The fact you'd even try to make this hilarious, specious comparison.Ok, I'm not even going to read the rest of your post right now, this is just too shockingly stupid and unnecessary.
The United States is very obviously a plutocracy. And yet
In 2016
By your standards
THE "BIG MONEY CANDIDATE" (by about 2:1)
LOST.
If you're wondering why the above is formatted that way, it's because you didn't notice this very clear counterexample to your reasoning when it appeared in regularly formatted text (numerous times? I don't remember) before.
As if it is impossible for multiple candidates to be plutocratic. As if it is impossible for multiple candidates to have the same policies approved by plutocrats. As if it is impossible for a system to be plutocratic in more ways than just candidate selection. As if it is impossible for the effect of money on politics to be expressed in more ways than a tally of official campaign expenditures. Like, oh, I don't know, being the star of a popular television show on a plutocrat's TV channel. Like both Trump and Zelensky were!
But no, celebrity is obviously not tied to money. It's just an organic expression of personal merit- or whatever other contortion you wish to make to preserve this asinine dodge.
There are so many ways in which your line of argument falls apart that it is amazing that you keep repeating it.
Ihor Kolomoisky is a Ukrainian oligarch and plutocrat- excuse me, I mean billionaire, he's not Russian after all- who funds various Nazi militia groups and every winner of the Ukrainian presidency since (and including) Poroshenko. He was also a governor for whatever that's worth.
Will you now deny that the United States is a plutocracy so I can laugh even harder? And with such reasoning! The election of Trump obviously means that the United States cannot be a plutocracy lmao
This is how a Washington D.C.-based think tank speaks of the democratic Ukraine that blossomed in the aftermath of Euromaidan (and the selection of Arseniy Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister by US officials):
Glorious.
In case it's escaped your notice somehow: the US political scene is dominated by two gigantic parties with so much financial connection, they essentially operate as lobbying platforms. Any candidate elevated by the primary process is unavoidably funded by those existing connections, primarily through their congressmen.
So let's see how much context is shared! Dynastic political party with existing financial connections? Uhrm, nope, neither he nor the party existed in the political sphere before 2018.
Well, maybe he's spending a lot anyway... oh, nope; he was outspent by 5 other candidates, and at a rate of 5:1 by Poroshenko. He ran a campaign primarily through... social media. Barely appeared on established political shows.
Being outspent 2:1 in the US still means Clinton had billions to spend, and saturated the airwaves. Zelensky spent... the equivalent of a couple of million euros, and produced hardly any political TV advertising. Oh yeah, big money establishment candidate right there. -_-
Jesus, just face it: they elected someone you don't like. They overwhelmingly reject reintegration with Russia. So instead of conceding to the popular will, you'd rather see your favoured policy implemented at gunpoint.
---
A little bit miffed you chose to solely focus on the least important part of the reply, and Snip out all the rest, btw. Nothing to say about Yanukovych's adviser stating Ukraine cannot be allowed to be sovereign? Or the fact that you did actually call for Ukraine to be demilitarised, and then forgot and acted as if we were making it up?
Last edited: