D
Deleted125623
Guest
So you noticed that as well then mac.. The evidence just keeps piling up as they say. That and the fact they ' doth protest too much'.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wake Up, America! Wake Up! PLEASE!!
- Thread starter Drillher4me
- Start date
- Status
So you noticed that as well then mac.. The evidence just keeps piling up as they say. That and the fact they ' doth protest too much'.
D
Deleted125623
Guest
Yet its beyond you to offer a rebuttle or anything to counter the facts.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted125623
Guest
How France successfully countered Russian interference during the presidential election
By Ninon Bulckaert | EURACTIV.fr | translated by Freya Kirk
Jul 17, 2018
https://www.euractiv.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/07/macron-Poroshenko-800x450.jpg
"At a time when institutions, treaties and even borders are no longer respected, dialogue with Russia is necessary for France and Europe," Pieyre-Alexandre Anglade wrote on Twitter. Pieyre-Alexandre Anglade is Macron's party spokesperson on European affairs. [EFE/DMITRY LOVETSKY / POOL]
Languages: Français
After the Brexit referendum and Trump’s election in 2016, the French presidential campaign in 2017 was also affected by Russian interference. However, unlike the US and the UK, France managed to maintain its democratic integrity. EURACTIV.fr reports.
A few hours ahead of the electoral silence and two days before the first round of presidential elections, tens of thousands of emails from Emmanuel Macron’s campaign team were leaked. Attached with the emails were summary notes, photos, invoices and among those official documents were some fakes.
Heather A. Conley, the senior vice president for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic at the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), believes that France has reacted in the most effective way to counter Russian interference.
Strong Institutions
Two structures played their role as safe-keep in France: the National Commission for the control of the electoral campaign for the presidential election (CNCCEP), which serves as a campaign watchdog, and the National Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI).
According to Conley, French institutions have better protected the integrity of elections than those in the US, where “elections are managed at the state level with federal oversight of campaign financing (e.g., the Federal Election Commission)”.
“Protection of critical infrastructure (such as election systems) is provided by the Department of Homeland Security but must be developed in cooperation with each state (which may have different approaches)”.
In France, there is a centralised supervisory body to ensure integrity.
A leak that turned into a farce
Another factor is that those who hacked into the Macron team’s emails made several mistakes. Some fake emails were added along with the leaked documents but they were so absurd that they were hardly credible. Macron’s campaign team reacted by denouncing the hack on social media and turning it into a complete farce.
“Fortunately for the Macron campaign, the fact that nothing compromising was found in the emails improved Macron’s positive image as an authentic and ‘clean’ candidate, compared to earlier scandals involving another presidential candidate,” said Conley.
The timing of the leak only served to increase suspicion of interference by Russia. Conley believes that “releasing Macron’s staff emails just hours before the electoral silence period was a risk”.
The limited period of time was insufficient to spread the leak and public opinion could easily believe it to be a hoax (and this feeling was strengthened by the amateurish nature of the fake emails). Additionally, the fact that countries such as the United States or the United Kingdom had previously been affected increased French mistrust.
Macron – only target
Macron’s campaign team had also taken precautions to counter hacking risks, they favoured the use of WhatsApp over Telegram (a Russian application) to communicate confidential information, and only used email to exchange open information. Furthermore, French nationals living abroad did not benefit from the electronic vote to reduce the risk of interference.
But why is Russia interfering in the West, especially in a democratic process as fundamental as an election? And why was Emmanuel Macron the only one of the candidates of the French elections to be targeted?
“Russian active measures are designed to sow discord, heighten societal divisions and undermine confidence in democracy. Both during the Cold War and now, Russia has used these time-honoured tactics to achieve parity with liberal democracies. If Russia and the West are equals, we cannot criticise or highlight differences in rule of law, human rights or civil societies,” stated Conley.
Boris Toucas, an associate researcher at CSIS and an expert on Russia, believes these practices are not in Russia’s interest. He said that “if Russia thinks it can compensate a perceived lack of leverage on the West by trying to undermine its democratic institutions, it’s making a mistake since it only complicates further its relationship with the West”.
