Trump will make history as the 45th and now 47th president, NBC News projects, saying he will fix an ailing country and despite warnings he will rule as an authoritarian.
Like the last couple of elections were free and democratic.
I guess counting of the votes was.
But the system is sufficiently rigged already, Russians just don’t bother with such complex mechanisms. Why, when you can just steal. After all, a different kind of people.
The 2000 and 2004 elections in russia are generally considered free and fair (2004 perhaps less so, but I digress). That didn’t really have an impact later on.
But the system is sufficiently rigged already, Russians just don’t bother with such complex mechanisms. Why, when you can just steal. After all, a different kind of people.
While I agree in general, having lived in North America for a decade (including US) and russia for over a decade, you’d be surprised about the similarities in certain (emphasis on certain, not even close to all or even many) elements of “national thinking” in the US and russia. That being said, historically US has had a positive impact in the world. I can’t think of a single thing that russia has done that has had a positive effect (even their much fetishized celebration of WW2 victory is a ruse as the USSR initially sided with the Nazis to split up Europe).
The 2000 and 2004 elections in russia are generally considered free and fair (2004 perhaps less so, but I digress). That didn’t really have an impact later on.
I meant 1996. Wide protests, the first election in independent Russia widely put in doubt, but in the West - lots of enthusiasm that the bad thing didn’t happen and those communists didn’t win.
even their much fetishized celebration of WW2 victory is a ruse as the USSR initially sided with the Nazis to split up Europe
I disagree. (Sorry for the very long elaboration that follows, but it’s needed, I think. Stalin’s USSR wasn’t nice, but what you said is usually part of the narrative most of which is plainly not true.)
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a temporary (and very abrupt) change of policy and not what some common narratives make it seem. Soviet propaganda almost since 20s and till that short period actually portrayed Germans in some form as the main potential enemy.
Those Baltic countries USSR swallowed were typical fascist regimes, just small. Military aggression is not nice, but the narrative people from the Baltics love now, about how USSR was “worse than the Nazis” - well, very few Baltic Jews survived, I guess that makes their position consistent with reality, but doesn’t sell it very well to me.
Parts of Poland annexed were Western Ukraine and Western Belarus, and Wilno which is now part of Lithuania. And no, Polish Republic of that time wasn’t very minority-friendly. Again, not as clear-cut. There Soviet troops were really welcomed in 1939.
Even the Winter War was preceded by repeated offers of similar or bigger amount of territory given to Finland by USSR in exchange for what it asked, and what it asked was the really necessary territory to make Leningrad defensible from the Finnish side. It was not as barbaric and aggressive as the common narratives say as well. Karl Gustav Mannerheim, if you know who that is, not only supported accepting the deal, but was in favor of some concessions more than the minimum that USSR demanded. And after the war, forcing its victory, USSR took no more than that.
And Soviet Union did pay the biggest human cost of those fighting in Europe.
The fetish is disgusting, of course, and also anachronistic - there were no regular parades initially in celebration of that war ending, only those on November 7, and of course nobody was enthusiastic about an opportunity to “repeat it”. It was a hungry ruined country with disabled veterans in poverty, gangs of orphans, years of darkness and despair, one can say. The years between end of the war and Stalin’s death are not really remembered for anything other than that.
Actually for all the Cold War the USSR’s propaganda position was that it wants only peace and united humanity, and the people who want to “repeat” something are on the other side. I’d say that during the first Indochina war and even later this was, well, true.
I am Ukrainian. So let’s just say you won’t convince me of the uncle Stalin coming to liberate eastern Europe BS narrative. I would like to invite you and your family to try and speak Ukrainian in the occupied territories.
A strong majority of russian are genocidal imperialists. Not because of any inherent qualities, it’s the choices they make.
I will just add that the russians should take ownership of the outcomes in their history (not just 1996 election, but more generally). They are not children and they need to take responsibility without looking for scapegoats as they always do.
I am Ukrainian. So let’s just say you won’t convince me of the uncle Stalin coming to liberate eastern Europe BS narrative. I would you and your family to try and speak Ukrainian in the occupied territories.
Ukrainian language was not in any way suppressed in the USSR at any point. My grandmother happens to be from Ukraine.
It was less prestigious, because of technical education being given in Russian and the “distribution” system after university, where graduates were being directed to workplaces all over the union.
If you mean these days, I don’t think there’s been a vote on invading Ukraine.
A strong majority of russian are genocidal imperialists. Not because of any inherent qualities, it’s the choices they make.
