U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[Spaghetti Cat]

I don't think many people would disagree with that assessment El D. It's pretty clear that Putin is a bad dude. I think what's at issue is image really. Obama doesn't really exude confidence or strength. Strength of character I mean, not physical strength.

 

For instance, say an alien landed knows nothing about our politics or policies, but sees the two images. Who would you say exudes strength as a leader?

 

Putin

 

Obama

 

 

Both men have an image to protect and produce. So who's the one who looks like a stronger leader? I don't want Putin to look better than our President any more than you do. But can you at least understand why people come to this conclusion? It's not really even a judgement call, just an image in people's mind.

 

 

 

Yeah, you referred to "arming", not "operational planning". The two are definitely not synonymous. In fact, they're nothing alike, and in fact that latter doesn't even involve the US. Tell me, where in that nice little succinct quotation did it state, or even suggest, that the US was arming Jaish al-Fatah? Nowhere, because it says nothing of the sort and it would take a hilarious misinterpretion to believe it did.

 

 

Well I'm sure the 9/11 families will be at ease that we're not arming an AQ front, just operationally planning with them.

 

It's not like American Commandos are forced to run away from US-backed Syrian rebels...oh wait..

 

 

The fighters scream anti-American chants as a column of pick-up trucks carrying US commandos drives away from them.

“Christians and Americans have no place among us,” shouts one man in the video. “They want to wage a crusader war to occupy Syria.”

Another man calls out: “The collaborators of America are dogs and pigs. They wage a crusader war against Syria and Islam. ”

The US troops are not wearing traditional uniform but they carry American weapons and are wearing the distinctive round helmets favoured by US special forces.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/16/american-commandos-forced-to-run-away-from-us-backed-syrian-rebe/

 

I suppose this is also a hilarious misinterpretation of TOW missiles and US made weapons in AQ hands.

 

More IMG below

 

 

 

 

Must be my lying eyes. Though this isn't really the right topic to be posting in. My main point was that Sec Clinton was terrible at her job. The mess in Syria and the Russian Reset would be two prime examples.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Spaghetti Cat

[X S]

couldn't be bothered to make a salient reply, eh?

 

 

suppose I'll just literally repeat myself seeing as to how you ignored the entire substance of the post.

 

That's rich coming from someone who completely glossed over my original post. Had you read it, you would've noticed that I made a clear distinction between the various forms of leadership.

 

Also, your post contributes nothing new to the discussion that hasn't already been addressed in my initial responses to Sivis, so I see no need to repeat myself.

 

What I will do is provide you with a good definition of leadership:

 

 

There are many different views and perceptions on leadership and what it exactly means. This is because there are many different types of leaders and many different views on them. But the basic meaning of leadership is an individual who can select the right group of followers and influence them through their distinct gifts, abilities, skills and knowledge. A leader focuses on the follower and puts out a roadmap to the overall mission and vision; hereby the follower is influenced to willingly and enthusiastically in achieving the mission and vision. The leader achieves this influence by humbly delivering a visionary perception of the future in clear terms that resonates with the follower in terms of their believes and values. Leaders have several key skills and attributes, which are highly important such as critical decision making, critical thinking, holistic insight, intuition and the use of persuasive communication as well as interpersonal commination that include active listening and positive charismatic conversations.

 

 

 

"You do not lead by hitting people over the head. That's assault, not leadership." Dwight D Eisenhower

 

 

Not that an appeal to authority really has any weight in this discussion, but I'll bite:

 

"It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both." - Niccolo Machiavelli

 

 

Obama doesn't really exude confidence or strength.

 

This is an understatement.

 

Obama does not project power. He waddles around like a kid on his first day at school asking Putin where to sit, hunches over, and can't even look him in the eye when he speaks.

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by X S

[Queen]

It was actually painful to watch that. The way Putin just takes over and looks so relaxed and composed, compared to Obama's stumble and lack of eye contact is just embarrassing. Clinton would probably have had more presence in that situation, and I know that Trump would have exerted more leadership too. Obama has never made me feel proud to be an American. And I'm sure that for Trump supporters, that's something they feel Trump will offer them. Call it a return to Reagan's shining city on a hill, if you want.

[Tchuck]

It's ironic because Obama made a lot of the world look favourably on the US, specially after the mess that was Bush.