Toucas stated that “the so-called Macron Leaks were never formally attributed to Russia, although President Macron made clear during a press conference with President P.utin that RT and Sputnik had been acting like propaganda agents during the campaign”.
Ukraine, Russia and propaganda: Macron sets his red lines at Versailles
The presidents of France and Russia met at Versailles yesterday (29 May) in an attempt to inject some life into bilateral relations. An uncompromising Emmanuel Macron heavily criticised Russia’s propaganda outlets, Sputnik and Russia Today. EURACTIV France reports.
Emmanuel Macron, unlike the more ‘pro-P.utin’ National Front candidate, Marine Le Pen, called for a “demanding dialogue” with Moscow and was in favour of maintaining European sanctions on the annexation of Crimea.
By Ninon Bulckaert | EURACTIV.fr | translated by Freya Kirk
Jul 17, 2018
https://www.euractiv.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/07/macron-Poroshenko-800x450.jpg
"At a time when institutions, treaties and even borders are no longer respected, dialogue with Russia is necessary for France and Europe," Pieyre-Alexandre Anglade wrote on Twitter. Pieyre-Alexandre Anglade is Macron's party spokesperson on European affairs. [EFE/DMITRY LOVETSKY / POOL]
Languages: Français
After the Brexit referendum and Trump’s election in 2016, the French presidential campaign in 2017 was also affected by Russian interference. However, unlike the US and the UK, France managed to maintain its democratic integrity. EURACTIV.fr reports.
A few hours ahead of the electoral silence and two days before the first round of presidential elections, tens of thousands of emails from Emmanuel Macron’s campaign team were leaked. Attached with the emails were summary notes, photos, invoices and among those official documents were some fakes.
Heather A. Conley, the senior vice president for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic at the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), believes that France has reacted in the most effective way to counter Russian interference.
Strong Institutions
Two structures played their role as safe-keep in France: the National Commission for the control of the electoral campaign for the presidential election (CNCCEP), which serves as a campaign watchdog, and the National Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI).
According to Conley, French institutions have better protected the integrity of elections than those in the US, where “elections are managed at the state level with federal oversight of campaign financing (e.g., the Federal Election Commission)”.
“Protection of critical infrastructure (such as election systems) is provided by the Department of Homeland Security but must be developed in cooperation with each state (which may have different approaches)”.
In France, there is a centralised supervisory body to ensure integrity.
A leak that turned into a farce
Another factor is that those who hacked into the Macron team’s emails made several mistakes. Some fake emails were added along with the leaked documents but they were so absurd that they were hardly credible. Macron’s campaign team reacted by denouncing the hack on social media and turning it into a complete farce.
“Fortunately for the Macron campaign, the fact that nothing compromising was found in the emails improved Macron’s positive image as an authentic and ‘clean’ candidate, compared to earlier scandals involving another presidential candidate,” said Conley.
The timing of the leak only served to increase suspicion of interference by Russia. Conley believes that “releasing Macron’s staff emails just hours before the electoral silence period was a risk”.
The limited period of time was insufficient to spread the leak and public opinion could easily believe it to be a hoax (and this feeling was strengthened by the amateurish nature of the fake emails). Additionally, the fact that countries such as the United States or the United Kingdom had previously been affected increased French mistrust.
Macron – only target
Macron’s campaign team had also taken precautions to counter hacking risks, they favoured the use of WhatsApp over Telegram (a Russian application) to communicate confidential information, and only used email to exchange open information. Furthermore, French nationals living abroad did not benefit from the electronic vote to reduce the risk of interference.
But why is Russia interfering in the West, especially in a democratic process as fundamental as an election? And why was Emmanuel Macron the only one of the candidates of the French elections to be targeted?
“Russian active measures are designed to sow discord, heighten societal divisions and undermine confidence in democracy. Both during the Cold War and now, Russia has used these time-honoured tactics to achieve parity with liberal democracies. If Russia and the West are equals, we cannot criticise or highlight differences in rule of law, human rights or civil societies,” stated Conley.