Well, since you’ve pulled some Ukrainian roots for your position, I’ll say that I’m Armenian and those Ukrainians I’ve met who’d open their mouth on Artsakh did not lead me to believe that Ukrainians make better choices (and they can stick whatever they call “international law” where sun don’t shine, if that set of rules in their opinion makes a land consistently Armenian since before Slavs made it into written history and till now to be Azeri, because in USSR someone decided so and some bastards “recognized” it as such).
I will just add that the russians should take ownership of the outcomes in their history (not just 1996 election, but more generally). They are not children and they need to take responsibility without looking for scapegoats as they always do.
Do you do the same in full for every identity you apply to yourself? If not, then why are you giving advice to Russians?
The first step towards authoritarian is the revocation of free speach. The only people trying to control that as of present are the left. Ill start listening to what u have to say the second trump bans people speaking their minds in public or puts american citizens people in concentration camps.
if you don’t remember, let me refresh your memory; trump was calling news outlets he didn’t agree with as “fake news”, and even went as far as kicking them out of press conferences in favour of his “approved” journalists.
undermining journalism is how your boy hitler started to rise to power.
if you don’t consider that an impingement on free speech, and you’d rather wait until he does it to the rest of the citizens, then i really have no more words for you.
Free speach is everyone right (yes even the people u dont like) trump can call whoever he wants fake news thats him exercising his free speach.
He can kick em out thats not violating their right to write and say whatever the fuck they want.
Would you consider the government asking twitter to kindly remove a true story from circulation because it would reflect negatively on said stories fathers political endeavours a violation of frew speach or ellection interference?
Why do you think there would a formal revocation of free speech if US did slide into authoritarian, non-democratic rule? This seems counter inuitive. Why bring attention to such a topic if your goal is limiting free speech, surely you would use other more subtle methods to achieve such a goal (again this topic is well researched and you can easily find out how it works if you are actually acting in good faith). Russia (and I believe even China) formally has free speech.
And what makes you think people in the US would oppose trump jailing political opponents (or let alone have the capability do anything about it)? No one is going to openly say that person X is going to jail because he opposes Trump/his backers. You would find some other reason that is easy to market to local plebs? No?
Why do you think there would a formal revocation of free speech if US did slide into authoritarian, non-democratic rule? This seems counter inuitive. Why bring attention to such a topic if your goal is limiting free speech, surely you would use other more subtle methods to achieve such a goal (again this topic is well researched and you can easily find out how it works if you are actually acting in good faith). Russia (and I believe even China) formally has free speech.
Exactly u would be way morw subtle like pressuring all the social media sites where a majority of conversation takes place to remove certain information.
And what makes you think people in the US would oppose trump jailing political opponents (or let alone have the capability do anything about it)? No one is going to openly say that person X is going to jail because he opposes Trump/his backers. You would find some other reason that is easy to market to local plebs? No?
What do u think trumps felonies are? Attempts to jail a political opponent? Righfully earned for hiding the fact he paid of a hooker? Didnt Arnold Schwarzenegger do the same thing?
Am I being unreasonable in my line of thinking?
Not at all u just need to make the final connection
Exactly u would be way morw subtle like pressuring all the social media sites where a majority of conversation takes place to remove certain information.
I am not really sure how this relates to what we were discussing. Let’s add say leftists, Biden, Harris, anyone you want, to the list of authoritarians and oppose free speech. Let’s just close this piece for a second.
Why would you assume that limitations on free speech would be done via a formal, well publicized revocation of a constitution article (from my experience living in the US, polemics around constitution are extremely common when compared to other countries)? Surely if that was your goal, you would use methods that provide a veneer of deniability and you would use roundabout methods (de facto instead of de jure). So how would you even come to the conclusion that free speech is being limited if it is clear that this would be done with the explicit goal of trying to convince people that free speech is not being trampled on?
What do u think trumps felonies are? Attempts to jail a political opponent? Righfully earned for hiding the fact he paid of a hooker? Didnt Arnold Schwarzenegger do the same thing?
OK, same thing. Let’s just say Trump is innocent of any and all issues, it’s all his political opponents.
Why do you think the prosecution of opponents by a regime would be done in the open and in a manner that would make it clear that this is happening? What benefit would the side implementing such initiatives have from doing this in the open, in a way that can be easily noted by the general public? Do you not agree that in the early stages of transition to an autocratic, non-democratic regime it makes more sense to use alternative methods that can convince your own supporters that you are doing the right thing? If it makes it easier, let’s even forget Trump. Just base discussion that can apply to a country’s political sphere (be it in the US or otherwise).
Not at all u just need to make the final connection
What connection am I supposed to make. Even if I agree with your arguments regarding prosecution of Trump and leftists limiting free speech, I don’t see what this to with points I am bringing (which I tried to present in a more generic manner).
