Opinion polls Feb. 2015

It's not about people, it's about Putins propaganda drawing a picture in the minds of uneducated croud. The picture in three sentences is this:
1. Putin protects the Russians from America and Co which are the only reason of all possible troubles.
2. LGBT community is also a trouble as it is against the church and just cuz they say so on TV.
3. Human rights, economy and the quality of life are less importnant than the fact that Putin-reigned Russia is so damn great, Russia also protects poor little brothers like Ukrainians and others.

In the 90-ies, only one generation ago, amercians and europeans were viewed as best friends...

The whole majority of people never thinks, crouds are simply fed with BS, and that is true for almost every single country around the world
[DOUBLEPOST=1424292347][/DOUBLEPOST]As to the result of all this

I really don't belive in the very possibility of the WW3, every idiot knows that with this amount of nuclear weapons, there will be no winners

Cold War 2? That is not unlikely to happen if Amercia elects a Republican president (hint: vote for a democrat if you'd rather avoid another cold war and huge military-related expenditures )

MikeK said:

It's not about people, it's about Putins propaganda drawing a picture in the minds of uneducated croud. The picture in three sentences is this:
1. Putin protects the Russians from America and Co which are the only reason of all possible troubles.
2. LGBT community is also a trouble as it is against the church and just cuz they say so on TV.
3. Human rights, economy and the quality of life are less importnant than the fact that Putin-reigned Russia is so damn great, Russia also protects poor little brothers like Ukrainians and others.

Click to expand...

Ah, but is this not precisely the point that I argued? It IS about the people so that it ISN'T about the people. I admit that may be difficult to follow, but it's a complex point to be made. As you express in item 3: human rights, economy & quality of life are *less important* than Putin-reigned Russia being *great.* To do that, that is - to be able to pursue the goals of the state and not the citizenry - you've got to make it about the people (i.e. distracting them first and foremost) so that it isn't (i.e. abstraction of power).

As you so properly argue, Putin is doing just that. He is not interested in the welfare of the people, rather he is interested in the welfare of the state/Russian power. Looking at your points another way, #1 - Gain their confidence (I am fighting for you), #2 - Misdirect them inwardly (this applies to what I said about countries turning inward), #3 - Pursue your real goals more or less covertly.

MikeK said:

(hint: vote for a democrat if you'd rather avoid another cold war and huge military-related expenditures )

Click to expand...

If only it were that simple...

null said:

Ah, but is this not precisely the point that I argued? It IS about the people so that it ISN'T about the people. I admit that may be difficult to follow, but it's a complex point to be made. As you express in item 3: human rights, economy & quality of life are *less important* than Putin-reigned Russia being *great.* To do that, that is - to be able to pursue the goals of the state and not the citizenry - you've got to make it about the people (i.e. distracting them first and foremost) so that it isn't (i.e. abstraction of power).

If only it were that simple...

Click to expand...

didnt read all the posts, sorry

I also view those goals not as goals of the state but as goals of very particular people. The state is formed by people who are meant to elect the politicians and pay taxes, and the true goals of the state are in fact the goals of its citizens

MikeK said:

didnt read all the posts, sorry

Click to expand...

No worries.

MikeK said:

The state is formed by people who are meant to elect the politicians and pay taxes, and the true goals of the state are in fact the goals of its citizens

Click to expand...

That is how they are defined, yes. I disagree that it is how they are currently (increasingly) practiced, however.

America and Russia depend on each other to stay powerful. Much like we(America) depend on Saudi Arabia, China, etc.

We may not agree with everything their respective governments do, but we also can not survive without them.

null said:

No worries.

That is how they are defined, yes. I disagree that it is how they are currently (increasingly) practiced, however.

Click to expand...

Im not saying that they are practiced the way they should. Goals of the state ARE goals of the citizens, its just politicians caring about their own goals instead of the goals of thier states/people

MikeK said:

Cold War 2? That is not unlikely to happen if Amercia elects a Republican president (hint: vote for a democrat if you'd rather avoid another cold war and huge military-related expenditures )

Click to expand...