Boris Toucas, an associate researcher at CSIS and an expert on Russia, believes these practices are not in Russia’s interest. He said that “if Russia thinks it can compensate a perceived lack of leverage on the West by trying to undermine its democratic institutions, it’s making a mistake since it only complicates further its relationship with the West”.
Toucas stated that “the so-called Macron Leaks were never formally attributed to Russia, although President Macron made clear during a press conference with President P.utin that RT and Sputnik had been acting like propaganda agents during the campaign”.
Ukraine, Russia and propaganda: Macron sets his red lines at Versailles
The presidents of France and Russia met at Versailles yesterday (29 May) in an attempt to inject some life into bilateral relations. An uncompromising Emmanuel Macron heavily criticised Russia’s propaganda outlets, Sputnik and Russia Today. EURACTIV France reports.
Emmanuel Macron, unlike the more ‘pro-P.utin’ National Front candidate, Marine Le Pen, called for a “demanding dialogue” with Moscow and was in favour of maintaining European sanctions on the annexation of Crimea.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted125623
Guest
How Russia hacked the French election
France built resistance to fake news and cyberattacks but three out of four candidates have pro-Kremlin views.
By Laura Daniels
4/23/17, 4:00 AM CET
Updated 5/6/17, 8:53 AM CET
Photo-illustration by Arnau Busquets Guàrdia/POLITICO (Source images by Getty Images)
Since the U.S. intelligence community concluded that Moscow waged an influence campaign targeting the 2016 U.S. elections, experts have asked: Will it do the same in the French and German elections? Both votes will have an enormous impact on the future of Europe and the liberal order, and much is weighing on whether these democracies are adequately shielded from outside manipulation.
In fact, Moscow has already interfered in French elections. In 1974, the KGB launched a covert propaganda campaign to discredit both François Mitterrand and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. Overtly, Moscow courted Giscard, to an extent that papers such as the right-wing L’Aurore condemned it as an “intolerable” insertion into French domestic politics. Correspondents interpreted the move as “open intervention in national politics.”
Today, Moscow is dusting off the KGB’s favored subversive toolbox — dubbed “active measures” — but with a technological upgrade for the internet era. The U.S. election showed cyberattacks have become the new weapon of choice in political influencing. When it became clear that the digital fingerprints of Fancy Bear — the perpetrator of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) hack that stymied Hillary Clinton's campaign — were found on a cyberattack that paralyzed the French channel TV5 Monde back in 2015, French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian insisted that France take seriously the possibility of similar efforts aimed at the French elections. Anything else would be "naïve," he said.
In response to “fake news,” civil society has taken the lead, with prominent newspapers such as Le Monde launching platforms that verify the reliability of a piece of information's source. Government bodies have also done their part. The French polling commission, for instance, issued a warning against polls deemed illegitimate under French law, after Kremlin-controlled news outlet Sputnik pushed out polls that showed François Fillon, a Russia-friendly candidate, to be in the lead.
The level of awareness — based on lessons learned from the U.S. elections — France has given the issue may be half the battle. But Moscow’s influence in France runs deeper than electoral politics. Unlike in the contentious U.S.-Russia relationship, a shared history has afforded Moscow allies across the French political spectrum, from the left — dating back to the decisive role the Communists played in the French resistance — to the right, where business interests and conservative values make for common cause with the Kremlin. Three out of the four candidates leading the polls promote friendly relations with Moscow. And Emmanuel Macron can hardly be considered a Russia hawk.
The French vote will be a litmus test of whether political foresight and defensive measures can help shield elections from outside influence in a globalized, information-era world — an especially important lesson ahead of elections in Berlin this fall. As technologies make covert political influence and overt misinformation campaigns easier, democracies will have to adapt to a new way of doing business so they don’t find themselves, as they say in France, dans la merde.