 

Also, using a clip from 2009, when Obama was barely a year into his presidency, is hilarious to prove your point.

[X S]

It's ironic because Obama made a lot of the world look favourably on the US, specially after the mess that was Bush.

 

Also, using a clip from 2009, when Obama was barely a year into his presidency, is hilarious to prove your point.

 

Oh, there's plenty more where that came from.

 

 

[Tchuck]

 

It's ironic because Obama made a lot of the world look favourably on the US, specially after the mess that was Bush.

 

Also, using a clip from 2009, when Obama was barely a year into his presidency, is hilarious to prove your point.

 

Oh, there's plenty more where that came from.

 

 

 

 

And that proves what, exactly? You expected him to do what? Go to a fisticuffs against Duterte, the same guy who praised Hitler? Scream against Chinese officials? Go on the media condemning everything? Have a big reaction like a bitch?

 

Oh, I remember Chavez from Venezuela claiming Bush was the devil, that he smelled like satan, that the US was a prostitue etc. Was Bush also a weak president? Or was he, like Obama, targeted by the ravings of lunatics?

 

You can bet all those issues were dealt with behind closed doors, as should be. Those who need to pile on him calling him weak or showing him disrespect are doing so to gain support in their home countries, which are pretty unstable and anything helps.

 

I prefer my presidents to be austere and cool headed. Sure, you might see that as "weakness", and that's your issue.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Tchuck

[Saggy]

You guys are making an unfair comparison. Afterall, how could Obama ever compare with...

 

 

I mean everyday I ask how Obama can look like an out-of-prime character on a Harlequin romance cover. Now that's power.

 

Queen, there's something so underwhelming about you saying Obama never made you proud of America, but then turning around and referencing Reagan as if he was the height of political aspiration in this country. I mean, basically I have to put it like this... A Reagan fan doesn't approve of Obama, and bears sh*t in the woods. These are things we know.

[Queen]

Of course. Not sure what your point is, but yeah, you're right...generally speaking.

[slimeball supreme]

This is possibly the most paltry thing we could discuss. A debate on who looks like a better leader?

 

Looks?

 

Jesus Chirst, since when was this even a factor?

Edited October 6, 2016 by Mr. Fartenhate

[Svip]

Jesus Chirst, since when was this even a factor?

When people ran out of arguments against President Obama. Or for Donald Trump.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Svip

[sivispacem]

I'm not sure what you find so amusing.

Your misuse of "self-evident", for one. If it were actually self-evident you wouldn't need to quantify it with evidence; the statement would be true in and of itself. In fact the whole thing demonstrates nothing more than the fact what countrs as a "good" leader is entirely subjective.

 

Hell, even LinkedIn posted an article on Putin's leadership

I think you've misunderstood what LinkedIn Pulse is here. Pulse is basically just an RSS feed and content aggregator which lets people post and disseminate their own news stories and opinion pieces. The content published isn't endorsed by LinedIn in any way.

 

What is self-evident, however

Here we go again, misusing "self-evident". If it's arguable in any way, or a statement if opinion, it cannot be self-evident.

 

his boilerplate traits of leadership.

None of which make someone an objectively or demonstrably good leader.

 

Putin also has some of the highest approval ratings of any world leader

Notwithstansing the obvious issues in accurately polling people in an authoritarian counterintelligence state on their views of the leader, popular and good are not synonymous. John F. Kennedy is a popular US President, but in terms of his actual achievements he falls far short of much less popular figures either side of him. Again, we come back to subjective definitions of "good" in the context.

 

Fear and authoritarianism is a form of leadership, whether you agree with it or not.

It's a form of leadership particularly suited to certain kinds of situations, as I've already said. It's viable as crisis leadership but the Russian state is not in a crisis- well, not one that isn't created by that style of leadership, anyway. And yes, I would say employing the wrong style of leadership for a situation is poor.

 

Well I'm sure the 9/11 families will be at ease that we're not arming an AQ front, just operationally planning with them.

 

Putting away the facile, borderline pathetic appeal to emotion, the report doesn't say that either. It says that US backed Syrian rebels have engaged in operation planning with Islamist groups including those allied to al-Qaeda. Which everybody knows is what is happening, and what has been happening for years. No idea why you're making such a mess of trying to "interpret" something which doesn't need to be interpreted.

