit on the board of the Ochs-Sulzberger family trust. The Trust board members are Daniel H. Cohen, James M. Cohen, Lynn G. Dolnick, Susan W. Dryfoos, Michael Golden, Eric M. A. Lax, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. and Cathy J. Sulzberger.[40]
Turner Catledge, the top editor at The New York Times for almost two decades, wanted to hide the ownership influence. Sulzberger routinely wrote memos to his editor, each containing suggestions, instructions, complaints, and orders. When Catledge would receive these memos he would erase the publisher's identity before passing them to his subordinates. Catledge thought that if he removed the publisher's name from the memos it would protect reporters from feeling pressured by the owner.[41]

The New York Times is an American daily newspaper founded and continuously published in New York City since 1851. The New York Times has won 106 Pulitzer Prizes, the most of any news organization.[3] Its website is the most popular American online newspaper website, receiving more than 30 million unique visitors per month.[4]
Although the print version of the paper remains both the largest local metropolitan newspaper in the United States, as well the third largest newspaper overall, behind The Wall Street Journal and USA Today, its weekday circulation has fallen since 1990 (not unlike other newspapers) to fewer than one million copies daily, for the first time since the 1980s.[5] Nicknamed "the Old Gray Lady",[6] and long regarded within the industry as a national "newspaper of record",[7] The New York Times is owned by The New York Times Company, which also publishes 18 other newspapers including the International Herald Tribune and The Boston Globe. The company's chairman is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., whose family has controlled the paper since 1896.[8]

Link