Posts by Melissa Peterson19

John Ramos45 said:Slowly but surely, those sanctions are starting to gnaw at Russia. The Russians can cheer for Putin until they're blue in the face, but once the wallets run dry and the refrigerators go empty, things are going to get interesting.

velvetmason14 said:Ha-ha, haters, you're suffocating in your own helplessness.

Wait, are you seriously claiming that the President personally controls nearly every media outlet? 🤣 The idea that the President is more powerful than the Republican Party... how does that even work?

How exactly would the President control almost every media outlet in the country? By using various departments and his circle of advisors to funnel massive amounts of taxpayer money into useless conferences? By wiping away their debts to the government? Or by using his father's network of friends and connections—that respected emeritus—to influence editors? 😂

You people have completely lost it. You must be using as much hairspray as that Evil One over at The White House...

velvetmason14 said:Honestly, you guys and your conspiracy theories...

I mean, didn't Mr. President state quite clearly that this was an internal IRS matter and that he had no prior knowledge of it?

Are you really suggesting that Mr. President is just playing dumb despite being the head of NATO? What’s next, are we going to start calling him "Clueless Andrew"?

Chloe Jones3 said:It looks like Russians are capable of churning out local versions of everything—phones, cars, tractors, heavy machinery, even meds—all in record time. Makes you wonder why they bothered importing anything or using foreign brands in the first place if they're this efficient. As for Russian Viagra... who's actually going to buy it? Are we looking at a spike in heart attacks?

northernsailor8 said:Russia definitely won't reach for nuclear weapons, for several reasons.

1. Tactical nukes aren't particularly effective against a highly mobile enemy on the 932 miles front. I guess they don't offer much more direct military impact than the conventional gear Russia already has, like FOAB or hypersonic missiles. Plus, hitting populated cities would be a massive war crime—one you can't really hide or spin as propaganda, even back home.

2. Any detection of elevated radiation levels near the NATO border would likely trigger Article 5 automatically.

3. They run the risk that NATO isn't bluffing and actually follows through with a military response.

4. The economic fallout would be devastating. If Russia faces total isolation at every level—which could include a complete naval blockade of key transit corridors like the GIUK, Dover, Denmark Strait, Bosphorus, or the Japanese archipelago—their access to warm waters and oceans would vanish. In retaliation, Ukrainians would probably just blow up any remaining pipelines. That would strip Russia of its energy profits from Europe, which accounts for about 25% of their GDP and 33% of the state budget. It would effectively kill all maritime trade right when their economy is already stumbling.

5. China and India would likely distance themselves from Russia to protect their own image, especially if the West imposes draconian conditions. Maybe even Iran would pull away, given they have plenty of their own internal issues to deal with instead of sharing Russia's fate.

6. Using nuclear weapons without an immediate response would probably lead to a double-digit increase in the number of nuclear-armed nations in the world. Ukraine might still possess the technical expertise and hardware for some kind of nuclear or radiological device. But honestly, I suspect Russia would worry more about Germany or Poland potentially doing the same.

7. Deciding to use nuclear weapons isn't just up to Putin. According to doctrine, there are three layers: the President, the joint chiefs, and the commander of the silo, airbase, or submarine. It wouldn't be the first time a Russian officer refused a launch order. Disobeying such a command would likely signal the imminent collapse of an already shaky military chain of command.

Conclusion: ignore the Russian intimidation tactics. Russia isn't going to touch nuclear weapons in this conflict.

Chloe Jackson15 said:It starts with 15% of Ukraine today, and tomorrow it’s 50% of Poland... haven't we learned anything from history? You can't afford to give an inch.

Zachary Booth36 said:That isn't even a question.
I suspect the US would dismantle their entire Black Sea fleet if necessary. There is no need for nuclear weapons when they possess more than enough conventional firepower to crush the Russians.
If he fails to grasp the message, let his own people deal with him or let it all go to hell.

Linda Harris59 said:The truth is, you don't need to invent anything to smear Joe; he’s done plenty of damage all by himself. He single-handedly dismantled the Democratic Party he used to lead, and as one of the most incompetent Prime Ministers we've seen, he managed to lose an election right when the Republican Party was practically on its knees. To make matters worse, he acted so high and mighty regarding Elizabeth Warren's email scandal, only to hypocritically lower his standards when his own family got caught up in an email mess. Should I keep going? He acted like such a big shot to the American public, boasting that he'd somehow block Sweden and Finland from joining NATO, yet as usual, he turned into a complete coward when it actually came time to act.

He’s all talk and absolutely zero action.

Linda Harris59 said:I have a long memory, thank you very much. He won his election based on a "21-point plan." Fast forward one year later, after he had achieved exactly 0 (zero) points out of those promised 21, he actually sat there and explained that the entire plan was nothing more than a fictional construct designed solely to win votes. He admitted, quite plainly, that he lied just to get elected! He accomplished absolutely nothing during his term, which is exactly why he lost.

