https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r78opmbnsI&feature=youtu.be&t=69i dont know why i found this funny help
i can't believe this has happened
russia has jailed the opposition leader, who was slated to run for presidency in 2018http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38905120
Opposition being the leader of the Communist party of Russia right?
From the 19th century onwards, nationalism became a popular ideology throughout Europe, causing great upheaval. Nationalism is commonly defined as one state for one people. However, writers disagreed on its means and its goals. Giuseppe Mazzini, using the above mentioned definition, believes that it is the commonality of the people, the “common ideas, common principles, and common purpose” that brings them together. Under the principles of nationalism, he then went on to assert that the people must “march together to the conquest of a single definite goal under the rule of a uniform body of law,” which he himself did as a revolutionary. He also asserts that this goal is “the task assigned … by God,” the divine right of the people to be unified, mirroring the divine right of kings. Heinrich von Treitschke goes further with the divine mandate to unify a culture in one nation under god, insisting that by “sacred necessity” the territories of Alsace and Lorraine must be part of the empire of Germans, regardless of the will of the people there. He states that “We Germans … know better than these unfortunates what is good for the people of Alsace.” This seems to be an early example of the evolution of nationalism from “one nation under god” to “one nation over all others” that we see both in the 20th century and in modern times. His assertion that it is against the will of the people of Alsace and Lorraine is in particular contrast to Mazzini: if nationalism is the will of the people, how can this annexation against the will of the people be nationalist? Lord Acton answers this question, stating that “the greatest adversary of the rights of nationality is the modern theory of nationality.” The nationalism of Mazzini, where it is a divine mission to unify the people, had been subverted into a divine mission to “exterminate, reduce to servitude, outlaw, or put into a condition of dependence” the other peoples, as shown by Treitschke. Acton further states that nationalism is divinely mandated in name only, as the will of the people has been substituted for higher principle. He condemns nationalism for being subversive to itself and to all other political ideologies. In seeing the subversion of the idealistic nationalism of Mazzini, where “logically derived and vigorously applied principles [are] its means” warped into the belief of Treitschke that peoples must be united against their will, Acton sees that the ideology of one people, one state is harmful to democracy, as what will become of those that are not of the one people, the one leader, the one empire?
The Progress Party
this only solidifies the fact that russian elections are only there to provide the illusion of democracy. putin has complete power over the russian government, and he has for a while now.
Maybe if the opposition party wasn't total dogstuff something would change.
yeah or maybe if he didnt send all opposition to the forgetin gulag
Poll