|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On September 26 2022 18:17 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 18:07 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 26 2022 17:29 Ardias wrote:In addition, they arrive with two hands in their pockets, they do not bring new military equipment, and they are also unable to use the equipment that could still be in reserve in the front area. In addition, they would not be able to operate weapons systems, communication systems, etc. more complex than a handgun. I want to adress this specific part. 1) "Two hands in their pockets" is not exactly true. Yes, they don't bring weapons with them of course, but many, many of the mobilized buy clothing, sleeping bags, medkits, even bodyarmor themselves (some, who is able to afford more complex equipment themselves or with assistance get binos, thermal imagifiers, small quadcopters and stuff like that). Many people are aware that Army is unlikely to sufficiently provide these, so they come to the departure points as ready as possible. 2) "Unable to operate" is a stretch as well. There is a definition in every military ID - "military registry specialization" (rifleman, grenadier, tank driver, tank gunner, short-range radar operator etc., hundreds of them). These specializations are given based on what person in question did in his conscript/contract service. Since majority of the equipment in the last 10-15 years didn't change drastically, if, lets say, tank driver gets behind the tracks of T-72B3 - he knows how to drive it. My father was a tank commander in the Soviet Army back in 1985, and he said that if he would be put behind the gun or commander sight of the tank now (T-80BV in particular) - he'll be able to operate it again. Of course there would definetly be fuckups with assignment of people on the proper positions, plus some of the mobilized were not well trained during their previous sevice - but to say that they are all "unable to operate anything more complex than a handgun" is not correct. And yes, so far all of the reports of the mobilized troops that I hear states that they are sent at some training facilities for at least a month or two of the training (though quality of this training and the facilities themselves is drastically different everywhere). Edit: Also it is reported that in the last region, Kherson, the attendance to referendums is above 50%, so their results would be acknowledged. There is also an announcment that Putin would give a speech to the Federation Council (upper parliament), most likely to acknowledge the referendums and officially integrate those regions into Russia. a) Don't rip a sentence out of the whole, especially if it's under a conditional, and then argue against it without it being conditional. b) The referenda are all just fake. The reports are fake. The voting is fake. None of them have any resemblance to free and fair elections. Don't talk about them using words like "attendance". It's just an excuse for annexation. a) I've read all the post and I didn't find anything written previously to the bolded statement that condradict the part that was quoted by me. If it was there, please point it out.
The part you were arguing against was under the conditional "if" where he only talked about groups of arbitrary men being sent to the front lines. Because those without training in the group are unable to a) use equipment, b) work as a group. Your dad is not relevant, because he has training. But if as a tanker, he'd be assigned to anti-air, he'd be one of the useless ones.
|
On September 26 2022 18:22 Simberto wrote:
Ardias. You are from Russia. You have to know how Russian Elections work.
Do you really have any doubt that these referenda will deliver exactly the results that Putin wants? And that whatever these people mark on these ballots it utterly irrelevant to that point?
I mean, they don't even have voting booths. They can see how you vote. In many places, they go door to door and make you vote at gunpoint. Russia also controls 2/3 of Zaporizhzhia but only estimated 20-30% of the population (many people fled to Ukraine-controlled areas). Not to mention the fact that they are illegal under international law.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On September 26 2022 18:22 Simberto wrote:
Ardias. You are from Russia. You have to know how Russian Elections work.
Do you really have any doubt that these referenda will deliver exactly the results that Putin wants? And that whatever these people mark on these ballots it utterly irrelevant to that point?
Answering your question - yes, I know that referendums will end in Russia's favour. The question of would there be a need to rig them a lot - in Kherson and Zaporozhie - I guess yes, in LPR/DPR - not so sure. I know all of you guys believe that every person currently living in Donetsk, Lugansk or Sevastopol (or even Kherson, though of course pro-Ukrainian sentiment is still strong there) are eagerly willing to go back to Ukraine, but according to the people whom I personally know and who live there - that's not exactly the case. You may not believe me, or you may consider them brainwashed by Kremlin propaganda, that's up to you.
Also want to elaborate on Kherson a bit - my friend there says that's it has like 1/3 of it's previous population now, a lot of people left it through the frontlime, it seems, that before the UA Kherson offensive, while the front was relatively quite, local commanders from both sides agreed on some kind of corridors for the civilian population moving in and out. My friend's brother and his family left for the Germany that way.