 

I suppose this is also a hilarious misinterpretation of TOW missiles and US made weapons in AQ hands. Must be my lying eyes.

Naa, just a combination of your very selective memory and notoriously sh*t analytical skills.

 

The TOW missile is or has been in operation with the armed forces of more than 40 countries, including those like Saudi Arabia who have been arming Islamist groups overtly. Many of these states produce them under licence, which means that not only is it far more likely these missiles were supplied by another third party, but they may well have not been US produced munitions in the first place. And you'd probably come to the same concluduon if you actually performed any kind of analysis if competing hypotheses instead of just parroting whatever neoconservative blog happens to be flavour of the week for you.

 

As for other munitions, it's not exactly a secret that US arms have made their way into rotation with IS and other Islamist groups. Some have been captured during the IS expansion, some passed between rebel groups or seized during military action. There's not a great deal which can be done to stop this apart from not arm anybody; even US weapons supplied to the Peshmega have ended up in the hands of Islamists.

[X S]

None of which make someone an objectively or demonstrably good leader.

 

Sivis, I'm pretty impressed with the mental gymnastics you just managed in order to reposition that entire argument into one about semantics, the "objectivity" of leadership, and how LinkedIn willfully aggregated an article for its members.

 

If you're unwilling to concede on some of the most basic traits I outlined, such as charisma, and whether or not they're implicit and/or self-evident, then I can only assume that you've never been in a leadership training course? Leaders don't ask their subordinates for validation, they persuade and motivate by other communicable traits, much of which is self-evident, if you know what you're looking for.

 

The first thing they teach you in any leadership training course is that there's no "bad" leaders, because it allows an individual to judge leadership from a results-driven perspective. Sometimes the question is phrased differently, such as, "Name a good leader", which will invariably trigger Godwin's law at some point. It's not until someone mentions Hitler or Stalin that the cognitive dissonance kicks in. "B-b-but wait," you say, "they did bad things!" So Hitler and Stalin just came to power by coincidence? What was it about these men that made them so effective in terms of gaining support? Did their followers just willfully give up power to these men because they had nice mustaches? No, they were charismatic, self-confident, resilient (ruthless), self-aware, patient, and experienced. Those traits are self-evident to those with leadership training.

 

Forbes wrote an opinion piece on the same: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rajeevpeshawaria/2011/08/19/there-is-no-such-thing-as-bad-leadership/#5c5bc56b41e8

 

 

Looks?

 

Jesus Chirst, since when was this even a factor?

 

Since, 1960.

 

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2021078,00.html

[sivispacem]

Sivis, I'm pretty impressed with the mental gymnastics you just managed in order to reposition that entire argument into one about semantics, the "objectivity" of leadership, and how LinkedIn willfully aggregated an article for its members.

It is an argument based on semantics. If there's no universal definition of a "good leader" then asserting one is better than another without using some objective or empirical justification is just stating an opinion, no?

 

I can only assume that you've never been in a leadership training course? Leaders don't ask their subordinates for validation

You'd assume entirely wrong given that I was at a CIPD one last week. Hence this all being very fresh in my mind. As to whether a leader asks for validation and verifucation from subordinates, it depends entirely upon the management approach. Certain approaches, like collaborative and democratic ones often employed in high-pressure environments (such as under the banner of "Crew Resource Management" in the airline industry) actively encourage subordinates to challenge the authority of a leader if they disagree with their decisions.

 

The first thing they teach you in any leadership training course is that there's no "bad" leaders, because it allows an individual to judge leadership from a results-driven perspective.

This lies somewhere on the axis between debatable and irrelevant; not least because I've never made the assertion that anyone was a bad leader. The closest I came was when I stated it that employing the wrong leadership style for a given situation was poor management. I stand by that.

 

Leadership styles are not some kind of genetic concept, imprinted and unchangeable. A competent leader can switch between numerous different styles- charismatic, authoritarian, democratic, Laissez-faire- to meet the requirements of a particular situation and is able to accurately interpret when this might be.

 

No, they were charismatic, self-confident, resilient (ruthless), self-aware, patient, and experienced. Those traits are self-evident to those with leadership training.

Except it isn't self-evident, or even really correct.

