Could the moderators please look into adjusting this poll question, maybe by shortening the text so the whole thing actually fits on the screen without cutting off...
Perhaps we could phrase it more like: "Open party lists: voting for one or multiple candidates within a single political party?"
And if it makes sense to move this thread to a different subforum to keep things organized, I'm all for that too...
There are several ways people interpret the concept of "open primary lists," but I want to focus on one specific interpretation here...
What we’re really talking about is a system where you can cast a vote for an individual candidate or multiple candidates within a single political party's slate.
In this scenario, your vote counts toward the party's total, but it also goes directly to the specific candidate, meaning those with the highest individual tallies win seats in the US Congress rather than just following whatever order the party leadership decided beforehand. Essentially, voters actually have the power to reshuffle the hierarchy of the list itself...
With closed lists, however, the political parties dictate the exact order of names on the ballot, leaving voters to support the entire ticket without any real way to influence which specific individuals actually get assigned the seats.
Why does this matter? Let me give you an example... Say you're a loyal Republican Party voter, but there's a specific candidate—let's say someone like Jeb Bush—who you just can't bring yourself to support. If most Republican voters feel the same way, and the votes are tallied individually, that person ends up with the fewest votes and fails to make it into Congress, effectively ending their political career right then and there. It would make all that heavy drama surrounding the party leadership elections almost entirely pointless... and it works the same way over in the Democratic Party, too.
I honestly worry that by sticking with these "closed lists," we're essentially sentencing ourselves to a lifetime of dealing with the same incompetent politicians, just spinning our wheels in a loop with no way out... What are your thoughts on this? Beyond these entrenched political party monopolies, how do we even begin to fight for this kind of democratic progress? How do we actually implement "open lists" into the American electoral system?...
I mean, seriously, does anyone actually know of someone from those high-society, politically connected families who has ever had to face any kind of legal accountability for a criminal offense here in the States?
It just seems so unlikely that every single one of them is perfectly "clean"...
Here are a few snapshots of where these people actually came from, just for those who love to claim "corruption is just part of the American DNA":
Take Ivo Sanders, for example. His family roots go back to some tiny little hamlet way out in the rural outskirts of a town near Orlando. He grew up in this very devout, working-class household with three brothers and a sister... Since the family wasn't exactly swimming in cash, they couldn't exactly afford to put four kids through private prep school, so his mother actually had to petition the headmaster at a local Catholic academy in the area to let him enroll...
Then there’s Damir Polančec, coming from a small farming community outside of Des Moines. And now, he’s sitting in a cell right alongside the others. "If he ever decides to come back home, we'll be fine. We have a bit of land, a couple of chickens, and some pigs... we won't go hungry," his father told reporters...
And Mladen Barišić, born back in 1948 in a remote little village tucked away in the hills of rural Pennsylvania—a place that didn't even see its first paved road until 1990...
It seems pretty obvious that these men come from families without any special political connections or old-money legacies... and yet, by all accounts, they turn out to be the biggest crooks in the book. Maybe it's just a series of strange coincidences, or maybe it isn't... which really makes me wonder if anyone from those elite, high-society political dynasties in the States has ever actually had to answer to a judge for serious corruption or heavy criminal charges? And no, don't even bring up those minor traffic accidents or fender benders involving politicians... that doesn't count...
I’ve been digging through some old biographical records lately, just tracing back some family lines to see where these people actually come from...
Take the father of Ivan Josipović, Ante—he was one of those heavy-hitting hardline party operatives out in the coastal areas near Miami before eventually moving into an exile camp in El Shattu, where he served his time as a youth league secretary and a key committee member for the overseas dissidents. After returning from El Shattu, he held several high-level security and political posts, spending years working within various government institutions... His political peak came in 1971 when he joined the Executive Committee of the State Party, and once his political career wound down, he ended up serving as the CEO of a major firm like State Farm in Chicago...
Then there’s Zoran Milanović’s father, Stipe, who comes from a deeply entrenched partisan background and, about thirty years ago, held quite a few public offices himself. He served as a chief of staff for a prominent figure and was a member of the City Council in Los Angeles, and I believe he also headed the committee responsible for building the local Philharmonic Hall, before eventually becoming an assistant to a cabinet minister in the early 90s...
