Thread: Думские выборы 2011

Croc, you have perfectly explained what happened in the 80s but you have modestly passed the later events. The economic experiments of the leaders of USSR in 80s looks like child play in comparisson to the "experiments" (if they could be called so by any means) that were perfomed on people here in 90s. You have said that communists were trying to solve economic problems by attempt to restore НЭП policy and it's failed. Nice. But neither Lenin nor Gorby couldn't even imagine to make strategic industry branches and natural monopolies private! And not simply private like sell them through stock exchange to cover the gap in state budget but literally present the property on them to some random people. Залоговые аукционы, ёперный театр! So these new "owners" felt that this new property could be confiscated from them any time and were trying to gain as much quick profit from it as possible and weren't investing a kopeck in their companies. In result almost all former soviet plants and factories turned into warehouses now (where real estate costs something) or look very much like Chernobyl area. Industry is dead. Education is dead also: the level of incompetence everywhere is terrific. The level of pessimism among people seems very high. And btw, if we are speaking of KPRF's programm measures that they are suggesting to decrease the corruption level (I think that there is almost no way to make it any higher than current), they seem sufficient IMHO to burst small and medium buisness activity. (НЭП!) But the main reason that makes possible for me to vote Communists is the one: I want periodical goverment change through democratic elections in my country. Putin&Co are against me in this particular little desire of mine. And voting for communists is almost only option that left exept participating in arranging "colour" revolt or such stuff.

Вот близкая мне позиция:

ИНФОРМАЦИЯ И ОТКРЫТОЕ ПИСЬМО ОТ АВТОРА КНИГИ «ПОХОРОНИТЕ МЕНЯ ЗА ПЛИНТУСОМ» ПАВЛА САНАЕВА

После неформальной встречи группы писателей с Владимиром Путиным я давал короткое интервью радиостанции «Эхо Москвы» и сказал там следующее: «... Я призвал бы людей не раздувать истерику вокруг коррупции. Потому что последний год это перешло уже все разумные рамки. Не коррупция, а истерика вокруг коррупции. Коррупция есть везде. Она есть и в Китае, хотя за это там расстреливают, она есть и в Америке, только она другого уровня... Коррупционные скандалы в Америке возникают ровно тогда, когда это нужно определенным людям... Я точно так же, начиная с какого-то времени, когда пошло большое количество информации про коррупцию... точно так же кипел и бурлил от негодования и думал – как же так? Потом я увидел одну очень опасную вещь. Я увидел, что это негодование начинает раздуваться, начинает превращаться в определенную истерию, следствием которой дальше может быть тот хаос, который сейчас мы видим в Египте, который мы видим в Ливии. Потому что если вы думаете, что геополитика куда-то исчезла, если вы думаете, что исчезло желание одних стран доминировать над другими и устанавливать свои правила игры, это не так, и это все существует. И то, что на эти кнопки начинают давить, а мы, как лохи, на это ведемся и начинаем тоже кричать: «Давайте сейчас выйдем с транспарантами, долой, победим коррупцию»... Ее никто не победит. В худшем случае, если это случится, мы победим до конца только свою собственную страну... Пока есть что пилить, пока есть нефтяные деньги, пока есть эта халява... С этим ничего не сделаешь, к сожалению... Кого куда ни поставьте, все равно это будет происходить, потому что за всеми не уследишь.

– Вы голосовать пойдете?
– Да.
– За кого?
– На парламентских выборах – за КПРФ.
– А на президентских?
– За Владимира Владимировича Путина

Теперь о коррупции в России и Владимире Путине. Если вспомнить, в каком состоянии была Россия на момент прихода ВВП к власти, то ни один, даже самый ангажированный, человек не сможет сказать, что первые два срока его правления не сопровождались видимым улучшением жизни. И речь идет не только о продаже нефти. Появились чистые поезда и новые вокзалы, появилось огромное количество кафе и спортивных залов, гостиниц и торговых центров. Никогда в России не строилось такого количества частных домов и домиков, не покупалось столько машин; никогда такое количество людей не ездило за границу. Богатые богатели сверх меры, но даже бедные стали в качественном отношении жить лучше, чем раньше. Может быть, не лучше, чем при СССР, но уж точно лучше, чем в 1990–1999.

