Translated material
King on the stake
On Russian television, election debate began.
Yeah, today there were funny debates. The king on the stake is a complete gap of templates)))
We are talking about these words of one of the leaders of Parnassus Vyacheslav Maltsev:
The boyars are to blame, and the king is wonderful. If the king does not know what is happening in the country, he must be planted in a madhouse. If he knows and does not interfere with this, he needs to be in jail. If he knows and promotes, you need to plant such kings on a stake. <...>
We want to save Russia from the revolution! Yes, and I call for a normal and legal revolution, which can only be accomplished by impeachment. It is necessary to remove the main brake from power, which interferes with our economy.
Many Maltsev do not like it, but now he proposed to send Putin in a madhouse live, put on a stake or declare impeachment.
- Elena Russian (@cattiva777) August 22, 2016
It seems that Maltsev is really able to raise the revolution. Come to the central channel and declare the impeachment of Putin is strong
- Cereal Killer (@Veselovme) August 22, 2016
The first debate in one gate won the Maltsev https://t.co/lteubpc3hx
- Konstantin Yankauskas (@jk289) August 22, 2016
Well done Maltsev! It “becomes perfectly" "Putin" on the debate https://t.co/mlo6jsaxxxv
- Evgeny Domozhirov (@domozhiroff) August 22, 2016
Maltsev chose the optimal strategy in our conditions - an attack on the party in power. Only such a strategy will make it possible to rally a protest electorate around us.
No matter how much Maltsev, but this song is - “We are against Putin ... To get an economy, we must remove Putin .... Putin put us into a war with the fraternal people of Ukraine ... I put us into a centuries -old Sunnis dispute with Shiites ....” - just balm on my wounded soul. Sometimes it seems to me that in order to see Putin on a lantern or in a cage, even if the devil itself comes to the Kremlin ...
He looked at the first debate. What will the viewer remember? The viewer will remember Maltsev. So the debate won Maltsev.
Hear on the second federal channel: “It is time to declare impeachment to Putin” and “The main problem of the economy is Putin“ priceless! :)
And about the Party of the Maltsev correctly said, except for Parnas, no party says that if corruption and theft in the country are growing all 16 years of Putin’s stay in power, then his first should be changed.
However, this telescope is some kind of too played. They decided to crank something with Parnas ... But so far I will not figure out what exactly, I won’t hand over the mandate of the Constituent Congress.
Maltsev is actually a native child of television talk shows of recent years. Events whose participants began to scream even before the camera turned on and calmed down closer to the exit. Say what you want, the main thing is loud and energetic, the most bizarre cry is remembered
The remaining participants are from the same places. Those from a traffic clown are more used to whisper to themselves in shock and sadly - when the broadcast could not turn themselves away.
Invaluable judgment.
This is not about politics and not about political characters.
Just about the fact that remained, in my opinion, without proper attention. After all, not every day federal parties disappear that have the right to participate in the elections without collecting signatures.
So, here, Parnassus disappeared yesterday. There is no more such a party, I was soaking out ... From yesterday there is no liberal ideology, no "Westernity", no gloss of the former Prime Minister M. Kasyanov, and there are only Maltsev. The cocoon called Parnassus collapsed ...
At the "Gazeta.ru" comments of political scientists:
Such a rhetoric is an attempt to look the most opposition from the opposition forces. For this, Kasyanov took him to the party, said Konstantin Kalachev, head of the political expert group.
Such aggressive rhetoric is frightened by the vast majority of voters of the country, according to political scientist Abbas Gallyamov.
“Voters will smell the tires burning on the Maidan. This will lead to a well -known "cohesion effect around the flag." There is no great risk in this broadcast in the short term, ”the expert argues.
