Posts by crimsonjackal63

lonebadger6 said:Just to add my two cents to this... Even the moderators don't have the authority to hand out bans to their own colleagues... Look, if you actually think one of the moderators has a garbage post or an annoying signature, you can just report them to the supermods or to rustydrifter10 since she's running the show...

I’m assuming you’re talking about posts like this:

Tijs said:What do you mean by what he does? He’s the (imaginary) Vice Chair of some Human Rights committee who doesn't even know how to spell "presumption of innocence." 🤣

The guy is pretty dim— likely best known for renting out his own wife and posting moronic statuses on Facebook. Basically—he's useless.

You report a moderator and then just sit there waiting for Godot.

If someone were to write something like,
- Joe Biden rents out his wife—that person would get slapped with a ban at light speed.

Anyway, the user Bodul asks logical questions and gets the usual crooked answers.
Specifically;
- The Republican Youth got away with everything until a Democratic Party type showed up—which was somehow intolerable—so, lo and behold: both sides were banned at lightning speed.

All of this could be avoided with balanced moderation and picking actual balanced mods, but as everyone knows, the higher-ups seem to think that more conservative—let's say right-leaning—users aren't smart enough for those roles.

Paul Kern12 said:That’s nonsense. A forum exists specifically so people can air different opinions. This whole thing about the immigrant surge affects every single one of us... I don't see the point in banning anyone from discussing the reasons behind what's happening. If we did that, we might as well just shut down the entire thread and tell everyone to go watch NBC or read The New York Times instead.

Look, this is a heavyweight topic—it demands serious posts that stick to a predefined line.
Sure, that logic doesn't apply to some of the lighter stuff, like debating the President of the United States or whatever, but those are the rules we've got, and that's that.

Who knows? Maybe if we all get overly serious enough, we'll actually stumble upon a solution to this refugee crisis. 😍

I never actually started the thread titled "Imposing Worldviews" over in the "Messages, Complaints, and Feedback" section.
For that one simple reason, I’m asking you guys to please just wipe my username from under that topic.

The title isn't mine—you all collectively set this up within your moderator framework and then, in typical fashion, shut it down with that censorship vibe, cutting off any actual discussion.

To be clear;
I didn't create the thread, I didn't write the opening post, and there is absolutely no reason for my handle to be attached to it.
Thanks in advance

Since some moderators love to bring up court cases, let me remind you that over in Germany, there's an ongoing trial involving Josip Perković and Zdravko Mustač—specifically regarding how they allegedly organized and carried out crimes on behalf of the Party.
Based on that—and if we’re following the moderators' rather muddled logic—we could easily just label the Democratic Party a criminal organization.

On a different note, I’m calling on the moderators to actually talk to each other in their private corner and come to the only logical, sensible conclusion possible:
- It shouldn't be allowed on this forum to call any legal political party in America a criminal group, a gang of persecutors, or murderers.

We all know that would be the right move here.

rustydrifter10 Asks:
Just one quick side note regarding politics—you know, all that left vs. right nonsense, Team A versus Team B stuff: you don't pick moderators based on their political leanings. It’s not like you check if someone is religious before letting them moderate a religion sub. And it's certainly not like we check if someone is married just to have them moderate an ACLU forum. Nero is supposedly a guy, yet he moderates a women's forum. Who knows? Maybe one of the mods over at the local community boards is actually a virgin. 😲

The Politics moderators definitely know what their lineup looks like—and while it’s not an official rule or anything, when they start hunting for new staff, they tend to lean toward "right-leaning" users for the exact reasons you guys are bringing up. Personally, I think it's totally unnecessary—I mean, if someone stands out as a top-tier candidate, it should be because of their posts, not whether they're a leftist or a conservative—but hey, I'm not going to get bogged down in that as long as the person they pick actually knows what they're doing. My gut feeling? They get a bit swayed by "public opinion," which isn't exactly a solid reason in my book. But let's be real: half the time, there just aren't enough high-quality people who are both interested in moderating and capable of passing the vetting process. If they're stuck choosing between a "Team A" candidate who’s a solid 5/5 and a "Team B" candidate who’s barely a 3/5, they’re obviously going to grab the 5/5—they aren't going to pick the weaker choice just to balance out the political scales. And honestly, this isn't just about the Politics section; it happens everywhere.

Look, if we want this platform to actually function, the moderators need to be on the same page—they need shared criteria and, more importantly, a clear vision for where this place is headed. That’s really why most of them end up sharing certain baseline perspectives. Sure, there’s going to be some subjectivity involved—let's be real, total objectivity is a pipe dream—but that's just how it works. If I had to put it plainly: we should be looking for people who can actually think critically, analyze things, and stay open-minded without being all stiff and uptight. Otherwise, their moderation style would just feel robotic and rigid—and honestly, that serves nobody, not the users and certainly not the admin team.

Everything seems to be checking out for the most part—but there’s always that damn "but..." hanging over the whole thing.😁

Look, if I’m part of "Team A," then Team A is my squad—plain and simple. That means their players and fans are my people. I’m rooting for them, I’m not out here throwing shade at the founding members, and I’ll instinctively jump to their defense when things get heated. Honestly? Non-members constantly getting under my skin by picking on Team A is just part of the deal. It's how it works.
Of course it’s worth it—actually, it really should work both ways.
Look, we're talking about irrational, subjective categories here—stuff you can't just sit down and rationalize away with a spreadsheet or some logical argument. It just doesn't work that way.
I’m not saying they’re doing it on purpose—though, let's be honest, some people definitely are—but that’s just the reality of the situation.
Let’s just be honest and own up to it—to ourselves.