Что касается Владимира Путина, то из всех возможных лидеров более надежной фигуры я просто не вижу. Да, он не провел решительных и полезных реформ в законах, не развивал науку и технологии, не вкладывал нефтяные деньги в стратегически важные проекты, и это огорчает. Но на сегодня он – самый сильный лидер, способный объединить вокруг себя большую часть общества, и это важнее всего, когда на горизонте маячит мировой кризис, а по взрывоопасной стране носятся «оранжевые» парни со спичками. Политика – баланс интересов. Тот, кто этого не понимает, идти в политику не имеет права. Владимир Путин – нравится этого кому-то или не нравится, умеет соблюдать баланс интересов, как никто другой.

Целиком

ПыСы: Помнится, перед тем, как развалить СССР, демшиза упивалась россказнями про коррупцию тогдашней номенклатуры, золото партии и т.п. Золота, естественно, так и не нашли, как ОМП в Ираке (хелло, Ерик), Галя Брежнева умерла в нищете, а когда по ТВ показывают интервью кого-нибудь из этой самой номенклатуры, то по их квартирам видно, что жили на зарплату.

Originally Posted by Basil77

The economic experiments of the leaders of USSR in 80s looks like child play in comparisson to the "experiments" (if they could be called so by any means) that were perfomed on people here in 90s.

And I totally agree with that. We might perhaps disagree with the interpretation of those events (more specifically who was responsible), but I would definitely agree the 90s were a way less socially stable.

Originally Posted by Basil77

You have said that communists were trying to solve economic problems by attempt to restore НЭП policy and it's failed. Nice. But neither Lenin nor Gorby couldn't even imagine to make strategic industry branches and natural monopolies private! [...] Industry is dead. Education is dead also

True. But is that what the United Russia is going on doing or it had just been inherited as the legacy of the Yeltzin era? The damage had been done. Do we need another change that would cause another damage perhaps a way worse than the present? What I'm trying to build the parallel with is as following: the WWI had Russian Empire devastated and deteriorated in many ways. That surely gave the legitimacy to hate and despise the Crown regime. But what happened as a result of the Civil War could not by any means be compared to that. Does it make sense?

Originally Posted by Basil77

But the main reason that makes possible for me to vote Communists is the one: I want periodical goverment change through democratic elections in my country.

And that is [presently] your democratic right. But when the Communists will come to power again, what kind of assurance you have they will not cancel that very right of yours officially? It's the One Party concept, right? All the other parties might be officially banned and prosecuted. Remember Hitler? So, thinking just one step ahead, would voting for the Communists be a right move?

– Вы голосовать пойдете?
– Да.
– За кого?
– На парламентских выборах – за КПРФ.
– А на президентских?
– За Владимира Владимировича Путина

Гениально! Взаимоисключающие параграфы в действии!

Elites must change from time to time. They must give up power or this power will be wrestled from them by force. This is the law of politics, if you want. When 'orange' guys are roaming around with matches in an explosive situation, it is for the best to give up power or at least to share it. If not - things could go to worse. Ideally I see a coalition of United Russia and CPRF in the government and UR itself must be 'purged'. That's the idea. No one thinks that CPRF will win. It's the struggle for the number of seats in the Duma. UR has been blocking certain important laws (it IS, after all, a party of swindlers and thieves) and I think they'll find commies being in Duma rather refreshing.
I will be consistent and will vote for Zuganov. I'm not having any illusions about him being a president. Putin will win. But the more people vote against him the more important sign it will create for him to start thinking at least that something has to be done with the general situation in order to avoid the Libyan scenario.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Elites must change from time to time. They must give up power or this power will be wrestled from them by force. This is the law of politics, if you want. [...] I think they'll find commies being in Duma rather refreshing.

