Author Topic: Vladimir Putin wins Russian presidential election with over 73% of the vote  (Read 1339 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online richb

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1638
In an election that has surprised no one,   Vladimir Putin wins a fourth term with 73% of the vote.  He will now tie Stalin as the longest ruler of Russia


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/03/18/vladimir-putin-wins-russian-presidential-election-with-over-73-percent-vote.html

It's the election that Hillary Clinton thought she had lined up for herself.................

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 44904
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Yeah...the Jew-hating Russophiles at ZeroHedge are all strutting about with hardon's hailing this as the most decisive free election in the history of elections...

But it is so cute when they get butthurt over comparisons to Stalin or any Soviet ruler and insist he is more like Alexander the Great...and it is so hilarious that the latter actually moved towards Westernism even as Putin's admirers at ZeroHedge spout non-stop anti-Western crap 24/7/365...I reckon many of these PaulBots are probably unaware that 'ol Vlad cut his KGB teeth in the latter Communist era...and they relish in his snuffing of opponents while castigating the Clinton Arkancide's...

Like Progs, hardcore PaulBots have broken moral centers.

Oh, and lemme guess the Fake News screams - Trump colluded with Russians to get Putin returned to power so they can continue their mutual war on dumbocracy...

 ::bus::
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 44904
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Our elections little better than theirs, here an unwanted winner gets thrown out in a soft coup, over there they get snuffed before having a chance.  Too bad our people are not that ruthless.
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 16993
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
Hey who knows, maybe the Russian election was on the up-and-up.

The defender of the free world had nary a harsh word for him after all:

Quote
Russia relations: Trump congratulates Putin

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I had a call with President Putin and congratulated him on the victory, his electoral victory. The call had to do also with the fact that we will probably get together in the not-too-distant future so that we can discuss arms, we can discuss the arms race.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2018/03/20/russia-relations-trump-congratulates-putin.html

Surely the current leader of Ronald Reagan's "Shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere" wouldn't publicly congratulate a despot for stealing an election. That would be silly.

What's your deal, pal?  Are you here to agitate, 'cause it doesn't look to me like you found a bunch of like-minded folks here.

BTW, what forum were on on previously?
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 44904
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Our elections little better than theirs, here an unwanted winner gets thrown out in a soft coup, over there they get snuffed before having a chance.  Too bad our people are not that ruthless.

I'll give you a hard agree that our electoral system is jacked. I'd rather see a parliamentary type system. When you only have two parties both are going to be corrupted before too long.

The system The Founders established worked, unethical people perverted it, government should be limited not Liberty, the rest doesn't matter, rot will spoil the whole. 
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 16993
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
Hey who knows, maybe the Russian election was on the up-and-up.

The defender of the free world had nary a harsh word for him after all:

Quote
Russia relations: Trump congratulates Putin

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I had a call with President Putin and congratulated him on the victory, his electoral victory. The call had to do also with the fact that we will probably get together in the not-too-distant future so that we can discuss arms, we can discuss the arms race.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2018/03/20/russia-relations-trump-congratulates-putin.html

Surely the current leader of Ronald Reagan's "Shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere" wouldn't publicly congratulate a despot for stealing an election. That would be silly.

What's your deal, pal?  Are you here to agitate, 'cause it doesn't look to me like you found a bunch of like-minded folks here.

BTW, what forum were on on previously?

I'm a liberal and I'm here to talk about the news and politics. People don't learn anything when they only talk with like-minded folks so I sometimes talk with people that I disagree with. Sometimes I change my mind and sometimes they change theirs, but usually it's a fun debate that ends in stalemate however leaves both sides a little better informed. And I was on the ACOC.

No, you're a Regressive, but thanks; appreciate the clarification.  I  believe you won't be changing my mind, but as long as it's a civil debate ..........

/I still say you're not tall enough for this ride.
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 44904
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Hey who knows, maybe the Russian election was on the up-and-up.

The defender of the free world had nary a harsh word for him after all:

Quote
Russia relations: Trump congratulates Putin

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I had a call with President Putin and congratulated him on the victory, his electoral victory. The call had to do also with the fact that we will probably get together in the not-too-distant future so that we can discuss arms, we can discuss the arms race.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2018/03/20/russia-relations-trump-congratulates-putin.html

Surely the current leader of Ronald Reagan's "Shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere" wouldn't publicly congratulate a despot for stealing an election. That would be silly.

