Possibly old news to many of you, interesting none the less: The Extended Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man | zero hedge
Possibly old news to many of you, interesting none the less: The Extended Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man | zero hedge
Yeah, I got that on my iPod by chance almost a few years ago.
If you have not read that book, you REALLY should.
I think Perkins perhaps exaggerates and dramatizes a bit, but fundamentally what he says is true.
There is just too much evidence to support it, and it explains a lot of events with otherwise seem random and make no sense.
The people in in the European countries affected by recent economic problems should read this book! Belarussians too I think. Of course, some the problems in Europe recently are due to bad economic planning by the countries' own leadership. In Greece, in.by etc..
But I definitely think that Belarus is the victim of many of the strategies from Perkins' book.
Maybe Greece and the others too.
Those few countries that are still outside of the grip of manipulation of international finance are exactly the ones that are on the hit list for the next "democracy action", or having their assets frozen and being boycotted. It makes me sick that countries are manipulated in that way.
Ok, so you've read this book and I haven't. Could you tell me in [perhaps] a short paragraph if his theory (=the explanation of the facts) is at all falsifiable and why? Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Falsifiability? Or deniability? The usual suspects. Confessions -- or Fantasies -- of an Economic Hit Man?
Perkins is actually a late comer to exposing international "financial persuasion". The myth of foreign aid was debunked over forty years ago in the 60's.
as usual, no proof or documentation...
I guess I'm getting lazy, here's just one of many The myth of aid; the hidden agenda of the development reports
by Denis Goulet, 1971.
"as usual, no proof or documentation..." and after this no more comments from me! Your future brought to you by http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home and http://www.iie.com/
Prof. Crotty explains what it means. http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...4&jumival=5857 http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...4&jumival=6724 more: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...74&jumival=718
Yeah, we can talk about that. I mean, the only free cheese is in a mousetrap. The thing is I kind of just wanted Hanna to lay out something more specific than just "There is just too much evidence to support it". I mean, as a joke, I can claim Hanna is a computer program similar to Alice and is not a real person. Which would explain a lot of evidence, but it least it would be falsifiable. And if Hanna would be unable to find out that book falsifiability criteriaready out there on the Internet written by someone elseon her own, that would be another evidence to support the claim she's just a pseudo-AI. ;)
Well the thing Crocodile, is that ultimately these things are down to what view of the world you take.
We can look at the exact same event, say for example the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine, and we can give completely different descriptions of what happened.
You could give a whole bunch of factually correct information to support your version of events, and I could likewise give factually correct information to support my version.
We are unlikely to accept the other persons viewpoint unless some truly amazing information is unearthed. All we'd do would have done would be to spend a lot of time on places like Wikipedia and writing posts.
Like I said, I think John Perkins spices things up a bit in true American story-telling style. But fundamentally I do think that destabilising political activities do take place in certain countries, instigated by US agencies like the CIA, and perhaps privately funded organisations. I also believe that the loans offered by IMF and developed countries to poorer countries are often a poisoned chalice, a bit like lending money from a loan shark or prostituting yourself for cash. There could be a good reason to accept money on these conditions, but in many cases I think it's not.
I can't PROVE any of this to anyone, anymore than I can prove any religious points. But that's what I believe because it explains a lot of contemporary history. Therefore I think Perkins' book is relevant because it outlines an existing phenomenon in a very accessible fashion. I don't think it's quite as James Bond-ish as he makes out though, most of it is probably done by rather boring people between 9-5.30 Mondays to Fridays...
That said, I usually read what you say with interest since you have experience of living under two very different economical and political systems, and moving from one continent to another. No doubt you have some unique insights and experiences that makes your views particularly interesting.
Exactly!!! You proved to me and I hope to yourself just now that just expressing each of our point of view is a total waste of time! What I was trying to attempt is a conversation about what's common between our point of views and not what's different. And if our point of views are based on anything more than just: "That's how I see it and I don't care about even defending it as I don't really remember why I started thinking this way. But now it's just too much effort to even think about it."
