Comedian front-runner in Ukrainian Elections

[bmk1245]

40 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

 

Yeah, it could be intense. But if both candidates are true patriots, they'll manage the audience together. Patriotism first, politics second, therefore, if someone's fighting physically he's no patriot, sit the **** down and let candidates fight verbally. 

What? It's not naive idea, it just takes a little coordination. 

[...]

Poroshenko already proved his stance over 5 years, while Zelenskyi compared Ukraine with prostitute.

40 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

[...]

I understand. But I also was under impression that they really have to do something about their economy. (Just like we have to in my country, there are people, especially young and qualified, running away like the plague has broken out... and we have more resources than we need... *bangs head against the wall*)

[...]

Ukrainian economy is growing, that is a fact. Ze is young, that is a fact, Ze is qualified, is not a fact. Ze/Ko in power - $h!+ will happen (I'd give 99% for that).

40 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

[...]

 So, he's not likely to switch sides. Good. Call me a fanatic, but that still is the most important thing. 

That may turn 180 degrees if *******s will propose some $$$.

Edited April 7, 2019 by bmk1245

[Phaeton80]

On 2-4-2019 at 6:43 PM, Coil said:

I forgot to write that people actually vote not for the fact that Zelensky criticizes the president but because people OPPOSE the current president and his regime who brought the country to lawlessness and economic decline. Therefore, some bloggers write that even a cat could win this election if it had been promoted because Poroshenko had already gotten everyone and even the military had voted for Zelenskiy in the hope of a better life because Ukrainians choose development and hope for changes and not stagnation for the next 5 years.

 

 

Kinda like Hillary being so dispized Trump was seen as the saviour; a choice which would normally never been made if not for such a ridiculous limited option of (s)election. This fallacy can be observed across the board, its the populist pattern.. People get disillusioned by the establishment, get offered a 'non establishment' solution; only to get rudely awakened of the pipedream that is the hope in a projected peoples champion, while the champion is a wolf in sheepsclothing, a corporate puppet marketed as anti establishment.

Interesting how that works.

[Helen of Annoy]

31 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

 

Kinda like Hillary being so dispized Trump was seen as the saviour; a choice which would normally never been made if not for such a ridiculous limited option of (s)election. This fallacy can be observed across the board, its the populist pattern.. People get disillusioned by the establishment, get offered a 'non establishment' solution; only to get rudely awakened of the pipedream that is the hope in a projected peoples champion, while the champion is a wolf in sheepsclothing, a corporate puppet marketed as anti establishment.

Interesting how that works.

Seen as the saviour by roughly a third of voters. With the kind of help so devastating for the reputation of the US their structures still can't decide how to bury it deep enough. 

But yes, that is the populist pattern. 

Now, what can be done to change the fact that either way - voting for the known, establishment evil, or for the amateurs that are even less independent from especially dirty money - we end up voting for our ruin? 

I've got no idea, so when I vote I simply choose the currently lesser evil. 

[Phaeton80]

21 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Seen as the saviour by roughly a third of voters. With the kind of help so devastating for the reputation of the US their structures still can't decide how to bury it deep enough. 

But yes, that is the populist pattern. 

Now, what can be done to change the fact that either way - voting for the known, establishment evil, or for the amateurs that are even less independent from especially dirty money - we end up voting for our ruin? 

I've got no idea, so when I vote I simply choose the currently lesser evil. 

Well thats when we get to the crux of the matter, yes. When I vote, I vote void, that is to say; I deposit my little selection / ballot note without a selection. I will not choose between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.. I will not cast my vote for some party or some fool of whom I know the election promises will be flaundered when its all said and done.

I actually think that with every vote we cast into this system (and with system I mean the one where everyone floating to the top is dependent on the establishment one way or another; thereby ensuring a true peoples champion is not an option), we empower the status quo. Votes are literally that, when you vote; you transfer power to the one you vote for (and more importantly, those behind the one you vote for). I think voting makes the necessary real change, in fact, impossible. The establishment has made the system so in favour of themselves, it will always yield results which are in their advantage. To expect a different result while doing thesame thing over and over again is the definition of insanity. To expect a peoples champion to rise from an intrinsically slanted system, is irrational, illogical, insane.

So yeah, I shoot blancs. I shoot blancs to declare my discontent about the system, to declare non complience, to not transfer power to the elements behind the sharade. Because thats exactly what it is, and as long as this sharade continues, there will be no real change (only in the margin, so there is a perception of change, but fundamentally stays thesame.. like, the case with all US presidents after JFK, and with Trump as an especially apt example, trumping all others (imho)).