Laura Daniels is a fellow at the Institut Français des Relations Internationales in Paris and the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin.
France built resistance to fake news and cyberattacks but three out of four candidates have pro-Kremlin views.
By Laura Daniels
4/23/17, 4:00 AM CET
Updated 5/6/17, 8:53 AM CET
Photo-illustration by Arnau Busquets Guàrdia/POLITICO (Source images by Getty Images)
Since the U.S. intelligence community concluded that Moscow waged an influence campaign targeting the 2016 U.S. elections, experts have asked: Will it do the same in the French and German elections? Both votes will have an enormous impact on the future of Europe and the liberal order, and much is weighing on whether these democracies are adequately shielded from outside manipulation.
In fact, Moscow has already interfered in French elections. In 1974, the KGB launched a covert propaganda campaign to discredit both François Mitterrand and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. Overtly, Moscow courted Giscard, to an extent that papers such as the right-wing L’Aurore condemned it as an “intolerable” insertion into French domestic politics. Correspondents interpreted the move as “open intervention in national politics.”
Today, Moscow is dusting off the KGB’s favored subversive toolbox — dubbed “active measures” — but with a technological upgrade for the internet era. The U.S. election showed cyberattacks have become the new weapon of choice in political influencing. When it became clear that the digital fingerprints of Fancy Bear — the perpetrator of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) hack that stymied Hillary Clinton's campaign — were found on a cyberattack that paralyzed the French channel TV5 Monde back in 2015, French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian insisted that France take seriously the possibility of similar efforts aimed at the French elections. Anything else would be "naïve," he said.
The French Network and Information Security Agency (ANSSI), generally responsible for protecting government and key industries from cyberattacks, has since offered a cybersecurity awareness-raising seminar for political parties — all parties accepted, save for the far-right National Front. President François Hollande, as part of a renewed focus on cybersecurity, ordered a “mobilization of all the means necessary” to face down cyberattacks and cautioned Russia against its use of Soviet-inspired influencing measures.
In response to “fake news,” civil society has taken the lead, with prominent newspapers such as Le Monde launching platforms that verify the reliability of a piece of information's source. Government bodies have also done their part. The French polling commission, for instance, issued a warning against polls deemed illegitimate under French law, after Kremlin-controlled news outlet Sputnik pushed out polls that showed François Fillon, a Russia-friendly candidate, to be in the lead.
The level of awareness — based on lessons learned from the U.S. elections — France has given the issue may be half the battle. But Moscow’s influence in France runs deeper than electoral politics. Unlike in the contentious U.S.-Russia relationship, a shared history has afforded Moscow allies across the French political spectrum, from the left — dating back to the decisive role the Communists played in the French resistance — to the right, where business interests and conservative values make for common cause with the Kremlin. Three out of the four candidates leading the polls promote friendly relations with Moscow. And Emmanuel Macron can hardly be considered a Russia hawk.
Nonetheless, France's defenses seem to be holding — or perhaps the big bad wolf of Russian influence is not as strong as P.utin would like his adversaries to think. Emmanuel Macron, the front-runner most vocally critical of Moscow, has faced the bulk of cyber and propaganda attacks. But claims the centrist candidate is a “U.S. agent” or funded by Saudi Arabia have not stuck. His campaign manager has denounced such reports as well as the “hundreds, if not thousands” of cyberattacks originating in Russia and targeting the campaign’s databases. But none of these have induced a meltdown comparable to the hacks that plagued Clinton's campaign — a sign, perhaps, that it pays to take cybersecurity seriously.The French vote will be a litmus test of whether political foresight and defensive measures can help shield elections from outside influence in a globalized, information-era world.
The French vote will be a litmus test of whether political foresight and defensive measures can help shield elections from outside influence in a globalized, information-era world — an especially important lesson ahead of elections in Berlin this fall. As technologies make covert political influence and overt misinformation campaigns easier, democracies will have to adapt to a new way of doing business so they don’t find themselves, as they say in France, dans la merde.