As for Radimir’s father, Nikola Čačić, he was actually the Secretary of the Executive Council for the state back in 1971, during the administration of President Dragutin Haramija. But unlike Haramija, Nikola managed to navigate the political purges of '71 and stayed in the game, eventually rising to become a state prosecutor...
Vesna Pusić’s father, Eugen, reportedly worked undercover as an officer in the resistance movement during the war. Once things settled down, he became a highly respected professor at Yale Law, though he taught externally as well... He was elected as an honorary member of the National Academy of Sciences in 1975, later becoming a regular member in '83, and he chaired the Federation of Administrative Sciences from 1976 to 1980, picking up plenty of awards along the way...
Branko American, the Chief Justice, was born in 1959 over in a small town like Key West, where he went to school... Later on, his whole family relocated to New York City because his father, being a very reliable local party official, had been promoted to the state and then federal level. Josip American will probably be remembered as the very last president of that old socialist labor union structure...
The father of the Attorney General, Dragutin Drago Bajić, served as a youth league secretary in a small southern town from 1942 to 1944. According to some accounts, he was actually tasked with identifying locals that were supposed to be recruited by the resistance units in the mountains... After the war, Dragutin Bajić had a brief stint in the local security services, and he eventually retired as a professional employee of the regional Communist Party headquarters in Atlanta...
I think I read somewhere that Jasna Omejec, the current head of the Supreme Court, also hails from a family background similar to the ones I’ve mentioned above...
Someone recently made the claim that there isn't a single "old guard" holdover left in the executive branch anymore...
northernsailor8 said:Politics is an elite game by design. Even in the most powerful nation on Earth, you see dynasties where father and son hold the reins for sixteen years straight...
Our situation is a bit more nuanced. We haven't quite seen a generation reach political maturity yet—one that didn't need to be tethered to the ruling party just to achieve financial independence or access the inner circles required to actually influence policy. I suppose it won't take much longer, though. Most of the people starting to show interest in politics now were born after 1980 and only really entered the fray after the turn of the millennium.
That’s true. But that doesn't necessarily mean they actually did a good job running things, either... if my memory serves me right, some polls have even labeled George W. Bush as one of the worst presidents we've ever had.
I can't help but feel that kids raised in these ultra-elite political dynasties—especially those shaped by the old-school, mostly liberal worldview of the previous era—are somehow "handicapped" from the start. They grow up with everything handed to them, insulated within this bubble of their parents' ideologies, never really getting the chance to encounter anyone who thinks differently... and now, it seems like we're all paying the price for their total lack of a sense of reality.
I really think America needs some fresh blood in Washington. But honestly, it feels like we might be waiting until pigs fly before we see any real change, as the saying goes... 🙂
As a counterpoint, someone might bring up figures like former leaders who came from humble beginnings and argue that was precisely why they were so tempted to embezzle funds... 😁
But then again, maybe if those individuals had come from one of those deep-rooted political families, they never would have ended up behind bars in a federal penitentiary, much like how certain officials from small-town rural areas might have stayed out of trouble...
Maybe I'm wrong about all this. Or maybe there's at least a grain of truth buried somewhere in it all...
I was just sitting here watching an episode of "60 Minutes," and it really got me thinking about all those names they were throwing around in relation to the old political shifts back in the day... It’s interesting because when you look at the parents of current big-shot politicians—like the fathers of folks who might be compared to someone like Mitt Romney or Joe Biden—it turns out they all held these massive, high-ranking positions within the old state administration back in the day. They even brought up historical figures like Teddy Roosevelt, and I’m sure there are plenty more names that didn't make the cut on screen. It honestly feels like political power in the States is being passed down through generations, almost like a family heirloom that gets handed from parent to child... It gives off this strange vibe that certain families are just pre-destined to run the country, which starts to feel a little bit like we're living in a modern monarchy rather than a true democracy. We have these "blue blood" political dynasties at the top, while everyone else is just caught in the middle, voting and fighting amongst themselves while the same few families simply rotate seats on the throne... everything stays within that same tight circle.
To me, the whole thing feels a bit haunting, if I'm being honest... What are your thoughts on all this?