Edited April 7, 2019 by Phaeton80

[Helen of Annoy]

27 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Well thats when we get to the crux of the matter, yes. When I vote, I vote void, that is to say; I deposit my little selection / ballot note without a selection. I will not choose between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.. I will not cast my vote for some party or some fool of whom I know the election promises will be flaundered when its all said and done.

I actually think that with every vote we cast into this system (and with system I mean the one where everyone floating to the top is dependent on the establishment one way or another; thereby ensuring a true peoples champion is not an option), we empower the status quo. Votes are literally that, when you vote; you transfer power to the one you vote for (and more importantly, those behind the one you vote for). I think voting makes the necessary real change, in fact, impossible. The establishment has made the system so in favour of themselves, it will always yield results which are in their advantage. To expect a different result while doing thesame thing over and over again is the definition of insanity. To expect a peoples champion to rise from an intrinsically slanted system, is irrational, illogical, insane.

So yeah, I shoot blancs. I shoot blancs to declare my discontent about the system, to declare non complience, to not transfer power to the elements behind the sharade. Because thats exactly what it is, and as long as this sharade continues, there will be no real change (only in the margin, so there is a perception of change, but fundamentally stays thesame.. like, the case with all US presidents after JFK, and with Trump as an especially apt example, trumping all others (imho)).

Void is ethical, but it's not practical.

In my personal example, I chronically have to choose between two exactly the same turd sandwiches, but one comes with extra troglodyte sauce and I won't have that. There were instances when I went void too, I admit, but generally speaking, and honestly, I don't vote for (since there's no one to vote for) I vote against the worst. Which is probably the rock bottom, politically, but there we realistically are. 

And so I'm perpetuating the system, but if I don't, I have personally allowed the worst to creep into power, because their voters are voting, no exception. Sometimes, even when they're already dead   

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  

[Phaeton80]

10 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Void is ethical, but it's not practical.

In my personal example, I chronically have to choose between two exactly the same turd sandwiches, but one comes with extra troglodyte sauce and I won't have that. There were instances when I went void too, I admit, but generally speaking, and honestly, I don't vote for (since there's no one to vote for) I vote against the worst. Which is probably the rock bottom, politically, but there we realistically are. 

And so I'm perpetuating the system, but if I don't, I have personally allowed the worst to creep into power, because their voters are voting, no exception. Sometimes, even when they're already dead   

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  

But that would only be true if your vote made any real difference, and I thought we just concluded it really didnt (?)

So, at the end of the day; youve done very very little to ward off undesirable trends / developments (undesriable marginal changes), and very very much to perpetuate the status quo (undesirable structural elements). A lot can be said of such a tactic, but practical - in the larger scheme of things - I dont think is one of them.

[+and-then]

On 4/1/2019 at 3:13 PM, aztek said:

he  made his career on making fun of politicians and showing how corrupt\useless they are, will see what he will become, imo more than likely he will become exactly the same as those he made fun of.

It will be interesting to see what advantage his presidency provides Putin.

[Helen of Annoy]

40 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

But that would only be true if your vote made any real difference, and I thought we just concluded it really didnt (?)

So, at the end of the day; youve done very very little to ward off undesirable trends / developments (undesriable marginal changes), and very very much to perpetuate the status quo (undesirable structural elements). A lot can be said of such a tactic, but practical - in the larger scheme of things - I dont think is one of them.

Instant, real and as advertised difference it certainly doesn't make, but it does send the message. It's not much, but it's better than nothing. 

For example, voters in Ukraine already successfully sent the message that common people are really not happy. As in, ready to do something. Not necessarily better or wise, that's the scariest part. It will make any remotely sane politician take into consideration the fact that common people are struggling. Maybe miracles are not possible, but convincing effort is.   

You probably notice I'm not looking or hoping for actual tectonic changes, I'm just looking for small reliefs for common people. It means a world to me if I can feed my family. And if I can feed my family often depends on how many months old limousine is acceptable for local Marie Antoinettes. That we can change by elections alone. 

Again, you've got ethical point, but I've got mouths to feed.  

[Helen of Annoy]

12 minutes ago, and then said:

It will be interesting to see what advantage his presidency provides Putin.

None.

If something outrageously traitorous doesn't happen. In which - rather unlikely - case remember how well it went for Yanukovich. 

The reason why Russian propaganda brigade was mildly happy with successful opposition to Poroshenko was that any destabilization and division in Ukraine is good for their boss. Just like it was with your Trump who divided the US like no one sane would ever allow.  

 

[+and-then]

3 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

None.