Sorry but, thats one of the dumber things I have heard today.

First, the Cold War wasn't started by Republicans. Second, Obama has spent way more without wars than Bush did with them.
The current Democratic foreign policy (more like lack thereof) is "If we play nice with them, maybe they will forget why they don't like us and play nice with us!" Its not helping with the situation in Russia, and its definitely not helping against ISIS. They won't even call ISIS an Islamic terrorist organization.
Only a moron would vote for a Democrat after these last 6 years, especially when the first choice is Hillary. *shudders*
I'm gonna stop here though because I could go on all night long.
#RantModeOff

Nikon said:

Sorry but, thats one of the dumber things I have heard today.

First, the Cold War wasn't started by Republicans. Second, Obama has spent way more without wars than Bush did with them.
The current Democratic foreign policy (more like lack thereof) is "If we play nice with them, maybe they will forget why they don't like us and play nice with us!" Its not helping with the situation in Russia, and its definitely not helping against ISIS. They won't even call ISIS an Islamic terrorist organization.
Only a moron would vote for a Democrat after these last 6 years, especially when the first choice is Hillary. *shudders*
I'm gonna stop here though because I could go on all night long.
#RantModeOff

Click to expand...

Well, Obama tries to avoid wars and despite this, many of his reforms were needed. Obama was spending money on the country while Bush was shooting money into the air.

Attacking ISIS would result in another looooong-ass war with huge expenditures from your pocket, cuts in other spheres, dead americans, dead and starving children and women in the area ISIS claims and no result in the end (look at what happened in Iraq back then and what's happening now, or look at the results of that).

Obviously, neither the people of the US nor the people of Russia will benifit from another cold war either, and neither government will manage to prove its point and make the other government follow its policies.

Nikon said:

Only a moron would vote for a Democrat after these last 6 years,

Click to expand...

I think anyone who votes straight R (same for straight D) because of what's currently happening (or for any other reason) is a moron. A conservative GVMT wouldn't be any better, just different. I shudder at the suppression of freedoms (Enough of that is going on already) that would occur if conservatives had their way.

People should be more open minded.

I'm tired of this Lib vs. Conservative nonsense. In the end, they are ALL people who belong to one party; the human race. They might have different PUBLIC agendas and attitudes on certain issues, but they are equally prone to self serving corruption, greed, abuse of power and all the rest of it.

I read a ton of articles and comments from both sides and find both to be equally absurd.

DamageINC said:

I think anyone who votes straight R because of whats currently happening (or for any other reason) is also a moron. A conservative GVMT wouldn't be any better, just different. I shudder at the suppression of freedoms (Enough of that is going on already) that would occur if conservatives had their way.

People should be more open minded.

I'm tired of this Lib vs. Conservative nonsense. In the end, they are ALL people who belong to one party; the human race. They might have different PUBLIC agendas and attitudes on certain issues, but they are equally prone to self serving corruption, greed, abuse of power and all the rest of it.

I read a ton of articles and comments from both sides and find both to be equally absurd.

Click to expand...

All they do is attack the other party. Neither party has anything to show. Lately the Republicans have been saying all these things Obama does that are unconstitutional, but they never do anything about it. All the democrats do is buy their votes with promises.

DamageINC said:

I think anyone who votes straight R (same for straight D) because of what's currently happening (or for any other reason) is a moron. A conservative GVMT wouldn't be any better, just different. I shudder at the suppression of freedoms (Enough of that is going on already) that would occur if conservatives had their way.

People should be more open minded.

I'm tired of this Lib vs. Conservative nonsense. In the end, they are ALL people who belong to one party; the human race. They might have different PUBLIC agendas and attitudes on certain issues, but they are equally prone to self serving corruption, greed, abuse of power and all the rest of it.

I read a ton of articles and comments from both sides and find both to be equally absurd.

Click to expand...

I seriously hate the two-party system we have. It makes no sense at all. I find myself voting for the least terrible candidate, instead of the best one. It's like saying would you rather eat a crap sandwich, or drink a crap smoothie. And it's not like you can vote independent, because nobody takes independent candidates seriously.