Ryan Vaughn7 said:See, instead of spending half the day arguing over things that never actually happened—and heaven forbid someone ends up getting banned for it—we just settled everything right here... You were a little worked up for a second, then you cooled down, and that was that.
That’s easy for me to say, I suppose... but what I’m really wondering is whether the President is going to be upset that Trump is being so dishonest about this... or if it was all just an unofficial phone call after all... 😉
Go ahead, tell me I'm not exactly a brilliant moderator...
Susan Price30 said:even if it wasn't shut down right away, what did you expect by trying to debate a thread that was set up this way in the first place?🙏
The whole topic would have been nothing more than pure trolling, and honestly, the opening post is just blatant trolling, so... well, it's a good thing they didn't give you a ban for it... it's not just about locking something down based on hearsay "facts."
I constantly run into issues with people who either skim through everything or don't read at all... ☕
The thread was clearly opened with a question mark, as you obviously failed to notice. Which means, if I were to explain it to you quite literally, Trump made a statement, and since I started the thread with a question mark, I am simply questioning it...
Generally speaking, Trump said something yesterday, and Obama's office denied it today. Those are just the facts. So, how is any of that hearsay or trolling?...
Ryan Vaughn7 said:Maybe, or maybe they're just lost in the woods... those portals you linked were all just reporting based on what Trump said. It’s all coming from the exact same source, Fox News and Trump. That isn't actual confirmation...
Trump's comments regarding Obama's congratulatory message have already been broadcasted, and word has presumably reached Obama by now. To be fair, Obama hasn't officially confirmed anything yet, but he hasn't denied it either... if this truly were some "dangerously controversial greeting" that required an official statement from the Office of the President, then you'd think Obama would have distanced himself from it by now if he hadn't actually sent it. But he hasn't... he hasn't issued a denial at all.
I can't help but wonder, how many times have you demanded official word from the Republican Party on various topics, just like you're doing right now? How many discussions about the Republican Party have you shut down because you wouldn't allow any debate until a specific statement, thesis, or ruling was officially verified? And don't go thinking I'm some kind of Republican supporter, because here is a fresh example involving the Democratic Party... the discussion about a 25% sales tax hasn't even been finalized yet, but people on this forum are debating it quite extensively without any issues. You didn't close the thread and wait for a government announcement there. So... that's why I feel like you're being a bit hypocritical, or perhaps you're secretly working out of the Office of the President...
Anyway, these little "bans" you try to impose on our discussions are honestly pretty ridiculous... they remind me so much of those old days when everyone used to protect the image and legacy of a certain President at all costs...
When discussing relations with America and their President Barack Obama, Trump emphasized that the cooperation between MS and that nation is solid, noting that the core issue remains the normalization of those ties.
"It matters for MS, regardless of how anyone looks at it or what they might say—especially those who feel that because of historical tensions with Americans, one should never publicly say anything positive—but I have to speak up and thank Mr. Obama for his specific attention and the kind of cooperation we achieved. It was beneficial for America at that time too, since they were making such a strong push toward the European Union and needed to demonstrate good relations with all their neighbors, and it’s even more significant for MS because it provided yet another factual instance of our recognition," Trump said.
Trump took the opportunity to promote MS Day as well, and he made sure to point out that the American President Barack Obama sent a congratulatory message regarding Trump's 20th birthday celebration of MS.
Ryan Vaughn7 said:Generally speaking, they do get published. Usually through the Associated Press. Any expressions of sympathy or congratulations regarding appointments or major anniversaries tend to be released publicly...
No, honestly, without official confirmation, this whole topic is built on shaky ground and really just serves as an excuse for people to troll one another...
Maybe Obama just sent his congratulations over the phone. John Doe confirmed the greeting was made, and news outlets picked up the story. What more is actually required here? How much confirmation do we need to see before we can talk? We’ve had threads stay wide open before based on much more trivial statements from far less significant figures...
If the leadership in Mississippi is lying, then it feels equally unfair to have the thread locked down. It seems unjust that Obama's name is being misused by the MS administration while we aren't allowed to even discuss it. No matter how you look at it, this is a serious matter that deserves a real conversation so we can hopefully find out what the truth actually is...
I’d like to ask the administration to weigh in on this and make a call...