What's so bad about the present "stagnation period?" Do people kill each other? Is there hunger? A civil war? Does Putin convey mass murders once in a blue moon? Why do you need the refreshment? People got tired of the turbulent 90s and so they loved the stagnation of the 00s. Now, you want to change things again? To what? To the "stagnation period" of the late Soviet Union?

Here's the thing about the elites: they have enough fight of groups inside each other. Something fundamental had to change in order for a new elite to change the previous elite. Usually, it's the major shift of the economic force. It's like, ok - so the cast of the aristocrats (=the professional warriors) could influence the economy less and the "nouveau riches" more, so - voila! - the bourgeois revolution happens. (Of course, it's really about the freedom, blah-blah-blah.) That is an example of taking power by force. But, otherwise, I would respectfully disagree with that "law of politics" and I would require more examples from you to get myself convinced.

I think that presently the only two real influential economic forces in the RF is oil/gas export industry and the weapon export industry. Both are officially and practically controlled by the present or former government officers. There's some fight inside those elites. What difference would it make for a party to have more seats in Duma? I'm pretty sure that would have nothing to do with the LAWMAKING!! I think, they want to get a bigger slice of the pie, that's all. They would not change anything to the pie itself (as it's risky and requires investments) and so more seats in Duma would not make the economy better. The best they could do is to stop shooting each other and the reporters that often (aka "the political stability") so that the foreign investors [who still live in oblivion] will have some reason not to get that scared. If I were living in RF, I think I would vote for United Russia and Putin.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

What's so bad about the present "stagnation period?"

It's bad because it stagnates

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Do people kill each other?

Yes

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Is there hunger?

1/3 of population lives below the 'poverty level'

Originally Posted by Crocodile

A civil war? Does Putin convey mass murders once in a blue moon?

You might not believe it, but civil war IS possible here.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Why do you need the refreshment?People got tired of the turbulent 90s and so they loved the stagnation of the 00s. Now, you want to change things again? To what? To the "stagnation period" of the late Soviet Union?

I didn't say anything about myself. I talkes about UR members in Duma. There's a difference. And 90s ended 11 years ago. Some things are already forgotten.
You didn't read my post - I want political struggle be confined in Duma that's all. The alternative is to arrange it on the streets.
Communists say they represent 'ordinary people' - let them defend their followers by proposing better laws and give them some seats in the government and we'll see.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Here's the thing about the elites: they have enough fight of groups inside each other. Something fundamental had to change in order for a new elite to change the previous elite. Usually, it's the major shift of the economic force. It's like, ok - so the cast of the aristocrats (=the professional warriors) could influence the economy less and the "nouveau riches" more, so - voila! - the bourgeois revolution happens. (Of course, it's really about the freedom, blah-blah-blah.) That is an example of taking power by force. But, otherwise, I would respectfully disagree with that "law of politics" and I would require more examples from you to get myself convinced.

You keep comparing the moden world with medieval terms. The world is more complex now. It's even more complex than it was 30 years ago. And as recent examples show - you can destabilize a perfectly stable society in a matter of few weeks if you really want to. There are many people here that I meet and talk to who cannot propose anything practical but agree upon one thing - Putin & co. must leave. While Putin himself is still a rather charismatic figure that '&co.' part makes difference even in the eyes of the most orthodox Putinists. You keep forgetting that these changes can be inspired not from within but from outside (the worst scenario). And the only peaceful alternative to that - to arrange a dialogue with the opposition now, before it's too late. World's economy is very shaky at the moment and if that 'stability of the 2000s' SUDDENLY ends there will be an explosion. Now we are simply hoping that oil price would not go below $70/barrel. What if they would? Putin's success (those roads, trade centers, and other benefits) came to us during a period when oil prices kept going up and up. In 2008 we suddenly realized that our well-being rests on oil and gas. You asked if there is hunger? It will be if nothing is changed. That stability can end very quickly and all those 'managers who bought cars' will suddenly realize that they have nothing to pay to the bank.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I'm pretty sure that would have nothing to do with the LAWMAKING!! I think, they want to get a bigger slice of the pie, that's all. They would not change anything to the pie itself (as it's risky and requires investments) and so more seats in Duma would not make the economy better.