 

Firstly, experience is not a trait- it's not a distinguishing characteristics of an individual but an evaluation of both time spend performing a particular task and demonstrated competence at it.

 

Self-awarenness and self-confidence are only valuable qualities inasmuch as they reflect experience and knowledge. People who are so ignorant on a particular subject as to be unable to comprehend their own ignorance are often self-confident over those with some subject matter understanding; being so does not impart upon them any leadership capability above and beyond someone more knowledgeable.

 

Charisma is only really important if you're hoping a leader relies upon a particularly charismatic style of leadership. Most national governments and international institutions are led by stony-faced middle-aged men who completely lack any identifiable charisma. Many of the most charismatic political figures are completely unsuccessful in imparting their visions into action.

 

Neither Hitler nor Stalin were remotely patient. Both were either destroyed or almost destroyed entirely because of his lack of experience and overconfidence in their own abilities.

[jatiger13]

*a bunch of horsesh*t*

Again, you're not leading if you need fear to "lead". Because people aren't following you willingly. Self-preservation kicks in. And at that point, you're no longer leading. You're just abusing power.

 

Abuse of power and leadership are two very different things.

Edited October 6, 2016 by jatiger13

[El Dildo]

X S thinks Hitler was a great leader.

[609_uu]

X S thinks Hitler was a great leader.

He was at least better than J Stalin not sure if great though.

[Svip]

 

X S thinks Hitler was a great leader.

He was at least better than J Stalin not sure if great though.

 

Finnish people are just biased when it comes to Hitler and Stalin! Although, I find it hard to see what makes Hitler 'better' than Stalin, or what 'better' even means in this context.

[609_uu]

 

 

X S thinks Hitler was a great leader.

He was at least better than J Stalin not sure if great though.

 

Finnish people are just biased when it comes to Hitler and Stalin! Although, I find it hard to see what makes Hitler 'better' than Stalin, or what 'better' even means in this context.

 

Nazi Germany helped us during world war 2 so that we didn´t lose our independence to Soviets that´s why many Finns respect Hitler but of course I don´t tolerant bad things he did like holocaust.

Edited October 6, 2016 by 609_uu

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

 

 

 

X S thinks Hitler was a great leader.

He was at least better than J Stalin not sure if great though.

 

Finnish people are just biased when it comes to Hitler and Stalin! Although, I find it hard to see what makes Hitler 'better' than Stalin, or what 'better' even means in this context.

 

Nazi Germany helped us during world war 2 so that we didn´t lose our independence to Soviets that´s why many Finns respect Hitler but of course I don´t tolerant bad things he did like holocaust.

 

 

Finland suffered the problem of literally being stuck between a rock and a hard place during the Second World War....

[Svip]

Nazi Germany helped us during world war 2 so that we didn´t lose our independence to Soviets that´s why many Finns respect Hitler but of course I don´t tolerant bad things he did like holocaust.

While I don't blame the Finns for allying themselves with Germany against the USSR during the Second World War, I think you are doing a lot of disservice to Finland. For one thing, Germany did nothing during the Winter War (primarily because of Germany's secret pact with the USSR, Germany had given the Soviets free reign to do what they wanted in Finland without their intervention), and Finland almost single-handedly fought off the USSR and secured its independence from the USSR, in exchange for ceding lands near the Russian border.[1]

 

Indeed, the USSR goal for the Continuation War, where the Germans did help, was not to annex Finland, but just to annex Petsamo (and lease Porkkala). Goals which they succeeded in accomplishing.

 

So tell me exactly what the Finns truly got from their alliance with Germany? During the Winter War, the USSR sent almost a million men to fight Finland's 300,000 men. The USSR lost over 300,000 while Finland's casualties were about 70,000.

 

Again, I don't blame Finland for its alliance with Germany, they were stuck between a rock and a hard place. And while the British did involve itself in one mission - I believe - against the Finns, the Western Allies stayed out of the Continuation War for the most part.

 

[1] Note: The Moscow Peace Treaty that ended the Winter War forced the USSR to drop its annexation plans of Finland.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

Putin also has some of the highest approval ratings of any world leader, results of which were sampled by Western pollsters.

So did Bush II. Polls are a weak metric for "what's working" because not only are polls easily-manipulated, but people in general are f*cking idiots.

