Haters on Youtube?

Okay, I am a bit up there in years now. I just had a birthday and on my living room wall are sayings like: “if they tease you about your age, beat them with your cane”; “your motor is still running, but your warranty has expired”;”you’re living in the metallic age, gold teeth, silver hair and a lead bottom”; you’re stuck between the young and the restless and the old and the senseless’”. And many more like “too old to rock ‘n roll, too young to rant ‘n rave”.

Anyway, I still like my rock and roll so occasionally I go on youtube to listen to music. I do not have any viable music listening device. We use to call them stereo systems or something, but whatever they are called now, we do not have it. So my computer and youtube get me through my need for a fix every now and then.

What I do not understand is why people go to a song and downvote it. If you use youtube, you know what I am talking about. People post their favorite music or something and people can sign in and make comments about the song and either up or down vote it. Why do people go to songs they do not like and down vote? What a waste of evening the most trivial amount of energy. If you do not like the song, why bother clicking on some link to it.

You see 2000 up votes and 47 down votes. Are there 47 people who don’t like the person that posted the song? Do they think there are better versions of the song out there. So just go and vote for that version. To downvote a song is completely maddening. Why?

You have accomplished nothing. A downvote isn’t going to change someone’s opinion about the song. People click on the song because they like it in the first place. Do people think:” oh wow, 47 people down voted this, it must suck now.” No, they don’t. So why make such a fruitless effort?

And yes this has nothing to do with anything, yet I need to rant and rave about this nonsense. Why, because I am no better than the haters I guess, but at least I choose the music I enjoy and enjoy it.

Just click on what you like and be happy. No need for hate or negativity when it comes to music. There is something created for everyone.

Where is anything positive? Am I randomly searching for the impossible?

A person can think to themself: boy, the rise and fall of the United States happened quick in relative terms to human history; or why do so many people hate God; or why is there so much hatred in our country; or why is it so difficult for our leaders to use common sense; or why are people so obsessed with the end of the world, (in case you haven’t noticed the blood moon last night didn’t end the world no matter what anyone said): or why do we have such a beautiful planet, yet we treat it like trash? Or whatever ails you for the day?

And yet I see so much good in people all the time. I spend hours thinking to myself how does this dichotomy exist? On a day to day level most people treat each other well, respect each other, help each other, yet when you step it up one level just to managing a community, things start falling apart fast. And the larger the group or entity the faster and worse the abuse of the group or entity happens.

How do we turn the good between friends or even perfect strangers at the individual level into something positive at much larger levels? And you know it can be done because there are many successful operations of organizations, governments, etc…., but are these the exception to the rule or is what seems to be more prevalent the exception to the rule? Is good the rule or is humanity’s self-destructive tendencies the rule? Even though it might appear there is a middle, I do not think so.

There is a middle in politics, in economic classes, in a room, in the planet, yet no middle in the good vs bad. You may disagree and say there is a middle because there is ground for some good and some bad. Again, I do not think so.

Good and evil push against each other and there are extremes to each side, but there is no middle. So, the effort is to always bring people to the good side. (that sounds a bit trifle), you do not go through a middle though, you cross over a line that determines what happens. Could a person get close to the line and not cross over in either direction? I don’t know. And I don’t know how you would be able to determine that answer.

So, if I have backed myself into a corner philosophically with these two absolutes, how do you get into something positive. Could evil be positive, and yes, the answer is no to the rhetorical question. If you can only be one or the other, what moves a needle for everything else on planet earth.

A person goes crazy trying to move the needle because it cannot be moved. One may say metaphorically you have shades of good and shades of evil. Do you though? The real answer is you have a good person that does bad things. That person is still good, unfortunately though by starting to do bad things they can be drawn to cross the line. They do not go through middle ground. They were good, now they are bad. An evil person may do something good for another evil person, who knows you could have two despicable criminals and one gets in a jam and the other makes a sacrifice to help them. Once you start sacrificing for another you start reaching into the good side. Could that person then cross over to the good side, just as a good person could be bad? The answer is yes, but unfortunately it seems harder to cross from bad to good than good to bad.