You can think Americans are inherently immune to the points I raised. Fine, I obviously disagree (I lived in the US and many other countries, so it would not be possible for me to agree to such a claim), but then you should be explicit about this. State it clearly, if that’s what you believe.
That’s not necessarily true. Russia holds elections as well, doesn’t mean they are free and fair.
It’s pretty naive to think that the US cannot become a de facto non-democratic state.
Like the last couple of elections were free and democratic.
I guess counting of the votes was.
But the system is sufficiently rigged already, Russians just don’t bother with such complex mechanisms. Why, when you can just steal. After all, a different kind of people.
The 2000 and 2004 elections in russia are generally considered free and fair (2004 perhaps less so, but I digress). That didn’t really have an impact later on.
While I agree in general, having lived in North America for a decade (including US) and russia for over a decade, you’d be surprised about the similarities in certain (emphasis on certain, not even close to all or even many) elements of “national thinking” in the US and russia. That being said, historically US has had a positive impact in the world. I can’t think of a single thing that russia has done that has had a positive effect (even their much fetishized celebration of WW2 victory is a ruse as the USSR initially sided with the Nazis to split up Europe).
I meant 1996. Wide protests, the first election in independent Russia widely put in doubt, but in the West - lots of enthusiasm that the bad thing didn’t happen and those communists didn’t win.
I disagree. (Sorry for the very long elaboration that follows, but it’s needed, I think. Stalin’s USSR wasn’t nice, but what you said is usually part of the narrative most of which is plainly not true.)
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a temporary (and very abrupt) change of policy and not what some common narratives make it seem. Soviet propaganda almost since 20s and till that short period actually portrayed Germans in some form as the main potential enemy.
Those Baltic countries USSR swallowed were typical fascist regimes, just small. Military aggression is not nice, but the narrative people from the Baltics love now, about how USSR was “worse than the Nazis” - well, very few Baltic Jews survived, I guess that makes their position consistent with reality, but doesn’t sell it very well to me.
Parts of Poland annexed were Western Ukraine and Western Belarus, and Wilno which is now part of Lithuania. And no, Polish Republic of that time wasn’t very minority-friendly. Again, not as clear-cut. There Soviet troops were really welcomed in 1939.
Even the Winter War was preceded by repeated offers of similar or bigger amount of territory given to Finland by USSR in exchange for what it asked, and what it asked was the really necessary territory to make Leningrad defensible from the Finnish side. It was not as barbaric and aggressive as the common narratives say as well. Karl Gustav Mannerheim, if you know who that is, not only supported accepting the deal, but was in favor of some concessions more than the minimum that USSR demanded. And after the war, forcing its victory, USSR took no more than that.
And Soviet Union did pay the biggest human cost of those fighting in Europe.
The fetish is disgusting, of course, and also anachronistic - there were no regular parades initially in celebration of that war ending, only those on November 7, and of course nobody was enthusiastic about an opportunity to “repeat it”. It was a hungry ruined country with disabled veterans in poverty, gangs of orphans, years of darkness and despair, one can say. The years between end of the war and Stalin’s death are not really remembered for anything other than that.
Actually for all the Cold War the USSR’s propaganda position was that it wants only peace and united humanity, and the people who want to “repeat” something are on the other side. I’d say that during the first Indochina war and even later this was, well, true.
I am Ukrainian. So let’s just say you won’t convince me of the uncle Stalin coming to liberate eastern Europe BS narrative. I would like to invite you and your family to try and speak Ukrainian in the occupied territories.
A strong majority of russian are genocidal imperialists. Not because of any inherent qualities, it’s the choices they make.
I will just add that the russians should take ownership of the outcomes in their history (not just 1996 election, but more generally). They are not children and they need to take responsibility without looking for scapegoats as they always do.
Ukrainian language was not in any way suppressed in the USSR at any point. My grandmother happens to be from Ukraine.
It was less prestigious, because of technical education being given in Russian and the “distribution” system after university, where graduates were being directed to workplaces all over the union.
If you mean these days, I don’t think there’s been a vote on invading Ukraine.
Well, since you’ve pulled some Ukrainian roots for your position, I’ll say that I’m Armenian and those Ukrainians I’ve met who’d open their mouth on Artsakh did not lead me to believe that Ukrainians make better choices (and they can stick whatever they call “international law” where sun don’t shine, if that set of rules in their opinion makes a land consistently Armenian since before Slavs made it into written history and till now to be Azeri, because in USSR someone decided so and some bastards “recognized” it as such).
Do you do the same in full for every identity you apply to yourself? If not, then why are you giving advice to Russians?