If something outrageously traitorous doesn't happen. In which - rather unlikely - case remember how well it went for Yanukovich. 

The reason why Russian propaganda brigade was mildly happy with successful opposition to Poroshenko was that any destabilization and division in Ukraine is good for their boss. Just like it was with your Trump who divided the US like no one sane would ever allow.  

 

We're discussing UKRAINE'S choice here, aunty.    I was merely wondering what advantage little Rooty Poot could make of the change at the top.  He seems to be rather good at trying such things.  Trump supporters didn't vote in Ukraine.  I wish them the best.

[Phaeton80]

28 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Instant, real and as advertised difference it certainly doesn't make, but it does send the message. It's not much, but it's better than nothing. 

For example, voters in Ukraine already successfully sent the message that common people are really not happy. As in, ready to do something. Not necessarily better or wise, that's the scariest part. It will make any remotely sane politician take into consideration the fact that common people are struggling. Maybe miracles are not possible, but convincing effort is.   

You probably notice I'm not looking or hoping for actual tectonic changes, I'm just looking for small reliefs for common people. It means a world to me if I can feed my family. And if I can feed my family often depends on how many months old limousine is acceptable for local Marie Antoinettes. That we can change by elections alone. 

Again, you've got ethical point, but I've got mouths to feed.  

Understood.

[Helen of Annoy]

52 minutes ago, and then said:

We're discussing UKRAINE'S choice here, aunty.    I was merely wondering what advantage little Rooty Poot could make of the change at the top.  He seems to be rather good at trying such things.  Trump supporters didn't vote in Ukraine.  I wish them the best.

I don't believe you do. 

I'll never forget how gleefully you insisted that soon I will speak Russian. So far, you and your cult leader were wrong. Not that I'm surprised, but you are still not shamed and you should be.   

 

But if you wish to discuss, then you can't simply avoid the glaring fact that Ukrainian situation was additionally worsened with your Mussolini's impersonator blathering against NATO. 

Not to forget the same Manafort who was more than simple covfefe boy for Trump, was also one of the key people in Yanukovich's attempt to Russify Ukraine. 

 

Both candidates are pro-EU and pro-NATO. But the fact that Zelenskiy was called by some 'Ukrainian Trump' is mildly worrying. Not exactly alarming, it could refer to his lack of political experience only. Still, it just sounds a bit eerie.   

[Coil]

On 06.04.2019 at 11:50 PM, bmk1245 said:

Zelenskyi is just a  clown, just proved that by demanding for debates on the stadium!

I can explain to you why it’s Zelenskiy. If he had not intervened in this election, then the adventurer Tymoshenko who signed the last year’ uneffective gas contract for $ 450 and the corrupt Poroshenko who, as an octopus entangled corruption all over Ukraine and the country doesn’t develop, goes to the finals the bottom of its economy. Therefore, Zelenskiy is a departure from the oligarchy, from the iniquity of corruption and chaos in the country. This is a good choice than to choose from two bad figures.

News. Poroshenko wanted to appoint Zelensky debate on the 14th and probably 19 to get rid of him twice but Zelenskiy agreed to the 19th day this is according to the law last Friday before the elections on Sunday. Zelenskiy announced that people can ask the President a question through him at the debates.

Poroshenko's supporters claim that the showman and the clown will not be able to govern the country effectively but the experience of an independent Ukraine shows that everyone who ruled the country before finished off her and plundered therefore if you put on the scales the achievements of past presidents and prime ministers, it turns out that their "professionalism" only worsened the situation in the country.

Zelensky even had a joke on TV- the deputies did nothing all day long and the country began to improve and one deputy was surprised to notice, "and maybe not do anything further, and the situation would improve even more than from the work of the deputies"?

Therefore, Zelensky is like the erasure of the oligarchic past of Ukraine, which looms heavily over Ukraine and the choice is towards a young and uncorrupted man, and since there was no such thing among politicians and the support of the people other politicians did not receive, the Ukrainian people make the leap to the side and choose man is not a politician. I hope my point of view is clear vision of our situation from the inside.

[Helen of Annoy]

1 hour ago, Coil said:

I can explain to you why it’s Zelenskiy. If he had not intervened in this election, then the adventurer Tymoshenko who signed the last year’ uneffective gas contract for $ 450 and the corrupt Poroshenko who, as an octopus entangled corruption all over Ukraine and the country doesn’t develop, goes to the finals the bottom of its economy. Therefore, Zelenskiy is a departure from the oligarchy, from the iniquity of corruption and chaos in the country. This is a good choice than to choose from two bad figures.