Edit: maybenexttime also referenced that voting is conducted based on the people who are remaining there (and of course all who left would have been pro-Ukraine).
Regarding the gunpoint - I'll even post a screen from our discussion about that:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/m8wFtch.jpg)
Transcript in Russian, so you may check via Google:
"He - А у нас не нужно ходить на голосование, голосование ходит к тебе
Me - В тактикульном обвесе ходит?
He - Не, в гражданке. Четыре человека, две баба и два мужика"
And translation:
"He - We don't need to go to voting, the voting comes to you
Me - It comes in tactical outfit? (hinting at Rosgvardia)
He - No, in civilian. Four people, two women, two men".
And initially, it's people in this thread who were having the discussion about possible results of them (posts 4749, 4750). I was mostly referring to that discussion initially. And then I pointed out in reply to "voting is fake", that people, ordinary people, do come (or are being visited by election comission) and place those chekmarks (which is, in fact, process of voting), to point out that it's not like people there don't vote at all. Then I stated that I don't want to discuss any other matters regarding these referenda, since it will come to the battle of beliefs again. So I don't know why you guys jumped on me about that.
|
Ardias, i don't think you are quite clear on what the point is.
No one is disputing that some people in Luhansk or Donetsk would prefer to be in Russia.
But acting as if the referenda are anything but theater is absurd. The people talking about possible results were doing so not under the impression that the people in those areas might decide otherwise, but under the impression that military leadership might rig the vote in a different way than Putin wants.
"But people are making checkmarks" as an argument shows a complete misunderstanding about what voting is all about (which, i guess, is fair, if you are used to russian elections). It doesn't matter who the people making checkmarks are if those checkmarks don't matter. The whole process is obviously not a legitimate referendum.
In a normal election, people can freely (and secretly) choose where they place their checkmarks, those checkmarks then get counted, all of them get counted, none get counted double, none get lost, no others are added. And the result of the election is what the majority of the checkmarks say.
In this "vote", people make checkmarks (under threat and while russian military is watching), those checkmarks then don't matter, and the result is what Putin wants it to be.
Voting is not about making checkmarks. Voting is about those checkmarks actually mattering.
And once you start rigging the election, it doesn't matter if you would have needed to rig them a lot.
|
Donetsk and Lugansk have been occupied for a while now, I imagine most pro-Ukraine inhabitants have fled there years ago.
That doesn't make a vote to annexe them any less illegitimate.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On September 26 2022 19:12 Simberto wrote:
Ardias, i don't think you are quite clear on what the point is.
No one is disputing that some people in Luhansk or Donetsk would prefer to be in Russia.
But acting as if the referenda are anything but theater is absurd. The people talking about possible results were doing so not under the impression that the people in those areas might decide otherwise, but under the impression that military leadership might rig the vote in a different way than Putin wants.
"But people are making checkmarks" as an argument shows a complete misunderstanding about what voting is all about (which, i guess, is fair, if you are used to russian elections). It doesn't matter who the people making checkmarks are if those checkmarks don't matter. The whole process is obviously not a legitimate referendum.
In a normal election, people can freely (and secretly) choose where they place their checkmarks, those checkmarks then get counted, all of them get counted, none get counted double, none get lost, no others are added. And the result of the election is what the majority of the checkmarks say.
In this "vote", people make checkmarks (under threat and while russian military is watching), those checkmarks then don't matter, and the result is what Putin wants it to be.
Voting is not about making checkmarks. Voting is about those checkmarks actually mattering.
And once you start rigging the election, it doesn't matter if you would have needed to rig them a lot.
Don't have much time to reply, so I'll try to be short.
Yes, they do rig elections in Russia. Due to that you always assume, that any result of any elections in Russia should be completely reversal, because if some of them are rigged, then all of them are rigged. So you wouldn't believe any result of any election in Russia, even when they do answer popular opinion. As for my "complete misunderstanding" - I'll be asking around people whom I know there to get more clear perspective on the reality of the results, to know if they vote, how they vote, how their relatives and acquaintance did and why they did so, what people around say about it etc. Then I'll try to make a clear picture about if these results may be legit, or made up.
And I know how elections should be working, thanks.
