It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pussy Riot On Trump: We Laughed When Vladimir Putin Rose To Power, Too

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Thats alright, I can do it myself. (sarcasm)




posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ditchweed

LOL.

The election is still a long way off.

Any number of things can happen.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
a reply to: neo96

I've almost reached a state of apathy to be honest with you. I will wake up the day after the election not surprised either way... Of that I can promise you.

We seem to be made up of more people who obviously never learn anything. The only downfall to that, is that me and mine have to fall right along beside their stupid decisions/choices.

At this point, we almost certainly deserve everything we get because we are obviously (as a majority unfortunately) not smart enough to learn from our mistakes.



The day after the election?

Remember the day after Gore won the presidency?
I think we waited for almost a month before they told us that Bush actually won.

Get ready.



edit on 18-12-2015 by NowWhat because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Nadia pussy riot is gorgeous - phwoar!!


carry on.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Conservative authoritarian followers (CAF) used to be in both parties. While many Democratic CAF peeled away by 1980, David Duke (authoritarian leader) switched from Democrat to Republican as late as 1989. This coalescence of former-Demo CAF with the CAF of the John Birch Society within the GOP made for a lopsided, divided nation politically. This division is destructive in our two party, winner take all system.

Thus I am not surprised by the current GOP CAF infatuation with the authoritarian power of Putin (or any nation's authoritarian leader). And it's a sizable block in the GOP, if one combines the support for Trump, Cruz, Fiorina, Christie.

I never thought I'ld see the day when Republicans would admire a former KGB officer, but then I never thought they would elect a former CIA head as POTUS (GHW Bush).



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
i guess they seem to forget that quality of life has gotten increasingly better for the average russian since putin came to power. smh



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   
This is America, not Russia. Our president doesn't have the power that Putin has to do things like ban gays in public and have political challengers killed. Your attempt at juxtaposing Putin and Trump as having the same political ideals has as much substance as Pussy Riot's career.

The best metric to elect a president is by a candidate's character. Hillary has intentionally deceived the country before. Her highly refined 'political correctness' is her attempt at following the formula that she hopes will give her the best chance to get elected. Everything she does just reeks of fakery from her fake mile-wide smile and belly laughs all the way to her motivation for running. Trump has proven he doesn't care about political correctness, just get the job done. There isn't any way to predict future events nor a manual on how to respond to them and we need a strong leader for the crisis moments. Trump cares about the well-being of the country and Hillary is in love with her power and her own legacy first.
edit on 18-12-2015 by SouthernForkway26 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   
When Pussy Riot hit Western news a couple of years ago, it really, really pissed me off when so many people pledged their support for this insane, horrible group.

They are not a band they are an extremist group, known for doing such charming thing like when one of them tried to shove a chicken into her vagina.

They have support from Western agencies, and this really became apparent when Western news showed a heavy bias in their favour.

Here's a site detailing some of their atrocious actions:

Pussy Riot connections to Soros

Many people in Russia are not Putin supporters, and they do not feel the need to march into a church yelling obscenities and condemning people for their faith. There is corruption in the Russian orthodoxy, but their words had a lot more to do with religious beliefs than corruption.

The Western media loves these revolting people because they are against Putin. That's all. Western news conveniently ignores their disgusting behaviours and paints them as being some hero group imprisoned for criticising Putin - that is not what happened.

Say what you like about Putin, yes Russia has a lot of corruption, but there are better ways to protest than video-taping a woman putting a chicken carcass in her vagina and having an orgy in a museum. I am from Russia and believe me, they are not well liked. Most Russians I know who don't like Putin are kind of embarrassed about Pussy Riot, and certainly do not consider their actions to be a good thing at all.

Please do not rely on Western media for information about Pussy Riot. The things they did would have gotten them arrested in just about any country.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: SouthernForkway26


This is America, not Russia. Our president doesn't have the power that Putin has to do things


Sorry your logic here astounds me.

So because Putin has far more power in Russia, and Russia is not America, it's perfectly fine for Putin to do this things he does? And this justifies why the people complaining about Obama have a double standard for Putin? How does this logic work again? You lost me pal.


The best metric to elect a president is by a candidate's character.


So if somebody has 'character' (that meet your standards of course) their actions in office are irrelevant? Is that correct? Is Putin a better president than Obama because he has 'character' irregardless of his cracking down on freedoms?

Again, you've lost me on your logic here.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

and why do give a SH=T about what some punk emo band from russia has to say about anything? i thought they are musicians?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: DeepThoughtCriminal


Please do not rely on Western media


Says the person using a pro-Russian website that gets its sources from Russia Today.

If you're going to complain about bias in western media, at least be consistent when it comes to pro-russian sources as well. Deliberation is not a reliable source at all.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Vector99

He's both.

What made you think there was a difference?


The lack of a super massive genocide???

I know that seems to be a tiny detail to most who like to compare anyone to Hitler, but...




Hitler didn't indicate a super massive genocide until after he was in power for awhile (tiny detail.) When people compare anyone to Hitler, they're generally referring to everything but that. It's not as if Hitler would have been a warm fuzzy without that.

As for the genocide portion, Hitler had been on a LOT of meth, for a looong time before he went that route. In a lot of ways, Trump seems to share the same personality traits and rhetoric as Adolf before the paranoia and psychosis set in.