News. Poroshenko wanted to appoint Zelensky debate on the 14th and probably 19 to get rid of him twice but Zelenskiy agreed to the 19th day this is according to the law last Friday before the elections on Sunday. Zelenskiy announced that people can ask the President a question through him at the debates.

Poroshenko's supporters claim that the showman and the clown will not be able to govern the country effectively but the experience of an independent Ukraine shows that everyone who ruled the country before finished off her and plundered therefore if you put on the scales the achievements of past presidents and prime ministers, it turns out that their "professionalism" only worsened the situation in the country.

Zelensky even had a joke on TV- the deputies did nothing all day long and the country began to improve and one deputy was surprised to notice, "and maybe not do anything further, and the situation would improve even more than from the work of the deputies"?

Therefore, Zelensky is like the erasure of the oligarchic past of Ukraine, which looms heavily over Ukraine and the choice is towards a young and uncorrupted man, and since there was no such thing among politicians and the support of the people other politicians did not receive, the Ukrainian people make the leap to the side and choose man is not a politician. I hope my point of view is clear vision of our situation from the inside.

Thank you for informing us. 

But I'm not convinced Zelenskiy is breaking the oligarch circle. He has his oligarch - that banker guy in exile - who is backing him up financially.

Are you sure said banker is to be trusted? I'm not saying he can't be trusted, I'm simply interested in your opinion. What makes that particular oligarch different than other oligarchs? Or, what makes Zelenskiy immune to demands that will inevitably come from 'his' oligarch? 

 

[Coil]

24 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Thank you for informing us. 

But I'm not convinced Zelenskiy is breaking the oligarch circle. He has his oligarch - that banker guy in exile - who is backing him up financially.

Are you sure said banker is to be trusted? I'm not saying he can't be trusted, I'm simply interested in your opinion. What makes that particular oligarch different than other oligarchs? Or, what makes Zelenskiy immune to demands that will inevitably come from 'his' oligarch? 

 

 

 

Zelensky says that he didn’t sign an agreement with Kolomoisky in blood and that he has only business interests with him and if Zelensky is president then he is unlikely to fulfill the will of the sponsor oligarch.What can you do if in order to knock out the oligarch you need to use another oligarch.

Kolomoisky himself is known for taking people’s money in his bank at high interest rates and issuing loans to his firms that did not give money to the bank, and so the bank became unprofitable and had to be nationalized. But his bank is the most popular when transferring money domestically and abroad as their terminal and card system is the most popular and modern in the country.

I can not say how Zelensky will behave if he becomes president because we will see this in the future. Now Poroshenko having received unsatisfactory results in some areas dismissed the heads of regions as if it were they who were to blame for the low rating of the president.

 

[Helen of Annoy]

46 minutes ago, Coil said:

 

 

Zelensky says that he didn’t sign an agreement with Kolomoisky in blood and that he has only business interests with him and if Zelensky is president then he is unlikely to fulfill the will of the sponsor oligarch.What can you do if in order to knock out the oligarch you need to use another oligarch.

Kolomoisky himself is known for taking people’s money in his bank at high interest rates and issuing loans to his firms that did not give money to the bank, and so the bank became unprofitable and had to be nationalized. But his bank is the most popular when transferring money domestically and abroad as their terminal and card system is the most popular and modern in the country.

I can not say how Zelensky will behave if he becomes president because we will see this in the future. Now Poroshenko having received unsatisfactory results in some areas dismissed the heads of regions as if it were they who were to blame for the low rating of the president.

 

I've been reading a little about Kolomoisky and to be honest, Zelenskiy has zero chances of doing stuff Kolomoisky wouldn't approve. Kolomoisky is just too resourceful. 

So you're basically voting for Kolomoisky. I'm not saying that's bad, I've got no idea how good or bad it would turn out to be. 

In my humble opinion, you're therefore not getting rid of oligarchs with Zelenskiy, not at all. But you already sent clear message to the politicians that they can't let common people live in poverty. And that already is a success on its own.

May the lesser evil  win in two weeks.    

[Coil]

3 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

 

So you're basically voting for Kolomoisky. I'm not saying that's bad, I've got no idea how good or bad it would turn out to be.

But the president will be Zelenskiy and not Kolomoisky. And the president has more powers than the oligarch abroad.

Quote

May the lesser evil  win in two weeks.   

