RugbyRebels

The Russians that I know have an incredibly complex attitude towards him. They will privately admit that he is a crook and a thug with authoritarian tendencies, but at the same time express the belief that this is the kind of ruler that Russia needs. The Russian concept of democracy is completely different to what we understand by it.

The Westerners I know openly admit their politicians are crooks and warmongers with rapacious tendencies, but at the same time try to justify this by pointing the finger elsewhere. The American concept of democracy has lost all credibility entirely, while I can think of at least one other NATO member where it has completely given way to authoritarianism.


As to him being popular, I'd say it's a mix, and even where he is a lot of that comes back to a media that dare not speak out on many, many issues when they know journalists who do are killed.

I would suggest his popularity has more to do with the fact he is a very capable and dynamic leader who has got the economy back on track and stood up to the warmongering West. & silencing the media is perfectly common practice in at least one NATO member I can think of, while the treatment of Julian Assange by the British authorities has been disgraceful.

rowan wrote:The Russians that I know have an incredibly complex attitude towards him. They will privately admit that he is a crook and a thug with authoritarian tendencies, but at the same time express the belief that this is the kind of ruler that Russia needs. The Russian concept of democracy is completely different to what we understand by it.

The Westerners I know openly admit their politicians are crooks and warmongers with rapacious tendencies, but at the same time try to justify this by pointing the finger elsewhere. The American concept of democracy has lost all credibility entirely, while I can think of at least one other NATO member where it has completely given way to authoritarianism.

If you only know westerners like that that, then it’s no wonder you are one fucked up chimp. Maybe you should try and drag yourself away from watching rugby on the internet once in a while and interact with some real people.

As to him being popular, I'd say it's a mix, and even where he is a lot of that comes back to a media that dare not speak out on many, many issues when they know journalists who do are killed.

I would suggest his popularity has more to do with the fact he is a very capable and dynamic leader who has got the economy back on track and stood up to the warmongering West. & silencing the media is perfectly common practice in at least one NATO member I can think of, while the treatment of Julian Assange by the British authorities has been disgraceful.

He is a good leader in many respects. Some people, though, prefer leaders who are less likely to murder opposition politicians and more likely to prevent election fraud, but hey, it seems to be what Russians want, so let them have it.

NATO is a strictly military alliance, and Turkey’s continuing membership of it is down to its strategic position. I’m pretty sure that if were not, they would have been cut loose a long time ago. The direction of travel in Turkey is pretty concerning for all Western Governments.

If you don't know Westerners who regard their own politicians as crooks and warmongers with rapacious tendencies you are obviously living in a very insular, denialist redneck community. No wonder you're such a narrow-minded redneck.

Talking about murdering other politicians, interesting business with Sarkozy going on at present. Seems he accepted 50 million euros from Gaddafi toward his election campaign - then turned around and helped NATO bomb his country to rubble and have the Libyan leader brutally murdered into the bargain. Wait, doesn't that ring a bell? Of course, NATO leaders have quite a history at this sort of thing. But let's talk about Putin instead . . .

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2][3] which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.[7][8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Not sure who wrote this wiki article, but it's almost like they've been reading this thread.

rowan wrote:If you don't know Westerners who regard their own politicians as crooks and warmongers with rapacious tendencies you are obviously living in a very insular, denialist redneck community. No wonder you're such a narrow-minded redneck.

You demonstrate once again your inability to comprehend simple English and apply any kind of logic to it. Nowhere have I stated or even implied that I don’t know any Westerners who regard their own politicians as crooks etc.., but unlike you, I have not stated that these are the only type I know. My friends and acquaintances come from a very wide range of backgrounds, and unlike yours have a wide variety of opinions. And you call me a narrow-minded redneck. Having acquaintances with only one set of views is the very definition of narrow-mindedness, and to call you a redneck would be to give rednecks a bad name. I know plenty self-proclaimed rednecks who have more world experience than you will ever have, though I admit, their knowledge of LGBT Rugby clubs in upper-Moldova is probably very much lacking.

Talking about murdering other politicians, interesting business with Sarkozy going on at present. Seems he accepted 50 million euros from Gaddafi toward his election campaign - then turned around and helped NATO bomb his country to rubble and have the Libyan leader brutally murdered into the bargain. Wait, doesn't that ring a bell? Of course, NATO leaders have quite a history at this sort of thing. But let's talk about Putin instead . . .

Sarkozy was always a bit of a cunt. What separates you from the real world is your inability to see your idol for what he is. Even Russians who voted for him have a more realistic idea.

Who on here has one of those Putin action man calendars? Putin, shirtless, sucking off a bear. Shit like that.

Sarkozy was always a bit of a cunt.

You really are a classic redneck Sarkozy and the rest. Britain is still the same warmongering, mass-murdering racist country that it was a century ago, only now it rides along on the coattails of the most evil military empire the world has ever known - one that was founded upon genocide and slavery, made its fortune out of two world wars, followed up with genocidal wars in East Asia, propped up brutal dictatorships through Latin America and Africa, continued with more genocidal wars across the Middle East, and now has over 800 bases in more than 70 countries around the world - most of them unwanted. But let's talk about Putin . . .

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2][3] which is particularly associated with American & British propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the the Americans and British, the Americn and British response would be "What about..." followed by an event in some obscure region not already under Western control.[7][8][9]

What an extremely difficult to digest post.

