"In the United States, previous elections were falsified through postal voting ... they bought ballots for $10, filled them out, and threw them into mailboxes without any supervision from observers, and that's it," Putin said, without providing evidence. Putin's opponents say the March election in Russia is no real contest as the president wields unchallenged power and his main rival, Alexei Navalny, is serving more than 30 years in jail on charges that Navalny says were trumped up. They say the use of electronic voting creates scope for authorities to manipulate the vote in Putin's favour without detection.

(Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin, running for a new six-year term in an election that his opponents say is a parody of democracy, said on Tuesday that past U.S. elections had been rigged by postal voting.

“In the United States, previous elections were falsified through postal voting … they bought ballots for $10, filled them out, and threw them into mailboxes without any supervision from observers, and that’s it,” Putin said, without providing evidence.

  • fosforus@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    21·
    10 months ago

    Not to mention that the economy is also typically better when a Democrat is the president.

    This might be explained by the latency that large economic decisions have. As a practical example, the leftist government in Finland increased expenditure by quite a lot in Finland during 2019-2023 (mostly due to Covid-19 and Russia, but also beyond that) leading to a much increased governmental deficit. As a result, the economy is doing poorly now, and since the Finns chose a rightist austerity government in 2023, it looks as if the economy was doing well under a leftist government, and poorly under a rightist government – even though the consequences for the current situation can clearly be derived from the previous government and there’s no way the current government has had enough time contribute to the situation.

    • Xatolos@reddthat.comEnglish
      1·
      10 months ago

      As most US presidents serve for 8 years (most win both terms), then such a lag would be noticed within their time in office. Your answer only applies to a small time frame, not an 8 year time frame

      • fosforus@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        1·
        10 months ago

        I’m unfamiliar with the details of economics decisions in the US. How much does the president get to decide those things versus the House and Senate?

        • Xatolos@reddthat.comEnglish
          2·
          10 months ago

          It’s not an all or nothing with the economy and the president, but they do have some sway in some ways. Easy examples would be Biden’s Build Back Better Plan can help change the American economy, and if he does get elected to a second term, it will show results then.

          On the other side, Trump pushed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This has caused the deficit to climb, and didn’t help spur any economic growth (in fact:

          A study by the Federal Reserve Bank similarly found that corporations bought-back stock and paid down debt, rather than undertake either new capital expenditure or investment in research & development.

          And many of the issues of this truly Act became an issue starting in 2021, which if Trump was in office, would have been reflected on his presidency. (It’s part of the issues Biden has been having with the economy).