Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you can't see the double standard I can't helped you, I already pointed them out, but I'll go over it again.
The uk isn't doing anything aboutt these crimes to maintain the flow of russian money into england. To pretend to care about justice and yet do nothing other than portrait russia as an evil regime is hypocritical. Moreover, to denounce corruption in russia, when corruption is essentially legal in the u.s. just by calling it lobbying is again a double standard. Another thing, pretending to be the leader of democracy while at the same time meddling in just about every foreign election and supporting monarchies and dictatorships and coups non-stop to the present day. I could go on, I doubt you can even understand what I'm talking about.
To answer your question about BI, they are good when it comes to the economy, useful info when you need to "follow the money". As for russian collusion, that's just one more disinformation campaign in the effort to artificially create endless confrontation. This is what makes possible the continuing existence of the military industrial complex with all the intelligence agencies, plus independent contractors.
You are engaged in what we call "whataboutism," or, more formally, the "tu quoque" fallacy. You are attempting to elide the central subject, Vladimir Putin's Russian oligarchy, by focusing on what you term a "double standard." Your tactic is commonly used in disinformation campaigns.
So let's start at the beginning. The Russian State, under Vladimir Putin, is an oligarchy. The rule of law is disregarded. Measures of political and economic freedom put Russia near the bottom of the developed world, closer to central Asian developing countries than to the United States. The Russian State is engaged in domestic and foreign propaganda through State control of media. Dissidents and independent journalists are routinely harassed, arrested, and killed.
Russia is one of the most corrupt developed countries in the world, closer to Somalia than to the United States on measures of corruption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I was actually talking about exit polls in the Midwestern states which said Clinton was winning by a significant margin, but when the votes themselves were actually counted, it showed Trump had won.
What was the problem? Trump supporters wouldn't talk to the pollsters. The only people who would talk to the pollsters were Hillary voters.
Exit polls are not elections--they are polls. More Americans voted for Clinton than for Trump. That is the problem with American presidential elections that I was referencing. Who cares what polls say? What matters in a democracy is how people vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I assume that the election monitors don't actually have access to the physical ballots. They are most-likely people who are doing exit polls, asking people questions.
But in any case, I have never heard any of these election monitors claiming that Putin lost.
Putin and his allies in the oligarchy prevent opposition figures from standing for election. Putin and his allies in the oligarchy use the Russian State media apparatus to drastically tilt election coverage of Putin and those opponents who are allowed to stand. And on top of this, election monitors (when permitted access) routinely report irregularities at polling stations. Election monitors are not pollsters. OSCE has monitored elections in Russia. They typically spend 6-8 weeks in country with a team of 50+ professional staff. Elections in Russia | OSCE
The last Russian Presidential election they monitored involved the following findings:
-"Although all contestants were able to campaign unhindered, the conditions for the campaign were found to be skewed in favour of one candidate."
-"While all candidates had access to media, one candidate, the then Prime Minister, was given clear advantage in the coverage. State resources were also mobilized in his support. On election day, observers assessed voting positively, overall; however, the process deteriorated during the count due to procedural irregularities."
-"In several regions, participants in campaign events reported that they had been ordered to take part by their superiors. Various levels of public institutions instructed their subordinate structures to organize and facilitate Mr. Putin's campaign events. Local authorities also used official communication, such as their institutional websites or newspapers, to facilitate Mr. Putin's campaign."
-"Contrary to the legal requirements, the broadcast media did not provide balanced coverage of all candidates."
-"The process deteriorated clearly during the count, which was assessed negatively in nearly one-third of polling stations observed due to procedural irregularities."
-"During the tabulation, observers reported that in some cases the data entry process was poorly organized and lacked transparency."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Most European countries have a state media company. Liberal Sweden has state-sponsored media companies which get their funds mostly through their associated political parties.
The point is, the media, just like the government, has an agenda. It is silly to claim that government media is bad, and corporate media is good. I mean, NPR and PBS are state-sponsored America media companies. Does that make them bad?
One might even claim that NPR and PBS are actually the best American media companies, and that the BBC is the best British media company. I would.
Russian state news is basically "Russia Today", and that network has a growing following in the United States as well. I have watched plenty of Russia Today. It is probably more honest than CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News.
RT is State media. As are the other major outlets in Russia, with the exception of Gazprom-owned NTV. Gazprom, of course, is controlled by the State as well. Russia's government owns 60 percent of Russian newspapers and all national television stations.
State ownership is one of the problems with media in Russia. Censorship, harassment & arrest of journalists, and other tools are used by the Russian government to control the press.