You'll note that no one has actually disagreed with your cynicism of the West?

morepork wrote:What an extremely difficult to digest post.

You'll note that no one has actually disagreed with your cynicism of the West?

Its not that difficult.

Edit to original post. This wasnt an ad hom attack it was a reaction, and a perfectly valid one, to an ad hom attack made on a thread​ in the advice board. However I've demeaned myself, let others drag me down, so I've deleted the original.

It's not that difficult MP, just see him for who he is.

Naturally it gets down to the infantile ad hominems again. In fact, all I stated was it was absurd to suggest Putin would have had ballot boxes stuffed when all predictions were for a landslide victory, just as it would have been absurd for him to have a retired old double agent poisoned in the middle of Britain when there was an election and FIFA World Cup coming up. Whatever else Putin is, he's not an idiot.

From that point on the comments made about Putin, Russia and the Soviets could all very easily be turned around and applied to Western leaders and their nations - as I demonstrated. In fact, the Whataboutism post was particularly hypocritical, because even in the West it is widely accepted the Russian bogeyman only exists to distract us from the crimes of our own leaders - which are generally much worse.

morepork wrote:Who on here has one of those Putin action man calendars? Putin, shirtless, sucking off a bear. Shit like that.

I was going to get them for my brothers for Christmas but they were £30ish a pop.

The 'in the city' section of Private Eye today has a long article about just who is in bed financially with the Russki's.
The media, in standard The Fail terms, have been characterising the Russian money in London as being their lavish properties. But that's not even the tip of the iceberg.

Awful lot of former Tory MP's get named. Net result seems to be that expelling the diplomats/known spys is about the only thing that's going to change.

J Dory wrote:Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2][3] which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.[7][8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Not sure who wrote this wiki article, but it's almost like they've been reading this thread.

I know I'm a little late to the party; but I finally get a chance to use my new (and current favourite) meme:

Donny osmond wrote:

morepork wrote:What an extremely difficult to digest post.

You'll note that no one has actually disagreed with your cynicism of the West?

Its not that difficult.

Edit to original post. This wasnt an ad hom attack it was a reaction, and a perfectly valid one, to an ad hom attack made on a thread​ in the advice board. However I've demeaned myself, let others drag me down, so I've deleted the original.

It's not that difficult MP, just see him for who he is.

*Orangutan*

That alien dude in the second pic is so going to get it.

It seems that what is scientific and what is fallacy is very much dependent on what Cambridge Analytica, AggregateIQ, Finsbury PR and the Murdoch press tell us.

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

morepork wrote:What an extremely difficult to digest post.

You'll note that no one has actually disagreed with your cynicism of the West?

Its not that difficult.

Edit to original post. This wasnt an ad hom attack it was a reaction, and a perfectly valid one, to an ad hom attack made on a thread​ in the advice board. However I've demeaned myself, let others drag me down, so I've deleted the original.

It's not that difficult MP, just see him for who he is.

*Orangutan*

Too high

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

kk67 wrote:It seems that what is scientific and what is fallacy is very much dependent on what Cambridge Analytica, AggregateIQ, Finsbury PR and the Murdoch press tell us.

Seen a lot of tweets explaining that everyone in the political data industry knows that CA are bumbling idiots who are claiming/being credited with a victory (Trump) they just didn't deserve. Cant make up my mind who I think is behind these.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

kk67 wrote:It seems that what is scientific and what is fallacy is very much dependent on what Cambridge Analytica, AggregateIQ, Finsbury PR and the Murdoch press tell us.

Apart from the press, how exactly do they pass these messages on to us? Just curious as it’s not at all clear to me.

It's all about targeting the floating voter. Particularly in the current climate where a 2.5 swing will win the vote.
So traditionally they used to court the floating voter with offers of a lift to the polling station and similar nonsense..... from which you'd get a 60/40 hit on those that would vote for you. But by directly targeting the floaters on social media you can guarantee a much higher score. Just by virtue of knowing they are somewhat sympathetic.

Exactly how they target this minority is secondary. Once they've identified them that's enough.

kk67 wrote:It's all about targeting the floating voter. Particularly in the current climate where a 2.5 swing will win the vote.
So traditionally they used to court the floating voter with offers of a lift to the polling station and similar nonsense..... from which you'd get a 60/40 hit on those that would vote for you. But by directly targeting the floaters on social media you can guarantee a much higher score. Just by virtue of knowing they are somewhat sympathetic.

So, as well as mining data out of social media, they have somehow been feeding content in, and targeted?

kk67 wrote:Exactly how they target this minority is secondary. Once they've identified them that's enough.

Oh right, so they identify a key minority who think a particular way, then broadcast a targeted message to everyone knowing that that minority will be particularly receptive to it?

I'm not entirely sure, I assume there is fake news on both sides of the political spectrum, the main point is they have access to people they know are undecided, and possibly a bit thick, and they can then manage those people in a whole variety of ways.
That is what these PR/Marketing/IT fascists are doing. And it's working. Which is why they are getting paid huge amounts of money. Some of it through the backdoor.

Wasn't the Cambridge Analytica guy caught saying he could arrange for compromising photos to be taken with beautiful Ukranian women? That's probably enough to swing my vote to be fair.