Look, if you only view everything through Tim Cook's lens, you're always going to be less critical of a potential new moderator coming from his side compared to anyone on the opposing team. It's just basic bias—you can't escape it.
In this kind of power dynamic—The Big Three is basically just the same as five against one.

Look, if we’re being objective here—and I mean actually looking at the math—it’s basically impossible under the law of large numbers. Assuming the premise holds that there are more "Team B" members than "Team A" types within the party, there simply has to be at least a dozen solid candidates for that position floating around in there. It just doesn't add up any other way.
Look, I’m sorry, but in a non-subjective world—if such a thing even exists—that is just straight-up impossible.

In the real world, Tim Cook isn't ten times better than Tim B—it just doesn't hold up under scrutiny—but if you look at the Current political landscape on this sub, the score is a total blowout: 10 to 0.
Honestly, it would’ve been a 10:1 landslide if Lockheed Martin hadn't pulled out right when the US Congress election campaign was kicking off.
He still hasn't made his way back into the game.

Look, I won't beat around the bush—these two teams are dead even, both on the field and in the stats. Anything else you hear is just people getting worked up over subjective nonsense.
We really ought to take action on this issue—so I want to give a shout-out to Nicholas Watson 👍 for starting this thread and putting forward some solid suggestions.

And just to be crystal clear: this isn't an attack on the quality of our moderator, Tim Cook.
The guys are fine as they are, but they’d be even better if there was a bit more balance on the other side of the aisle.
Ideally, things should sit right at zero—that's the sweet spot, and any rational person should be aiming for that kind of equilibrium.

Sometimes this Politics subforum feels like watching a totally rigged football game:

On one side, you’ve got 'Tim Cook.' On the other, you’ve got 'Team B.'
The thing is—ten of the players on 'Tim Cook' are also acting as the referees at the exact same time, while 'Team B' is just left playing the game.
To make matters worse, the head ref, the league officials, and the disciplinary committee? All packed with nothing but 'Tim Cook' loyalists.

Objectively speaking, something is seriously broken here, right?
Now, look—the players and members of 'Tim Cook' are mostly solid posters—good moderators, great supermods, and admins—but we’re all just human beings. In a match this lopsided, you just can't "play fair and referee fairly" at the same time.

We all see it happening, but nobody wants to actually talk about it—let alone change it.

William Bennett53 said:It explicitly stated it was a party of persecutors, prisoners, and murderers. Let me repeat that—persecutors, prisoners, and murderers. How many people in the top leadership of the Democratic Party have faced past trials, ongoing trials, or convictions—whether they’ve been finalized or are still pending? Are there any individuals who were in the inner circle of that party just six or seven years ago who carry a valid or overturned sentence for persecution, oppression, or murder? And we're talking about much heavier charges here.

You asked for an argued debate, so please, let's keep the answers short, clear, and focused.

You didn't address the three points (01, 02, 03) I made regarding the Republican Party in my opening post—points I consider to have been accepted.
So, does that mean statements like "The Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, the Bridge party, etc., are criminal organizations" fall strictly under the category of personal opinion?
I already mentioned this earlier; if that's the single standard we're using, then fine, I'll accept it.
I don't like it, but I'll take it.

No one in the core leadership of the Republican Party, nor anyone in the tightest circles of the Democratic Party, has past trials, ongoing litigation, or finalized/pending convictions.
True, there are signs of indictments being filed against certain individuals within the Republican Party, but you could say the exact same thing about people in the Democratic Party or their coalition partners.
It's a long road from a mere hint of an indictment to a final verdict—especially in polarized societies like America.

You bring up the timeline.
Even back in the late '80s, individuals were being tried, imprisoned, and killed simply for expressing dissent against the ruling SKH party—the very entity that the Democratic Party claims as its successor today.
Basically, from 1945 through the end of the '80s, under the banner of the SKH (which the Democratic Party follows today), people were persecuted, jailed, and killed.
That is a fact.

That is part of the Democratic Party's history. So when someone calls it a "party of persecutors, prisoners, and murderers," they are referencing that era—just as calling the Republican Party a "criminal organization" references recent times, even though Ivo Sanader and the others involved are no longer members of the party.

Someone might argue, "Well, the stuff involving the Republican Party happened 6 or 7 years ago, but the stuff regarding the Democratic Party (formerly the SKH) happened a whole lot longer ago."
That isn't really an argument, especially since for events from 6 or 7 years ago, indictments were filed, trials were held, non-finalized verdicts were reached, and retrials are happening... but for the atrocities committed by the SKH—the precursor to today's Democratic Party—there are no indictments, no trials, no verdicts, and not even a hint of them.
That's a much bigger injustice we need to be pointing out, isn't it?

We can agree that the lack of legal action against crimes committed in the name of the SKH (the predecessor to the Democratic Party) isn't an argument for innocence. To suggest otherwise would be uncivilized, given that the US Congress passed the "Declaration of condemnation of crimes committed during the totalitarian communist regime in America from 1945 to 1990."
Here is the link to the declaration:

As I wrote before (and in that other thread that got closed), I'm not a fan of labeling parties as "criminal," "gangster-like," or "a party of persecutors, prisoners, and murderers," but I do want a clear, reasoned criterion for what we can and cannot say.
The moderator, lonebadger6, laid it out clearly above, so if you agree with that, then as far as I'm concerned, we can lock this thread.

lonebadger6 said:The little issue here is that this thread is actually different from your first one in one major way—you aren't constantly citing your own previous posts or playing the "you didn't catch me last time" card to justify inconsistent standards.
It’s totally pointless (and nobody is going to buy it) to start an argument based on two accusations that aren't even comparable. Right now, there's no red card being handed out for saying "the Republican Party is a criminal organization"—but then again, they wouldn't be getting one for saying "the Democratic Party is a criminal organization" either. To a certain extent, people are allowed to vent their frustrations at politicians because of the general state of affairs in the country. But there are limits. In your posts, you've crossed them.

