I'd rather be ruled by America then Russia.

I'd rather Putin be president of America then Obama be president of Russia. All the checks and balances would limit Putins power so he wouldn't be the dictator that he is now. I'd choose him cause unlike Obama he knows how to get shit done.

How about neither? Obama's been weak on the world stage in the worst way -- posturing as though we were going to react strongly, despite his knowledge that politically he couldn't really do it. Putin has no respect for liberal democratic ideals. (Obama has some trouble respecting them as well, but it's night and day compared to Putin; our laws are terrible in some places but they're enforced much less arbitrarily and are much less draconian than those of Russia's.) I don't want either.

Benevolent nationalism?????

Lmao, contradiction in terms

"Putin has no respect for liberal democratic ideals."

That's just an opinion though... Wouldn't Putin make sure there's more for everyone, basically, because he's so much more efficient?

I could see him make cuts in an amazing load of useless funds, and from that he could easily fund a social safety net... No one loses except useless bits of bureaucracy.

@ PE

"Putin has no respect for liberal democratic ideals."

Yeah, well, neither does Obama or the gang of corporate-owned statists running the US these days.

@ Thuc

"Benevolent nationalism????? Lmao, contradiction in terms"

Not so fast.

nationalism (noun): loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

I view modern nationalism as a rejection of globalism. Globalism is a fundamentally flawed philosophy. It is possible, even healthy, for a nation's people to be loyal to their own nation over all others. It does not necessarily lead to war or conflict. It is possible for a nationalistic people to nonetheless recognize, respect, and do business with other nations.

If I'm going to have a statist for a leader, I want a competent and ballsy one like Putin. Putin has more or less accomplished his presumed objective of getting more respect for Russia.

I thought the choice was Putin33 and obi, and was thinking what kind of choice is that....

If both of them are unduly oppressive then why would you support the more competent one?

Even if Putin is more competent than Obama, I doubt he'd use that competence to my benefit.

I don't know... I imagine corruption is a little harder in the US, and wouldn't Obama be more corrupt in Russia too?

And perhaps Putin is worth what he costs? And it's not as much corruption in a communist state since he might just trust his family better so put them in high places, having Russia in mind. Same could count for much of tge contracts.

I really don't know though.

OKay, so lets take Obama, and his belief system, give him the power that Putin has in the Russian government. And what would happen? Probably one or two steps towards actual change and reform of Russia, then a military coup.

Now lets take Putin and put his belief system (Largely socialist) into our system of checks and balances. What would happen? Nothing. He'd be unable to do anything 'he' wanted in our system because he wouldn't have gotten there because the people wanted him there. Even if you say he got there because the same people who voted for Obama voted for him, he'd accomplish little. I wonder if he could have even gotten Putin-care passed.

In neither case would they be successful because each is a product of their environment as well as their own genetics. Would Putin, born in the USA become a politician? I doubt it. I rather believe he would be the CEO of an extremely powerful mega-corporation. Why deal with congress when you can be The Man?

Much tougher to see what Obama would do in Russia. Leader of a minor political group would be my guess.

You don't think what Obama professes as his beliefs are often things he thinks he should believe/has to do/say to be in power?

And don't be an idiot, Putin isn't "largely socialist", he ended many of the socialist programmes in Russia.

I daresay obama is more socialist than putin, and putin is the greater patriot, that and putin has a tougher resolve.

Are we looking at this from an American or Russian perspective?

One of the greatest plus points to have Obama in the USA is that he is limited to 1035 more days as President. In at least half of which it is traditional for a 2nd term President to achieve absolutely nothing, which matches Obama's leadership style perfectly.

An Obama in Russia, however, could look forward to two full terms as President, followed by a term as Prime Minister, followed by being President again etc etc theoretically until he dies. This is less appealing.

"In at least half of which it is traditional for a 2nd term President to achieve absolutely nothing, which matches Obama's leadership style perfectly. "
This will be especially true when the Republicans take back the senate this November.

If you actually listen to public statements Obama has made in the past, he is *Literally* envious of dictators, and resents that fact that his power is limited by a Constitution. He has directly made statements to this affect. He is truly a classic megalomaniac, who wants to be a "benevolent" dictator (god save us all...). Of course, his definition of "benevolent" is scarier than hell...

The only thing we really have going for us is that Obama is such a lazy piece of shit more interested in his watching Sportscenter and have a daily game of hoops than he is leading that he has done far less damage than he actually could have if he had the balls and leadership of a Putin.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304747404579445120830880670

Globalism is egalitarianism. Do you, gunfighter, reject egalitarianism?

@thucy
"Why would I want an effective, evil man to rule me? Or rule anything?"

Ah, so because you don't him to rule you (because he's evil), you don't want him to rule anything, *even others*. Hmmm, now go and apply that logic to your support of other politicians, and you'll realize what a hypocrite you are.

@ Thucy

"Globalism is egalitarianism. Do you, gunfighter, reject egalitarianism?"

Globalism is NOT egalitarianism, but that wasn't your question. I reject both theories as preposterous, dangerous and inherently unequal. America is better than the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia, and while the individual American may or may not be better than the individual Somalian, America as a population is better and more useful than Somalia as a population.

@ PE

"If both of them are unduly oppressive then why would you support the more competent one?"

Dude, chill out. I was just answering the OP. Besides, I still have quite a bit of control over my own freedom regardless of whether Putin or Obama is in charge. There's plenty of remote mountains and ranches out west where I could build my own little free enclave, and proudly fly the biggest motherfucking Gonzales flag anyone has ever seen. I could rest a little easier at night knowing that my president wasn't a geopolitical laughingstock and that my land is off-limits for foreign interference.

@ Thucy

Advocating egalitarianism and globalism is tantamount to advocating for one world government, which is the most insidious and dangerous human idea since communism.

The funny thing is that I rather like communism and one world government!

@Gunfighter:
"Advocating egalitarianism and globalism is tantamount to advocating for one world government, which is the most insidious and dangerous human idea since communism."

I will just let the communism one go because you've clearly heard bedtime stories about those evil communists as a child.

Egalitarianism and globalism are simply not tantamount to one world government though.
Globalism is usually about market stuff: labour in China is cheap so that's where companies that require a lot of labour go, in a nutshell. The fact that everything can be imported from everywhere usually reducing the cost as opposed to when it's produced locally, for example. There are other forms of globalism, but one world government is simply not equal to globalism

Egalitarianism is the believe that all humans are equal. You disagree on that?

@ Socrates... You assume what Obama does is necessary to stay in power (Despite the difficulties he's had) instead of offering his stated beliefs. While politics is politics, how exactly are we going to determine Obama's internal beliefs without telepathy (You aren't telepathic are you?). In all cases we have to go by actions as reported (Accurately or not).

I will grant that I was being loose with 'Largely Socialist' because the United Russia Party is basically the "Keep Putin in Power" party, with few ideological platforms that I'm aware of besides "Its going good, lets keep it going!". The points stands though. A President of the USA, from newly minted party, is going to have the same or worse chance of efficacy as a socialist president in changing the status quo.

@Yakoska, where did I say all that Obama does is necessary to stay in power instead of his stated beliefs? to deny that at least some of it is politicking and pragmatism is nonsensical. i also think it's fairly easy to interpret what he implicitly says - he is trying to push the country to the left, and relatively forcefully for a man with little backbone that doesn't stand by what he says.

Also, I don't really get what point still stands, sorry.

@ Thucy

No, I reject the belief that all humans are equal. Such a theory is laughably and obviously untrue.