Azas
Anti Transistor
Agreed. Let's deport Nigel Farage first. I'll even help him onto the plane.
I think it would be enough to ignore and don't vote for him.
Agreed. Let's deport Nigel Farage first. I'll even help him onto the plane.
Chased out of Edinburgh a few years ago. It was beautiful.He got egged out of Scotland didn't he?
WOW, I'm impressed!
Cha, cha, Kettle is calling the pot black, my friend Imo, Your information channels are exclusively anti west, pro authoritarian and even pro conspiracy, and you even don't understand it (or you understand it all perfectly well, but you are content with that). And yes, give me everything that's anti russia. This country must be razed to the ground. It's very easy to "understand russia" at the same time living afar from it.You are massively mislead my friend.
Elections were annulled because the anti-systemic candidate who was leading in the first round on grounds of Tik -freaking- Tok influence. Are we serious? Then why not just expose him and let the people decide in the second round? Because he would win, that's why. Not to mention that this was even debunked because it's not the point here.
Now they are trying to stop him from running again overall.
Earlier that year elections in Moldova were equally rigged as the people who lived inside the country voted majority pro-Russian and the pro-West candidate was declared the winner by the votes from the Moldovans living abroad and a thin margin. With a caveat: In whole Russia only 2 ballots were sent, when collectively in West, hundreds.
In Georgia, a perfectly elected government votes a law to control the foreign interference (in Georgia there are ~20,000 NGOs about 1 every 200 citizens). European leaders press Georgia and give speeches to protesters trying to provoke a Maidan -style regime change. Even the President of the country (previously a French government diplomat!!!) refuses to leave after her term expired on the grounds of ....well there were no grounds. Now she is an empolyee ofJohn McCain Institute and a "Kissinger" Fellow. No, it's not a joke.
And more earlier in France we all know what happened. Do you see a pattern?
I'm pretty sure that if Farage or AfD or anything like this were elected many would be ok to annul the results like it happened in Romania on any bs imaginary grounds or even better not even allowing them to run.
You can't just go around using facts you know? Not allowed.
Regarding Kajsa Ekman- let's just say that is not why she lost her job. Stop so easily believing propaganda. The editor-in-chief laid out why she was let go, and made it clear it was not because of the Kyiv thing, but because she started writing for RT, a literal Russian propaganda outlet. It's behind a paywall, but there were longtanding conflicts and conflicts of interests which came to head (I did read it back in the day), so I can't quote the entire thing. Correlation in time does not equal cause. In fact, she lost the job she secured after that one as well because she was hired in violation of protocoll (however in that case, there was also a secondary reason, which was mass protests at that workplace regarding the Kiev thing and consistenly outspoken anti-trans stances in violation of the value base at that place of work).
You are absolutely unbelievable and just reiterating things that she says - her interpretation of events - and taking it as gospel even when confronted with the editor-in-chief.No she explains that in the interview, I just simplified it. The boss had appraised her for what she wrote for Kyiv Independent so when people started to complain about the article she couldn't fired her based on that, as he would have to leave too.
Then he picked up something she wrote in a social media post about RT and he fired her based on that. What she had written was that RT too, has journalists it can't be only propaganda. Which is a fair point in my opinion. In any case he took the pain to look at her personal posts to find an excuse to fire her, and besides, she is entitled to her opinion.
But don't stick just to one point, I encourage you to listen the podcast if you have time and I'm curious about your take on what she has to say for all the other things.
Of course that's your conclusion - that's essentially what she tells you to think.I only know her interpretation of events. The point to take here is do you think that she would be fired for that thing 10 -15 years ago, in the country of Sweden? My understanding from the podcast is that she wouldn't.
And the point of you saying "10-15" years ago is because you want to take things out of context. Things don't exist in a vacuum. In this day and age, it directly impacts her employer, which is generally why real journalists generally abstain from posting personal opinions regarding things that they cover through work.