You literally just said that moderators allow anyone to call any party a "criminal organization."
So, I guess we can say the Democratic Party is a "criminal organization" without getting banned too, since no one has been deleted or sanctioned for applying that same label to the Republican Party yet.
Progress!
A standard has been set, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

Picking up where we left off:

...so, this is where we left off:

Dorian Gray (No input provided to rewrite.)
Look, crimsonjackal63, stop trying to split hairs here—it’s not working. The Republican Party was hit with a ruling regarding criminal organization, and we saw an entire string of top-tier party officials head to prison for white-collar crime, including their former leader. Sure, okay, the verdict got tossed on a technicality and they’re headed for a retrial, but give me a break—there is a massive difference between someone pointing out the facts that a court actually handed down and you posting this kind of nonsense.

Look, I’m not trying to force anything here—really. I am simply looking for an actual, reasoned debate regarding the criteria.
Shutting down the conversation by closing the thread isn't exactly an argument—it's just pure force. Don't get mad at me, I'm just pointing out that this isn't a debate anymore; it's just someone pulling rank to silence the discussion.

Look, I respect hierarchy—I really do—and all I’m ever trying to do is offer some actual culture and a reasoned debate. So, honestly? It baffles me why the people in charge constantly run away from that kind of dialogue—just shutting down the conversation mid-sentence without giving anyone a chance to actually respond.
I honestly think so—disrespecting someone just because you disagree with them is totally out of line.

Let’s stick to the facts:

Judge Ivana Calic—if you're wondering who she is, she’s the one who previously handed down that non-binding ruling against the Republican Party. Here’s a look at how she actually laid out the reasoning regarding the GOP in her decision:

When explaining that non-final ruling in the Media Matters case, Judge Ivana Čalić made it pretty clear—she pointed out that the Republican Party was holding the reins during the period in question. Her point? When an entity like that breaks the law, it’s not just a minor slip-up; it strikes at the very foundation of our society.

"The message here goes out to every other political party: everyone is going to be held accountable, and they’ll have to pay back what they stole," Čalić stated. She went on to point out that politicians need to actually start acting like they follow the rules—instead of this current nonsense where they act like they're somehow untouchable. In her reasoning for the verdict, the judge was blunt: corruption is a cancer.

She went out of her way to emphasize that this ruling doesn't apply to the current party leadership—or even the rank-and-file members, for that matter.

The latest report from the newsroom suggests that we might actually have to face some accountability—something that’s been missing for far too long around here. It looks like there's a push for people to finally return what they took, though whether anyone actually follows through remains to be seen. Honestly, given how things usually go in this country, I wouldn't hold my breath—but hey, it's nice to see someone finally pointing the finger at the mess we're in.

It’s pretty obvious—that ruling was never about the current party leadership or the membership, and it still isn't.
None of those people with convictions that haven't been finalized yet—and I mean more than just a handful—are actually members of the Republican Party.
Look, labeling the current leadership, the rank-and-file, and the voters of the Republican Party as members of some criminal organization—it just doesn't hold water. There isn't even a non-final court ruling to back up such a massive accusation.

In the meantime—get this—even that non-final judgment against the Republican Party has been overturned.
It’s funny how people act like everyone involved in those legal mess-ups is still part of the Republican Party—but honestly, most of those folks who were convicted (even without final judgments) or had their sentences overturned haven't been party members for six or seven years now.

So, what do we actually have to show for all these high-ranking Republican Party officials and those final court rulings? Honestly, not much. You’ve got Polancec getting flagged over some lighting equipment issues, Cobankovic basically just spinning his wheels, and then there's whatever other nonsense is floating around. That's about it.
They spent ten years unfairly persecuting Roncevica—ten long years of nothing but pure harassment—only to finally admit the guy wasn't guilty of anything at all.
It’s not exactly a coincidence, is it? — I mean, come on...
It’s less about them—it's more like what you see with all the other parties.

That’s all I’ve got for now—I'm gonna take a breather—but just so we're clear, I definitely have more to say on this later.
Look, I laid out some solid arguments—the kind that any objective, level-headed person would actually find reasonable.
Just accept them—as far as I’m concerned, this whole debate is over.

Look, you can choose to ignore my points if you want—just please, give me a reasoned argument for why—but if you do, I’m asking nicely: don't shut this thread down. I’ve got plenty more relevant arguments to throw into the ring regarding all of this.
Thanks in advance.

Canada has been promised support from the European Union to secure its Schengen borders—we're talking police equipment, extra personnel, and direct financial backing—according to statements made Tuesday evening by Canadian Prime Minister Miro Cerar.

http://nytimes.com/eu/cerar-canada-border-aid

So, what is Zoran Milanović actually getting out of this, and from whom?

As for the actual costs involved:

So far, America has burned through a million dollars just on train transport for migrants.

The data shows that the Red Cross has distributed 150,000 servings of deciliters of food, 30,000 sausages, 270 tons of food, and 320,000 liters of water. Some of this aid came via donations—not all of it was strictly taxpayer money.