I believe I was pretty clear when I said I am Ukrainian (living in Ukraine).
Why in god’s name do you think I would buy into your white-washing of russian genocidal chauvinism?
What’s the logic here?
Things I’ve said are factually true.
Truth can’t be whitewashing.
OK, so you live in Ukraine. This gives us what?
Well im very confident it will remain as free and fair in future elections as it currently is. May even get more fair if he introduces voter id.
I think your confidence in this is exactly why it can happen.
This is not some sort of secret knowledge, the topic of democracies sliding into de facto authoritarianism is a well researched topic.
And the mode by which this happens is often slow and steady, largely driven by complacency and corruption.
The first step towards authoritarian is the revocation of free speach. The only people trying to control that as of present are the left. Ill start listening to what u have to say the second trump bans people speaking their minds in public or puts american citizens people in concentration camps.
if you don’t remember, let me refresh your memory; trump was calling news outlets he didn’t agree with as “fake news”, and even went as far as kicking them out of press conferences in favour of his “approved” journalists.
undermining journalism is how your boy hitler started to rise to power.
if you don’t consider that an impingement on free speech, and you’d rather wait until he does it to the rest of the citizens, then i really have no more words for you.
Free speach is everyone right (yes even the people u dont like) trump can call whoever he wants fake news thats him exercising his free speach.
He can kick em out thats not violating their right to write and say whatever the fuck they want.
Would you consider the government asking twitter to kindly remove a true story from circulation because it would reflect negatively on said stories fathers political endeavours a violation of frew speach or ellection interference?
It’s not the left banning books, dipshit.
Nope, instead they just call up big tech social media and say please censor these posts because the WHO says so
Does it hurt being that stupid?
Its not trump either is it?
Removed by mod
Thats not good faith disscussion thats just insulting me. Im here to have a disscussion about politics not to through insults at eachother.
Removed by mod
How can I be ignorant and a liar? Arnt they mutuality exclusively?
Also is a mod gonna delete ur comment i got one of mine deleted for somthing far less insulting kt is this just lemmy bias?
Waaaaaaah mods savee me from the big meanie who tells me who I truly am!
Why do you think there would a formal revocation of free speech if US did slide into authoritarian, non-democratic rule? This seems counter inuitive. Why bring attention to such a topic if your goal is limiting free speech, surely you would use other more subtle methods to achieve such a goal (again this topic is well researched and you can easily find out how it works if you are actually acting in good faith). Russia (and I believe even China) formally has free speech.
And what makes you think people in the US would oppose trump jailing political opponents (or let alone have the capability do anything about it)? No one is going to openly say that person X is going to jail because he opposes Trump/his backers. You would find some other reason that is easy to market to local plebs? No?
Am I being unreasonable in my line of thinking?
Exactly u would be way morw subtle like pressuring all the social media sites where a majority of conversation takes place to remove certain information.
What do u think trumps felonies are? Attempts to jail a political opponent? Righfully earned for hiding the fact he paid of a hooker? Didnt Arnold Schwarzenegger do the same thing?
Not at all u just need to make the final connection
I am not really sure how this relates to what we were discussing. Let’s add say leftists, Biden, Harris, anyone you want, to the list of authoritarians and oppose free speech. Let’s just close this piece for a second.
Why would you assume that limitations on free speech would be done via a formal, well publicized revocation of a constitution article (from my experience living in the US, polemics around constitution are extremely common when compared to other countries)? Surely if that was your goal, you would use methods that provide a veneer of deniability and you would use roundabout methods (de facto instead of de jure). So how would you even come to the conclusion that free speech is being limited if it is clear that this would be done with the explicit goal of trying to convince people that free speech is not being trampled on?
OK, same thing. Let’s just say Trump is innocent of any and all issues, it’s all his political opponents.
Why do you think the prosecution of opponents by a regime would be done in the open and in a manner that would make it clear that this is happening? What benefit would the side implementing such initiatives have from doing this in the open, in a way that can be easily noted by the general public? Do you not agree that in the early stages of transition to an autocratic, non-democratic regime it makes more sense to use alternative methods that can convince your own supporters that you are doing the right thing? If it makes it easier, let’s even forget Trump. Just base discussion that can apply to a country’s political sphere (be it in the US or otherwise).
What connection am I supposed to make. Even if I agree with your arguments regarding prosecution of Trump and leftists limiting free speech, I don’t see what this to with points I am bringing (which I tried to present in a more generic manner).
You can think Americans are inherently immune to the points I raised. Fine, I obviously disagree (I lived in the US and many other countries, so it would not be possible for me to agree to such a claim), but then you should be explicit about this. State it clearly, if that’s what you believe.