Laura Daniels is a fellow at the Institut Français des Relations Internationales in Paris and the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin.
In America, voters don't pick their politicians. Politicians pick their voters
Gerrymandering is just another way to keep black people from voting. We have to fight the entrenched politicians to end it
One out of every five Virginians in the birthplace of English America are black – disproportionally more than the one out eight people nationwide who are African American. It is therefore ludicrous that, since 2010, even more black people per capita were packed into US Representative Robert C “Bobby” Scott’s already predominantly black district.
That district, three federal judges declared on Tuesday, was gerrymandered, and they ordered the Virginia General Assembly to redraw the boundaries in 2015.
But elected officials have forfeited their chances to do that job competently. It does not matter whether Republicans or Democrats hold the power; both sides have been guilty over decades of abusing voters by gerrymandering districts. In the 21st century, voters don’t pick their elected officials; politicians pick their voters.
This time, a nonpartisan commission should draw the congressional boundaries.
In 2011, I attended a public hearing about exactly such a commission in Norfolk, Virginia. The officials testifying made constructive suggestions and politicians in the audience nodded approvingly. But the commission had no authority, so the redistricting recommendations were essentially ignored and the politicians did what too many politicians always do: try to stop black people from voting.
The result was – and always is – polarized politics: too many extreme conservative or extreme liberal districts with leaders who are allergic to compromise or common ground.
Toxic redistricting is so foul that Rep Eric Cantor was jettisoned from his Richmond-area district this summer by a Tea Party challenger. Why? The former House majority leader had the nerve to attempt to suggest a compromise with the Obama White House over a minor immigration policy issue. Eric Cantor the conservative was no longer conservative enough for the 7th Congressional District.
Congressional districts also need competition – the very element snuffed out by political pros committed to protecting incumbents through gerrymandering.
For instance, in recent campaigns, Bobby Scott (who has already served 11 terms) seemed to experience coronations instead of re-elections: he routinely received 70% of the vote. At Scott’s 2010 Labor Day cookout/political rally at a house overlooking the Hampton Roads harbor, a Libertarian candidate with a dozen supporters showed up to make a little noise with their campaign paraphernalia. Scott’s supporters fed them hot dogs and burgers: his so-called opponents posed no threat.
What would be healthier than the current system is map-making that creates “minority opportunity” districts rather than just one majority-minority district. It might not get a representative of color elected, but such districts could be diverse enough for any authentic representative of that community to emerge and build the necessary coalitions needed to earn the seat.
In the meantime, Virginia’s conservative political power brokers are expected to appeal the court’s decision and swear instead that they have been punitively destroyed by the courts. But they should understand there is a precedent for courts to review and reject racially motivated gerrymandering, even in the wake of the US supreme court’s terrible decision to eliminate the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
In 1967, Andrew W Cooper and two co-plaintiffs successfully sued New York state in federal court, alleging that the predominantly African-American Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood in Brooklyn was racially gerrymandered into parts of five congressional districts held by white representatives. The courts sided with Cooper and his friends, and a new 12th Congressional District was redrawn that year.
In spring 1968, Shirley Chisholm won that seat and made history as the first black woman elected to Congress.
Cooper’s suit tested the integrity of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which initially was thought only to apply to southern states. And, in fact, the piece that was discarded by the supreme court – which required mostly southern jurisdictions to check in with the Justice Department before changing their voting laws because of a century of legal and extralegal means to deny black voters their rights – opened doors for mischief makers with schemes to restrict or discourage voting by minority and poor voters.
But millions of African-American and other citizens of color across the country are no longer helpless before the law the way they were in the 1960s. They can legally fight the power, as we did here in Virginia – but they have to stay vigilant, because entrenched officials prefer to consolidate power, not share it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/09/virginia-gerrymandering-voting-rights-act-black-voters
Gerrymandering is just another way to keep black people from voting. We have to fight the entrenched politicians to end it
One out of every five Virginians in the birthplace of English America are black – disproportionally more than the one out eight people nationwide who are African American. It is therefore ludicrous that, since 2010, even more black people per capita were packed into US Representative Robert C “Bobby” Scott’s already predominantly black district.
