Bachmann is concerned about the rise of the SOVIET UNION

[Winner]

Yes, that's a very large part of it but the rest of the economy is developing, albeit slowly. They have plenty of problems, but at least the entire country isn't built on a debt they can't pay.

Debt is a Western analogue of oil revenues - cheap money. The more you have, the less responsible you are.

The abundance of high-value natural resources is a kind of a curse for Russia. Without oil money, the regime would be much more pressured to reform, and Russia would thus perhaps be more developed and less corrupt. It's not like the ordinary Russians will ever see a rouble of the oil money anyway, it all ends up in the pockets of the elites (=the regime and its supporters) and in the military. Even Medvedev knows that and have said that a few times.

 

[RedRalph]

No, the standard of living trebeled or somesuch over Putin's Presidency atually.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Even Medvedev knows that and have said that a few times.

Genius really. If the government acknowledges there's a problem, the people can be lulled into the idea that the government is actually trying to solve it.

Given Putin's ability to do just about anything, I'd say Russia very well could become a "new Soviet Union," a powerful state, albeit not as powerful as the last USSR most likely, that could challenge American domination more competently than it could for decades. It's obvious Russia will become a new power... but will it be a democratic, or an authoritarian one?

 

[Tahuti]

Don't forget that Russia's economy is still overregulated and has a large amount of trade barriers, respectively preventing domestic and foreign competition and thus ensuring the dominance of the oligarchs.

This oligarch class wasn't born out of a resource curse but rather the enaction of wrong reforms after the USSR's collapse: Instead of starting with liberalization (that is, allowing free enterprise to function alongside state businesses), Russian politics at the time opted for privatisation instead, but without any serious liberalization, which gave birth to the oligarch class in the first place.

 

[Tani Coyote]

So Soviet democracy, except now the democracy is ruled by the plutocrats rather than the party members. Only a step up from party members being the plutocrats.

And people think America's wealth distribution is bad. But when I look at Mexico or Russia, I begin to think that while we have issues, it could be a heck lot worse!

Though really, goes to show how the USSR's collapse didn't really solve any problems; it just created a whole slew of new ones.

 

[Monsterzuma]

probably said to get a rise out of liberal nerds on internet forums.

 

[Masada]

Like how she "submits" to her husband, and only became a tax lawyer because he told her to and she had to listen to him!

Or the fact that one of her staffers was arrested for terrorism in Uganda back in 2006!

Or the time she was almost kidnapped by lesbians!

These are all faaaaaaaaaaarrrrrr more interesting. G

 

[BasketCase]

If so, she probably should have said rise of the new Soviet Union.

The idea that the old Soviet Union never actually died out is also not new.

They really should require an IQ test or something for presidential candidates.

You sure? Picture if you will: a smart Republican President will not "see the light" and become a liberal. They never do. Smart Republicans use their smarts to work the system, dodge Democratic speed bumps, and get more of their policies implemented. So your average liberal (of which there are many in this thread, I'm sure) would not want a smart Republican for a President. A smart Republican would merely do (from a liberal's viewpoint) even more damage than an idiot.

Me personally? I don't appreciate smart Republicans much either. Because smart politicians don't do any good for others--they only do good for themselves. The smart ones still don't seem to have the public interest at heart, they're merely more adept at advancing their own interests.

 

[Tahuti]

Though really, goes to show how the USSR's collapse didn't really solve any problems; it just created a whole slew of new ones.

It would have indeed been better if the USSR had just reformed into a democratic federation ala the USA and Germany instead of collapse. The sense of political continuity would have meant that the region would've been spared the numerous ethnic tensions it has suffered since its collapse.

 

[bathsheba666]

Never you mind what we're about to do to you, America.

Look over there instead.

 

[Agent Cooper]

Breaking:
News agencies report that Michele Bachmann (R) was infact misquoted with regards to the fear of the defunct Soviet Union being on the rise as a new world power.