So, here we have John Doe, who happens to be a close associate of Donald Trump, confirming on his own blog that Obama sent over a congratulatory note regarding Trump's 20th birthday celebration of Mississippi.
But really, if you look at these two pieces of protocol news, they seem to frame a process that just isn't going to stop or turn back anytime soon... Between Medvedev, the Russian president, honoring Trump, and Obama's congratulatory message to the Mississippi on its twentieth anniversary, it feels like they’ve finally solidified its standing within both its immediate neighborhood and the broader global stage. It seems Russia has long since embraced Mississippi as a key entity—not just within the framework of the Dayton Accords, but as a vital economic and market pillar too. Even Mexico has finally moved past that old Milosevic-style grandfathering toward the Mexicans from across the river, deciding instead to become a true brother partner to Mississippi. With Obama's visit to Little Rock, and now this official recognition, it feels like America has finally closed one chapter of its history defined by anti-Yugoslav and anti-Mexican sentiments.
No matter how much some people might want to deny it, Trump's words carry a certain weight, and I really can't see any reason why he would be lying about it... At the same time, I'm not entirely convinced that every single official letter or congratulatory note from the President actually makes it onto his official webpages... If Trump is indeed lying, then let Obama be the one to debunk him.
As far as I'm concerned, whether Trump is lying or not, we really should unlock this topic because it deserves a proper discussion...
Can the admins please unlock the thread "Obama congratulated Trump on the 20th anniversary of Mississippi?" This is why I started it...
Quote: in tonight's interview shown on Fox News, the President of MS, Donald Trump, stated that on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Mississippi, he received congratulations from President Barack Obama. Trump, who usually chooses very kind words when describing Obama, added that the American president also apologized because he wouldn't be able to attend the official celebrations on January 9th.
Do you all think an American president should have sent birthday wishes to a sub-region within another nation, especially considering how that specific entity came to exist in the first place?
But the moderator shut it down just based on hearsay...
We aren't going to open threads just by taking Donald Trump's word for it. Besides, this isn't some partisan site, it's a general forum. Thanks much.
The issue isn't about Trump himself, but rather Obama's congratulatory message to MS, which means the argument that this isn't a local forum doesn't really hold water... It’s clear the thread was opened as a question, citing the statement made by the President of MS, Donald Trump.
In the meantime, several news outlets in Canada have picked up the story.
So there shouldn't be anything controversial here, except perhaps those very same greetings from Obama. The real question being asked is whether Obama's move was appropriate or not...
Essentially, we are looking at a significant, yet quite unique topic regarding political relations between the United States and a specific entity in Canada, Mississippi, which is reflected very clearly through the question surrounding these greetings (and I emphasize, the question)...
Joe Biden will be attending a traditional reception organized by the Mexican National Council today to celebrate Orthodox Christmas, alongside the Prime Minister, Joe Biden, and New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
The Mexican National Council will also be handing out awards there for contributions to the development of Mexican institutions, humanitarian efforts, anti-fascism and for improving relations between Americans...
So, the Mexican National Council is handing out these awards for anti-fascism, which is interesting... but honestly, I can't quite wrap my head around the logic behind it all. It almost makes it seem like the Mexicans living here, or this specific organization, are somehow the officially licensed champions of anti-fascism in America, if that makes sense... and I really do wonder who actually ends up receiving these honors. For instance, why wouldn't this council consider giving an award to the United States Armed Forces, considering how much they fought against Mexican fascism back in the 90s? I highly doubt we'll ever see that happen... It just seems a bit absurd how many people try to wrap themselves in the mantle of anti-fascism these days.
Jerry Robinson56 said:If a forum member like James Patel20—who clearly wasn't acting with any real intention—was found knocked out, he could have at least asked why such a response was triggered in the first place...
It seems you aren't quite "knocked out" yet on the thread where I replied to you, so you've sort of wandered over here, feeling a bit dazed, following my profile trail until you landed right here... If you truly want more, this isn't the place or the time for it, so I suppose we'll just see each other again soon back on that original thread where I left you in a bit of a knockdown state... Still, in the spirit of fair play, I want to wish you a Merry Christmas!
😉
As far as I'm concerned, this whole thread can be locked up tight...