What's your deal, pal?  Are you here to agitate, 'cause it doesn't look to me like you found a bunch of like-minded folks here.

BTW, what forum were on on previously?

I'm a liberal and I'm here to talk about the news and politics. People don't learn anything when they only talk with like-minded folks so I sometimes talk with people that I disagree with. Sometimes I change my mind and sometimes they change theirs, but usually it's a fun debate that ends in stalemate however leaves both sides a little better informed. And I was on the ACOC.

No, you're a Regressive, but thanks; appreciate the clarification.  I  believe you won't be changing my mind, but as long as it's a civil debate ..........

/I still say you're not tall enough for this ride.

(snerk!)

I agree though, a true liberal has an open mind, believes in Founding Principles and peaked out after the JFK election.  After that the ComIntern sappers in affiliated Socialist hives turned the Democrats hard to the Left.  Gone are the Blue Dog Democrats.  The Democrat Party has become a National Socialist outfit, JFK couldn't get elected Mayor of Boston if he tried to run as a Democrat today.  Hell, he'd probably be too conservative for the GOP!  The GOP only learned to grab it's ankles, claim to be a better steward of BigGov than Dem's and apart from a brief stint under Reagan and a minor rebellion in the Gingrich Congress largely fell back into their milktoast rut.  The Sweet Meteor of Death would do us a favor if it hurled itself into The Swamp.
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 16993
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
Have fun with "it", Libertas; I'm done.
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5335
I don't think that they intended for it to turn into a 2 party system but it sure did quickly. Within their lifetimes in many cases. I think that was a huge oversight on their part.

Interesting assertion.  By saying it was an oversight,  it seems to imply there was something to be done about it.  What do you think the Founders should have done to prevent two party politics, and what factors do you think continue to propel and perpetuate that system into the modern era? I am not convinced a parliamentary  system really precludes this sort of thing from happening, nor am I convinced such a system contains the required checks and balances on governmental power.  ( See Wiemar Germany, and the Rise of Hitler,  or post-revolutionary France and the Rise of Napoleon) 

I think when comparing such systems its very instructive to see what can go wrong.

It is also interesting to note that Parlimentary governments world wide do not recognize basic rights like the freedom of speech , the right of conscience, or the right to bear arms in self defense.
 
« Last Edit: April 13, 2018, 11:14:21 PM by Weisshaupt »

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5335

Insofar as your observation that "Parliamentary governments world wide do not recognize basic rights like the freedom of speech , the right of conscience, or the right to bear arms in self defense", we can still have whatever rights we want to have in the Constitution regardless of how the legislature is structured. The federal legislature cannot amend the Constitution unilaterally. 3/4 of state legislatures need to consent.

Well, part of the reason we don't have a Parliamentary system is because we ( used to)  have a house just for representing State governments.
Constitutions are only as effective as the checks on governmental power that they set up. Parliamentary systems seem to lack such checks, and their constitutional restrictions  are even more easily ignored than they are here.

And yes the system has become "winner take all"  - in part - because the Federal government has grown too powerful. Wouldn't reducing the size/scope and jurisdiction of the Federal government make a 3rd or 4th party more lickly , since the power it could wield would not result in as much of a winner take all scenario?

 

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 44904
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Our elections little better than theirs, here an unwanted winner gets thrown out in a soft coup, over there they get snuffed before having a chance.  Too bad our people are not that ruthless.

I'll give you a hard agree that our electoral system is jacked. I'd rather see a parliamentary type system. When you only have two parties both are going to be corrupted before too long.

The system The Founders established worked, unethical people perverted it, government should be limited not Liberty, the rest doesn't matter, rot will spoil the whole.

I don't think that they intended for it to turn into a 2 party system but it sure did quickly. Within their lifetimes in many cases. I think that was a huge oversight on their part.

No, their biggest mistake was thinking future generations would be able to read, would retain their Judeo-Christian identity and morals and ethics and not give to government that which is was never intended to have.