But leaving things as they are wouldn't make the economy better either. If conflicting lobbies clash in duma they will have to discuss things. Duma would not automatically approve anything the government brings before them. You are not trying to convince me that one party without any opposition is better than several parties, are you?
Unfortunately, the ministry of justice would not register other parties and we have to 'work' with what we have. And these strong efforts that UR makes to strangle any opposition, their continued evasion from a dialogue is one of the reasons they have to leave. They will ruin the country sooner than commies.

Originally Posted by Ramil

It's bad because it stagnates

Well, that's not fair to hate the stagnation, but at the same time to praise the stability. Bazil was saying people are nostalgic about the stagnation period of the Soviet Union, but it stagnated, so people wanted the change. O my, people are never happy!

Originally Posted by Ramil

1/3 of population lives below the 'poverty level'

Have you ever heard of the collectivization or a war? If you think the situation is bad, things could always be much worse.

Originally Posted by Ramil

And 90s ended 11 years ago. Some things are already forgotten.

How ungrateful! People forgot about the 90s, forgot about the 80s, forgot about the 70s, about the 60s, about the 30s, 20s, and 10s. We need to introduce the history lessons in schools.

Originally Posted by Ramil

You didn't read my post - I want political struggle be confined in Duma that's all. The alternative is to arrange it on the streets.

The 90s were famous, in part, for the [political] struggle being conveyed on the streets. People wanted the stability and being able to walk safely on the streets. They got that. The opposition is under control. Now, you want the struggle again? Do you want the reporters shot on the streets again (while saying their death relates to some criminal activity)? The prominent political opposition figures who tried to play by the rules (Rochlin, Lebed, etc.) were killed - do you want that phenomena to repeat? Do you want the news being full of the dirt from the hired reporters again? Why do you want the struggle in Duma? Do you think what happens in Duma is confined to Duma?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Communists say they represent 'ordinary people' - let them defend their followers by proposing better laws and give them some seats in the government and we'll see.

What laws are you talking about? Who is living by the laws in the RF today? The courts accept bribes on a regular basis. The criminals got the power. Using your terminology, the politicians are the puppets. Do you think that if Zuganov would splash a glass of juice onto Putin that would restore the well-being throughout the state?

Originally Posted by Ramil

You keep comparing the moden world with medieval terms.

The 18th century is a way past the medieval times. My example was based on the French Revolution (as it served the mental foundation for the later revolutions).

Originally Posted by Ramil

The world is more complex now. It's even more complex than it was 30 years ago. And as recent examples show - you can destabilize a perfectly stable society in a matter of few weeks if you really want to.

Don't underestimate the political complexity of the medieval times ... Ok, so it is more complex in a sense there are more direct relations between the entities, yes. But, the foundation is still the same. People will not get onto the streets all of a sudden just because someone had twitted "let's go, bros!" Let's consider the relatively recent events in Moscow (aka "soccer fans vs the police"). What would the more prominent presence of CPRF in Duma do in that case? Would Zuganov climb an IFV and say through the loudspeaker: "Guys, calm down! We are the people's party and we have more representation in Duma now! So, go home peacefully and we will sort all the issues through the political dialogue!" Could you imagine that working?

In result almost all former soviet plants and factories turned into warehouses now (where real estate costs something) or look very much like Chernobyl area

Maybe that's because soviet manufacturing was shit in general?
And it could not compete with much more superior products from the west.
In Latvia you can see VAZ about as frequently as you can see Maserati, Ferrari or Lamborghini.
No one is buying these Soviet/Russian made shit.