 

 

You can make the argument that Putin is an effective leader in the near term. But better than Obama...on what basis? For one, we are comparing apples and oranges here because the US and Russian political systems have differing values and positively respond to different leadership styles. When you say he is better, you are essentially saying that he could've played Obama's hand better than Obama. And in any case, the effects of administrations often take years to materialize. The US has a much clearer sense of direction after Obama than Russia will have after Putin. Unlike the US, Russia faces the prospect of another violent and unstable transition due to the eventual power vacuum left by Putin.

 

 

 

This idea that Putin is a master leader who "Makes Russia Great Again" is mainly a fiction propagated by the desperate alt-right and the Kremlin itself. If you ever travel to countries with healthy democracies, you'll find that Obama is often immensely popular and almost always respected. This is not the case with Putin. In fact, one can argue that Putin has achieved nothing constructive. The only thing he appears to be capable of on the international stage is disrupting the constructive efforts of others. At best, he has finessed criticism and contained/delayed Russia's domestic policy failures. He has eased up on the outright mafia-style violence against dissidents in favor a more reward-driven approach, corruption & cronyism. But he's still a tyrant at the end of day. And the notion that Russians have prospered under Putin, a key metric for evaluating leadership, is absolutely comical. The Russian economy is heavily oil-exposed. The Russian ruble damned near lost half of its value when oil prices first plummeted from global overproduction. They have been in a recession for the last two years!

 

 

tl;dr....Don't buy into the propaganda on RT. Putin's overrated. Under Putin, Russia's power structure is not sustainable.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[Svip]

The problem with Putin's regime is that it is his. Who is to succeed Putin? When you work too much on your cult of personality, you run the risk of it collapsing once you are gone.

[jatiger13]

The problem with Putin's regime is that it is his. Who is to succeed Putin? When you work too much on your cult of personality, you run the risk of it collapsing once you are gone.

Kind of like Saddam Hussein.

[sivispacem]

 

The problem with Putin's regime is that it is his. Who is to succeed Putin? When you work too much on your cult of personality, you run the risk of it collapsing once you are gone.

Kind of like Saddam Hussein.

 

Saddam had a selection of sons to pick from.

[Spaghetti Cat]

This is what happens when you let foreigners into the US Election thread, they all end up talking about the Moscow Finland treaty of 1940. Need to hurry up and build that firewall across the border.

#MakeUSthreadgreatagain

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

This is what happens when you let foreigners into the US Election thread, they all end up talking about the Moscow Finland treaty of 1940. Need to hurry up and build that firewall across the border.

#MakeUSthreadgreatagain

 

Could be worse, right?

 

They'll be letting Mexicans in next!

[Saggy]

 

None of which make someone an objectively or demonstrably good leader.

 

Sivis, I'm pretty impressed with the mental gymnastics you just managed in order to reposition that entire argument into one about semantics, the "objectivity" of leadership, and how LinkedIn willfully aggregated an article for its members.

 

If you're unwilling to concede on some of the most basic traits I outlined, such as charisma, and whether or not they're implicit and/or self-evident, then I can only assume that you've never been in a leadership training course? Leaders don't ask their subordinates for validation, they persuade and motivate by other communicable traits, much of which is self-evident, if you know what you're looking for.

 

The first thing they teach you in any leadership training course is that there's no "bad" leaders, because it allows an individual to judge leadership from a results-driven perspective. Sometimes the question is phrased differently, such as, "Name a good leader", which will invariably trigger Godwin's law at some point. It's not until someone mentions Hitler or Stalin that the cognitive dissonance kicks in. "B-b-but wait," you say, "they did bad things!" So Hitler and Stalin just came to power by coincidence? What was it about these men that made them so effective in terms of gaining support? Did their followers just willfully give up power to these men because they had nice mustaches? No, they were charismatic, self-confident, resilient (ruthless), self-aware, patient, and experienced. Those traits are self-evident to those with leadership training.

 

Forbes wrote an opinion piece on the same: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rajeevpeshawaria/2011/08/19/there-is-no-such-thing-as-bad-leadership/#5c5bc56b41e8

 

 

Looks?

 

Jesus Chirst, since when was this even a factor?

 

Since, 1960.

 

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2021078,00.html

 

 

So by that measure, Jim Jones was an effective leader because he convinced all those people at Jamestown to drink the kool-aid... You realize this is where that metaphor is born from right?