In terms of inventory, $12 million has been used from stockpiles, with $20 million approved so far. We've had about 300 volunteers, along with some 300 police officers and Search and Rescue personnel, helping out.

Then there’s the transportation—specifically the trains. Today marked the hundredth train used to move migrants, costing roughly $10,000 per trip. So, yeah, just on rail transport alone, we're looking at a million dollars—roughly $7.5 million in local currency equivalents.

http://news.com/america/migration-transport-costs-million-dollars

And obviously, that isn't even the half of it.
That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Charles Fox10 said:🤔 This caught my eye. You won't believe it, but PL is still a full-fledged moderator in the election pdf. Politics.

Glad to hear that.
Ever since Microsoft Edge started acting up again, anything can happen.

I haven't been posting much lately, but I've been lurking and reading everything—definitely picked up some things along the way.
The way things are going, this topic has become a total minefield. They’ve gone out of their way to troll and mock slybison8, and honestly, they might even try to push him out of his position.

Charles Fox10 said:crimsonjackal63, looks like those links of yours got a bit messy, but it's fine—I know what they're pointing to. Only issue is, that user is banned.

Something went seriously sideways with those links—total mess.
They worked fine at first—but now? They’ve completely fallen apart.
Is it some higher power at work or just a massive conspiracy? Honestly, who knows. 😍

Anyway, I can see that this user is still banned—but these posts are still popping up:

McAucliffe Asks:
The Republican Party absolutely needs to win this election—period. Commies. One flies away forever... then, after a few months, the people finally realize what useless trash they actually were. Those hacks over at the Republican Party. Snap elections... here we go again.

Finally, America will shake off its two biggest historical evils—right after getting rid of the Royalists...

McAucliffe The user said:Not true.I call the party exactly what it is—nothing more, nothing less—the Republican Party....

It’s not about individuals...

Look, I’ll apologize to anyone who thinks I’m out of line—but if someone is going out of their way to attack me by falsely claiming I trashed Gotovina just to discredit my character, only to turn around a few days later and play defense for Malica—who actually *did* trash Gotovina—then we have a problem. That kind of total 180? Honestly, I’m calling it what it is: that person is a paid shill.

Either you're one of those idiots defending Karamarko—claiming he’s way too busy working on "serious documents" to actually pay attention to anything else—or you just don't care. Either way, it's ridiculous to ignore the most critical situation we've faced in America since the floods hit.

Or maybe you’re just busy worshiping Karamarko—closing your eyes to every single one of his betrayals like it's some kind of hobby.

McAucliffe said:Where exactly were you stationed in the DRC?

When you're dealing with a total hack like Hebranko... It takes some serious nerve to compare the horrors of war to a wave of refugees—claiming one is somehow worse than the other—but honestly, seeing someone try to pull that stunt just shows how pathetic and desperate they really are.

Themselves, their political party, and every single person out there defending them...

They’re still sitting here on the forum without any consequences—even though they were reported again about 24 hours ago.

And as for all those "commie" insults (which I could probably list off right now)—the kind that definitely warrant a ban under our current rules—there's really no point in me listing every single one here.
There are at least twenty of them just waiting to be found.

So, here’s the real question: Is all of this actually worth just a three-day suspension? Or is it worth much, much more? That's for you guys to decide—all I can do is remember how this played out for next time.

That moderator could have actually shown up in this thread and explained the reasoning behind their decision.

crimsonjackal63 said:So, they finally stepped up and did something about it—now we’re just supposed to believe that’s the end of the story? Really?
It’s just not happening...
Look, the problem is way more complicated than it looks on the surface.

In that opening post, there were a bunch of unflagged comments—stuff that somehow completely slipped under the radar of every single moderator on the board. Seriously, how does that even happen?
It’s honestly hilarious—you can drop twenty posts in two days and nobody even glances at them, yet the second someone posts something directly above or below that one specific user, everything gets scrutinized under a microscope. Suddenly, posts get nuked, people get "carded," and anyone with a different opinion than the favorites gets slapped with a ban. It's a joke.
Like I said—bravo, geniuses. Seriously.

Actually, this whole thread wasn't even sparked by that particular user's posts.
The reason I’m starting this thread is because, within just this forty-eight-hour window— Reported posts (yeah, yeah—I’m talking about those famous little triangle icons) and unsanctioned posts. One of the forum members.

Here they are:

Another "Republican shill" popping up—who knows how many times now? Honestly, this person already got banned for this exact nonsense, but clearly, they haven't learned a single thing. They’re just back to the same old routine.
I honestly don't get why people act like this is some groundbreaking revelation—it’s just basic politics. We've seen this cycle play out a dozen times before. You have one side shouting about tradition and the other screaming about progress, while the actual issues just sit there gathering dust. It's exhausting, really. And let's be real—half the arguments I see online are just people shouting into the void to feel important. It's not about finding solutions; it's about winning the moment. If you actually look at the data instead of just following the loudest voice in the room, the reality is much more boring than the headlines suggest. But hey, boring doesn't get clicks, does it?

The blatant lie about Caritas is finally out in the open—and here’s the proof: I was just browsing through the Caritas website—you know, that massive Catholic charity network we have here in the States—and it really got me thinking about how much these organizations actually handle. It’s more than just handing out food baskets at a local parish; they are basically a massive social safety net running parallel to everything else. It’s wild how much weight they carry when things get messy in our communities.)