- In a long -term plan there will be a negative effect. The black and white picture of the world, imposed by the authorities, will begin to become more complicated. Why did Maltsev a broadcast of the canal, according to which, as you know, bad people do not protrude? So he's good? Why does he scold Putin? So, you can scold Putin? In general, confusion will arise in the heads of people. For power, this is bad, so perestroika began. ”
The expert believes that, having put Maltsev on the air, the Kremlin expects to demonstrate the low electoral potential of Putin’s enemies: “Look, we registered them, put them on the air, and they scored 1.5%.” “In order to get the opportunity to say this, you can tolerate two or three ethers. In addition, with the help of Maltsev, the Kremlin convincingly shows its democracy, ”concludes Gallamov.
I looked at the debate in the economy (Yavlinsky, Dmitrieva, Burkov, Maltsev, Semigin, Shaikhutdinov).
The first thing I want to say is complete darkness. Poor, poor, unhappy my homeland. This is really one of the most noticeable more or less independent from the power of politicians from different flanks, really "stars" of the first magnitude.
They have nothing to say, they have no ideas, they interpret some nonsense 150 years ago in a mortar / or simply come up with the highest populist slogans / or roll into some senseless clinch "one and a half percent of the tax there-a half percent of tax here." This is horror, just horror. There was no economic discussion there.
Honestly, if an ordinary citizen, after watching such a "economic discussion", is crept into the head of the seditious thought "maybe they are better than these? ...", then this will not be surprising.
The freak of the day, of course, Shaikhutdinov (this is the one that was flooded there about the intrigues of the liberals and dependence on the dollar). I want to remind you that it was this person who was the right hand of Prokhorov during the 2012 presidential election and the creation of a civilian platform. So everyone who drowned Prokhorov at that time is your client. These people were pushed around Prokhorov at that time. Krasovsky there is still, and so on. We fix, so to speak, for history.
It is hard to say about Maltsev. On the one hand, it may be correctly - they give them only a minute of the federal broadcast, the idea of using them so as not to be puzzled and directly finishing Putin is not meaningless. On the other hand, of course, all this looked nursed - people called about the economy to talk, Parnassus was just stronger than many in the economy, and the dude has nothing to say about this and he speaks in the general language of men from the yard. Well, yes, it seems about the main thing, about Putin, but the people who sat down these debates to see to find out the ideas of the opposition on economic issues, I think, were very disappointed.
Yavlinsky essentially speaks the right things, but his self -esteem to himself and his historical mission is so suppressed by the content of his speech that it is generally impossible to listen to him recently.
Dmitrieva is fresher of the rest and many correct things say, including I hear the wording that are clearly stolen with us (about the fact that taxes must be reduced, about the high bank margin). But all this is abundantly diluted with any garbage type “Crossing the Sending Stabfond abroad” and credit emission, “stimulating the economy through state orders”, etc., so this all loses its meaning.
Burkov is some hellish vault, for a progressive income tax, you just need to beat with rods. Semigina does not make sense to comment on.
According to the results: in fact, Parnassus and the apple, of course, remain the only parties with the right ideas, but, to put it mildly, in these debates they did not look like mega, and this is extremely upset.
Yavlinsky, by the way, is compared with Maltsev - rather, in favor of the second.
Maltsev in Russia1 defeated Yavlinsky. He announced the impeachment of Putin that Putin was to blame for everything. Yavlinsky looked weak.
- Sergey Spiridonov (@s_v_spiridonov) August 22, 2016
He looked at the debate in the Russian Federation. I do not support anyone, but Maltsev is the most concise. There are 2 parties: for Putin and against Putin. Yavlinsky miserable, sorry.
- Revolutionary thoughts (@vvp2_0) August 22, 2016
Yavlinsky everything ...
Fragment of debate on Putin's TV. The representative of the party Parnassus Maltsev at 1:20 asks to raise the hands of those who are against Putin. Yavlinsky did not raise his hand.
Voice by the apple = voice for Putin.
In addition, there was a dispute about the authorship of slogans.
Grigory Yavlinsky: The main recipe is not to lie and not steal. The President and the Government will not cope with this https://t.co/glesqtgyfo
- Yavlinsky team (@yavlinsky_team) August 22, 2016
Yavlinsky in the election debate in Russia-1 put forward the slogan: stop lying and stealing. Well, it seemed to be the slogan of Navalny, or am I mistaken?