DamageINC said:

I think anyone who votes straight R (same for straight D) because of what's currently happening (or for any other reason) is a moron. A conservative GVMT wouldn't be any better, just different. I shudder at the suppression of freedoms (Enough of that is going on already) that would occur if conservatives had their way.

People should be more open minded.

I'm tired of this Lib vs. Conservative nonsense. In the end, they are ALL people who belong to one party; the human race. They might have different PUBLIC agendas and attitudes on certain issues, but they are equally prone to self serving corruption, greed, abuse of power and all the rest of it.

I read a ton of articles and comments from both sides and find both to be equally absurd.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you on that. While I may never vote for a Democrat, there is also a pretty long list of Republicans I would never vote for. However, I thinks its a pretty steep accusation to say that electing a Republican would suddenly mean a massive suppression of freedoms.

Unfortunately, we live in a time where candidates only have a chance of getting elected if they are a D or an R. But then, we are also the ones that let it get to that point in the first place. Careless and uninformed voting is the death of democracy. Instead of looking at the character of the people running for office, people end up voting for whoever promises them the most stuff.

The problem today is that we have people lunging at each others throats over what political side they align with. Gone are the days when people would voice there political opinions, agree to disagree, and then move on together as Americans. Much of this is also because our political parties today no longer share a common goal and would rather attack each other than get something done. Personally, I have no problem getting along with people with vastly different political views as long as we both have a mutual respect for the other persons view point. Unfortunately, it seems that many Americans these days have lost that, regardless of political affiliation. They all have to be right and they only want freedom of speech as long as it agrees with their narrative.

Both parties should split up. Reduce the size of the majority party and throw other parties into the mix and they will have no choice but to settle differences and work together.

There is a proverb "War is extension of economics". The trend in economics "Russia-US relations" is clear and it is not positive.
Russia and China began to "dump" US bonds.
Russia reduced investment in US Treasury bonds in December last year for the fourth month in a row - at $ 22.1 billion, the data released on Thursday night results of a study of the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve System.
Rate of decline in investment in US Treasuries rose rapidly in comparison with November and $ 0.8 billion were the highest since March 2014 ($ 25.8 billion). At the end of December, the volume of Russian-owned US Treasuries was $ 86 billion, compared to $ 108.1 billion in November.
The group of major buyers US Treasuries Russia joined in 2008, increasing investment in Treasuries immediately by 3.5 times - up to $ 116.4 billion from $ 32.6 billion. At the end of December 2013, Russian investments in US Treasury bonds amounted to $ 138, 6 billion. Thus, in 2014 they decreased by $ 52.6 billion (almost 38%).
China, the largest creditor of the United States, in December reduced investment in US Treasuries for the fourth month in a row - to $ 6.1 billion to $ 1 trillion 244.3 billion. At the end of last year, a decline of $ 25.8 billion.

I'm pretty much on the same page with Mike, here.

If America has had any role in destabilizing the middle east, which presidencies are to blame?

The Bush family and their cronies.

20 years from now, our kids will be studying in school how in the course of 16 years, one group of old-money elitists could cause so much damage to the world.

And if you think that the current state of affairs in the middle east isn't directly related to how the USA was run during the presidency of Bush and Bush jr. , you're bein an idiot!

There is always a "Cold War" going on. Nations are always striving to get the better of each other.

null said:

So I disagree that there will be any WWIII (or, at least I hope not) because that type of conflict is not profitable. Open war is in neither countries best interest since, presumably, the end result would be either large-scale loss-of-life or MAD (mutually assured destruction).

Click to expand...

Whether a large scale war will erupt soon, I'm not going to address. I'm not qualified to guess about that.

However, I disagree concerning the profitability of war. Sometimes, war is extremely profitable. (monetarily, not from a humanitarian viewpoint). Now just as a heads up, I don't encourage or love war.