But I have no fear...The Founder's Solution worked once and it shall work again.









But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.



Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 44904
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
I don't think that they intended for it to turn into a 2 party system but it sure did quickly. Within their lifetimes in many cases. I think that was a huge oversight on their part.

Interesting assertion.  By saying it was an oversight,  it seems to imply there was something to be done about it.  What do you think the Founders should have done to prevent two party politics, and what factors do you think continue to propel and perpetuate that system into the modern era? I am not convinced a parliamentary  system really precludes this sort of thing from happening, nor am I convinced such a system contains the required checks and balances on governmental power.  ( See Wiemar Germany, and the Rise of Hitler,  or post-revolutionary France and the Rise of Napoleon) 

I think when comparing such systems its very instructive to see what can go wrong.

It is also interesting to note that Parlimentary governments world wide do not recognize basic rights like the freedom of speech , the right of conscience, or the right to bear arms in self defense.

to your question, "what factors do you think continue to propel and perpetuate that system into the modern era?" this graph is helpful.


The basic problem is, it's difficult to get out of our two-party system because it would require fracturing one of the existing two coalitions (Democrats and Republicans) thereby paradoxically benefiting the other large party. Examples include Teddy Roosevelt's run as a bull moose in 1912. He split the Republican votes resulting in Democrat Woodrow Wilson winning with only 42% of the vote. A similar thing happened in 1992 with George H.W. Bush, Ross Perot and Bill Clinton.

Possible alternatives are to have a parliamentary system in which you vote for party representation, or you could do so called "alternative voting" as seen here https://www.britannica.com/topic/alternative-vote
Using this system eliminates the fear of "throwing one's rights away" as we have with third party runs here.

Insofar as your observation that "Parliamentary governments world wide do not recognize basic rights like the freedom of speech , the right of conscience, or the right to bear arms in self defense", we can still have whatever rights we want to have in the Constitution regardless of how the legislature is structured. The federal legislature cannot amend the Constitution unilaterally. 3/4 of state legislatures need to consent.

I knew I saw that chart somewhere before...



Is that a Rump Parliament?
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 44904
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Have fun with "it", Libertas; I'm done.

It's the Mobius Game...



I thought this was about the Champion of Liberty - Vladimir Putin?



I think this may be the first time since Powerline committed suicide that I've been able to use this graphic!

You know what that means?!  IKYD!
« Last Edit: April 14, 2018, 01:57:27 PM by Libertas »
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5335

I don't think so. The first competitive US presidential election (1st one after the Washington Administration) was Adams Vs Jefferson. It was already a two - party affair at that time and remained one for the majority of subsequent elections. It was so when the government was small and it was so when the government was big. Size of the government doesn't appear to be a factor. The rationale of coalition building into two large rival parties has almost been a constant.



So doesn't this chart disprove the theory proposed  on the first chart as to  why the two party system perpetuates ? If  "Winner takes all" is a necessary stage of the the two party perpetuation,  shouldn't that effect get stronger or weaker based on what degree that the system is "winner take all" ?  If there is no correlation, perhaps that stage is not necessary at all? Or perhaps there is a different cycle driving this behavior. While the first chart does explain a plausible method by which a two party system is maintained,  very little evidence suggesting it is an accurate representation is cited.

Perhaps an alternative theory would be that one political persuasion, supported by party A  ,  wishes to impose polices that are so detrimental to a large group of people, that a second party B is formed simply around opposing party A's polices?  Is it not possible that the very divisive nature of the policies and danger of party A enacting them  if it gains  power by itself, and automatically, forms a second force to oppose it , made of of the very people would would be harmed by those policies, and who then are forced to vote for party B  in order to have some hope of protecting their own interests from party A.


Or it  could also be that  party A  enacts those selectively detrimental polices, while  party B  - captured and controlled by party A - serves as a stop gap to the backlash against those polices; providing those who are harmed the illusion that party B opposes the polices of party A, but once in power party B does only the bare minimum required to absorb the backlash and otherwise serves simply to promote the status quo till Party A is back in power.