Yeah, that's what I was told in the university. That helps you to live in peace with your beliefs. But, the reality is different. Because, if that would be completely true, the Historical Science would never come to existence. It's more or less the same logic that's behind the saying: "Each person is unique." That's a comfort resort from the reality. If that would be 100% true, the Sociology would never exist. Think about it. :)
Let's say you're right. So, how would your point of view explains what happens in Zimbabwe? Why to outsource the entire resource-exploiting industry to the foreign corporations rather than doing it themselves: taking a loan from the IMF, hire specialists from all over the globe, purchase modern equipment, start educating your own population so they would be able to replace those foreign specialists in the future, pay off the IMF loan in 30 years and become one of the most prosperous countries in the world? In other words, why not to (using your terminology) prostitute yourself for cash now to gain the university degree and start making some big cash in the future? Why to prefer living on the street and clean the dishes for the rest of your life and deprive your children and grandchildren from a better future than living on the street, begging for change and look up at the rest of the world with constant hatred? Why is Zimbabwe which "sits on gold reserves worth trillions" is so poor? Because of the IMF constantly looking for whom it can impoverish it hadn't yet and the CIA dreaming of placing some brand-new military bases in Zimbabwe?
I believe we can aproach to the truth if we love it. It won't be all the truth though.
Because it is suffering in general from the legacy of colonialism, because the leadership is incompetent and it lost some of the foreign aid and support it used to recieve in the past. It also doesn't have enough educated people, and there is corruption throughout the country.
Why not prostitute yourself for cash? Well I have personally recieved such offers when I was well and truly broke, while at university. I declined because I did not want to live the rest of my life knowing I'd done such a thing. I am not sure a man can understand that. Perhaps if I'd been actually starving I would have done it, but it should be the absolute last resort for a decent women.
Perhaps a country where people are starving have a responsibility to do whatever they can, including IMF loans. But that is not the case anywhere in Europe or the Middle East.
But why not ask yourself this instead Croc; with all the rhetoric against a perfectly decent country like Belarus, and others like Syria, Iran etc.... Why is there no interest in Zimbabwe? In England, the only interest is in the "white farmers" whose property is confiscated by the government.
Zimbabwe is in the backwaters of Africa, there are no real potential future consumers and ultimately gold is not that unusual as a natural reserve. Lots of countries have plenty. There is no shortage of gold per se.
But if the USA and others MUST go and meddle in other countries, then Zimbabwe is exactly where I think tit though. I believe China is investing there though - infrastructure for natural resources, and the agenda is fairly open, they do not bother talking about democracy, human rights etc.
Ok, let's not get dragged down that path. I also don't support prostitution for cash. I was just using your analogy.
Ok, so you're saying China is not like the bunch of G8 gang of pimps, but rather a respectful married man who 'supports' a young beautiful black girl. Sometimes it's cash, sometimes it's diamonds, sometimes a casual voyage to a resort. Is that ok for a decent woman? ;)
But let's assume another way around, this time without any loans. Why not to outsource only, say, 50% of the resources and with that cash start exploiting the other half themselves? This time it would only be the escourt service, no sex involved. Why is that not happening?
That explanation was good some time back, but I don't think that is adequate anymore. Zimbabwe is not a colony for some good 30 years. The US was a buch of colonies once and the economic situation some 30 years after they won their independence wasn't nearly as bad. And Canada is still a colony. ;)
I respectfully disagree. I think they are rather competent in what they are doing having in mind that Mugabe is in power for so long. I think the prosperity of Zimbabwe is not in their agenda, that's all. Why would they be interested in that? How would that benefit Zimbabwe government?
Hey, you said earlier it wasn't the foreign aid but rather the 'economic hit', right? That's not fair to use the same thing twice for the opposite purposes. ;)
How much education you really need to start digging out gold? It's no rocket science. :D
Now, you're talking. We have an agreement here. Yay! So, if our opposite point of views have something in common, that is probably the only objectively true thing, agree?