And yet it is with sacrifice, which can be said to be one of the strongest elements of being good if not the strongest, where you find positive. The struggle then is how much sacrifice must be given to turn something good or positive. The answer should be none (and if you are Christian, you believe the only sacrifice needed has already been done) yet we put ourselves into a position where it turns out huge sacrifices must be made just to turn the simplest things around. Humans are pretty frail so the demands of making large sacrifices seem to scare us away from doing what should be easy. The sacrifices are needed because we allow events to deteriorate so bad before we decide we need to do something, hence the need for large sacrifices. History is so full of examples it is hard to quantify them.

So maybe it is easier to find a simple example. A local government has to clean up a river for their drinking water, but the company that polluted the water for many years was the largest employer for the community. Who should make the sacrifice? Realistically the company should be held accountable, but they went out of business due to a changing world. So now the community is stuck with needing new sources of employment and a high cost of clean-up, plus the need to find new drinking water. So, the entire community has to sacrifice and sacrifice hard. The costs of attracting new industry to build a tax base to acquire the funds for the clean- up and the search for new water rips the community up and instead of the problem being solved, people leave. If the company had done the right thing in the first place and taken a bit less profit over the years to manage their waste properly (a small sacrifice) then the entire community would not have needed to sacrifice greatly. And this small sacrifice should be what drives people, but it doesn’t. And so, we get people making huge sacrifices instead based on a huge need and sometimes a very ugly huge need, such as World War II and the horrors of Nazism.

There is always going to be a need for some sacrifice. We have to live together. (Shoot just having to put up with a neighbor, co-worker, church member, family member or whoever who talks incessantly is enough of a sacrifice). Okay we need to learn to realize that no one person has a right above another and be accommodating. This should not be a sacrifice, however, we sure as heck make it one somehow.

To find the positive or better to make the positive then it can boil down to making simple sacrifices upfront. If, somehow, we learn to differentiate what we can do now for each other, then we acquire more later on for more people. Sounds simple, yet for some reason we cannot turn in this direction.

And going back to my other question about crossing a line, does sacrifice require pulling everyone across the line from bad to good? Can enough good people make enough small sacrifices for the whole? I asked why does everyone hate God? Is it God or themselves? We are not talking about religion here; sometimes a completely different animal. Even if you do not believe in God, what has been taught should make sense to all. Just respect all and serve one another. And serve does not mean servitude. You are on the evil side of the line when you expect others to serve you. Service by respect and receiving service with respect leads to the simple sacrifices that leads to something positive. Sounds so simple doesn’t it, yet we make it so damn hard for some strange reason.

Drives me crazy. I know I am not perfect (can’t think of one sacrifice I made this week) and on a daily basis fail yet pulling from the good side of the line keeps me moving forward and hopefully can help this planet find something positive. Otherwise the alternative is to completely fail, cross the line and help to tear apart this wonderful planet.

And the above madness is brought to you by the extreme heat here in North Texas and staying inside doing mindless chores (something still stinks in the frig no matter how much I ignore it) and your brain takes too many side trips outside of reality. 

Have a great day all

Back in the day...or...

the way things use to be... or... in my day

Or you have heard some version of people trying to tell you about what it was like a long time ago

And it does mean something to people, I have to be careful because quite frankly I am seriously nostalgic. And I stress the serious aspect of it, I can distract myself at the drop of a hat just thinking about something.  

So I worry what is today’s youth going to be nostalgic about, will they have something to be nostalgic?

For me it can be simple things, like I remember when I could drive on a Saturday afternoon and it was easy, even in Dallas. Now, it feels like all day Saturday is comparable to morning and evening rush hour. It takes thirty minutes sometimes to go somewhere that use to take ten.