By the way - why you are even bothering with these elections?
Everyone in the West already know that czar Putin's boyars "United Russia" will get majority and czar himself will be coronated next year to rule for another 12 years and maybe even more.
And that's sad - it means that cold war against Baltic states will continue.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Well, that's not fair to hate the stagnation, but at the same time to praise the stability. Bazil was saying people are nostalgic about the stagnation period of the Soviet Union, but it stagnated, so people wanted the change. O my, people are never happy!

I'd hate to be tedious about terminology, but stagnation != stability, it's actually a turn to worse.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Have you ever heard of the collectivization or a war? If you think the situation is bad, things could always be much worse.

Great! Let's be thankful to Mr. Putin that we do not have a new collectivization or some 'small victorious war' by now. Well, let's be thankful we don't have to chase a mammoth all day now and live in caves! People are strange indeed! They want to live better than they do now, they are not thankful for 'the stability'.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

How ungrateful! People forgot about the 90s, forgot about the 80s, forgot about the 70s, about the 60s, about the 30s, 20s, and 10s. We need to introduce the history lessons in schools.

Oh, man, have you forgotten about educational reforms? You've read about Fursenko, our esteemed Minister of Education. Your comments were not complimentary as I recall. Him alone is a reason to hate the present government. What history lessons? We must educate perfect and brainless consumers!

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The 90s were famous, in part, for the [political] struggle being conveyed on the streets. People wanted the stability and being able to walk safely on the streets. They got that. The opposition is under control. Now, you want the struggle again? Do you want the reporters shot on the streets again (while saying their death relates to some criminal activity)? The prominent political opposition figures who tried to play by the rules (Rochlin, Lebed, etc.) were killed - do you want that phenomena to repeat?

Oh, I thought Lebed was killed in 2002, not in 90s. And Politkovskaya in 2006 while Putin was a president. Of course, I don't want that to repeat. That's why I'm against Putin. (No, I wasn't a fan of Politkovskaya).
I don't want to go into a deep research, but if we compare the number of killed journalists during 2000s and 1990s I'm afraid the results would not be in favor of the 'period of Putin's stability'. Murders continue, the only difference is that in 1990s bandids were killing each other and nobody seemed to object much, right now they murder more decent people.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

What laws are you talking about? Who is living by the laws in the RF today? The courts accept bribes on a regular basis. The criminals got the power.

Another reason to change the government, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Using your terminology, the politicians are the puppets. Do you think that if Zuganov would splash a glass of juice onto Putin that would restore the well-being throughout the state?

No, I don't think so. But it's a start. In 4 years there will be another attempt and perhaps another small change.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The 18th century is a way past the medieval times. My example was based on the French Revolution (as it served the mental foundation for the later revolutions).

Yeah, right. Especially for the so called 'Arabian revolution'. :LMAO:

Originally Posted by Crocodile

But, the foundation is still the same. People will not get onto the streets all of a sudden just because someone had twitted "let's go, bros!" Let's consider the relatively recent events in Moscow (aka "soccer fans vs the police"). What would the more prominent presence of CPRF in Duma do in that case? Would Zuganov climb an IFV and say through the loudspeaker: "Guys, calm down! We are the people's party and we have more representation in Duma now! So, go home peacefully and we will sort all the issues through the political dialogue!" Could you imagine that working?

'Manezhka' happenned because someone twitted 'let's go bros!', by the way. And you don't consider the reasons for that. People went there because the police released a criminal. Because some police officer took a bribe. That's what triggered this. The last drop. The whole system works this way because "у всех всё схвачено". "Всё схвачено" means there's no control, no counterweight. They are all members of the same gang. I want to introduce a rival gang. The problem is - people don't believe in the state power, they don't believe in justice, they don't believe in protection. They oppose the state power, they think in terms 'us and them'. Civil wars start this way.

Originally Posted by nulle

Maybe that's because soviet manufacturing was shit in general?
And it could not compete with much more superior products from the west.