Slander.
I honestly don't get why people act like this is some huge revelation—it’s just basic politics. We’ve seen this movie before, and frankly, it always ends the same way. You have one side pushing their agenda and the other side just reacting, usually without a coherent plan of their own. It's exhausting to watch. And let's be real—most of the commentary you see online is just noise. People love to shout about how much they hate the current administration or how much they miss "the good old days," but they rarely offer anything useful. It's all just performative outrage at this point. I mean, look at the way certain pundits talk—it's less about policy and more about who can scream the loudest. Anyway, I'm probably just being cynical here—maybe that's my problem—but I'd rather see actual substance instead of these endless, repetitive arguments. It feels like we're just spinning our wheels while the real issues get pushed to the back burner. Typical.

When you're dealing with a total loser like Hebranko—
I honestly don't get why people still bother bringing up this specific topic—it’s like watching a rerun of a bad sitcom that everyone already hates. You can argue about the nuances of the Republican Party's platform all day if you want, but at some point, you have to face the reality of how things actually work in Washington. It’s the same old story, really. People get so caught up in the ideological shouting matches—the kind of stuff you see on cable news every night—that they completely miss the actual mechanics of what’s happening behind the scenes. It’s exhausting to watch. I know, I know—I'm being a cynic here—but someone has to say it. We keep expecting these massive shifts in policy, yet we ignore the fact that the institutional inertia is basically impossible to overcome. And let's be real, most of the "outrage" we see online is just performative nonsense. It doesn't change anything. It’s just noise. Anyway, that's my two cents—feel free to tell me I'm wrong, I certainly won't be surprised.

If you’re going to hand out red cards every time someone identifies as a leftist, then maybe we should just call the card "pretty"—because honestly, the whole thing is nothing more than a cheap ad hominem provocation.
I can't believe I'm still seeing this—it’s like watching a rerun of a bad sitcom where everyone already knows the punchline. Honestly, some people just refuse to see the reality right in front of them—it's exhausting. We’re sitting here talking about actual policy and how things work in America, yet we keep circling back to these tired, old arguments that haven't aged well since the nineties. Look, I’m not trying to be a jerk here—really, I'm not—but let's be blunt: the logic being used by some of you is completely broken. You're clinging to these outdated ideas as if they're gospel, ignoring the fact that the political landscape has shifted entirely. It’s not just about one party or the other anymore—it's deeper than that. And don't get me started on the constant whining about "tradition." Tradition is great until it becomes an excuse for being stagnant. We need to move forward, but clearly, a few people here are more comfortable living in the past than facing the future. It's frustrating—truly—to see such a lack of nuance in these discussions. Can we please try to have a conversation based on what's actually happening in the country today instead of just shouting at shadows?

Another day, another round of this guy calling everyone on the forum a hired gun—honestly, he’s been sanctioned multiple times for this exact nonsense, yet here we are again. He just can't help himself.
I honestly don't get why people keep bringing up this topic—it’s like we’re stuck in a loop. Every time someone mentions the current state of politics, the same tired arguments pop up. It’s exhausting, really. Look, I’m not trying to be difficult here—though I know that’s my reputation—but let’s look at the facts instead of just getting emotional about it. We see the same patterns repeating in Washington over and over again. Whether it's the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, the core issues rarely change; only the faces do. It feels like we're constantly debating the same three points while ignoring the actual substance of what's happening in our own backyard. I'll admit, I probably overthink things too much—that's just how I am—but you have to wonder if anyone is actually listening to reason anymore. It's all just noise at this point.

Here we go again—back to the same old nonsense about the Republican Party being nothing more than a bunch of reading enthusiasts.
I honestly don't get why people still act surprised by this—it’s like watching someone walk into a glass door and then complaining that the air is too hard. We’ve seen this pattern play out a thousand times before. Every time the political landscape shifts slightly, you see the same predictable reactions from people who clearly weren't paying attention to the last three cycles. It’s just typical partisan noise at this point. You have one side screaming about some supposed moral crisis while the other side pretends they aren't part of the exact same machine—it's exhausting, really. I know, I know, I'm being cynical—maybe I am—but let's be real here. If you expect anything different from the current state of American politics, you’re basically asking for disappointment. It’s all just a giant, repetitive loop of the same old arguments dressed up in new clothes.

Look, if you dig through these posts from just the last two days—and honestly, you'll find the same pattern in plenty of others—you’re going to run into plenty of provocation, trolling, or straight-up spam. Or, to put it more bluntly, they're just trying to twist everything the authorities say. You’re being aggressive—and honestly, you're just demonizing any politics that don't align with your own.
Sure, with an explanation like that, some of the old-timers on the Politics board might get a little extra attention—but let’s be real, that doesn't apply to everyone.
What’s the actual issue here?

If anyone’s actually doubting what I’m saying—look, you have plenty of options. You can go back and read every single thing every user on this board has ever posted if you really want to—so feel free. Be my guest.
Anyone with half a brain reading these posts is going to walk away thinking the exact same thing:
It’s just aggressive—nothing but pure demonization of any politics that don't line up with yours.
Let’s be objective here:

So, why does one long-time forum regular get hit with a partial ban for this, while someone else doesn't even get a slap on the wrist? It’s honestly ridiculous.

Honestly, this forum user's favorite little catchphrase doesn't even get flagged until—after nearly a full week of people reporting it—it finally gets sanctioned.
Another week of absolutely useless little triangles!!!
Even after getting banned for being a "die-hard Republican," he’s still out here acting exactly the same way—no changes whatsoever.
What exactly is the role of the moderators here?
They just go around deleting posts like that—no warning, no ban, nothing—while their opponents constantly get their avatars grayed out. It’s a joke.
.
An objective moderator would have slapped a warning on a post like this immediately after the ban expired—then banned the user for good because clearly, the lesson wasn't learned.
Is that how it is?
So, I’m telling you—it’s a joke. We have this situation where posts flagged for being "too pro-Republican" just... vanish. Nobody sees them. It’s like they don't even exist.
Absolutely nobody!!!