The rising world power Bachmann actually warned against was the Mongol Empire. She added to her statement that if the Mongols think they can apply 'scorched earth tactics' in their quest for world domination, that principle became a copyright protected Tea Party policy in 2011.

 

[Quackers]

I hear those Prussians are getting a bit uppity and threatening the 57 states.

 

[Mise]

Calling Russia the "Soviet Union" isn't a terrible mistake. It's just a slip of the tongue. Happens to everyone.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Calling Russia the "Soviet Union" isn't a terrible mistake. It's just a slip of the tongue. Happens to everyone.

So if I, as a Presidential candidate, called Germany the Third Reich, that'd be fine and dandy?

Despite its issues, modern Russia is not the Soviet Union. It is some form of democracy and a capitalist system, unlike the Soviet Union's. Someone bidding for the Presidency should understand these differences.

---

That said, I'm not too surprised. My father, despite being one of many to know of Reagan's "tear down this wall" thing, thought Germany was still split up.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

It was the Soviet Union for the first 35 years of her life. It's really easy to see how one could slip up and refer to Russia wrongly if they've been calling it something different for the majority of their life.

So the woman was a middle age woman when the name change made it somewhere in the news that year?

 

[Winner]

Genius really. If the government acknowledges there's a problem, the people can be lulled into the idea that the government is actually trying to solve it.

Touché, that's the purpose of this whole farce. Medvedev is the "good cop", while Putin is the bad one. The trouble is that Medvedev has little power while Putin is clearly in charge. KGB taught him well...

Given Putin's ability to do just about anything, I'd say Russia very well could become a "new Soviet Union," a powerful state, albeit not as powerful as the last USSR most likely, that could challenge American domination more competently than it could for decades. It's obvious Russia will become a new power... but will it be a democratic, or an authoritarian one?

No, not really. All Russia can "aspire to" is being just a big rogue state. It doesn't have the economic potential to be an equal to the likes of China, the US, or the EU. Today, Russia is an inherently reactionary state rather than an example and a model to follow.

Don't forget that Russia's economy is still overregulated and has a large amount of trade barriers, respectively preventing domestic and foreign competition and thus ensuring the dominance of the oligarchs.

Corruption is an even greater problem. Investing in Russia is a nightmare, because you basically need to bribe your way up to the people who really make the decisions, and bribe them. And even then you're at the mercy of the apparatchiks who can ruin your investment at whim (usually when you stop bribing them).

It's not always this extreme, but overall it has an extremely negative effect on the Russian economy.

 

[Mise]

So if I, as a Presidential candidate, called Germany the Third Reich, that'd be fine and dandy?

Did you spend the first 35 years of your life calling Germany "the Third Reich"?

I still call Myanmar "Burma". My dad calls Snickers "Marathon bars". Yugoslavia hasn't existed for a decade but everyone still knows where it is. I have no idea where in India "Chennai" is, but Madras? Yeah, sure, I know the place! You simply aren't old enough to understand what it's like when suddenly the name of something changes and you have to relearn what the new name is. Sometimes, your brain slips back into calling it what you've been calling it all your life. I guess you've just never made a mistake before.

 

[Behind The Mask]

We must destroy Carthage now!!!

Don't forget what they did to use before.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Even if you discount the fact that Bachmann was careless enough to use the name of a regime which hasn't existed for 20 years, she is still perceiving Russia as being a dire threat to the very fabric of our society:

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...8/michele-bachmann-soviet-union-/1?csp=34news

"What people recognize is that there's a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward," Bachmann said on Jay Sekulow's radio show.

I think this isn't so much a fear on her part as a paranoia that continues to grip a tiny percentage of Americans, and which is even used as the basis to continue to build up our own military. At the same time she insists we cut back nearly every other federal program that doesn't help to prop up the military-industrial complex, other corporations, and the rich.

I think it is highly germane that someone who is running for the presidency is so worried about Russia, just as it was in the case when Palin ran for the vice-presidency. Bachmann is even seemingly paranoid that India is a threat, apparently because it would challenge her belief that America is #1 in all things.