That's because we choose the lesser evil and we lose the country because we put unworthy people into power with our own hands. We are unconscious and naive citizens. I am generally against elections in this form and would prefer candidates to pass tests in order to become president of the country and not a simple majority decide who will be president because everything is built on trust and not professionalism of people. Such elections are beneficial for politicians because it is easier to speak and convince that you are worthy. I read something like about elections in ancient China and there, out of a thousand officials, chose one best and out of a thousand best chose even better, so this system eliminated all the ignorant and left the people of their job, and we in the modern world have dropped to a simple arithmetic majority.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Coil

[Coil]

1 minute ago, Coil said:

del

 

Edited April 8, 2019 by Coil

[aztek]

i'd like to hear what pro Poroshenko people have to say, cuz now we have, what it looks like one sided propaganda here. no different than rhetoric trump haters here spew. i hear it for 3 years now, and it is so familiar, you ask someone an unrelated question, you get bombarded with how evil the guy is.

Edited April 8, 2019 by aztek

[Helen of Annoy]

23 minutes ago, aztek said:

i'd like to hear what pro Poroshenko people have to say, cuz now we have, what it looks like one sided propaganda here. no different than rhetoric trump haters here spew. i hear it for 3 years now, and it is so familiar, you ask someone an unrelated question, you get bombarded with how evil the guy is.

There's only coil expressing clearly favourable opinion of Zelenskiy. Everyone else was unfavourable or slightly suspicious. So what exactly is your problem? New material hasn't arrived yet? Can't you improvise? 

[Coil]

40 minutes ago, aztek said:

i'd like to hear what pro Poroshenko people have to say, cuz now we have, what it looks like one sided propaganda here.

Poroshenko's supporters say this:
- This is a clown. What kind of control can you expect from an incompetent person who cannot speak well?
- he did not introduce his team to key positions (everyone will find out after the elections)

-to make funny shows and play the role of president in them is not the same as being a president in reality and Zelenskiy apparently confuses reality with the show, he began to play and went too far

- how Zelensky will meet with foreign representatives if he does not have knowledge of what to say
- if you ask him how many points in the Constitution he does not know

Frightened:

- if Zelensky becomes president, then European visa-free will be taken away from us and investments in the country will also stop going
- Zelensky will surrender Ukraine to Putin, Putin will win and the Ukrainians will lose
- the dollar will be one hundred hryvnia (now 27) and the economy will collapse

So old Poroshenko is better than new and incompetent. Some officials are afraid of Zelenskiy as they may lose their positions in which they remained under any authority.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2019 by Coil

[aztek]

 

well, i'm supporter of neither, but they may have few valid concerns, 

Quote

 

-to make funny shows and play the role of president in them is not the same as being a president in reality and Zelenskiy apparently confuses reality with the show, he began to play and went too far

- how Zelensky will meet with foreign representatives if he does not have knowledge of what to say
- if you ask him how many points in the Constitution he does not know

 

otoh,  i'm pretty sure poroshenko knew very little of that when he was elected. 

but in any case,  it does not sound like what rational poroshenko supporters would say. that sounds like propaganda, and fear mongering, i think a rational supporter, of any side, would bring up relevant issues, like economy, Russia relations, defense, jobs,  foreign policy,  and other relevant for Ukraine issues.  what i see here is nothing of the sort

Edited April 8, 2019 by aztek

[bmk1245]

Quote

Kyiv court rules PrivatBank's nationalization illegal

Such a ruling was handed down, among other things, due to the defendants' failure to prove that there have been due reasons to classify PrivatBank as insolvent. Kyiv's District Administrative Court has satisfied the claim of Ukrainian businessman Ihor Kolomoisky vs the National Bank of Ukraine and the Cabinet of Ministers regarding the nationalization of PJSC CB PrivatBank. According to the court's press service, "having considered at the court hearing the case under the claim of Ihor Kolomoisky vs the National Bank of Ukraine, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, the Deposit Guarantee Fund, and the National Commission on Securities and Stock Market, the court declared the decisions of defendants unlawful, which resulted in the nationalization of PJSC CB PrivatBank, and declared invalid the contract for the sale of bank's shares since its conclusion with the state."
[...]
Read more on UNIAN: https://www.unian.info/economics/10521531-kyiv-court-rules-privatbank-s-nationalization-illegal.html

What a surprise...

I'm sure, 100%, "Peremoga!" slogans from most ferocious Zelenskyi supporters today will turn to "Zrada!" in just few months.

[Eldorado]

Comedian Zelensky 'wins presidency by landslide'.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48007487

Political newcomer Volodymyr Zelensky celebrates victory in Ukraine's presidential elections.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/21/europe/ukraine-election-results-intl/index.html

Edited April 21, 2019 by Eldorado

[Unusual Tournament]

On 4/8/2019 at 3:21 AM, and then said:

It will be interesting to see what advantage his presidency provides Putin.

Putin will eat this guy alive.