Well, you see the way the import and export works is a bit more complex. For example, Latvia might not produce any competitive cars, but it could export food. That is called the "comparative advantage" and serves as a foundation for the world trade. The same thing applies to Russia. It used to export things like steel which were very competitive on the market (and some of it could still be competitive). Economically, it makes much more sense to place the processing factories close to the raw material mines and export (=transport) the processed raw materials. And "processed" does not necessarily mean "assembled". The assembled parts might perhaps be more competitive in China. And so on. So, it might be more beneficial (=more economically profitable) for everybody that Russia would export the refined gasoline and not the raw oil because the price for the end user of the gasoline in Europe would ultimately be cheaper. But, at the present, as Ramil indicated, the options are very much limited. The oligarchy prefers to export raw materials and wouldn't care about the long-term economic benefits, because they seem to be more interested in the immediate capital and so they do not want to invest and take risks on the long run.

Originally Posted by nulle

And that's sad - it means that cold war against Baltic states will continue.

Would you be able to elaborate on that? I mean, I realize the Baltic states have historically earned a great deal of fear. Perhaps, they have their right to be anxious. I'm not sure if that could qualify for the "cold war" though.

Originally Posted by nulle

Maybe that's because soviet manufacturing was shit in general?
And it could not compete with much more superior products from the west.
In Latvia you can see VAZ about as frequently as you can see Maserati, Ferrari or Lamborghini.
No one is buying these Soviet/Russian made shit.

Well, everyone is better at smth and worse at smth. Cars is not one of our strongest sides, but still, rocketry and weapons IS our national trade. Quite hi-tech, don't you think. Oh, have your own country managed to create something worth mentioning during its years of independence?

Originally Posted by nulle

And that's sad - it means that cold war against Baltic states will continue.

Oh that. An imaginary war against countries with imaginary weight in the world. No, I don't think so. This war exists in your mind only, I'm afraid. I love your "Шпроты", by the way.

I want periodical goverment change through democratic elections in my country. Putin&Co are against me in this particular little desire of mine.

Yes, I also wish that Russia is free and democratic and not ruled by KGB and mafia.
It would be great that we had friendly and reliable neighbour instead of what Russia is now.
I do not hate ordinary russian people - but your government really hates our country.
Putin's & co foreign policy is to treat Baltics like some kind of separatists - lost parts of empire and not independent and sovereign countries.
It does not accept that Baltics are not former soviet republics, but were proclaimed in 1918 and illegally occupied in 1940.
Russian government finances (with your tax money) political parties in Latvia that do not recognize our country's legal foundations and want closer relations with Putin's mafia.
And also constantly spread bullshit propaganda about Baltics (how bad russians are treated there, that nazis march in broad daylight and our government supports them, etc).
And they still haven't paid compensations for damage that USSR did to our countries.
For example - to people that served in USSR military - they should be receiving large compensations - just like wrongly imprisoned.
And my grandparents that were deported for EIGHT YEARS - did not receive anything for their suffering - and had to live like second class citizens whole soviet period.
Why there was not Nuremberg II and chekists, commies and other scum did not receive what they deserved (the rest of their lives behind bars)?
But the truth is - average russians have greater freedoms and rights in Baltics than they have in Russia - and that's why they better stay here and not move to Russia.

Quite hi-tech, don't you think.

Stuff made for military was good in soviet times too. Stuff for civilians was mostly crap. And people almost idolized imported goods.

Originally Posted by nulle

but your government really hates our country.

I think it is mutual and it has little connection to the commie/cappie facet.