You suggest that Swedish media is comparable. It is not. Your statement about Swedish media is no longer accurate. Where once political parties supported State funds to newspapers, the State now subsidizes newspapers as long as they meet a subscriber requirement. Subsidies are not the same as State media.
Additionally, press freedom is protected by law in Sweden, and ownership of the Swedish press is distributed among a variety of different companies. Sweden is also open to foreign press, whereas Russia expels foreign journalists and denies them entry with regularity.
NPR, PBS, and BBC are not State media. They are independent media supported, in part, by the State (NPR, for example, receives about 10% of its funding from the federal government). They are also entitled, by law, to press freedom in their home countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
And who chooses who will be appointed to the Supreme Court? And on what basis do they make their choice?
Do the Supreme Court Justices honestly rule on the Constitutionality of anything? If so, why are the Democrats and Republicans so obsessed with who will make the next appointment?
The Supreme Court is a joke. And it has always been a joke. Their rulings are no more valid than anyone else's, except in the minds of morons who accept them without question.
The Justices are chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate, but serve life terms. Their opinions are the law of the land. They have philosophical and ideological disagreements with each other, thus the political actors are concerned about which President chooses each Justice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
They are elected by the public, but they are fundamentally selected by their political parties and their donors. Especially when it comes to Congressmen and Senators.
There is a political party in the US whose platform expresses concern about the state of campaign finance in the country and the resultant reliance on big donors. There is another political party in the US whose platform expresses no concern about campaign finance and wants big donors to be able to contribute more money with less transparency. You can choose the party that most closely represents your views.
^^^: This. I'd give you ten stars if I could **********, but am out of rep.
Great post. I hope those who claim otherwise will read and consider your thoughtful, well-informed, and very thoroughly fact-filled post. Thanks so much.
You are engaged in what we call "whataboutism," or, more formally, the "tu quoque" fallacy. You are attempting to elide the central subject, Vladimir Putin's Russian oligarchy, by focusing on what you term a "double standard." Your tactic is commonly used in disinformation campaigns.
So let's start at the beginning. The Russian State, under Vladimir Putin, is an oligarchy. The rule of law is disregarded. Measures of political and economic freedom put Russia near the bottom of the developed world, closer to central Asian developing countries than to the United States. The Russian State is engaged in domestic and foreign propaganda through State control of media. Dissidents and independent journalists are routinely harassed, arrested, and killed.
Russia is one of the most corrupt developed countries in the world, closer to Somalia than to the United States on measures of corruption.
[/url]
Exit polls are not elections--they are polls. More Americans voted for Clinton than for Trump. That is the problem with American presidential elections that I was referencing. Who cares what polls say? What matters in a democracy is how people vote.
Putin and his allies in the oligarchy prevent opposition figures from standing for election. Putin and his allies in the oligarchy use the Russian State media apparatus to drastically tilt election coverage of Putin and those opponents who are allowed to stand. And on top of this, election monitors (when permitted access) routinely report irregularities at polling stations. Election monitors are not pollsters. OSCE has monitored elections in Russia. They typically spend 6-8 weeks in country with a team of 50+ professional staff. Elections in Russia | OSCE
The last Russian Presidential election they monitored involved the following findings:
-"Although all contestants were able to campaign unhindered, the conditions for the campaign were found to be skewed in favour of one candidate."
-"While all candidates had access to media, one candidate, the then Prime Minister, was given clear advantage in the coverage. State resources were also mobilized in his support. On election day, observers assessed voting positively, overall; however, the process deteriorated during the count due to procedural irregularities."
-"In several regions, participants in campaign events reported that they had been ordered to take part by their superiors. Various levels of public institutions instructed their subordinate structures to organize and facilitate Mr. Putin's campaign events. Local authorities also used official communication, such as their institutional websites or newspapers, to facilitate Mr. Putin's campaign."
-"Contrary to the legal requirements, the broadcast media did not provide balanced coverage of all candidates."
-"The process deteriorated clearly during the count, which was assessed negatively in nearly one-third of polling stations observed due to procedural irregularities."
-"During the tabulation, observers reported that in some cases the data entry process was poorly organized and lacked transparency."
RT is State media. As are the other major outlets in Russia, with the exception of Gazprom-owned NTV. Gazprom, of course, is controlled by the State as well. Russia's government owns 60 percent of Russian newspapers and all national television stations.
State ownership is one of the problems with media in Russia. Censorship, harassment & arrest of journalists, and other tools are used by the Russian government to control the press.
You suggest that Swedish media is comparable. It is not. Your statement about Swedish media is no longer accurate. Where once political parties supported State funds to newspapers, the State now subsidizes newspapers as long as they meet a subscriber requirement. Subsidies are not the same as State media.