My friends and I would spend hours at a lake on the weekend, swimming, hanging out, sometimes not getting home till real late at night. Now I wouldn’t take my kids out on a lake even if we just stayed in a boat, not getting into the water, they seem so dirty and polluted.  We would camp, fish, even camp and fish on the beaches of North and South Padre Island, now we go, but are vigilant to who and what is around us that it makes it harder and harder to enjoy.

My parents and grandparents use to tell me all sorts of their stories, growing up working on the farm and what they did for fun. They were always so shocked at how many toys we had. Now I am so shocked at how many phones, ipads, video games my kids had while growing up.

So, I know things will change, yet again, what will be important to the generation or two behind mine. Shoot I find it interesting to watch my grandkids playing with their toys. At least for now they are young enough that toys are still fun. Maybe things will get a bit simpler.

Everyone makes such a big deal about my generation and our obsession with the concept of family. Yet, for those younger than me, it seems that concept is disappearing for reasons that make no sense to me. I come from a broken family, however, I still find having one very important. I enjoyed the little things to the grand events we did together.

Yet, people at least in the political and media world do not value this same importance. I know there are groups that come out politically and espouse the importance of family, yet, some of their efforts seem hollow to me. Overall we are drifting away from what makes any society a great society.

Primarily people learn their values more from their parents than anywhere else. So when parents do not teach their children values, where do they acquire them? Unfortunately in our society nowhere it seems.

Again I know I am very nostalgic, but I think this is more than wishing for some fairy tale time that the Republican mish mash tries to convince people of that time that existed. No time has ever been perfect, not even the 1950’s that it seems the Republican party is trying to sell us as some perfect world where there were no problems. There were problems, they were brewing under the surface at that time. Yet, we came close to doing something wonderful then. Unfortunately the ugly in our country was not eradicated so we still have racism, hatred, misogyny, ignorance, greed, graft, and so forth.

And if we couldn’t displace the bad when we had a chance, what are our kids suppose to do? We tried, but gave up. The 50’s led to the 60’s then the 70’s and then we became more obsessed with ourselves than our values, our country, our education, our respect for each other etc…

I can remember a time riding a bike around all day all over the neighborhood. I can remember being mad as a third grader when I did not miss a day of school the whole year until the next to last week of school then got the mumps and missed a week. I felt cheated that I didn’t get the perfect attendance certificate. Back then it was important, now who cares. I can remember eating watermelon in the backyard spitting the seed out sometimes at each other as a child then with my kids, yet it is seedless watermelons. (On another note, do we want seedless fruit in our bodies?  And I just bought a seedless watermelon with seeds so thank goodness maybe) We cooked out through the summer months. These are good days. Now I wonder how many children have these simple pleasures?

And more importantly who are children having memories with? Hopefully with their family, yet you see so many families not interacting in one way or another. The really poor just don’t interact at all. The working class cannot it seems since both parents work and many times one parent has two jobs. The middle class, the backbone of any society, is shrinking and faltering. The upper middle class seems to split into two categories, there are the remnants of true family life or their families are so disconnected with any values you end up hearing about the family that has affluenza. This is a term that can be applied much more than the one kid who tried to use it as a defense in a criminal case. Affluenza…..the fact someone came up with this verbiage and everyone caught on right away says much about our society.

And even though I am highly nostalgic, I worry that something is missing in our lives, in our children and grandchildren’s lives. Even though I am against the abuse of using oil, people use to take family drives together. Families would do things as a matter of course. The advertising slogan see the USA in your Chevrolet, led us to believe everything was wonderful, yet at times it was. Like I said, I grew up in a broken family, but we still did things, both with my Mother and Father. I live in Texas so snow is somewhat rare. We visited Dad one Thanksgiving holiday when he was living up north. We bugged him to death to take us to the mountains so we could see and play in real snow. The news was full of stories about the snowstorm that had just come through. He relented and took us out into the country/mountainside. We played for hours. This is a good memory. I hope I gave my kids the same. My worry is, this type of life in America is disappearing.