- Pavel Pryanikov (@netovetz) August 22, 2016
He looked at the first television debates of the parties before the elections to the State Duma, which yesterday showed according to RTR. From the very beginning, Yavlinsky shocked - nevertheless he was a rare cynic. There, politicians were supposed to, at the first stage, in 30 seconds to express the “credo” of their party. Well, Yavlinsky and declares, without blinking an eye: "The main thing now is not to lie and not steal!"
I already choked on tea. This is a key slogan of Navalny from past elections! And Yavlinsky, that way, is eagerly "borrower." Moreover, which is characteristic, without any reference to the author. I treat both of them without food, but it even became somehow offended by Navalny: they didn’t allow him to the elections, so “colleagues” are also robbed.
And good, they are also - Yavlinsky and Navalny, or the apple and the “Navalnovites” - there would be some like -minded people or there are at least partners there! So, after all, nothing of the kind: on the contrary, it was Yavlinsky who at one time threw Navalny from the "apple". And now his slogans threatened without any hesitation.
Moreover, I am almost sure that it was a completely conscious spit on the part of Yavlinsky, a sort of absentee dialogue with his long -standing opponent. A sort of mockery - yes, I am standing here and do what I want, but you can’t do anything to me! The winner of Yavlinsky triumphs over Luzer Navalny on the air of the state television channel.
Meanwhile, Navalny himself wrote that he wanted to achieve the cancellation of the sentence on Kirovles and participation in the presidential election:
Everything is simple, and I talked about it many times.
1. Criminal cases are being fabricated against me, my colleagues and relatives, first of all, in order to prevent me from participating in the elections.
2. The verdict in the Kirovles case is a formal obstacle to my participation in the elections of any level.
3. We proved in the European Court of Human Rights that the case is fabricated for political reasons and the “court” this process cannot be called. We won the court in the ECHR. The Great House of the ECHR agreed with us.
4. The verdict must be immediately canceled. My electoral rights are fully restored. Not according to some European rules, but according to Russian laws.
5. This does not happen, the Supreme Court of Russia does nothing. The European Council responsible for the implementation of the decision of the ECHR must decide on this.
6. I demand to give me my legal right to go to the polls and represent those people who support me and my ideas. The latest elections in which I participated proved that there are a lot of such people. <...>
You know, friends, I have seen enough of this over the past three years:
- Alexey, we support you and, of course, you should go, but (holding back a triumphant smile) you are forbidden, so we will go, and you support us.
You can, of course. Only you yourself know very well how it will end. And I know. And for 17 years there has been no other final.
a) A month before the elections, we begin to persuade ourselves to support politicians, it is not clear what he did all 4 years since the last election.
b) we get a logical loss (every year more and more humiliating).
c) We write masochistic posts that the democrats do not support the people and/or the democrats are so bad, stupid cannot unite, etc.
If you do not vote for Navalny, Otto von Bismarck will become the president.
- Old peanut (@nytdyrs) August 22, 2016
Navalny goes to the presidential election in 2018 to steal the victory from Yavlinsky
- Rishikesh News (@rishikesh_news) August 22, 2016
Alexey Navalny demanded from the European Union to allow him to the next election of the pope
- ★ Squad ★ (@Barracuda_SQUAD) August 23, 2016
Navalny is not the first to go across the laws to the presidency - Ted Cruz is also a Canadian?
- Zakhar May (@zaxarborisych) August 22, 2016
And now we are following our hands. Or it will be ignored and possible rejection of international/European jurisdiction, which has already been mutilated at different levels, or the next change in the Constitution - the early presidential elections, which someone has not written about either. That is, we live in a country where, in order not to let one person to the polls, you can change the constitution. And most like it or do not care.
-
Ivan Belyaev
Social Networks Editor Radio Liberty