And I do not talk about the legitimacy, my concern is understanding how big percentage of the people voted "Yes" or "No", and their reasons to do that. Based on anecdotal evidences maybe, but from the eyewitnesses whom I know personally and who don't have agenda at least.
On September 26 2022 18:39 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 18:17 Ardias wrote:On September 26 2022 18:07 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 26 2022 17:29 Ardias wrote:In addition, they arrive with two hands in their pockets, they do not bring new military equipment, and they are also unable to use the equipment that could still be in reserve in the front area. In addition, they would not be able to operate weapons systems, communication systems, etc. more complex than a handgun. I want to adress this specific part. 1) "Two hands in their pockets" is not exactly true. Yes, they don't bring weapons with them of course, but many, many of the mobilized buy clothing, sleeping bags, medkits, even bodyarmor themselves (some, who is able to afford more complex equipment themselves or with assistance get binos, thermal imagifiers, small quadcopters and stuff like that). Many people are aware that Army is unlikely to sufficiently provide these, so they come to the departure points as ready as possible. 2) "Unable to operate" is a stretch as well. There is a definition in every military ID - "military registry specialization" (rifleman, grenadier, tank driver, tank gunner, short-range radar operator etc., hundreds of them). These specializations are given based on what person in question did in his conscript/contract service. Since majority of the equipment in the last 10-15 years didn't change drastically, if, lets say, tank driver gets behind the tracks of T-72B3 - he knows how to drive it. My father was a tank commander in the Soviet Army back in 1985, and he said that if he would be put behind the gun or commander sight of the tank now (T-80BV in particular) - he'll be able to operate it again. Of course there would definetly be fuckups with assignment of people on the proper positions, plus some of the mobilized were not well trained during their previous sevice - but to say that they are all "unable to operate anything more complex than a handgun" is not correct. And yes, so far all of the reports of the mobilized troops that I hear states that they are sent at some training facilities for at least a month or two of the training (though quality of this training and the facilities themselves is drastically different everywhere). Edit: Also it is reported that in the last region, Kherson, the attendance to referendums is above 50%, so their results would be acknowledged. There is also an announcment that Putin would give a speech to the Federation Council (upper parliament), most likely to acknowledge the referendums and officially integrate those regions into Russia. a) Don't rip a sentence out of the whole, especially if it's under a conditional, and then argue against it without it being conditional. b) The referenda are all just fake. The reports are fake. The voting is fake. None of them have any resemblance to free and fair elections. Don't talk about them using words like "attendance". It's just an excuse for annexation. a) I've read all the post and I didn't find anything written previously to the bolded statement that condradict the part that was quoted by me. If it was there, please point it out. The part you were arguing against was under the conditional "if" where he only talked about groups of arbitrary men being sent to the front lines. Because those without training in the group are unable to a) use equipment, b) work as a group. Your dad is not relevant, because he has training. But if as a tanker, he'd be assigned to anti-air, he'd be one of the useless ones.
Okay, I see this point now, Well, then yes, if during the unit formation or troop distribution after training military registry specialization (will be shortening it to "MRS", since it's generally used as acronym in Russia) will be completely disregarded - then yes. But we are yet to see if that's the case, since mobilization was kinda specific about MRS required (generally vehicle operators and infantry specialists (snipers, grenadiers etc.), though simple riflemen and some other MRS were included as well).
Part about equipment still kinda stands though, this stuff is pretty much universal (or could be traded with other units, if necessary, I've read about such practice).
|
On September 26 2022 19:27 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 19:12 Simberto wrote:
Ardias, i don't think you are quite clear on what the point is.
No one is disputing that some people in Luhansk or Donetsk would prefer to be in Russia.
But acting as if the referenda are anything but theater is absurd. The people talking about possible results were doing so not under the impression that the people in those areas might decide otherwise, but under the impression that military leadership might rig the vote in a different way than Putin wants.
"But people are making checkmarks" as an argument shows a complete misunderstanding about what voting is all about (which, i guess, is fair, if you are used to russian elections). It doesn't matter who the people making checkmarks are if those checkmarks don't matter. The whole process is obviously not a legitimate referendum.
In a normal election, people can freely (and secretly) choose where they place their checkmarks, those checkmarks then get counted, all of them get counted, none get counted double, none get lost, no others are added. And the result of the election is what the majority of the checkmarks say.