Politicians talk about family values, yet everything we need to support the family they do not support in legislation. We need families to have enough income to provide the basics and be able to save. And save for multiple goals. Yes, maybe a second job for awhile to save for something special, however, your regular jobs should be enough to support and healthily sustain your family. We need a strong public education system. And one that maybe we accept not  everyone goes to college, but enough through 12th grade that if a person decides to go to trade school or something they still have enough basics, civics, math, science, history, etc they can make rational decisions as an adult and can apply some basic critical thinking tools.

There are politicians that say they are pro-life, but look at the health care for the elderly, or health care in general. Why should this be priced out of the average consumers’ reach? Pro life is treating life with dignity from conception to the grave, not grandstanding for votes at political rallies.

These same politicians say we are losing our values and find people to blame. Yet, where are their actions in Congress and State legislatures when it is time to vote for the family. It is these same politicians that weaken family values by not following through on what is needed, yet convincing millions of Americans they are their only hope.

So I too am nostalgic for some magical time when everything was perfect (supposedly) that would exist if people just did some very basic things. Scary that the most basic concept to teach our children is to treat all with respect seems to have gone by the wayside. Truth be told I know many that live and teach this value, but they are beaten down by some aspects of the the press/media, the politicians, Hollywood, etc...that ignore what is the most important. Where does respect come from? It is learned in your family. And now we have less and less in each generation teaching this to their children. Or at least the visible actions of society suggest this is so.

We, including I, get so mad at our leadership in this country, but to change it we need to start at home. Whether you are the parent or the child, what have you initiated in your family today?

Great changes always start with the first small steps, simple but true. There are no magic to dos, just doing. I am nostalgic for a time that may never have existed in some people’s eyes, but I would hope we can create a better society so our descendents can have wonderful memories of life and be nostalgic about what is wonderful in their lives.

A bit of perspective for someone

And by the way Mr. President, did you know bears eat people?

Here is a glimpse into recent history:

http://www.businessinsider.com/putin-there-is-no-true-democracy-in-america-2014-10

And most educated people know we do not have a true democracy, yet that isn’t what Putin is trying to say, he is trying to cut off our exceptionalism by denying what makes us great by deflecting.

Some notes from Wikipedia:

1990–1996: Saint Petersburg administration

Vladimir Putin, Lyudmila Narusovaand Ksenia Sobchak at the funeral of Putin’s former mentor[51] Anatoly Sobchak, Mayor of Saint Petersburg (1990–1996).

In May 1990, Putin was appointed as an advisor on international affairs to the Mayor of Leningrad Anatoly Sobchak. On 28 June 1991, he became head of the Committee for External Relations of the Mayor’s Office, with responsibility for promoting international relations and foreign investments[52] and registering business ventures. Within a year, Putin was investigated by the city legislative council led by Marina Salye. It was concluded that he had understated prices and permitted the export of metals valued at $93 million in exchange for foreign food aid that never arrived.[53][54] Despite the investigators’ recommendation that Putin be fired, Putin remained head of the Committee for External Relations until 1996.[55][56] From 1994 to 1996, he held several other political and governmental positions in Saint Petersburg.[57]

See the above dates when he started in public administration, yet by he states he did not leave the KGB until August of 1991. He was still a Soviet agent when he began his political career.  And the hint of corruption is undeniable. Where was the foreign food aid suppose to have originated?

Notes from Early Moscow section:

On 26 March 1997, President Boris Yeltsin appointed Putin deputy chief of Presidential Staff, which he remained until May 1998, and chief of the Main Control Directorate of the Presidential Property Management Department (until June 1998). His predecessor on this position was Alexei Kudrin And the successor was Nikolai Patrushev, both future prominent politicians and Putin’s associates.[40]

Here is an interesting article on Alexei Kudrinand:

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/putin-alexei-kudrin-nomination-by-nina-l–khrushcheva-2018-05

The above says much.