At the end of the day, the moderation standards over on Politics are absolutely PATHETIC!!!
Some moderators out here are playing favorites—picking apart tiny, insignificant details just to provoke long-time users until they get hit with a permanent ban. Meanwhile, other mods conveniently look the other way when people report actual problematic posts. It’s a joke.

It seems like they’ve entered this weird phase where they just ban you—sometimes permanently—for questioning the mods.
Apparently, calling someone "trash" is fine, but pointing out that "some people here, even the moderators, have claimed democracy isn't actually about majority rule" is considered an unforgivable attack on the moderation team.

Honestly, I’m not even surprised that you guys keep getting sent to that corner of the internet.
Trust me, I’d love to be the one to send you there myself, but I guess I'll hold off for now...

The links in this post were working perfectly fine for days.
But now, they just lead me here:

crimsonjackal63, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
1. Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
2. If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

I have no idea what's going on, so just in case, here is one of the reported posts (reported about 70 hours ago) that is still sitting there unpunished:

McAucliffe said:To be fair, when I call the party radicalists and idiots, I'm referring to the party itself—the Republican Party...

Not individuals...

And forgive me if I consider someone a paid shill because they falsely attack me for criticizing Gotovina just to discredit me, while a few days later they defend Malica, who actually *did* criticize Gotovina—it's a total 180.

Or someone who defends Karamarko by claiming he's too busy working on serious documents to comment on the most critical situation in the US following the floods...

Or like how you idolize Karamarko and turn a blind eye to all his betrayals...

http://www.forum.us/showpost.php?p=5...postcount=1465

All the other reported posts are also still standing right where they were.
"The chosen ones are always handled on time," because there's always time for them, but with everyone else, they drag it out until time turns into
oblivion.

In short:
- They stall with the first group when they're facing an unfair ban, and they stall with the second group when they actually need to be banned.

So, they finally stepped up and did something about it—now we’re just supposed to believe that’s the end of the story? Really?
It’s just not happening...
Look, the problem is way more complicated than it looks on the surface.

In that opening post, there were a bunch of unflagged comments—stuff that somehow completely slipped under the radar of every single moderator on the board. Seriously, how does that even happen?
It’s honestly hilarious—you can drop twenty posts in two days and nobody even glances at them, yet the second someone posts something directly above or below that one specific user, everything gets scrutinized under a microscope. Suddenly, posts get nuked, people get "carded," and anyone with a different opinion than the favorites gets slapped with a ban. It's a joke.
Like I said—bravo, geniuses. Seriously.

Actually, this whole thread wasn't even sparked by that particular user's posts.
The reason I’m starting this thread is because, within just this forty-eight-hour window— Reported posts (yeah, yeah—I’m talking about those famous little triangle icons) and unsanctioned posts. One of the forum members.

Here they are:

Another "Republican shill" popping up—who knows how many times now? Honestly, this person already got banned for this exact nonsense, but clearly, they haven't learned a single thing. They’re just back to the same old routine.
I honestly don't get why people act like this is some groundbreaking revelation—it’s just basic politics. We've seen this cycle play out a dozen times before. You have one side shouting about tradition and the other screaming about progress, while the actual issues just sit there gathering dust. It's exhausting, really. And let's be real—half the arguments I see online are just people shouting into the void to feel important. It's not about finding solutions; it's about winning the moment. If you actually look at the data instead of just following the loudest voice in the room, the reality is much more boring than the headlines suggest. But hey, boring doesn't get clicks, does it?

The blatant lie about Caritas is finally out in the open—and here’s the proof: I was just browsing through the Caritas website—you know, that massive Catholic charity network we have here in the States—and it really got me thinking about how much these organizations actually handle. It’s more than just handing out food baskets at a local parish; they are basically a massive social safety net running parallel to everything else. It’s wild how much weight they carry when things get messy in our communities.)

Slander.
I honestly don't get why people act like this is some huge revelation—it’s just basic politics. We’ve seen this movie before, and frankly, it always ends the same way. You have one side pushing their agenda and the other side just reacting, usually without a coherent plan of their own. It's exhausting to watch. And let's be real—most of the commentary you see online is just noise. People love to shout about how much they hate the current administration or how much they miss "the good old days," but they rarely offer anything useful. It's all just performative outrage at this point. I mean, look at the way certain pundits talk—it's less about policy and more about who can scream the loudest. Anyway, I'm probably just being cynical here—maybe that's my problem—but I'd rather see actual substance instead of these endless, repetitive arguments. It feels like we're just spinning our wheels while the real issues get pushed to the back burner. Typical.

When you're dealing with a total loser like Hebranko—
I honestly don't get why people still bother bringing up this specific topic—it’s like watching a rerun of a bad sitcom that everyone already hates. You can argue about the nuances of the Republican Party's platform all day if you want, but at some point, you have to face the reality of how things actually work in Washington. It’s the same old story, really. People get so caught up in the ideological shouting matches—the kind of stuff you see on cable news every night—that they completely miss the actual mechanics of what’s happening behind the scenes. It’s exhausting to watch. I know, I know—I'm being a cynic here—but someone has to say it. We keep expecting these massive shifts in policy, yet we ignore the fact that the institutional inertia is basically impossible to overcome. And let's be real, most of the "outrage" we see online is just performative nonsense. It doesn't change anything. It’s just noise. Anyway, that's my two cents—feel free to tell me I'm wrong, I certainly won't be surprised.