That district, three federal judges declared on Tuesday, was gerrymandered, and they ordered the Virginia General Assembly to redraw the boundaries in 2015.
But elected officials have forfeited their chances to do that job competently. It does not matter whether Republicans or Democrats hold the power; both sides have been guilty over decades of abusing voters by gerrymandering districts. In the 21st century, voters don’t pick their elected officials; politicians pick their voters.
This time, a nonpartisan commission should draw the congressional boundaries.
In 2011, I attended a public hearing about exactly such a commission in Norfolk, Virginia. The officials testifying made constructive suggestions and politicians in the audience nodded approvingly. But the commission had no authority, so the redistricting recommendations were essentially ignored and the politicians did what too many politicians always do: try to stop black people from voting.
The result was – and always is – polarized politics: too many extreme conservative or extreme liberal districts with leaders who are allergic to compromise or common ground.
Toxic redistricting is so foul that Rep Eric Cantor was jettisoned from his Richmond-area district this summer by a Tea Party challenger. Why? The former House majority leader had the nerve to attempt to suggest a compromise with the Obama White House over a minor immigration policy issue. Eric Cantor the conservative was no longer conservative enough for the 7th Congressional District.
Congressional districts also need competition – the very element snuffed out by political pros committed to protecting incumbents through gerrymandering.
For instance, in recent campaigns, Bobby Scott (who has already served 11 terms) seemed to experience coronations instead of re-elections: he routinely received 70% of the vote. At Scott’s 2010 Labor Day cookout/political rally at a house overlooking the Hampton Roads harbor, a Libertarian candidate with a dozen supporters showed up to make a little noise with their campaign paraphernalia. Scott’s supporters fed them hot dogs and burgers: his so-called opponents posed no threat.
What would be healthier than the current system is map-making that creates “minority opportunity” districts rather than just one majority-minority district. It might not get a representative of color elected, but such districts could be diverse enough for any authentic representative of that community to emerge and build the necessary coalitions needed to earn the seat.
In the meantime, Virginia’s conservative political power brokers are expected to appeal the court’s decision and swear instead that they have been punitively destroyed by the courts. But they should understand there is a precedent for courts to review and reject racially motivated gerrymandering, even in the wake of the US supreme court’s terrible decision to eliminate the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
In 1967, Andrew W Cooper and two co-plaintiffs successfully sued New York state in federal court, alleging that the predominantly African-American Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood in Brooklyn was racially gerrymandered into parts of five congressional districts held by white representatives. The courts sided with Cooper and his friends, and a new 12th Congressional District was redrawn that year.
In spring 1968, Shirley Chisholm won that seat and made history as the first black woman elected to Congress.
Cooper’s suit tested the integrity of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which initially was thought only to apply to southern states. And, in fact, the piece that was discarded by the supreme court – which required mostly southern jurisdictions to check in with the Justice Department before changing their voting laws because of a century of legal and extralegal means to deny black voters their rights – opened doors for mischief makers with schemes to restrict or discourage voting by minority and poor voters.
But millions of African-American and other citizens of color across the country are no longer helpless before the law the way they were in the 1960s. They can legally fight the power, as we did here in Virginia – but they have to stay vigilant, because entrenched officials prefer to consolidate power, not share it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/09/virginia-gerrymandering-voting-rights-act-black-voters
While Schwarzenegger has feuded with his own party on various policy fronts, he is a high-profile Republican whose endorsement could help the Michigan committee counter claims its initiative is a vehicle for Democrats disgruntled by boundaries last drawn by majority GOP legislators.
“Gerrymandering is one of the greatest tricks that politicians have played on the American people,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement. “Voters don’t get to choose their politicians, politicians get to choose their voters, and it is hurting our democracy.”
“Gerrymandering is one of the greatest tricks that politicians have played on the American people,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement. “Voters don’t get to choose their politicians, politicians get to choose their voters, and it is hurting our democracy.”