Do you have a pretty chart showing how many pieces of controversial  legislation, once enacted by party A,  get repealed by party by B once party B comes into power? Or even a chart showing how many pieces of legislation are repealed at all?  If there are in fact two opposing parties, one would expect as a party gains power, the most controversial items would be repealed on a regular basis . If this is not often the case, one may start to wonder if there is a two party system at work at all,  vs a single faction controlling both parties  playing "good cop, bad cop"  to different audiences.

 
« Last Edit: April 15, 2018, 09:16:04 AM by Weisshaupt »

Offline AlanS

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • Proud Infidel
Getting back on topic, The People's Cube comes through yet again.




"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

Thomas Jefferson

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5335
Interesting. So was it Adams or Jefferson that wanted to enact policies which were detrimental to a large number of people?


Those early elections were also held under different rules - which were not  "winner take all"  - That is how Jefferson ended up as Adam's Vice President, so again this is just more evidence that winner take all is NOT the determining factor here.  I  would in fact argue that different factors perpetuating the two party system  have been in play in different periods.

I never made an assertion that my proposed cycle was in effect during those early elections, or that there is on;y one type of cycle.  There are many plausible alternate explanations and factors that could affect the prevalence of a 2 party system. Your  chart doesn't necessarily cover them all, and it is over-simplistic and under-supported by actual evidence that it is accurate.   I do not think it is entirely clear, that what we have today is even a two party system.


Politicians are package deals,  so you will see the economics of a package deal played out here,  and I think there are some empirical methods that could be used to determine which of the plausible factors that  may be in play in any given time period..

1) Do polls show that people are  voting for their party because they want a given set of policies enacted, or to oppose or repeal  the policies previous enacted by the political opposition?
2) Do Polls show that people are voting for their candidate because they support them, or because they are choosing the "lesser of two evils"
3) When there is a switch in power, how frequently are the policies of the opposing party actually repealed?

I think knowing  those poll results for each party in an election as well as the turnover rate for legislation  would allow one to make a far better determination of which factors are important in perpetuating  the 2 party system in a given cycle,  or in determining if there is in fact a two party system in operation.

For instance, in the last election cycle I suspect you will find that the base of both parties to be voting against the lesser evil.. And much of the GOP establishment opposed Trump as candidate, and much of the Democrat base was disenfranchised by their own party's treatment of Bernie Sanders and selection of Hillary Clinton.  Neither party is trusted by the voters who support it - so  what factors would perpetuate that situation?  IN the case of liberals, Loyalty to the Democrat party seems to be very tribal- A representative of that party can be a former KKK member, leave a woman to drown, womanize, and commit other crimes - and it will not affect their support with the base.  A GOP representative can typically have his career destroyed over an infidelity or a single event in which inappropriate words are spoken.   The GOP , being less tribal, voted for the only candidate they perceived as being outside the GOP establishment. Democrats still voted for Hillary Clinton despite her crimes ( If you read the applicable  law, simply setting of that email server, regardless of intent, is grounds to bar her from ever holding another public office)  In both cases, I suspect both parties were largely voting against the Greater evil and ignoring  their own candidates short comings.

Go back another cycle and you will see a great amount of support for Barrack Obama and his polices among Democrats, but that most Republian's were voting against Obama and his polices and for the lesser of two evils ( from their perspective)   and not for or in support of  Mitt Romney ( who had enacted similar polices to Obama in his home state)  - But here you see one side largely supporting the imposition of a given policy, the other side opposing it.

I suspect that the more detrimental a policy is perceived to be by a given group - the more likely that they are to be voting against that policy or candidate that represents it , and less likely to be voting for their own candidate and the polices pushed for there. And when an effort to push back against a policy is successful ( As the effort to repeal the ACA as been - giving control of the house, the senate and the Presidency to the party that, in theory, favors repeal)  and a change of power occurs,  it is key to see if that party actually does what its base has elected it to do.   The GOP has - for decades - consistently under-performed  in this area, and as a result, I think it is justified to see it as a captured party, and controlled opposition,  simply doing the least possible to satisfy its base, while maintaining the status quo. It is also for this reason you see a candidate as reprehensible as Trump gaining success.. it is a vote of no confidence in the GOP leadership, just as the Tea Party movement was also a challenge to GOP leadership seen too unresponsive to the needs of its voting base. .