If you’re going to hand out red cards every time someone identifies as a leftist, then maybe we should just call the card "pretty"—because honestly, the whole thing is nothing more than a cheap ad hominem provocation.
I can't believe I'm still seeing this—it’s like watching a rerun of a bad sitcom where everyone already knows the punchline. Honestly, some people just refuse to see the reality right in front of them—it's exhausting. We’re sitting here talking about actual policy and how things work in America, yet we keep circling back to these tired, old arguments that haven't aged well since the nineties. Look, I’m not trying to be a jerk here—really, I'm not—but let's be blunt: the logic being used by some of you is completely broken. You're clinging to these outdated ideas as if they're gospel, ignoring the fact that the political landscape has shifted entirely. It’s not just about one party or the other anymore—it's deeper than that. And don't get me started on the constant whining about "tradition." Tradition is great until it becomes an excuse for being stagnant. We need to move forward, but clearly, a few people here are more comfortable living in the past than facing the future. It's frustrating—truly—to see such a lack of nuance in these discussions. Can we please try to have a conversation based on what's actually happening in the country today instead of just shouting at shadows?

Another day, another round of this guy calling everyone on the forum a hired gun—honestly, he’s been sanctioned multiple times for this exact nonsense, yet here we are again. He just can't help himself.
I honestly don't get why people keep bringing up this topic—it’s like we’re stuck in a loop. Every time someone mentions the current state of politics, the same tired arguments pop up. It’s exhausting, really. Look, I’m not trying to be difficult here—though I know that’s my reputation—but let’s look at the facts instead of just getting emotional about it. We see the same patterns repeating in Washington over and over again. Whether it's the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, the core issues rarely change; only the faces do. It feels like we're constantly debating the same three points while ignoring the actual substance of what's happening in our own backyard. I'll admit, I probably overthink things too much—that's just how I am—but you have to wonder if anyone is actually listening to reason anymore. It's all just noise at this point.

Here we go again—back to the same old nonsense about the Republican Party being nothing more than a bunch of reading enthusiasts.
I honestly don't get why people still act surprised by this—it’s like watching someone walk into a glass door and then complaining that the air is too hard. We’ve seen this pattern play out a thousand times before. Every time the political landscape shifts slightly, you see the same predictable reactions from people who clearly weren't paying attention to the last three cycles. It’s just typical partisan noise at this point. You have one side screaming about some supposed moral crisis while the other side pretends they aren't part of the exact same machine—it's exhausting, really. I know, I know, I'm being cynical—maybe I am—but let's be real here. If you expect anything different from the current state of American politics, you’re basically asking for disappointment. It’s all just a giant, repetitive loop of the same old arguments dressed up in new clothes.

Look, if you dig through these posts from just the last two days—and honestly, you'll find the same pattern in plenty of others—you’re going to run into plenty of provocation, trolling, or straight-up spam. Or, to put it more bluntly, they're just trying to twist everything the authorities say. You’re being aggressive—and honestly, you're just demonizing any politics that don't align with your own.
Sure, with an explanation like that, some of the old-timers on the Politics board might get a little extra attention—but let’s be real, that doesn't apply to everyone.
What’s the actual issue here?

If anyone’s actually doubting what I’m saying—look, you have plenty of options. You can go back and read every single thing every user on this board has ever posted if you really want to—so feel free. Be my guest.
Anyone with half a brain reading these posts is going to walk away thinking the exact same thing:
It’s just aggressive—nothing but pure demonization of any politics that don't line up with yours.
Let’s be objective here:

So, why does one long-time forum regular get hit with a partial ban for this, while someone else doesn't even get a slap on the wrist? It’s honestly ridiculous.

Honestly, this forum user's favorite little catchphrase doesn't even get flagged until—after nearly a full week of people reporting it—it finally gets sanctioned.
Another week of absolutely useless little triangles!!!
Even after getting banned for being a "die-hard Republican," he’s still out here acting exactly the same way—no changes whatsoever.
What exactly is the role of the moderators here?
They just go around deleting posts like that—no warning, no ban, nothing—while their opponents constantly get their avatars grayed out. It’s a joke.
.
An objective moderator would have slapped a warning on a post like this immediately after the ban expired—then banned the user for good because clearly, the lesson wasn't learned.
Is that how it is?
So, I’m telling you—it’s a joke. We have this situation where posts flagged for being "too pro-Republican" just... vanish. Nobody sees them. It’s like they don't even exist.
Absolutely nobody!!!

At the end of the day, the moderation standards over on Politics are absolutely PATHETIC!!!
Some moderators out here are playing favorites—picking apart tiny, insignificant details just to provoke long-time users until they get hit with a permanent ban. Meanwhile, other mods conveniently look the other way when people report actual problematic posts. It’s a joke.

It seems like they’ve entered this weird phase where they just ban you—sometimes permanently—for questioning the mods.
Apparently, calling someone "trash" is fine, but pointing out that "some people here, even the moderators, have claimed democracy isn't actually about majority rule" is considered an unforgivable attack on the moderation team.

Honestly, I’m not even surprised that you guys keep getting sent to that corner of the internet.
Trust me, I’d love to be the one to send you there myself, but I guess I'll hold off for now...