Маразм крепчает

05.10.2011, 13:19:44

Жириновский пообещал посадить 10 тысяч чиновников

Версия для печати | PDA/КПК

Владимир Жириновский. Фото пресс-службы ЛДПР

Лидер ЛДПР Владимир Жириновский пообещал посадить руководителя "Справедливой России" Сергея Миронова, бывшего мэра Москвы Юрия Лужкова и еще около 10 тысяч политических деятелей и чиновников. Выступая на заседании Госдумы 5 октября, он заявил, что аресты начнутся на следующий день после выборов президента РФ, сообщает РИА Новости."Вы еще не знаете, кто станет президентом. Большой сюрприз будет. Аресты начнем в понедельник, 5 марта, в 10:00. Десять тысяч чиновников в списке готовы, я их подписал уже", - заверил Жириновский. "Последний Новый год вы на свободе. Я вам устрою 8 марта", - пригрозил он. Ранее Жириновский заявлял о намерении баллотироваться в президенты.
Помимо Миронова и Лужкова, в список Жириновского попали Валерий Гартунг и Елена Мизулина из "Справедливой России" и "все остальные" (кто имеется в виду, неясно). По словам лидера ЛДПР, он собирается отправить за решетку ряд губернаторов и членов правительства, а также "предателей-перебежчиков" из его партии. Есть в списке и "чуть-чуть" членов "Единой России". Фамилий он не назвал.
В своем выступлении Жириновский обратился к спикеру Госдумы Борису Грызлову с просьбой о защите от судебного преследования со стороны Миронова и Лужкова. "Лужков меня до сих пор в суд таскает, теперь Миронов будет таскать. Вы дотаскаетесь. И Лужков кончит в тюрьме, и Миронов кончит в тюрьме", - пообещал лидер ЛДПР.
Миронов 21 сентября подал в суд на Жириновского за то, что тот в эфире телеканала "Россия" обвинил его в продаже мест в Совете Федерации. Лидер "Справедливой России" потребовал опровержения этой информации. Лужков также требует с Жириновского возмещение морального ущерба за критику на телевидении.

Отсюда:
Lenta.ru: Политика: Жириновский пообещал посадить 10 тысяч чиновников

Заметьте, "массовые расстрелы" коснутся Единой России лишь чуть-чуть.

Я собираюсь за Справедливую Россию (за эсеров).
Много лет назад я голосовал за либеральную идею: СПС. Но обули конкретно. Либералы оказались монополистами (что странно по определению) и страшно далёкими от народа (в котором полно любви к либеральным и даже анархическим идеям).
Потом голосовал за идею крепкой России: за Единую Россию. Но мне не нравятся морды чиновников, которые в этой партии. Андрон Кончаловский говорил, что не важно что (делать), важно с кем.
Теперь хочу за эсеров. Их идеи приемлемы. Но главное, что люди из СР вызывают симпатию. Думаю, что в Питере они наберут около 30%. Все мои знакомые за них.

А на выборах президента буду за Путина.

Боже, неужели до сих пор остались те, кто собираются голосовать за едро??

Originally Posted by Alen

Боже, неужели до сих пор остались те, кто собираются голосовать за едро??

лол Вокруг посмотри, родителей поспрашивай.

Originally Posted by Alen

Боже, неужели до сих пор остались те, кто собираются голосовать за едро??

Слава богу, что да. Консерватизм в здоровом обществе должен составлять 80%, иначе всё пойдёт в разнос. Всякие революционеры и реформаторы доведут до ручки, если их будет много.
Вчера вечером видел, как у нас на лестнице молодёжь сидела на ступеньках и обсуждала, за кого голосовать. Девушка агитировала парня за Единую Россию, а парень пытался отбрыкиваться. Но девушка была энергичнее.
Если бы не СР, я бы тоже голосовал за ЕР.

Не знаю, насчёт 80%. То, что вижу я, то что я слышу от коллег, знакомых и друзей (причём, не только в Москве) вызывает у меня сомнение о публикуемых рейтингах ЕР. Словосочетание "Единая Россия" вызывает даже не равнодушие, а прям-таки ненависть или омерзение.
Консерватизм в здоровом обществе должен составлять 80%, я согласен. Но, только, если общество здорово, и консерватизм этот здоровый. Что Путин, что ЕР свои кредиты доверия давно исчерпали.

Что же касается СР, то, мне кажется, это такой нарост, который ЕдРо специально отрастило для тех, кто побрезгует голосовать за них напрямую.