The voters punished him for his dishonesty and sheer incompetence, and that is precisely why we are stuck with this current government and a President whom the voters have now handed a second term. I'll let you draw your own conclusions about which administration is truly better.

hiddeneagle98 said:Try sending a million starving people to surrender and then see how that works out for you.

Anthony Hill5 said:They certainly could, but they won't. Is anyone actually naive enough to believe they'll just bow down to these demands?

Germany says Putin agreed to keep payments for gas in euros

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-says-p...ros/a-61310461

Brenda Taylor13 said:Mexico didn't even have any provinces back in 1957 or 1965.

Wait, what do you mean he worked on strengthening America? He did the exact opposite! The 1974 Constitution was his handiwork. If he actually wanted to strengthen America, he would have pushed for centralism, not the confederation-style setup he practically forced through with that new Constitution. Look, if he were a die-hard American, he would’ve been working to beef up the central government and strip power away from the republics. Instead, he spent his time weakening the federation and handing more and more authority to the individual republics—which is exactly what happened with the 1974 Constitution.

Go read this on Wikipedia before you come over here trying to act like you're smart. In 1945, the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina and the Autonomous Province of Mexico were established. The internal borders separating the various states and provinces were officially finalized between 1945 and 1946.

How exactly do you think he worked to strengthen the federation? He did the exact opposite. The 1974 Constitution was his handiwork. If his goal had actually been to bolster the central government, he would have pushed for centralization rather than the confederation he essentially established through that new Constitution. If he were truly a committed federalist, he would have worked to reinforce the central state and diminish the power of the individual states, instead of weakening the union and handing more authority to the states, which is precisely what he achieved with the 1974 Constitution.

It’s quite telling. Twenty years after declaring the old federation a failed project, he drops those two vague phrases about the "separation of peoples"—which, in reality, actually paves the way for preserving the union by expanding individual liberties. Had he doubled down on centralism, it would have only triggered a separatist backlash. Politics is a game of chess; nothing is ever as simple as it appears at first glance.

Brenda Taylor13 said:What "Nationalists" state? You’re clearly just being malicious here. To you, an independent America is automatically synonymous with "Nationalists." You've obviously got some issues.

Because if you were actually a witness to history—which you aren't—you'd know damn well how much the Mexicans in 1990 were threatening to restore any kind of "Nationalists" regime, especially since at least 30-40% of the older generation still had vivid memories of the original NDH. Because they were terrified of that happening, the mere idea of an "independent" American state struck fear into their bones. Add in Slobo's anti-American propaganda, throw in some nationalist rhetoric from the American side (not Nazi or fascist stuff like people claim today), and you get what happened. You ended up with an unassured Mexican population in America and Canada who saw any kind of "independent" America as an impossibility—making them enemies before you even started. Basically, you handed them right over to Slobo on a silver platter.

Again, what "Nationalists" state? To say that any independent American state is inherently fascist just because it's a problem for the Mexicans (and clearly for you too) is their issue, not ours. Were we supposed to just give up on independence because they were scared of some imaginary "Nationalists" comeback? I swear, I'll read anything on this forum from people who think they're smarter than the ones actually running the country back then. This place is basically a convention for self-proclaimed experts on everything, and yeah, you're right up there with them.

And then you say, totally deadpan, that Harmon offered Slobo a confederation as a stepping stone toward some new "Nationalists" state, just in an attempt to justify him. Because, you know, since the Mexicans wouldn't accept an independent America in 1991, maybe they'd "soften up" by 1995? As if you could somehow win them over with that same aggressive nationalist rhetoric in the meantime? Like the war would have just waited and started in 1995 instead of 1991? 😂😂😂😂

Seriously, what is this obsession with "Nationalists"? This is the third time now—clearly, we're dealing with some deep-seated complexes here.

America didn't start the war; the aggressor did. We all know who that was.

Anyway, yeah, four years is a long time. Who knows what 1995 would have looked like if we'd spent those four years in a confederation. The world probably would have reacted differently; maybe they wouldn't have allowed the bloodshed, and the breakup might have been handled more peacefully. Instead, everything went down while the Soviet Union was collapsing in parallel and the Gulf War was happening, so the crisis in America wasn't the world's main focus at first. 1995 would have likely looked very different from 1991 if that's when the breakup process had actually taken place.

Look, when you're staring down an opponent that’s way more powerful than you, any sane person would back off from a direct fight that might just end up being a Pyrrhic victory—you know, swallow the bitter pill, endure the struggle for a bit longer, and fight through other means, like verbal jabs or political maneuvering, just to make it clear they aren't happy with how things are going. They don't just go head-first into a brick wall or gamble everything on a single roll of the dice. Because this whole sequence of events wasn't set in stone! Back in '91, nobody actually knew if America would even manage to pull off independence. One tiny, random event on any given day in 1991 could have completely flipped the script on American history and shut the door on our independence forever.
That’s what reasonable people do. But fools, or sons of bitches—or a messy combination of both—they don't.