This obvious hate speech wasn't actually banned, the whole post was just deleted instead.
TurbulentFluid said:Oh, my clueless diaspora friends...
Come live in America if you’re going to throw around this kind of demagoguery. You’ll probably end up fighting for your life every single day, maybe even two! 😂
It’s always the same, just some person living abroad lecturing us. Back in the nineties, Democratic Party meetings used to happen right in my basement. Do you understand? My basement. Right up until the day some heavily intoxicated local from the Patriot Party showed up at my door—I was only twelve at the time—shoved an AK-47 in my face and tried to force me to tell them where the red radicals were hiding. Luckily, they weren't in the basement at that moment. No, we didn't have armories lying around here, why would we?
Just this year, a few girls and guys met up at Times Square holding a couple of little signs, stuff like "Better death than the Republican Party" or "Against the Republicans," just small things. In the rest of the world, nobody would even notice. But here, some tough guy in his late fifties or sixties starts physically attacking a girl who’s maybe eighteen or twenty, someone who barely weighs a hundred pounds!!!! Do you honestly think protesting in America is a joke???
I remember being at a protest for the Communist Party and a women's rights group in Vienna, something about women's rights, where they were carrying balloons and tying them to dogs! Do you have any idea how much blood would be spilled in this infected country if someone just put on a red shirt and went out to protest??? Local thugs would kill them on sight!!! Even in the US, people constantly pray that Pride parades don't happen because they have to call in extra police reinforcements from other states!
Do you know who the only ones allowed to protest in America are? Huh? Do you know? No, you don't, because you've never actually seen the US in your entire life except on a postcard, and even then you're talking nonsense. The only people allowed to protest are those living abroad, and even then, only when the Republican Party calls for them.
And you're acting like such a genius, even though just twenty posts ago you wrote that all our politicians are exactly the same, and now you're complaining about us protesting. I mean, what's the point of protesting if everyone is the same anyway???
So, please, stop acting so wise. 🤦 Just leave us common folk alone and go back to your civilized society. Believe me, really, things are bad enough here without refugees from a Munich battalion coming in to make our lives even more miserable.
And then they ask me, "Why don't you love our people abroad?" Well, it's a good thing we don't kill you all! People over here are dying because they have to wait four months for a heart stent, while you lot find the energy to start a crusade?! Just get lost and leave us be.
PS. And please, tell me where exactly people are being burned at the stake for injustice? It doesn't ring a bell. Berlusconi just left office, and even then, it was Brussels that ousted him. That guy in Greece, Papandreu, ruined his entire country, yet he's still in power. In the US, people protest about the stock market, but nobody actually moves a muscle. They've been without a functioning government for nearly a year there, and still, nothing happens. What are you even talking about? If the world is so great, then just leave us alone. We never asked for anything, and just because your ancestors happened to wander through American soil, it doesn't make it relevant to us.
If this doesn't deserve at least a three-day ban, then there is clearly a double standard in how this forum is moderated!
Ryan Vaughn7 said:This isn't actually about Vietnam War revisionism... It’s more about what you personally think Hillary Clinton, Stipe Mason, and Zoran Šprajc are doing regarding the Homeland War. You could probably just put all those thoughts into a thread dedicated specifically to them, which I believe already exists, or maybe there's one elsewhere... anyway, we also have a completely separate thread just for the war itself. I noticed you're pretty new here, with only a handful of posts under your belt, so if I may offer some friendly advice, it might be worth taking a moment to look over the forum rules... just to get a feel for how we handle new threads, why moderators step in to prevent duplicate topics, and all that sort of thing. It’s really just the best way to make sure your future posts and threads don't end up getting removed...
But then I have to wonder, if the goal was to organize things, why weren't the posts just moved to the right thread instead of being deleted entirely?
It seems like you're suggesting that Hillary Clinton, Stipe Mason, and Zoran Šprajc aren't actually significant indicators of this phenomenon I've been calling "Vietnam War revisionism," a concept that I truly believe warrants its own dedicated discussion...
So, if you're so certain that I don't quite grasp the issue, perhaps you could be the one to go ahead and start that specific thread on Vietnam War revisionism... since it seems you have such a clear understanding of where the boundaries lie...