 

Effective leaders do not necessarily make good leaders. Just being a cult of personality does not mean a person has the best interests for a collective in mind, it simply means they can persuade many to agree with them.

 

Every lemming picked its leader.

Edited October 6, 2016 by SagaciousKJB

[X S]

It is an argument based on semantics. If there's no universal definition of a "good leader" then asserting one is better than another without using some objective or empirical justification is just stating an opinion, no?

 

 

 

Hardly. Leadership is largely about influencing others to accomplish a task or goal, and much of that can be observed by identifying commonly possessed traits within notable leaders.

 

You'd assume entirely wrong given that I was at a CIPD one last week. Hence this all being very fresh in my mind. As to whether a leader asks for validation and verifucation from subordinates, it depends entirely upon the management approach. Certain approaches, like collaborative and democratic ones often employed in high-pressure environments (such as under the banner of "Crew Resource Management" in the airline industry) actively encourage subordinates to challenge the authority of a leader if they disagree with their decisions.

 

I had to look up CIPD up because I don't know much about it. But not surprisingly, human resources is probably one of the most progressive fields in leadership, so active engagement and challenging authority is highly conducive to the collaborative environment. It's incredibly effective in nu-corporate environments, especially within the tech industry. I'm pretty sure Amazon requires an assessment leadership test based on similar values before hiring.

 

Personally, I work within the supply chain industry, so we employ Lean Six Sigma, which is a process of eliminating waste and managing continuous improvement. Much of it includes building trust and and encouraging participation amongst subordinates.

 

This lies somewhere on the axis between debatable and irrelevant; not least because I've never made the assertion that anyone was a bad leader.

 

I think it's entirely relevant within the context of international relations. Acknowledging that Putin has strengths is decisive in determining how to undermine him.

 

Leadership styles are not some kind of genetic concept, imprinted and unchangeable.

 

Disagree. Effective leaders usually have innate qualities such as extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness, none of which are learned. Putin might not possess openness, but this certainly does not diminish his ability to effectively lead.

 

Firstly, experience is not a trait- it's not a distinguishing characteristics of an individual but an evaluation of both time spend performing a particular task and demonstrated competence at it.

 

 

A trait is nothing more than an explanation for a individual's behavior, so I'm not sure what you're implying here.

 

Self-awarenness and self-confidence are only valuable qualities inasmuch as they reflect experience and knowledge. People who are so ignorant on a particular subject as to be unable to comprehend their own ignorance are often self-confident over those with some subject matter understanding; being so does not impart upon them any leadership capability above and beyond someone more knowledgeable.

 

Sure, I'll concede that self-awareness and confidence are a result of experience and knowledge, but again, I disagree with your assertion that they are not indicative of good effectual leadership.

 

I mean, f*ck, it's practically the only redeeming quality of Hillary Clinton's candidacy, her "experience".

 

Neither Hitler nor Stalin were remotely patient. Both were either destroyed or almost destroyed entirely because of his lack of experience and overconfidence in their own abilities.

 

It's fair to say that this observation is completely subjective, but from a standpoint of discussing their ascendancy to power, patience is notable in both. It took Hitler about a good decade to gain control of Germany, carefully navigating the ranks and assuaging the concerns Germany in order to pressure and force Hindenburg to cede power until death. Stalin, in a similar manner, waited Lenin out, carefully conspiring with allies to not only undermine his political legacy, and forcing Trotsky into exile. Hitler was probably the most over-confident, however, letting his success ultimately fuel his endless ambition and ego, which helped contribute to his downfall.

 

 

X S thinks Hitler was a great leader.

 

Can you, just for once, quit being the Salacious B. Crumb of D&D?

[El Dildo]

look, you brought this on yourself.

saying that Putin is a strong leader is like saying that arsenic is a strong drink

 

we're talking about a man who thinks he's above the laws and legal system of his own country and who subverts the institutions of government in order to maintain his grip on power. Russian citizens should be ashamed of Putin. and they would be... if they were allowed to be without disappearing into the night of course.

[Sunrise Driver]

Back on track with more impressive speeches from our future humane Great Dear Leader!

https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/videos/10153977157402217/

Edited October 7, 2016 by Street Mix