You are right, and no one has made you the keeper of the truth. I am saying that my opinion is more moderate than others in Russia (right wing and alt patriotic right), which does not prevent me from having his confidence.
I will quote a western friendly Russian media, a western biased media, a "neutral" media, an official russian media with western russian friendly expert and an other western media :
Putin’s Approval Rating Returns to Pre-Coronavirus Levels – Poll - The Moscow Times
President Vladimir Putin’s approval rating has jumped to one of its highest levels since the start of the year as Russia continues its steady recovery from the coronavirus outbreak, the independent Levada Center polling agency said Wednesday.
Putin's popularity rating falls to lowest level in over two decades amid coronavirus outbreak
Putin's approval rating fell to 59% in April, down from 63% in the previous month, according to a poll carried out by the independent Levada Center.
Putin approval rating Russia 2024 | Statista
Vladimir Putin's popularity level saw a slight increase in February 2024. The vast majority of Russians approved of activities of their country's president.
www.statista.com
Western ‘experts’ predicted Covid-19 would lead to Russia's economic collapse & ‘topple’ Putin...they were wrong (again!)
A few months ago, US/UK media outlets and think tanks warned that the Covid-19 crisis meant Russia faced economic ruin. Now, as we enter the fall, it turns out Moscow is in a far better condition than most of its Western rivals.
What about Biden's and Trump's approval popularity ?
Last edited:
There's nothing uniquely Russian about claiming everyone who disagrees with you is "arrogant". That's not a special point of view that only Russians can have.
It's a natural weak-minded human thing to get mad and call people names when they point out your logical and factual errors.
It's a natural weak-minded human thing to get mad and call people names when they point out your logical and factual errors.
I said arrogant because everything is better with you if you are listened to. I have not seen much arrogance among Trump supporters even though I am not sure I agree with them on issues of abortion, social justice, global warming and sustainable development or even on the low consideration of their candidates for science. Things that we can sometimes blame Poutin, even if he is so much more competent serious, and less conservative/more liberal.
Last edited:
I could be wrong Mac. I have been wrong on here before. I don't like insulting anyone really, I know I do in this thread, not in my personal life. Even if she isn't who she appears we are all words on a screen.
D
Deleted125623
Guest
Overall, we rate the Moscow Times Left-Center Biased based on an editorial bias that generally favors the left and rejects the authoritarian right. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.
Meaning folks, that RT and Sputnik are, as has been said many time,s a unreliable non factual propaganda rag and are listed as 158th in the world for editorial accuracy , truthfulness, unbiased and factual articles.
Moscow Times by the way is a DUTCH run news media. Both the Dutch media and Moscow times are rated number 4 in the world for editorial accuracy , truthfulness, and unbiased articles.
Says it all really.
1960's? Before I was born, that's for sure. You, well, maybe you were around, who knows. But one thing is for sure, it was "back in the '60s" ... gesh ... who the fuck cares what went on in the 1960s, actually? Sixty years ago? Are YOU KIDDING! Give me a break. People who have a point to make about politics prefer talking about the current environment/activities, not what happened SIXTY frik'n years ago, H-H. The current President and the current Republican party give off more stench than a thousand waste plants and it is obvious you'd prefer NOT to talk about it. Don't blame you!
No doubt both parties have issues, but, currently there is no comparison in the corruptness of the two parties. The least you Trumptards could do, at this time, is to "man up" and admit your party needs to redefine itself. What Trump & the ReThuglicans are doing now is simply taking a "WIN AT ALL COST" approach to their problem ... and so far, in covid-19 lives alone, that's well over 200,000 men, women and children in the US, yet the ReThuglicans hold their ground on precautionary approaches to addressing the virus. Gun control? Abortion Rights? Voting Suppression? Hell, those things seem like nothing compared to where Trump and the Republicans want to take this country now. Trample out democracy, and basically agree to a dictatorship & a idiot President that has no respect for any living human being ... FUCK TRUMP and FUCK every one of the treasonous SOBs who won't stand up against a tyrant "wanna be". I say put 'em all in a giant stadium and gas every frik'n one of them who support Trump's political agenda.