If you thought I'm going to evade your question, then SURPRIZE!! I think there's no interest in 'democratic' Zimbabwe (and other African countries for that matter) mainly because it's going to be way way worse than in Vietnam. It took so much effort to get out of there, that NATO would not even contemplate going back there. Iraq was supposed to be a piece of cake: it was already solidified under the central government, it had a strong opposition, and was previously run by just one of the ethnic minorities (no just ethnic representation). Look how hard it is to get out. There's lots of experience with Africa, it's just not working. The last and best attempt was done in South Africa. That was supposed to be a total success: a country with previous democratic (although apartheid) tradition, relatively educated population (the best in Africa), the capitalist economy, the history of long-lasting international support for the cause of black majority, and so on. In other words, just plug-and-play! So, what's now? The highest crime rate in the world, bad economics, serious brain drain, poverty, the highest documented child rape statistics (Rape Statistics - South Africa & Worldwide 2010). It's just not working in Africa (yet) and it's not worth to try. Very sad. :(
Hanna,
it is a pleasure to know that you take a keen interest in russian politics. unfortunately you have been misinformed about some key facts. for example you wrote:
"Or do you want a government that's more pro EU or pro USA than the current government. "
most russians want a gov't that is more pro russia and no russian would ever think of having a gov't that is pro eu or pro usa - in russia there is a big cult of power, i mean we like our leaders strong, it is something deeply rooted in our psyche, we are a nation of explorers and warriors and we look for partnership with countries of the same calibre. nowadays they happen to be china and india. we aren't too keen on democracy, collectively as a culture we find that such form of gov't would be built on nothing solid and we have our historical reasons to think so - remember the parliament of medieval novgorod (so-called veche) that brought our country nothing but grief.
@Bazil77,
You're kidding me, the guy's just provoking you telling some nationalistic propaganda. He is clearly having fun. :)
On the other hand, I would really appreciate your personal opinion on that piece of propaganda. Something a bit more substantial than "such ridiculous things".
It could be propaganda or other bullshit, but if someone would write "We Russians are bunch of morons" I would ask him to speak for himself too.
Sorry, but I'm not in the mood for commenting stupid things right now.Quote:
On the other hand, I would really appreciate your personal opinion on that piece of propaganda. Something a bit more substantial than "such ridiculous things".
I have heard the stereotype that Russians like a strong leader so many times. There must be something to it; no smoke without fire.
I think it does suit the mentality of Russian people though - too wild and tough and such a harsh country in terms of climate and history. Lots of drama constantly within the borders of Russia. Perhaps only a very tough person could handle the job!
For example - could a woman lead Russia do you think? Somebody like Angela Merkel, Julia Timoshenko or Hilary Clinton? Would people vote for that and would it work?
I think there is something to the idea that really large countries can't be good democracies.
Look at the USA, nobody other than American citizens seriously believe that there is decent democracy there... then Russia which has never really been a democracy and China likewise.
Oops, Canada ruins the hypothesis, or does it..? a question for Crocodile perhaps!
Canada can't be really counted as a large country because it's population 1.5 times less than in Ukraine for example and most of them live not further than 100 km from US border. Also about strong leader. What exactly you mean by "strong"? To be strong enough to take responsibility for the decisions you make? Or to be strong enough to treat most of the population like sh!t? In the second sence most of Russian leaders were very strong. But in the first one I'm afraid they are very weak and coward.
Basil77 what kind of leader do you think would be best for Russia?
I mean, can you think of an example of a leader in any other country or from another era in time, for example?
My biggest issues with democracy anywhere, is that I think it is a hoax. Perhaps it is more a hoax in some countries than others, but I think the idea that regular people decide which way the country goes is just not true.
One of my favourite leaders is Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore. He is a relatively sympathetic person, but also a dictator. His policies lifted Singapore to become one of the richest countries in the world in 25 years, and the wealth is not that unevenly distributed. Regular people like teachers, secretaries and shopkeepers have a good lifestyle there, and there is good free healthcare, education etc. He didn't do it to become rich himself, just because he really wanted the best for his country. Some of the things he has done, I wouldn't have supported and he is more of a pro-capitalist than me, but I respect his integrity and I think that on the whole he has really helped his country and not let anyone push it around.
Most people in Singapore really like him.
Interesting links, Lampada!
LKY (as they call him) took a country that was split along ethnic, religious and linguistic lines, had been exploited by colonialism and with hostile neighbours and made it rich in 25 years. I was there at their 25 year anniversary and regular people had good lives. It is a real success story and it's even better now. Interestingly there are lots of similarities between what I saw in Belarus and what Singapore is trying to do.
Build a nation where there was none before. Make people feel loyalty and be hardworking and law abiding...
Keep the streets clean and everything looking tidy etc.
Of course, LKY is more capitalist than Lukashenko, but both want to prevent their countries from being ripped off by foreign interests for any reason.
Singapore has a 0 tolerans for corruption and drugs.
That might sound cool while you're visiting the country as a tourist. But would you, personally, like to be made to work hard for almost no money and feel loyalty at the same time?
I think when you talk like this, you're showing a certain kind of disrespect to the citizens of the country you're talking about - like "you, the second-best, have to work hard and show no dissatisfaction about it so that I, a first class person, can enjoy visiting your country, that's what matters"...