And here is some info on Nikolai Patrushev from Wikipedia:

Nikolai Platonovich Patrushev (Russian: Никола́й Плато́нович Па́трушев) (born 11 July 1951) is a Russian politician and security and intelligence officer. He served as Director of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), which is the main successor organization to the Soviet KGB (excluding foreign intelligence), from 1999 to 2008, and he has been Secretary of the Security Council of Russia since 2008.[1][2]

b) On 25 May 1998, Putin was appointed First Deputy Chief of Presidential Staff for regions, replacing Viktoriya Mitina; and, on 15 July, he was appointed head of the commission for the preparation of agreements on the delimitation of power of regions and the federal center attached to the president, replacing Sergey Shakhray. After Putin’s appointment, the commission completed no such agreements, although during Shakhray’s term as the Head of the Commission 46 agreements were signed.[63] Later, after becoming president, Putin canceled all those agreements.[40]

c) On 25 July 1998, Yeltsin appointed Putin as Director of the Federal Security Service (FSB), the primary intelligence and security organization of the Russian Federation and the successor to the KGB.[64]

These are just a couple of examples, Putin has worked with the same people all along. They are all close to him and what he wants to achieve.

Some notes from his first presidency 2000-2004

Between 2000 and 2004, Putin set about the reconstruction of the impoverished condition of the country, apparently winning a power-struggle with the Russian oligarchs, reaching a ‘grand bargain’ with them. This bargain allowed the oligarchs to maintain most of their powers, in exchange for their explicit support for—and alignment with—Putin’s government.[80][81] A new group of business magnates emerged, including Gennady Timchenko, Vladimir Yakunin, Yury Kovalchuk, and Sergey Chemezov, with close personal ties to Putin.

A few months before elections, Putin fired Prime Minister Kasyanov’s cabinet, and appointed Mikhail Fradkov to his place. Sergey Ivanov became the first civilian in Russia to be appointed to the Defense Minister position.

Sergey Chemezov is CEO of Rostec Corporation (formerly the Director General of Rosoboronexport), chairman of the Union of Russian Mechanical Engineers, and a lieutenant-general.       So why are economic leaders also in Putin’s Russia military leaders?

Many of the names in the two paragraphs listed above are under the sanctions imposed by the West after Crimea. Here is a link to an article that states has the full list of Russians under sanction. Quite impressive list:

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/worldpolitics/these-are-the-russians-sanctioned-by-the-west/

As you can see Putin has much at stake in trying to get friendly with someone in the West. And Putin began consolidating power before his first Presidency. The people listed are major players in Putin’s Russia.

Notes on the second presidency:

The continued criminal prosecution of Russia’s then richest man, President of Yukos oil and gas company Mikhail Khodorkovsky, for fraud and tax evasionwas seen by the international press as a retaliation for Khodorkovsky’s donations to both liberal and communist opponents of the Kremlin.[citation needed] The government said that Khodorkovsky was “corrupting” a large segment of the Duma to prevent changes to the tax code.[citation needed] Khodorkovsky was arrested, Yukos was bankrupted and the company’s assets were auctioned at below-market value, with the largest share acquired by the state company Rosneft.[96] The fate of Yukos was seen as a sign of a broader shift of Russia towards a system of state capitalism.[97][98] This was underscored in July 2014 when shareholders of Yukos were awarded $50  billion in compensation by the Permanent Arbitration Court in The Hague.[99]

On 7 October 2006, Anna Politkovskaya, a journalist who exposed corruption in the Russian army and its conduct in Chechnya, was shot in the lobby of her apartment building, on Putin’s birthday. The death of Politkovskaya triggered international criticism, with accusations that Putin has failed to protect the country’s new independent media.[100][101] Putin himself said that her death caused the government more problems than her writings.[102]

On a more complementary note:

In December 2007, United Russia won 64.24% of the popular vote in their run for State Duma according to election preliminary results.[106] United Russia’s victory in the December 2007 elections was seen by many as an indication of strong popular support of the then Russian leadership and its policies.[107][108]

Yet:

Putin was barred from a third term by the Constitution. First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev was elected his successor. In a power-switching operation on 8 May 2008, only a day after handing the presidency to Medvedev, Putin was appointed Prime Minister of Russia, maintaining his political dominance.[109]