In a similar vein, she even thinks we will be cursed by her god if we don't blindly support Israel no matter what they do.

Michele Bachmann: If We Don’t Completely Support Israel, God Will Curse Us

I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States . . . [W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. And my husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly the verse from Genesis [Genesis 12:3], we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong and beautiful principle.

Right now in my own private Bible time, I am working through Isaiah . . . and there is continually a coming back to what God gave to Israel initially, which was the Torah and the Ten Commandments, and I have a wonderful quote from John Adams that if you will indulge me [while I find it] . . . [from his February 16, 1809 letter to François Adriaan van der Kemp]:

I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations. If I were an atheist of the other sect, who believe or pretend to believe that all is ordered by chance, I should believe that chance had ordered the Jews to preserve and propagate to all mankind the doctrine of a supreme, intelligent, wise, almighty sovereign of the universe, which I believe to be the great essential principle of all morality, and consequently of all civilization.

. . . So that is a very long way to answer your question, but I believe that an explicit statement from us about our support for Israel as tied to American security, we would do well to do that.

Leaving aside the question of whether it would be a good idea to give any more political power to a person who apparently makes her foreign policy decisions based on religion rather than the facts on the ground and what might actually be in America’s national interest, I’ve really got to wonder if the author of this verse:

The LORD said to Abram: “Go forth from the land of your kinsfolk and from your father’s house to a land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you. All the communities of the earth shall find blessing in you.

really meant to say Bibi Netanyahu, right or wrong. Somehow, I think not.

Bachmann even thinks she was "called" to run for Congress and for the presidency:

Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann To Fight For God’s Love

And Michele Bachmann, a self-described “fool for Christ,” in 2006 said that God had called her to the U.S. Congress.

“God then called me to run for the United States Congress,” the then-state senator told congregants at the Word Christian Center in Brooklyn Park, Minneapolis.

[My husband and I] took three days, and we fasted and we prayed. And we said “Lord, is this what you want, are You sure? Is this Your will?” And after, along about the afternoon of day two, He made that calling sure.

And it’s been now twenty two months that I’ve been running for United States Congress. Who in their right mind would spend two years to run for a job that lasts for two years? You’d have to be absolutely a fool to do that.

You are now looking at a fool for Christ. This is a fool for Christ.

Then, last year, before she announced her presidential bid, Bachmann told religious news outlet World Net Daily that she would only run if God told her to do it.

“I will not seek a higher office if God is not calling me to do it,” she said. “If I am called to serve in that realm I would serve, but if I am not called, I wouldn’t do it.”

Bachmann reiterated that stance yet again during a recent interview with CBS News’ Bob Shieffer, telling him that she got a “sense of assurance” from God about her career path.

I think all of this is highly important to her running for the most important political position in the world today, especially given the issues we have had in the recent past when people who shared such beliefs became president.

But this latest blunder on her part also highlights the fact that many Americans and others find great humor when candidates for the highest offices in the land are so careless with their own statements:

The GOP presidential candidate has flubbed some facts in history before, such as when she mistakenly said that the Revolutionary War battles of Lexington and Concord occurred in New Hampshire. This week, she mistakenly wished Elvis Presley a "happy birthday" on the anniversary of his death.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Did you spend the first 35 years of your life calling Germany "the Third Reich"?

Fair enough.

I still call Myanmar "Burma". My dad calls Snickers "Marathon bars". Yugoslavia hasn't existed for a decade but everyone still knows where it is. I have no idea where in India "Chennai" is, but Madras? Yeah, sure, I know the place! You simply aren't old enough to understand what it's like when suddenly the name of something changes and you have to relearn what the new name is. Sometimes, your brain slips back into calling it what you've been calling it all your life. I guess you've just never made a mistake before.

For ordinary people, such mistakes are acceptable.

But this is a Presidential hopeful. Presidents have to represent us abroad, and I'd rather we not have one who can't get a country - and an important one at that-'s name right. This is more than just a simple pronounciation error, it's confusing one entity with another.