Last edited:
TRUMP and the BIG LIE ...
medium.com
www.politico.com
The covid-19 BIG LIE alone should warrant impeachment, immediate removal, and imprisonment of every single individual involved in holding CDC inform back on covid-19 from the American public.
Donald Trump and The Big Lie
It frightens me how well Donald Trump uses the technique of the Big Lie to sow division and discord among us. Because I’m old enough to remember well who invented the Big Lie and how he used it to…
Trump officials interfered with CDC reports on Covid-19
The politically appointed HHS spokesperson and his team demanded and received the right to review CDC’s scientific reports to health professionals.
www.politico.com
The covid-19 BIG LIE alone should warrant impeachment, immediate removal, and imprisonment of every single individual involved in holding CDC inform back on covid-19 from the American public.
Last edited:
Can you really be that dense? NC's goofy form of straight party voting which required a separate vote for president was created in the 60s....and was still in use until 2013. This has led to ten's of thousands of NC TarBrains not casting votes for a president each cycle, even though they checked "give me all dem dumascraps".
Since this was the case all the way through 2013, the real question is how do you not know that? Are you lying about being in NC? Are you a TarBrain that never actually votes....just sit in your basement and whine? Have you voted all these years, checking the "give me all dem dumascraps" and never even noticed you had to vote for the president too?
Wow someone's got a potty mouth there, hoping.
Sound not smart when say meany words
Sound not smart when say meany words
When Republicans took over the NC Legislation in 2010 (in over a hundred years, by the way) they began making changes to the voting laws by radically gerrymandering the districts which just recently got corrected. They cut the voting days, locations, times, same day registration, on-campus registration, AND they changed the party-line voting in 2014 ... all to create HUGE LINES to vote, and ALL under the Republican VOTER ID laws which never got passed. Coincidently, of the 5-member NC Board of Elections, 3 are Democrats and 2 Republicans, but the 2 Republicans resigned last week because of the changes being made by State judges. There won't be any Republican Legislation in NC come 2021 and Senator Tillis can kiss his ass goodbye.
Now personally, you know I don't give a rat's ass what you believe or don't believe, H-H. Do something useful with your life ... go jump in front of an Amtrak and stop a train.
And by all means, "******* for brains" .... try to stay in the 21st Century with your bullshit. No one cares what happened OVER FIFTY YEARS AGO.
North Carolina.
It's a state. One of fifty.
Sadly i read your comment, we should all care. History shows us where we were and where we are now. It reviles mistakes made and solutions to problems we might encounter. It provides information that we might just learn from. It's a valuable resource . I'm old i guess but consider this, my sixth grade science teacher showed us the effects of greenhouse gases in 1959. He Pumped carbon gases slowly day by day into a sealed environment. Bugs and reptiles died followed by all plant life. Proof that too much of that gas would destroy life as we know it. It was known then that those gases do not escape our atmosphere. They build up. The problem is most people didn't get it or just didn't give a *******. Too much profit from oil and those consumed by greed don't understand you can't spend it if your dead. Trump's a greedy one consumed by greed. Screw the environment let's make cash. I'm old so my days are limited, i wonder if younger people will have a long life or if ignorance will ******* man off. Big money controls much of what we're told and they have the most to loose by taking steps to slow down what some believe can't be completely stopped. The ice caps are melting as predicted, the ocean is rising. My friend in Oregon had over a hundred feet of yard to the water that now is about thirty five feet. Or presidents legal team argued in court in Scotland wanting to construct sea walls to protect his golf course because of rising seas from global warming. Global warming that he tells his followers is 100% bunk. His resort is more important than peoples lives. They also tried to get poor peoples houses condemned and torn down. Why because people going to his expensive resort might get put off by the poverty as they drove by. The real Donald Trump.
- Status