Additionally, press freedom is protected by law in Sweden, and ownership of the Swedish press is distributed among a variety of different companies. Sweden is also open to foreign press, whereas Russia expels foreign journalists and denies them entry with regularity.
NPR, PBS, and BBC are not State media. They are independent media supported, in part, by the State (NPR, for example, receives about 10% of its funding from the federal government). They are also entitled, by law, to press freedom in their home countries.
The Justices are chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate, but serve life terms. Their opinions are the law of the land. They have philosophical and ideological disagreements with each other, thus the political actors are concerned about which President chooses each Justice.
There is a political party in the US whose platform expresses concern about the state of campaign finance in the country and the resultant reliance on big donors. There is another political party in the US whose platform expresses no concern about campaign finance and wants big donors to be able to contribute more money with less transparency. You can choose the party that most closely represents your views.
Long winded and tired but valiant attempt to put lipstick on a pig. Let Russia alone, better yet work with them. If the Russians decide they don't like their leadership we may see history repeat itself. Where the rubber meets the road at sunset its Russias business not ours.
What the soldiers fight for, isn't the same things as what the government and the "ruling classes" are fighting for. The leaders of this country have consistently lied to the soldiers, and to the American people, about their motives.
I am not dishonoring your ancestors. Your ancestors are not the American government. You cannot infer that any criticism of the American government, is a criticism of the American people. In your delusion, you imagine that the American people and the American government are the same thing.
But where in the world, or in world history, has any government ever been a true reflection of the people? You would never make the mistake of assuming the Chinese communist government and the Chinese people are the same thing. You wouldn't have made that assumption about the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany, or any of the monarchies that have existed over thousands of years.
You assume that the American government and the American people are the same, because you believe that this country is a democracy. But is it? And even if it was, does that automatically infer that the American government is a reflection of Americans? Which Americans? You? Me? Liberals? Conservatives? The rich?
The vast-majority of the people in this country disagree with much, if not most of what our government is doing. And a large fraction of the population here, hates just about everything about our government, and feel nothing but shame for even being associated with it.
My favorite American was Thomas Jefferson. I even talk about him constantly in real-life. I know hundreds of quotes by him. And I used to joke about how I wouldn't consider myself an American, but I would be proud to call myself a Jeffersonian.
So then comes the question, what would Thomas Jefferson think about this government?
I don't find American presidents, senators, congressmen, or anyone else in our government, to be particularly redeeming. From where I sit, they are all a bunch of liars, thieves, and murderers. Though we can debate definitions.
Actually - many of my ancestors DID serve in government, and were elected at the local, state, and federal levels. So your argument that American government is not made up of, or reflects the people is flawed. Other generations of my ancestry included mayors, state representatives, members of the House of Representatives, plus presidential candidates as in-laws and spouses.
Those dedicated early Americans claimed the same individuals I described in my previous posts as their relations: Scots-Irish immigrants who left tenant farming in the Old Country, French Huguenot refugees from religious persecution, and a teenager fighting under George Washington and toughing it out at Valley Forge.
My family kept the faith.
I like Mr. Jefferson, too. He was good friends with some of my Virginia ancestors, including some I just cited. I don't think you'd care for much of what he had to say, however, just as I don't think he'd care for today's government or the corruption and sleaze and ignorance and narcissism at the highest level.
What American elected officials have deliberately engaged in murders of his or her political opponents, by poison, "accidents", and other means, as has Vladimir Putin clearly done? What American elected officials have jailed his or her political opponents for peacefully expressing their differences? And which American elected officials, having been convicted of wrong-doing, have gone free?
What American elected officials have casually allowed the deaths of thousands of disabled orphan children from abusive neglect and starvation, solely for political purposes?
Last edited by CraigCreek; 02-05-2018 at 12:02 PM..
Long winded and tired but valiant attempt to put lipstick on a pig. Let Russia alone, better yet work with them. If the Russians decide they don't like their leadership we may see history repeat itself. Where the rubber meets the road at sunset its Russias business not ours.
Short attention span, eh? Too bad, the post to which you object is filled with accurate information.
It's our business when Russia's leaders try to subvert our democratic processes and interfere in our elections and the aftermath in our federal government, as they continue to do.
Putin tried to pull a fast one hacking the election so Clinton would win, but apart from that I think he's a great guy who's done a lot for his country. By the way I am a regular everyday American and not a paid Russian operative.
Putin tried to pull a fast one hacking the election so Clinton would win, but apart from that I think he's a great guy who's done a lot for his country. By the way I am a regular everyday American and not a paid Russian operative.