Countries, especially ones that are struggling economically, but are superpowers on the face, often make a profit. Both during and after World War II, the US economy boomed. Jobs were created everywhere, and the country was fully invested in something. The resulting economic boom echoed for decades until the recent economic downturn.

TheDude said:

If America has had any role in destabilizing the middle east, which presidencies are to blame?

The Bush family and their cronies.

Click to expand...

This again? Bush was not alone on Iraq. There was plenty of support on both sides of the aisle for the Iraq war. How long are people going to point the finger only at Bush and co yet completely ignore the roles that the others had in it?

If you are going to hold someone accountable, then you need to hold everyone involved accountable.

PR3C1Z10N said:

However, I disagree concerning the profitability of war. Sometimes, war is extremely profitable. (monetarily, not from a humanitarian viewpoint).

Click to expand...

We're arguing the same thing, but I think you're not making the same distinction as I am with regard to 'types' of war which makes it seem different.

The type of war you're talking about, in my mind, is a completely different concept than a WWIII scenario. In fact, I think that I addressed the very type of war you're referring to when I wrote about Russia's engagement in Crimea and the Ukraine, and America's throughout the Middle East: protracted, uncertain conflicts that increase certain power interests (including wealth) and political abstraction.

So my quoted argument isn't that some types of war are not profitable, it's that a WWIII scenario - waged primarily via the exchange of thermonuclear missiles - negates any profitability through sufficiently large-scale destruction.

To this you might argue, "ah, but Null: can not there be a state of 'open war,' as you so call it, wherein superpowers do NOT engage their nuclear arsenal? Something more akin to WWII?" If that type of scenario were possible, I'm sure we'd see some profits, granted. But I'd argue two points against: 1) We're living in a VERY different economic climate than that of the US before WWII (same for Russia as well), and 2) You're crazy if you think superpowers would go at it, really go at it, and not utilize their nukes. The risk that the enemy could launch theirs first, pre-empting your own attack and jeopardizing a counter-attack, is reason enough to keep a very close finger over the button.

If there's interest I could set this scenario up using game theory/matrix notation to illustrate exactly why, if nukes are on the table, the only logical option is to stockpile before conflict and launch during...

You would have to be Kim Jong Un level crazy to use a nuclear device though. Now days, it seems that we have nukes, not to actually use them, but because the other guys have them too, and they are intimidating. Speak softly and carry a big stick. The threat of nuclear attack is generally enough to deter any conflict, but what if the war is between two nuclear powers? Nukes at that point are largely pointless. They have them and you have them, but if you launch them, so does the other guy and you both get destroyed. The use of nuclear weapons is not worth it in that case and I'm sure Putin is smart enough to know that, along with every other world leader that isn't completely insane. When the threat of nuclear attack is no longer enough to deter a war, and war somehow becomes unavoidable, then the only other logical option is conventional warfare.

@Nikon Obviously North Korea is actually Chinese colony as well South Korea is a colony of USA. Though North Korea is not occupied with China unlike South Korea is occupied with US army. Happily Kim Jong Un will do nothing exclude China will allow him.
Of course, nobody can warranty that nuclear conflict is impossible between India - Pakistan and potentially Israel - Iran. Scenery and consequences of such conflicts can be unpredictable.

Nikon said:

You would have to be Kim Jong Un level crazy to use a nuclear device though. Now days, it seems that we have nukes, not to actually use them, but because the other guys have them too, and they are intimidating. Speak softly and carry a big stick. The threat of nuclear attack is generally enough to deter any conflict, but what if the war is between two nuclear powers? Nukes at that point are largely pointless. They have them and you have them, but if you launch them, so does the other guy and you both get destroyed. The use of nuclear weapons is not worth it in that case and I'm sure Putin is smart enough to know that, along with every other world leader that isn't completely insane. When the threat of nuclear attack is no longer enough to deter a war, and war somehow becomes unavoidable, then the only other logical option is conventional warfare.

Click to expand...

If a true, full scale World War III scenario broke out, such as WWII, that mindset would rapidly change, IMO. Especially after potential years of conventional warfare and the staggering losses that would occur.