Let's just make sure your boy Donald stays away from the crystal, or we could have one super massive problem on our hands.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

When the hell did I say that Russian sources are not biased? I get my news from both Russian and Western media. And no, I don't read Russia Today.

The reason I mentioned Western bias was because in this case, they vastly misrepresented Pussy Riot, when the reality was totally different. Am I required to include a disclaimer every time I mention media bias? I am well aware that all news is biased.

Seriously, what the hell? Why did you think I only read Russia Today or whatever? I could give you more links to more information about the revolting acts of Pussy Riot, I just chose one that was in English. I'm not actually familiar with that particular website, that was just an article I found on Google. Obviously, there are two main sources of information on Pussy Riot, Russian and Western. Each will have their bias. Most people in the West don't read Russian news, and their only exposure to Pussy Riot has been sources praising this group. If you want to obtain an unbiased opinion, you'll have to read from all sources.

Here, a video showing some of their "protests" including the museum orgy and the chicken incident:



It is an unfortunate trait of many Americans to perceive all criticisms of their media or politics as a personal attack. Get up in arms, go on, insult me, insult my home country, go the full yard and give me all the ad hominem attacks you want, you'll only be proving my point.

Just think about it. If protestors in your country tried to make their point not with rational discourse or organised marches, but by going into a supermarket and putting a raw chicken carcass in their vagina, staging orgies in museums, barging into churches and insulting people's religion, would you really support them? There are plenty of legitimate critics of Russia's government, and Pussy Riot is not one of them. Their convictions were justified, and unlike what was said throughout the West, they were not arrested merely for criticising the government. If that were the case, millions of Russians would find themselves in prison.

There is a difference between rational protest and doing things only for shock value.

Addressing a particular instance of major misrepresentation is not a personal attack on you. It is not an attack on Western society. It is not an attack on anything, but rather a statement of misrepresentation. Is that truly so offensive to you?

Please stop jumping to stupid conclusions and using ad hominem attacks, you are contributing nothing and proving nothing.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: SouthernForkway26


This is America, not Russia. Our president doesn't have the power that Putin has to do things


Sorry your logic here astounds me.

So because Putin has far more power in Russia, and Russia is not America, it's perfectly fine for Putin to do this things he does? And this justifies why the people complaining about Obama have a double standard for Putin? How does this logic work again? You lost me pal.


The best metric to elect a president is by a candidate's character.


So if somebody has 'character' (that meet your standards of course) their actions in office are irrelevant? Is that correct? Is Putin a better president than Obama because he has 'character' irregardless of his cracking down on freedoms?

Again, you've lost me on your logic here.


No it's not fine for Putin to abuse his power. If Putin was the president of the U.S. and tried to ban homosexual couples from public or prosecuted a band like P.R. he would get crushed by anti-discrimination laws and 1st Amendment rights. Russia plays by their own rules so there's not much to be done about Russia's domestic politics. Their geo-political situation is different than ours.

I didn't mean character as in charisma and charm, more like self-confidence and accountability. Trump is decisive and clear cut when he speaks. That is the best quality that Trump and Putin have in common as far as I care. There will be a lot less secret behind-the-scenes type of politics with Trump in office. That 'character' is something both Hillary and Obama lack. The political-talk gymnastics from Hillary during Benghazi hearings was as mind numbingly frustrating to listen to as when Bill cartwheeled around what sexual relations are, or the definition of 'is' is. Obama does it too but is far less skilled at it than Hillary.

It's not just Democrats, there are plenty of Republicans (Jeb, Carson) who aren't strong in character and would be doing a lot of politispeak if they were caught up as well.

You can never know what situations will arise in the future. Trump would be better for the country in a major crisis, be it financial or terrorism or whatever. Hillary has nothing but politispeak for her time as Secretary of State on Benghazi and her Email server. Her motives to be President are hidden behind the words and persona presented to the public. The best you can do is vote for the person who can best lead the country. The checks and balances of government curtail the extremism domestic politics that people are afraid of if Trump gets elected. That is a big difference between U.S. and Russia presidencies.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: neo96

I remember a lot of GOP followers saying that about Obama 'twice'.


I remember Democrats comparing Obama to Hitler.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Arguably, Putin performed a brilliant political move with that, by backing the Russian brand of conserative Christians, and meting out punishment for desecrating an altar. Anyone notice that he often has photo ops with clergy there? That goes a long way in a land where religion was underground for many decades. That they only got a couple years, and were released, contributes to the notion of fairness. We have millions imprisoned for petty possession, for far longer than that. Statecraft is an art.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I love PR!~ Great activists.

But...Trump is no Putin. Putin was a KGB operative and has all kinds of experiences that Trump never did or will have.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBulk

The Obama-Hitler comparison arose from La Rouchies, a group so far to the left, that they would fall off the Earth if it were flat. The Democratic Party years ago disavowed them, not allowing them to be part of the party. La Rouchies are not allowed to run as a Democrat. They are not Democrats.

Since the Earth is not flat, the extremist fringe La Rouchies meet up with the extremist fringe on the right on the political spectrum. That is why, for example, at the first Washington Tea Party rallies, the Obama as Hitler posters showed up. The political fringes tangled.

To the left fringe, Obama is a far right authoritarian figure. To the right fringe, Obama is a far left authoritarian figure. Hence, the confusion with Obama being cast as both Hitler and Mao. Opposite fringes become entangled.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join