In this "vote", people make checkmarks (under threat and while russian military is watching), those checkmarks then don't matter, and the result is what Putin wants it to be.
Voting is not about making checkmarks. Voting is about those checkmarks actually mattering.
And once you start rigging the election, it doesn't matter if you would have needed to rig them a lot. Don't have much time to reply, so I'll try to be short. Yes, they do rig elections in Russia. Due to that you always assume, that any result of any elections in Russia should be completely reversal, because if some of them are rigged, then all of them are rigged. So you wouldn't believe any result of any election in Russia, even when they do answer popular opinion. As for my "complete misunderstanding" - I'll be asking around people whom I know there to get more clear perspective on the reality of the results, to know if they vote, how they vote, how their relatives and acquaintance did and why they did so, what people around say about it etc. Then I'll try to make a clear picture about if these results may be legit, or made up. And I know how elections should be working, thanks. And I do not talk about the legitimacy, my concern is understanding how big percentage of the people voted "Yes" or "No", and their reasons to do that. Based on anecdotal evidences maybe, but from the eyewitnesses whom I know personally and who don't have agenda at least.
Simberto is right, you don't understand how elections work.
If they don't conform to free and fair elections, you shouldn't believe any results of elections. They're worse than invalid, they undermine the very idea of democracy.
Here are some of the reasons why:
- Calling the referendum and changing relevant legislation was done in days.
- there wasn't time nor the freedom to have a robust public debate on the issue beforehand.
- the voting isn't private, so it's basically just voting under coercion. A person who wanted to vote "no" might publicly vote "yes", especially if it's done at gunpoint. Also, what were you lying about it not being at gunpoint again?
+ Show Spoiler +
- There are major restrictions on who can vote: if as much as the majority of the residents of a region aren't in the region, and they're not allowed to participate in the vote, it doesn't allow their view to be heard. Like, for example, my good friend who is a resident of Donetsk but hasn't been able to return since 2014.
- There are no independent observers.
- There's no evidence of counting being transparent.
In conclusion, this referendum theatre shows literally nothing about the right of Russia to annex these territories. And the sham should be condemned by everyone.
User was warned for this post
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On September 26 2022 19:48 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 19:27 Ardias wrote:On September 26 2022 19:12 Simberto wrote:
Ardias, i don't think you are quite clear on what the point is.
No one is disputing that some people in Luhansk or Donetsk would prefer to be in Russia.
But acting as if the referenda are anything but theater is absurd. The people talking about possible results were doing so not under the impression that the people in those areas might decide otherwise, but under the impression that military leadership might rig the vote in a different way than Putin wants.
"But people are making checkmarks" as an argument shows a complete misunderstanding about what voting is all about (which, i guess, is fair, if you are used to russian elections). It doesn't matter who the people making checkmarks are if those checkmarks don't matter. The whole process is obviously not a legitimate referendum.
In a normal election, people can freely (and secretly) choose where they place their checkmarks, those checkmarks then get counted, all of them get counted, none get counted double, none get lost, no others are added. And the result of the election is what the majority of the checkmarks say.
In this "vote", people make checkmarks (under threat and while russian military is watching), those checkmarks then don't matter, and the result is what Putin wants it to be.
Voting is not about making checkmarks. Voting is about those checkmarks actually mattering.
And once you start rigging the election, it doesn't matter if you would have needed to rig them a lot. Don't have much time to reply, so I'll try to be short. Yes, they do rig elections in Russia. Due to that you always assume, that any result of any elections in Russia should be completely reversal, because if some of them are rigged, then all of them are rigged. So you wouldn't believe any result of any election in Russia, even when they do answer popular opinion. As for my "complete misunderstanding" - I'll be asking around people whom I know there to get more clear perspective on the reality of the results, to know if they vote, how they vote, how their relatives and acquaintance did and why they did so, what people around say about it etc. Then I'll try to make a clear picture about if these results may be legit, or made up. And I know how elections should be working, thanks. And I do not talk about the legitimacy, my concern is understanding how big percentage of the people voted "Yes" or "No", and their reasons to do that. Based on anecdotal evidences maybe, but from the eyewitnesses whom I know personally and who don't have agenda at least. Also, what were you lying about it not being at gunpoint again?