The people of Georgia, eastern Ukraine and Crimea would disagree with you, as would those thousands of disabled orphans who have died of starvation and abusive neglect since Americans were barred from adopting Russian kids. Don't believe me? See the pictures on Reece's Rainbow.
I expect Sergei Magnitsky would have a differing opinion as well. As would those "regular" folks who were peacefully flying across Torez, Donetz, Ukraine a few years ago when their passenger plane was shot out of the sky by Russian operatives.
Please educate yourself before further revealing your lack of awareness. Putin is a "great guy" only in the sense that Hitler and Mussolini were "great".
You are engaged in what we call "whataboutism," or, more formally, the "tu quoque" fallacy. You are attempting to elide the central subject, Vladimir Putin's Russian oligarchy, by focusing on what you term a "double standard." Your tactic is commonly used in disinformation campaigns.
So let's start at the beginning. The Russian State, under Vladimir Putin, is an oligarchy. The rule of law is disregarded. Measures of political and economic freedom put Russia near the bottom of the developed world, closer to central Asian developing countries than to the United States. The Russian State is engaged in domestic and foreign propaganda through State control of media. Dissidents and independent journalists are routinely harassed, arrested, and killed.
Russia is one of the most corrupt developed countries in the world, closer to Somalia than to the United States on measures of corruption.
[/url]
Exit polls are not elections--they are polls. More Americans voted for Clinton than for Trump. That is the problem with American presidential elections that I was referencing. Who cares what polls say? What matters in a democracy is how people vote.
Putin and his allies in the oligarchy prevent opposition figures from standing for election. Putin and his allies in the oligarchy use the Russian State media apparatus to drastically tilt election coverage of Putin and those opponents who are allowed to stand. And on top of this, election monitors (when permitted access) routinely report irregularities at polling stations. Election monitors are not pollsters. OSCE has monitored elections in Russia. They typically spend 6-8 weeks in country with a team of 50+ professional staff. Elections in Russia | OSCE
The last Russian Presidential election they monitored involved the following findings:
-"Although all contestants were able to campaign unhindered, the conditions for the campaign were found to be skewed in favour of one candidate."
-"While all candidates had access to media, one candidate, the then Prime Minister, was given clear advantage in the coverage. State resources were also mobilized in his support. On election day, observers assessed voting positively, overall; however, the process deteriorated during the count due to procedural irregularities."
-"In several regions, participants in campaign events reported that they had been ordered to take part by their superiors. Various levels of public institutions instructed their subordinate structures to organize and facilitate Mr. Putin's campaign events. Local authorities also used official communication, such as their institutional websites or newspapers, to facilitate Mr. Putin's campaign."
-"Contrary to the legal requirements, the broadcast media did not provide balanced coverage of all candidates."
-"The process deteriorated clearly during the count, which was assessed negatively in nearly one-third of polling stations observed due to procedural irregularities."
-"During the tabulation, observers reported that in some cases the data entry process was poorly organized and lacked transparency."
RT is State media. As are the other major outlets in Russia, with the exception of Gazprom-owned NTV. Gazprom, of course, is controlled by the State as well. Russia's government owns 60 percent of Russian newspapers and all national television stations.
State ownership is one of the problems with media in Russia. Censorship, harassment & arrest of journalists, and other tools are used by the Russian government to control the press.
You suggest that Swedish media is comparable. It is not. Your statement about Swedish media is no longer accurate. Where once political parties supported State funds to newspapers, the State now subsidizes newspapers as long as they meet a subscriber requirement. Subsidies are not the same as State media.
Additionally, press freedom is protected by law in Sweden, and ownership of the Swedish press is distributed among a variety of different companies. Sweden is also open to foreign press, whereas Russia expels foreign journalists and denies them entry with regularity.
NPR, PBS, and BBC are not State media. They are independent media supported, in part, by the State (NPR, for example, receives about 10% of its funding from the federal government). They are also entitled, by law, to press freedom in their home countries.
The Justices are chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate, but serve life terms. Their opinions are the law of the land. They have philosophical and ideological disagreements with each other, thus the political actors are concerned about which President chooses each Justice.
There is a political party in the US whose platform expresses concern about the state of campaign finance in the country and the resultant reliance on big donors. There is another political party in the US whose platform expresses no concern about campaign finance and wants big donors to be able to contribute more money with less transparency. You can choose the party that most closely represents your views.
This is, by far, the best post in this thread. A+ post.
Putin has been around the block a few times. I don't believe he wants nuclear war. He is smart but Trump is smart too.
Obama and Putin were like oil and water. Different ideology. Obama pushing Homosexuality. Putin didn't like that at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