As usual you talk nonsense Eric, most likely on purpose because you are trolling.
Obviously I would not wish for any country something that I wouldn't be willing to accept to live with myself! Being hard working and law abiding is a good ideal.
It's completely irrelevant to this forum, but my father used to live in Singapore and I spent many summer and christmas holidays there. My brother once got into very serious trouble because he broke the law there. He should have followed the law.
I think Europe as a whole would benefit from having tougher laws about yobbery (A British word for anti social behaviour on the street, hooliganism etc).
In Singapore economic necessity force all able bodied people to get a job and criminality is not an option, the penalties are too harsh. In Belarus, I think that people who aren't able to get a job themselves for a long time, are made to work doing community work such as cleaning and fixing public areas.
So if you think it is bad for people to be hard-working and law-abiding, do you support a national order where people are lazy skivers and criminals?
Yes, my political ideal is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The situation in USA when he became a president was pretty much like in Russia in the beginning of 90s: Great Depression, gangsters everywhere, prohibition (The Dry Law) and huge corruption. But he managed to solve many of these problems. Also in my opinion his foreign policy was also very wise and good for his country.
I can not agree with you here. I agree with Churchill that democratic system with two major parties: social-democtaric and conservative is the best system that humankind ever developed. Any power is evil, but while you have an instrument of "checks and balances" you can at least keep them in the limits of "lesser evil". My own political views are rather social-democratic, maybe with a bit of nationalistic (in the good sence) touch. But of course by "democracy" I don't mean that disgusting chaos that we had in 90s. I don't see connection between democtaric change of the ruling party and not working laws. Otherwise, I think that in real democracy laws must work equally for everyone, not like in modern Russia when a hungry person who steals a loaf of bread goes to jail for two years but at the same time a corrupt official who steals billions in the worst case just loses his job and goes to London to spend what he stole.Quote:
My biggest issues with democracy anywhere, is that I think it is a hoax. Perhaps it is more a hoax in some countries than others, but I think the idea that regular people decide which way the country goes is just not true.
Well, he is a very rare exception, such rulers are born once in 1000 years. Also he has a rather small enclave to run, I doubt that he could be such succesful with a big country. But although sometimes I want his anti-corruption measures to be put to Russian corrupt officials, I would rather live here in Russia than in a country like Singapore. I'm too "раздолбай" for that. I like, for example, to drink beer with my friends on a bench in a park and what if I (accidentally) get a bit drunk and while that (accidentally of course!) drop a cigarette butt to the ground? In Singapore I guess I would be immediately lined up infront of a fire squad and shot on site. No thanks, I like it in Russia more.Quote:
One of my favourite leaders is Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore. He is a relatively sympathetic person, but also a dictator. His policies lifted Singapore to become one of the richest countries in the world in 25 years, and the wealth is not that unevenly distributed. Regular people like teachers, secretaries and shopkeepers have a good lifestyle there, and there is good free healthcare, education etc. He didn't do it to become rich himself, just because he really wanted the best for his country. Some of the things he has done, I wouldn't have supported and he is more of a pro-capitalist than me, but I respect his integrity and I think that on the whole he has really helped his country and not let anyone push it around.
Most people in Singapore really like him.
Now, THAT is a state of mind of the bulk of the Russian nation. I think it's the national trait which in many ways DEFINES a true Russian. Those who are not like that prefer it to leave the country or stay here suffering miserably. No, I am not stereotypic, not in the slightest.
Therefore, we must always balance between a total chaos and a total dictatorship, a tyranny even. That 'oscillation', I think, make us believe we're still alive. Something must always happen in Russia. Perhaps it is even our chance for survival in the world.
Ramil, you are back! This forum is no fun without you! :-)
@Basil77
I did not know that Churchill had said that.
But I don't like the British and American system with only two big parties, or the idea that only one person can represent a district.
This means that there is no point in voting for anyone other than somebody from either of the two main parties.
A vote for any other party is going to be wasted, since they could never win the "seat".
That is the situation in Britain. To make matters worse, there is very little difference between the Labour views and the Conservative views.
It's democracy in the sense that you have a fair election. However if I have any political views other than the mainstream, then my views will never be represented.
There will be opinions which many people in the country care about, which are never represented in the parliament.
For example Environment, Christian ethics, Radical philosophies etc. That is the situation in the UK I think.
It's a stable situation, but I am not sure it's really that democratic.