I heard your arguments, and won't be discussing this stuff anymore (wastes a lot of time). However on the quoted part - where did I lie about anything? Did I say that this doesn't happen anywhere at all? I gave evidence from the person I know myself, with a screenshot of discussion stating the fact that he personally didn't witness that. You gave proofs of things happening other way in other places, which just shows that such matter isn't universal to every place and a bit more complicated, and we could agree on that. But you resorted to personal attacks again. Not unexpected from you I guess. I may be wrong or mistaken, but I do not lie (unless it's necessary to help people close to me, that is), and I will be calling out anyone who blames me of doing so.
|
@Ardias
I doubt anybody here assumes that the results of the elections in Russian would be reverse if they weren't rigged. We are acutely aware of the fact that Putin (and United Russia to a lower extent) enjoy considerable support in Russia. But the rigging does make a difference. Here's an analysis by a Russian physicist/statistician:
https://www.intellinews.com/statistical-study-shows-half-the-votes-in-duma-election-were-probably-fake-221402/
The ballot box stuffing is severe enough to transform a weak majority into a constitutional one.
But elections in Russia are rigged in a number of ways. You have a multitude of Kremlin-created spoiler parties and candidates which are made to be either extremist, insane or inept, painting United Russia as the reasonable middle ground. Genuine opposition candidates are killed, jailed or driven out of the country with death threats. Finally, the whole media landscape is rigged in favour of Putin and his party.
Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic.
|
On September 26 2022 20:22 maybenexttime wrote:
@Ardias
Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic.
He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented, and the usual suspects are just putting words in his mouth... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post...
|
On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 20:22 maybenexttime wrote:
@Ardias
Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic. He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post...
After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan.
|
On September 26 2022 20:14 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 19:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 26 2022 19:27 Ardias wrote:On September 26 2022 19:12 Simberto wrote:
Ardias, i don't think you are quite clear on what the point is.
No one is disputing that some people in Luhansk or Donetsk would prefer to be in Russia.
But acting as if the referenda are anything but theater is absurd. The people talking about possible results were doing so not under the impression that the people in those areas might decide otherwise, but under the impression that military leadership might rig the vote in a different way than Putin wants.
"But people are making checkmarks" as an argument shows a complete misunderstanding about what voting is all about (which, i guess, is fair, if you are used to russian elections). It doesn't matter who the people making checkmarks are if those checkmarks don't matter. The whole process is obviously not a legitimate referendum.
In a normal election, people can freely (and secretly) choose where they place their checkmarks, those checkmarks then get counted, all of them get counted, none get counted double, none get lost, no others are added. And the result of the election is what the majority of the checkmarks say.
In this "vote", people make checkmarks (under threat and while russian military is watching), those checkmarks then don't matter, and the result is what Putin wants it to be.
Voting is not about making checkmarks. Voting is about those checkmarks actually mattering.
And once you start rigging the election, it doesn't matter if you would have needed to rig them a lot. Don't have much time to reply, so I'll try to be short. Yes, they do rig elections in Russia. Due to that you always assume, that any result of any elections in Russia should be completely reversal, because if some of them are rigged, then all of them are rigged. So you wouldn't believe any result of any election in Russia, even when they do answer popular opinion. As for my "complete misunderstanding" - I'll be asking around people whom I know there to get more clear perspective on the reality of the results, to know if they vote, how they vote, how their relatives and acquaintance did and why they did so, what people around say about it etc. Then I'll try to make a clear picture about if these results may be legit, or made up. And I know how elections should be working, thanks. And I do not talk about the legitimacy, my concern is understanding how big percentage of the people voted "Yes" or "No", and their reasons to do that. Based on anecdotal evidences maybe, but from the eyewitnesses whom I know personally and who don't have agenda at least. Also, what were you lying about it not being at gunpoint again? I heard your arguments, and won't be discussing this stuff anymore (wastes a lot of time). However on the quoted part - where did I lie about anything? Did I say that this doesn't happen anywhere at all? I gave evidence from the person I know myself, with a screenshot of discussion stating the fact that he personally didn't witness that. You gave proofs of things happening other way in other places, which just shows that such matter isn't universal to every place and a bit more complicated, and we could agree on that. But you resorted to personal attacks again. Not unexpected from you I guess. I may be wrong or mistaken, but I do not lie (unless it's necessary to help people close to me, that is), and I will be calling out anyone who blames me of doing so.