(Trump recently made comments appreciating China’s President being voted President for Life; a dangerous attitude for someone who is sworn to protect our Constitution)

At the United Russia Congress in Moscow on 24 September 2011, Medvedev officially proposed that Putin stand for the Presidency in 2012, an offer Putin accepted. Given United Russia’s near-total dominance of Russian politics, many observers believed that Putin was assured of a third term. The move was expected to see Medvedev stand on the United Russia ticket in the parliamentary elections in December, with a goal of becoming Prime Minister at the end of his presidential term.[110]

After the parliamentary elections on 4 December 2011, tens of thousands of Russians engaged in protests against alleged electoral fraud, the largest protests in Putin’s time. Protesters criticized Putin and United Russia and demanded annulment of the election results.[111] Those protests sparked the fear of a colour revolution in society.[112][113][114] Putin allegedly organized a number of paramilitary groups loyal to himself and to the United Russia party in the period between 2005 and 2012.[115]

And Putin was elected to a third term.  

On 4 March 2012, Putin won the 2012 Russian presidential elections in the first round, with 63.6% of the vote, despite widespread accusations of vote-rigging.[78][118][119] Opposition groups accused Putin and the United Russia party of fraud.[120][121] While efforts to make the elections transparent were publicized, including the usage of webcams in polling stations, the vote was criticized by the Russian opposition and by international observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe for procedural irregularities.[122]

Anti-Putin protests took place during and directly after the presidential campaign. The most notorious protest was the Pussy Riot Performance on 21 February, and subsequent trial.[123] An estimated 8,000–20,000 protesters gathered in Moscow on 6 May,[124][125] when eighty people were injured in confrontations with police,[126] and 450 were arrested, with another 120 arrests taking place the following day.[127] A counter-protest of Putin supporters occurred which culminated in a gathering of an estimated 130,000 supporters at the Luzhniki Stadium, Russia’s largest stadium. Some of the attendees stated that they had been paid to come, were forced to come by their employers, or were misled into believing that they were going to attend a folk festival instead.[128][129][130][131] The rally is considered to be the largest in support of Putin to date.[132]

Some secondary observations:

In February 2007, Putin criticized what he called the United States’ monopolistic dominance in global relations, and “almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations”. He said the result of it is that “no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race”.[286] This came to be known as the Munich Speech, and former NATO secretary Jaap de Hoop Scheffer called the speech “disappointing and not helpful.”[287] The months following Putin’s Munich Speech[286] were marked by tension and a surge in rhetoric on both sides of the Atlantic. Both Russian and American officials, however, denied the idea of a new Cold War.[288] Putin publicly opposed plans for the U.S. missile shield in Europe and presented President George W. Bush with a counterproposal on 7 June 2007 which was declined.[289] Russia suspended its participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty on 11 December 2007.[290]

In 2003, relations between Russia and the United Kingdom deteriorated when the United Kingdom granted political asylum to Putin’s former patron, oligarchBoris Berezovsky.[310]This deterioration was intensified by allegations that the British were spying and making secret payments to pro-democracy and human rights groups.[311]

The end of 2006 brought more strained relations in the wake of the death by polonium poisoning of former KGB and FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko in London, who became an MI6 agent in 2003. In 2007, the crisis in relations continued with expulsion of four Russian envoys over Russia’s refusal to extradite former KGB bodyguard Andrei Lugovoi to face charges in the murder of Litvinenko.[310] Mirroring the British actions, Russia expelled UK diplomats and took other retaliatory steps.[310]

In 2015–16, the British Government conducted an inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko. Its report was released in January 2016.[312] According to the report, “The FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin.” The report outlined some possible motives for the murder, including Litvinenko’s public statements and books about the alleged involvement of the FSB in mass murder, and what was “undoubtedly a personal dimension to the antagonism” between Putin and Litvinenko, led to the murder. Media analyst William Dunkerley, writing in The Guardian, criticised the inquiry as politically motivated, biased, lacking in evidence, and logically inconsistent.[313] The Kremlin dismissed the Inquiry as “a joke” and “whitewash”.[314][315]