Only about half of those eligible even bother to vote. The rest probably feel there is not a lot of point.
However, if you have one election for the national parliament where all votes count and another one for local districts then there is better representation of the actual views that people hold.
Then, as long as a certain minimum percentage vote for a party, it will send representative(s) to the parliament, representing the percentage of votes they got.
That way, you can have environmentalist, nationalists, Christians, radical left wing people and others in the parliament.
They are very good at raising the alarm about issues which are really important to them, but which mainstream parties don't care about.
As for Singapore, you just get a big fine for doing the things you mentioned. And if you can't pay, it prison or community service.
The fines are Singapore, not US dollars.
I agree that running Russia and running Singapore are two completely different things that cannot be compared.
I can't wait to see Russia and make up my own mind about whether Edinaya Rossia is doing a good job under the circumstances.... or not!
What is a "durian"??? Looks very mysterious! Never heard the word.
http://circleandsquare.files.wordpre...-singapore.jpghttp://www.executedtoday.com/images/...gapore_Law.jpg
On Social democracy: Yes, I lean towards that too.
But the social democracy that I like is the OLD style, the one that built up Sweden to great welfare state in the 30s, 40s and 50s.
Basically a healthy mix of socialism and capitalism in the interest of building a fair society where there is enough private initiative to keep things rolling. Whether it paves the road for a future revolution as the official ideology is/was I don't really care because there has never actually been a revolution in a Social Democratic country.
The problem with Social Democracy is that it has gone off the track!
First they built the country up to one of the best the world has EVER seen. No doubt about that.
But they literally ruined it.
It started in the mid 1960s.
In the 1960s 1970s it became all the rage to get interested in 3rd world countries that were communist. They had to be supported with tax money, lots of massive aid projects and investments, innumerable friendship leagues, etc... It was just silly and very expensive. Social democracy should have continued to focus on building OUR state... but instead everything had to be International, 3rd world solidarity etc. They totally lost the plot!
The next big thing was immigration. Just open up the borders, literally. Anyone is welcome, particularly (initially) those from right wing dictatorships who said they were persecuted. Later, some really dubious people from very dangerous parts of the world, people who had little or no chance of ever integrating. In greater and greater numbers. And more internationalism, anti-racism. This in my opinion was a huge mistake.
Nobody could disagree with this, or he'd be labelled a racist and totally stigmatised.
Then appoint Social Democratic bishops until Christianity is turned into the "Comrade Jesus' Humanitarian Ideology" as some call it (after a popular childrens book, "Comrade Jesus".) I learnt all the 6 verses of "Internationale" on my Church of Sweden confirmation camp, just to give you an idea. Seriously. I really resent what Social democracy has done to the church. They've cooled down with this a bit now, after the extreme left wing ideologies went out of fashion. But the damage to the church is already done. It has lost all credibility from a religious perspective.
Then feminism, in extreme.
And the latest big thing is pro-homosexuality. It has lost all proportions. Right at this moment in Stockholm, the Pride festival is going on. As a result, the homosexual flag is all over town and on the buses. I really don't like that. Nothing against gays, but a 7 day festival??! Gay marriages, gays adopting childrens and gender change surgery for free on national health. Endless talking about this lifestyle in all media....
That's the end of my anti Social-democracy-rant!
To sum it up, I support it in principle, but not in the form it's been in post 1960s.
I can't vote for them after what they have done.
I suppose you heard about the crazy terrorist in Norway? He hated the Social Democrats for exactly the reasons I listed here, only he was crazy and obsessive. There are lots of people throughout Scandinavia who have these views, and sadly he is beginning to become a bit of a legend, despite the fact that he is a complete psychopath. He hated Social democracy so much that he wanted to destroy the next generation.
Hanna, translated into Swedish 'durian' is 'durian'. It's a fruit.
I had not heard of it!!!
Interesting!
I didn't know them by sight either. However I often get a waft of pong from the buggers when I pass by this here fruit shop on my way to work.
Back to the topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAAQ5x1zd4A
Нателла Болтянская
Гаечка
Какая, в общем, разница, быть против или за,
Ведь всё случится так, а не иначе.
Он молод и спокоен, он смотрит вам в глаза
И действует отнюдь не наудачу.
Обязанности всяко важнее, чем права,
Права - поставить там, где скажут, галочку.
Он говорит полезные и важные слова,
Закручивая гаечку за гаечкой.