Easy enough: in response to maybenexttime's post below, you wrote the following:
On September 26 2022 18:43 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 18:22 Simberto wrote:
Ardias. You are from Russia. You have to know how Russian Elections work.
Do you really have any doubt that these referenda will deliver exactly the results that Putin wants? And that whatever these people mark on these ballots it utterly irrelevant to that point? I mean, they don't even have voting booths. They can see how you vote. In many places, they go door to door and make you vote at gunpoint. Russia also controls 2/3 of Zaporizhzhia but only estimated 20-30% of the population (many people fled to Ukraine-controlled areas). Not to mention the fact that they are illegal under international law.
Regarding the gunpoint - I'll even post a screen from our discussion about that: Transcript in Russian, so you may check via Google: "He - А у нас не нужно ходить на голосование, голосование ходит к тебе Me - В тактикульном обвесе ходит? He - Не, в гражданке. Четыре человека, две баба и два мужика" And translation: "He - We don't need to go to voting, the voting comes to you Me - It comes in tactical outfit? (hinting at Rosgvardia) He - No, in civilian. Four people, two women, two men".
So, you rejected maybenexttime's "In many places, they go door to door and make you vote at gunpoint." So, you either defend the point that "in some places, they have you at gunpoint" or "at no places do they have you at gunpoint".
Your statement had zero caveats, so no specifying that voting at gunpoint was happening only "in some places", or not that many. You made a general claim with your personal example undermining one of the most damning elements of coercion invalidating these elections. Now you want to claim that this general claim wasn't a lie. But it clearly was. There's plenty of evidence that people are being forced to vote how Putin wants at gunpoint.
I heard your arguments, and won't be discussing this stuff anymore (wastes a lot of time).
Apparently, having your propaganda countered makes it a waste of time. But, hey, you're welcome to spread more of it. It's a "valuable different viewpoint".
|
Norway28558 Posts
I didn't perceive his Russian conversation to indicate a belief in free or fair elections. The election coming to you is neither, regardless of gun presence.
|
On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:22 maybenexttime wrote:
@Ardias
Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic. He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post... After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan.
I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation...
|
On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:22 maybenexttime wrote:
@Ardias
Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic. He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post... After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation...
After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies.
|
On September 26 2022 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:22 maybenexttime wrote:
@Ardias
Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic. He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post... After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation... After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies.
The fact that you have to constantly go back to one single thing when he has been part of many exchanges here might led a more rational person to consider that he is... *gasp* wrong about that and not deliberately lying. His sources disagree with yours, and he values them over yours is a perfectly fine explanation. Not one you have to agree with, but one that you should be able to accept. At worst you can call him gullible for that. Or consider the fact that many times he does agree when confronted with different information.
|
On September 26 2022 21:04 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:22 maybenexttime wrote:
@Ardias
Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic. He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post... After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation... After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies. The fact that you have to constantly go back to one single thing when he has been part of many exchanges here might led a more rational person to consider that he is... *gasp* wrong about that and not deliberately lying. His sources disagree with yours, and he values them over yours is a perfectly fine explanation. Not one you have to agree with, but one that you should be able to accept. At worst you can call him gullible for that. Or consider the fact that many times he does agree when confronted with different information.
Or perhaps we shouldn't tolerate spreading the Kremlin's lies.
I also don't believe Ardias is manufacturing these lies in a troll farm, but they're still lies and need to be called out at every juncture.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On September 26 2022 20:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I didn't perceive his Russian conversation to indicate a belief in free or fair elections. The election coming to you is neither, regardless of gun presence.
The conversation was about either Rosgvardia troopers were present with civilian election personnel who attended my friend's house, or not. His reply was meant to be saying "No Rosgvardia, only civilian personnel".
@maybenexttime - no I was not aware, besides work, visiting my parents, spending time with my wife and friends, doing work at my house and wasting half a day banging at the closed doors with mobilization notices so I won't be charged with any kind of non-attenfance (about which I was literally posting here) within last 3 days (in which referenda were happening) - I didn't had too much time to surf through every possible source. Plus in Russia mobilization is a much more hot topic, than referendums in Ukraine.
And not unexpected to hear offensive accusations from you either. Well, I guess freedom of speech is the freedom on calling names on forums as well, so go on with it.