Many Russians credit Putin for reviving Russia’s fortunes.[370] Former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, while acknowledging the flawed democratic procedures and restrictions on media freedom during the Putin presidency, said that Putin had pulled Russia out of chaos at the end of the Yeltsin years, and that Russians “must remember that Putin saved Russia from the beginning of a collapse.”[370][371] In 2015, opposition politician Boris Nemtsov Said that Putin was turning Russia into a “raw materials colony” of China.[372] Chechen Republic head and Putin supporter, Ramzan Kadyrov, states that Putin saved both the Chechen people and Russia.[373]

Russia has suffered democratic backsliding during Putin’s tenure. Freedom House has listed Russia as being “not free” since 2005.[374] In 2004, Freedom House warned that Russia’s “retreat from freedom marks a low point not registered since 1989, when the country was part of the Soviet Union.”[375]The Economist Intelligence Unit has rated Russia as “authoritarian” since 2011,[376] whereas it had previously been considered a “hybrid regime” (with “some form of democratic government” in place) as late as 2007.[377] According to political scientist, Larry Diamond, writing in 2015, “no serious scholar would consider Russia today a democracy”.[378]

So where does all this lead us. Am I biased against Putin? Yes, I feel what the critics say of Putin being an autocratic leader have merit to it and override the growth of Russia since his first Presidency. Too much of his country is dedicated to a few and in the long run will be the downfall of his legacy and maybe Russia. Russia will need to pick up the pieces again once the graft and corruption have been cleared away.

Putin needs Trump, and what is worrisome is Trump should not need Putin, but is showing dangerous signs of being overtly linked and connected to Putin in an unhealthy way. Putin has wanted our downfall and many of his comments are not only highly critical of us being too involved in world affairs, but also calculated to try and diminish our presence worldwide. Trump is enamored by Putin’s autocratic rule and one has to wonder did he want the Presidency only if he felt he could obtain the same power level here in the United States. To obtain that though he needs to dismantle the very processes that makes us great.

Putin needs a weak America, not weakened, but weak. His ability to reshape the global power structure is dependent on us not being able to confront him on the world stage, to have us so diminished in stature that no one gives us credence. He needs America to tear up all promises, all relationships, to fight internally so to lose our resolve against people like him so he can be successful in growing his own brand at a great cost to his country and others. He is calculating, manipulative, strong, and he works on a singular goal while we in the west work more towards an accommodating system that allows for conflict, hoping pushing the edge will make us better and bringing more people into the fold of representative government. What everything the West stands for in representative government is anathema to Putin. He is taking advantage of a people and country for his benefit and if his country were to realize the stakes they are losing he would be brought before them to answer to his actions. If we, the US and Europe are weakened it makes him look better on the world stage and helps to mask what he is doing in his own country. He wants to look good. You can see it in his attempts to manipulate the elections to give him large majorities. He and Trump do have the same character flaw. They need adulation of their success. Putin hides it better. He has surrounded himself with people who are loyal to him and has the tools necessary to fight against opposition in his country. Trump wants this, he craves it, so he made a deal with this man and soon this man will call for Trump’s soul. Trump’s egomania will abide without flinching for he is not interested in American, only himself. Today in Helsinki, Trump laid bare his ugly soul and did it in plain sight of the world. He gave it to Putin on a silver platter. Trump knows not the wikipedia history of Putin, nor the true history of Putin, Trump just knows the Trump history of Putin. A man he wants to emulate and has given away our country for this sole desire. Putin though has owned Trump for a long time or why else would anyone so blatantly kowtow to another leader.

So get ready America, brush up on Russian culture, because we are about to turn on the rest of the world and Trump’s Republican henchmen are out to help him for reasons right now unknown to destroy what made our country great.

Trump you are being eaten by the bear. And unfortunately you are taking the rest of us with you.