Отцам-иезуитам вполне достойный сын,
Он ценности и цели обозначил.
Над выбритой губою мерещатся усы,
И френч растет из лацканов Версаче.
Покуда не забрали, давай-ка наливай
Судьба ль нам быть описанными Галичем?
Он говорит полезные и важные слова
И тихо крутит гаечку за гаечкой.
Он сделает, как хочет. Он внятен и суров,
Но гибок, хоть глядится несгибаемым.
Свобода - несогласных крутить в бараний рог,
И методы печально узнаваемы.
Безбашенный период дискуссий и бравад
Сменился перспективою пугающей.
Он говорит полезные и важные слова,
Закручивая гаечку за гаечкой.
Увы, уже проиграно, что ставилось на кон.
Мы строимся повзводно и поротно
Он - нами же рожденный и вскормленный дракон,
Который не дождется Ланселота.
Осталось ли дыханья - колючку разорвав,
В бега уйти, другие берега ища?
Он говорит полезные и важные слова,
И тихо крутит гаечку за гаечкой.
I reply to my own thread since no one talks about this??!??!?
Putin plays to the crowd as he prepares presidential return - Europe - World - The Independent
"Mr Putin is eligible for another two six-year terms, meaning he could be in power until 2024."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/wo...ntial-bid.html
http://www.isria.com/pages/13_November_2011_48.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/wo...arsenyevo.html
Russian presidential poll in March | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online
The farce in Russia with no one opposing the modification of the Russian constitution so that Putin can have presidential post through two terms of two six-year terms?!?
But, no Russians bring this up here? Maybe the mod will censor me? Who owns MR? I am afraid of all these police states all over so-called 'democratic states.' But, no one talks about his on any forum anywhere. Why?!?
Russia has no one criticizing this although finally some Russians recognize the deceit and manipulation (read the articles above) but since Putin's mafia and money changers control the media, only a small fraction is expressed and escapes.
I read here of Republican Americans and those wanting more Government so I wonder about humankind. Stupid people who pursue the politicians who destroy their countries so they/you reward them by granting them your right of voting?!? It is sad no one speaks for Russia. At least, the USA has Ron Paul and the UK has Nigel Farage. Who does Russia have?!? No one. Russians are used to theft, deception and manipulation or maybe the media will not report on any critics but at least, where is anyone in the Russian parliament demanding transparency and accountability? The Russian mafia would kill him/her?
" At least, the USA has Ron Paul and the UK has Nigel Farage."
I just blew coffee down my nose. Thanks for that.
Good grief.
I have some questions!
Ok, I understand that lots of people don't like Putin and that the massive victory of his party in the last local elections was rather suspicious...
- My impression of why people on this forum don't like Putin is mainly because he is financially involved with lots of elite people / oligarchs and that he does not allow large manifestations by his opponents. Is this right?
- Are there any other clear & specific reasons why you don't like Putin - can you explain what they are?
- Or maybe some people here actually think Putin is more or less good for Russia and don't mind if Edinaya Rossia wins again?
- There ARE large groups of people who really like Putin though... who are they? Why do they like him?
- Is liking Medvedev as a president synonymous with liking Putin, or is there a difference between the two... ?
- If anyone dares being bold and frank, explain which party you would like to see win the next election in Russia, and why, then I'd love to hear it! Russian politics is really interesting and I have no preconcieved opinions.
People don't like current state of living in Russia and they need somebody to blame. Putin is the guy
People don't like Medvedev either and before they didn't like Yeltsin
Also, in Russia people divided on some who use Internet and some who don't
Current polls for December 4th election show that Internet users would rather vote for КПРФ - more than 50% (КПРФ are communists) than for Единая Россия (pro-government party). They saying that КПРФ is the only real opposition to ЕР and they(users) don't like either, as usual - молодёжь против ветра
People who don't have Internet would vote for Единая Россия - 50% or more
So you will not find truth on forums :)
This is interesting reading about elections in Russia - http://gonzoblog.ru/post/2011/11/10/...k_oni_est.aspx
Из Чикаго, конечно, виднее, но это, извините, полный бред. Ненависть к Ельцину не идёт ни в какое сравнение с недовольством Путиным или Медведевым, которые, несмотря ни на что, весьма и весьма популярны.Quote:
People don't like current state of living in Russia and they need somebody to blame. Putin is the guy
People don't like Medvedev either and before they didn't like Yeltsin