@Ghanburighan I didn't see the videos that you've posted before, and I had evidence that contradicted his statement. You then provided evidence that supported his statement, which again, made the matter more complicated (though I didn't even start with insidious preposition that some Ukrainian partisans could attack those members of election commitees as they did with other Russian-appointed civilian authorities in Ukraine (which was cheerfully posted by many in this very thread) and those soldiers could be assigned for their protection, I guess that would be impossible). And we could get something from the information presented and move along, but I guess it doesn't work that way with you.
And are you able to meet any argument that differs from yours without "propaganda this, propaganda that"?
Also am I the only one who sees some dissonance between "voting itself doesn't matter, what matters is how the votes are counted" and "forcing everyone to vote at gunpoint to gather favourable votes"?
On September 26 2022 21:10 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 21:04 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:22 maybenexttime wrote:
@Ardias
Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic. He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post... After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation... After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies. The fact that you have to constantly go back to one single thing when he has been part of many exchanges here might led a more rational person to consider that he is... *gasp* wrong about that and not deliberately lying. His sources disagree with yours, and he values them over yours is a perfectly fine explanation. Not one you have to agree with, but one that you should be able to accept. At worst you can call him gullible for that. Or consider the fact that many times he does agree when confronted with different information. Or perhaps we shouldn't tolerate spreading the Kremlin's lies. I also don't believe Ardias is manufacturing these lies in a troll farm, but they're still lies and need to be called out at every juncture.
No, of course I am at troll farm, you can see my coordinator chilling on the right side of the photo, and the wall is in such a mess because every ruble from our troll farm financing went to fund the war.
+ Show Spoiler +
Seriously, I even need to prove my existence now.
|
On September 26 2022 21:04 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:22 maybenexttime wrote:
@Ardias
Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic. He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post... After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation... After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies. The fact that you have to constantly go back to one single thing when he has been part of many exchanges here might led a more rational person to consider that he is... *gasp* wrong about that and not deliberately lying. His sources disagree with yours, and he values them over yours is a perfectly fine explanation. Not one you have to agree with, but one that you should be able to accept. At worst you can call him gullible for that. Or consider the fact that many times he does agree when confronted with different information.
He claimed that an aggressive pro-Ukrainian crowd murdered innocent, peaceful pro-Russian protesters trapping them in a building and setting it on fire, and that people were stopped from helping them. I showed footage of the pro-Russian protesters firing live rounds from the rooftop and throwing molotovs from the building (and some pro-Ukrainians throwing theirs at the building). The footage also showed many pro-Ukrainian protesters helping people escape, with no one obstructing them. I also linked to investigations proving that the fire started in several places, including some that only the pro-Russian side had access to.
In other words, the pro-Russian side was not peaceful, the people were not trapped by the pro-Ukrainian side but by the fire, and nobody was stopping anyone from escaping, on the contrary - the pro-Ukrainian crowd was actively helping people escape.
There is tons of evidence supporting the official account of the events and zero evidence supporting the Kremlin narrative shared by Ardias. So forgive me if after that I assume he's more likely to post in bad faith.
|
On September 26 2022 21:10 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 21:04 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:22 maybenexttime wrote:
@Ardias
Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic. He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post... After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation... After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies. The fact that you have to constantly go back to one single thing when he has been part of many exchanges here might led a more rational person to consider that he is... *gasp* wrong about that and not deliberately lying. His sources disagree with yours, and he values them over yours is a perfectly fine explanation. Not one you have to agree with, but one that you should be able to accept. At worst you can call him gullible for that. Or consider the fact that many times he does agree when confronted with different information. Or perhaps we shouldn't tolerate spreading the Kremlin's lies. I also don't believe Ardias is manufacturing these lies in a troll farm, but they're still lies and need to be called out at every juncture.
So you are admitting that you are actually lying? Because apparently you are the opinion that he is not lying, but is propagating false information (lies from someone else), yet you accuse him of lying. Finally the mask comes off.
Being an ass in the name of good does not make you less of an ass. If someone is lying(hint: that means knowingly and deliberately spreading false information) you are free to call it out, when someone is wrong you are free to correct them without false accusations. Nowhere did I say you should just accept it silently, all I ask is stop relying on accusations and being a cancer to any discourse in this thread. That way you might actually get taken seriously by them and can manage to change their mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/HPz9Aao.jpg)