I hope that this makes it somewhat more apparent that "winner take all" - while certainly a factor in play,  is not always the key factor. Also I hope this makes it clear that your assumption that we always have had a two party system in play in all periods of our history,  may be in error.


Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5335

It seems we're not entirely in agreement on this though. You say "I do not think it is entirely clear, that what we have today is even a two party system."

Really?  The last person to win the Presidency who was not either a Republican or a Democrat was Abraham Lincoln in 1864 (then a member of the short lived "national unity party". That means that in the last 154 years (well over half the age of the Republic) the presidency has only been held by members of one of those two parties. I disagree. Like it or not for all practical purposes we have a two-party system.

What defines a party?  The label or what they do?  The GOP hasn't even been able to repeal the ACA given all of the levers of power, even though a large and vocal  part of their base wanted them to do, and what many of them promised to do once in office.. and they haven't for decades.   

What we have is the illusion of a two party system, but one of the parties continuously refuses to represent the people who put them in office, and instead only maintains the status quo  until they loose power. They garner votes only by "sucking the least" and voters don't so much  support them but vote for them  because the feel the consequences of letting a Democrat win would be worse.  Trump was more a "F the system" vote than anything. What it really means that 1/2 of the country has given up on resolving our politcal differences via the ballot box, and are simply waiting for the economic collapse and/or civil war to sort it all out.   OR did you think gun and ammo sales are what they are because of simple paranoia?

The thing is - when the trust in fundamental institutions is undermined, the rules we agreed to aren't followed, and/or applied selectively,  eventually people being hurt by those actions decide they aren't going to follow the rules either. Hypocrisy is dangerous not because right and wrong become blurred, but because large number of people decide they don't care.  Any history book will suggest within a matter of pages how this sort of thing ends.  And a quick look at the Clinton archipelago gives you a pretty good idea about the tactical situation when that occurs.



Offline Syzygy

  • Likes the place
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Wasting your time,  Weisshaupt.

Let me put you wise to this bozo,  using his own words:

Quote from: aenides
I'm a DUMBASSED liberal and I'm here to talk about the FAKE news ONLY and MY BRAND OF politics ONLY--ALL YOUR WELL MADE POINTS WILL BE CONVENIENTLY IGNOREDMY KIND OF People don't learn anything EVER,  AS IN NEVER,  NADA,  KAPUTSKI. when they only talk with like-minded folks so I sometimes talk with people that I disagree with. Sometimes I NEVER change my mind and BUT sometimes they change theirs, MY DIAPER 'CUZ I'M FULL OF SH!T but usually it's a fun debate NEVER A DEBATE,  SINCE I ALWAYS FEIGN IGNORANCE TO ANY GOOD POINTS YOU MAKE, that ends in stalemate however leaves both sides a little better informed. ME ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS THAT I ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO, BUT I USE THAT AS A TOOL FOR DEFLECTION .  And I was on the ACOC WHERE I DID THE SAME RIGAMAROLE AS LAID OUT ABOVE,  AD INFINITUM.

He'll play you like a big carp if you let him.  Don't.

(Kudos to Pandora--she the first to catch on to his shtick,  and moved on.  Libertas--next.  Smart cookies.   ::thumbsup::  )




Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 16993
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
 ::curtsy4::

I asked about admitting DocTroc; I should have asked about this character, too.

As an Admin, I can ban 'em (and I usually do, right away) and then a couple others here get on me 'cause they didn't get to play with the Lefty like a rrrrrubber mouse.

Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't ..........
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5335
::curtsy4::

I asked about admitting DocTroc; I should have asked about this character, too.

As an Admin, I can ban 'em (and I usually do, right away) and then a couple others here get on me 'cause they didn't get to play with the Lefty like a rrrrrubber mouse.

Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't ..........

Aw Mom, please can I keep him? He is fun to play with.
Look Ma, He even does tricks. Look - see - he provides his own charts.

Yes Syzygy,  I know his schtick.  Its already in evidence here - but that is par for the course. No liberal  will ever respond directly to any point you make unless they feel they have a chance of refuting it. And if they can't?  All they can ever do is deflect, but I take a certain amount of pleasure in seeing if I can get him to  do what I expect him to next.