Michelle Evans said:I don't actually need to monitor those posts to decide if they deserve a ban or not. I'm neither a moderator on the Politics board nor a site administrator, so it isn't my job to second-guess the moderators or super-moderators over there. I moderate this specific board, and that's really all there is to it.

I read everything quite carefully, don't worry. It just wasn't entirely clear from what you wrote. One could have assumed you reported it and nothing happened, or perhaps that you don't bother reporting at all because you think it's pointless. Both interpretations were possible. That’s why I asked, rather than assuming...

Regarding your comment about me being a mod—as I mentioned, I don't moderate Politics, and I don't make decisions there. I handle other boards, just not this one. To be honest, I probably don't moderate them as often as I should, either. Aside from this one. If you have a legitimate grievance against me other than "you aren't doing your job," feel free to let me know. But I won't engage with this level of debate. My role here, beyond stopping insults, provocation, spamming, or off-topic chatter, is simply to ask if it was reported when it's unclear, or where the links are if they're missing. Call it whatever you want, but that's how I'll continue to handle things.

Thanks for the links; the mod team will take a look.

Well, I learned something today—so apologies, I'll take you out of the thread title now.

Michelle Evans said:I apologize if this comes across as a bit provocative, but—did you actually report the controversial posts? You didn't mention it anywhere else. Aside from your feeling that it's just an excuse to do nothing...

Look, sorry for asking, but did you even bother looking at the posts under those links?
And isn't it weird that some users' weekend rants get flagged immediately while this one hasn't been touched?
It's like the moderators see everything for some people, but for others, they just develop selective blindness—no matter how many posts are written.

As for reporting—yeah, I reported about ten even worse posts by another user (some even twice), but nothing. Zilch. Zero. Nada.
The user keeps posting, and absolutely nothing happens.

So; if you had actually read the original post more carefully—which you didn't—you'd see that I'm questioning the whole point of these damn report buttons if there's zero reaction after more than 24 hours.
Reporting doesn't help when there's selective blindness involved.
That's my main grievance.

And no; it wasn't your question that provoked me—it's this habitual, automatic reflex of defending incompetence at every level that gets under my skin.
Get over it, because it's transparent and we've seen it a hundred times already.
Defending bad moderation work is exactly what leads to bad moderation, isn't it?

One more thing, given the arguments being thrown around; shouldn't we just stick to the headline:
- You guys aren't doing your jobs...
Or are we going to hunt for more excuses again...?

Apologies in advance for the sharper, more combative tone, but honestly, you guys are really grating on my nerves today. 😍

By using selective moderation, you've effectively wiped out several long-time, high-quality contributors with permanent bans.
They finally snapped—and honestly, they were pushed to that point by your sneaky moderation tactics and sheer laziness.
These users survived all these years, and now, suddenly—there’s a purge...
It isn't an accident.

Because of some weekend debates, a few users got selectively silenced today, while their opponents just keep posting away like nothing happened..
Great job, geniuses..

Don't you ever mention those little report buttons, the "24-hour warnings," or any other bullshit excuses for inaction—it’s getting downright nauseating.
The same goes for those shallow, unargued, and half-baked responses to complaints, which are increasingly becoming just another form of provocation themselves.

What's next? Will anyone actually bother to provide an argumentative, objective, and logical response to a user's complaint—barring the rare exception...?
But then again, arguments...

Here they are—I've pulled out some UNPUNISHED posts written over the last two days by JUST ONE SINGLE user.
And just so we're clear, he isn't even the worst one—I actually kind of like him—but it’s just not fair when all his weekend rivals get banned while he stays untouched.
He’d probably have to agree with me on that.

Let's be real here: there are worse unpunished posts than his, but the posts from the SAME PRIVILEGED USERS—where trashing the Republican Party is a privilege, but trashing the Democratic Party can lead to a permanent ban due to, what was it? "Overall contribution to the topic"—always seem to vanish into the abyss of reporting tools through some selective miracle.

I won't drone on: here are the posts, so enjoy the fruits of your negligence:

Are Canadians, Canadians, and the rest of them scum..?

Are Republicans trash?

It was established long ago (and I can back this up with a link) that you aren't allowed to call your interlocutor a mercenary or anything similar.

"Scum in the Republican Party"

"The Republican Party steals elections"

If someone on the right wrote this, they'd be banned instantly:

Are Canadians a gang?

Ad hominem provocation

Lies and slander

Insults and provocation

Continued provocation

And more provocation

Since when did "stories" count as arguments? Are we moving toward discussions based purely on "believe it or not"?

The "Kitica and Karica" jokes keep popping up—and they’re going totally unpunished. Honestly, some other users here just keep using them without any consequences at all.

It's the same old "Kitica and Karica" nonsense, over and over again.

And once again, "Kitica and Karica" goes completely unchecked.

If this is how moderation is being handled—which feels like a total setup for the upcoming elections—then I have a suggestion:
- Just scrap everything and write entirely new rules, because the current ones clearly don't mean a thing anymore...

A fellow Redditor hit the nail on the head in the bolded section.

brightpuma said:then maybe you should rethink your judgment ( 🤔 ) because that makes zero sense... the guy was just hinting at what kind of content is over there (stuff that gets people banned on our forum). He didn't actually list any content or offer his own opinion ( 🤔 ) that could be used against him.. If he had said they talk more freely over there and that it's tolerated—while it isn't here—then we could actually discuss whether he was criticizing the mods (though even then, it would be a stretch)...

The only way anyone sees "moderator criticism" happening here is if they're actively hunting for it. 🤷

At the end of the day, the user was sanctioned for absolutely no reason.