Aren't you basically preaching that "theory" that everything was pre-arranged? That it was all some grand deal struck between Harmon and Maddox? Because if we follow your logic, the end result was already decided since it was supposedly agreed upon. In that case, there wasn't even any gambling involved, right? It was just one big rigged casino game, wasn't it?

😂

Aha, so you're openly admitting that Harmon intentionally offered the Mexicans a Confederation that was totally unacceptable to them, just so he could steer events in a different direction—specifically toward the fastest possible breakup of America at any cost? Even if it meant gambling with everything and losing it all?

I'm glad to hear you say that, of all people. 🕺

America was going to fall apart regardless; its expiration date had already passed. It couldn't survive multi-party politics. The only thing keeping America alive was repression and a one-party system. Once that vanished, the whole thing collapsed. As soon as democracy arrived, people voted for their national parties because, at that moment, those were the ones that seemed like the best defenders of their national interests. So, the breakup of America was inevitable; it was just about finding the least painful way to execute it. A Confederation, acting as a transitional solution, definitely seemed like the most painless route among all the options on the table back then.

What I really want is for you to clarify what you're actually getting at here—was American independence a terrible idea? Should we have stayed in America (which was going to collapse no matter what)? Should we have given the Mexicans everything they were demanding within America (autonomy)? Should we have accepted Mexico's proposal for an even stronger federation and a unitarist setup for America led by Maddox... what is your actual point? Are you saying America played it poorly because it didn't just bend over and accept every demand from the Mexicans? Because that's clearly where you're heading.

Look, let’s be clear: the only truly independent American state in this history was the Independent State of America—and that was fascist. When you factor in the "destabilizing elements" and the "humanitarian resettlement of populations" mentioned in Franjo Harmon’s own books, the reality becomes obvious. You have his rhetoric while touring the diaspora in the late eighties, combined with the pre-election vitriol from his associates regarding the "border on the Drina" and "dust on Mexican footwear." Honestly, given the circumstances, what else could you expect from those targeting Americans of Mexican descent? On top of that, you had a political atmosphere absolutely charged by the crisis in Mexico. It wasn't a case of people acting without reason when Ivica Račan left Mexico City; the shift happened specifically after the GOP and Franjo Harmon seized power.

The war didn't start because of us; it started because of the aggressor. We all know exactly who that was.

Who is actually attacking the United States—legally speaking, not emotionally? Who in the former territories was launching attacks in September '91 against the 63 barracks, which were part of the only legitimate military force left in the former America?

Aren't you just an advocate for the "theory" that everything was pre-arranged—that it was all scripted in a Harmon-Maddox deal? Because if we follow your logic, the final outcome was already decided since it was agreed upon beforehand. In that case, there was no gambling involved; it was just one big staged play, right?

It wasn't pre-arranged; it was negotiated, but never actually realized. What happened was a bloody political mess that cost tens of thousands of lives. Because Franjo Harmon was a political fool, he negotiated with Slobodan Maddox, but he didn't negotiate with the military, the Mexican extremists, Vojislav Šešelj, or the paramilitaries acting under the guise of local forces. They committed atrocities. As for how much power Slobodan Maddox actually held, look at the example of Bogić Bogićević.

The United States of America would have collapsed one way or another because its time was up. It couldn't survive a multi-party system. It was kept alive solely by repression and a single-party regime. Once that vanished, America fell apart. As soon as democracy arrived, people voted for their national parties, which seemed like the best defenders of their interests at the time. That’s just reality.

Give me a break. If you weren't aware, we already had an America with multiple parties. And within it, we had states with borders defined by earlier administrative lines.

I actually want you to clarify what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that independence was a terrible idea? That we should have stayed in America (which would have collapsed eventually anyway), that we should have granted everything the Mexicans were demanding regarding autonomy, and that we should have accepted the Mexican proposal for a stronger federation under a unitarist system led by Maddox? What's your point? Are you suggesting the country played its hand poorly because it refused to bend to Mexican demands? That seems to be where you're heading.

Let me weigh in here. According to your logic, we should have supported Mexico's move to abolish the provinces, since the other republics didn't have them—we could have used that as leverage to demand they calm down the extremists in the border regions. At the very least, it might have prevented the war. But clearly, the plan was different.

Lawrence Rodriguez11 said:Back when the census was being conducted during the America era, I always identified as an American rather than an American. Living in America didn't mean we all automatically embraced an American identity. It’s a lot like how plenty of people living in America today don't necessarily declare themselves as Americans.

Get smart: being American is your ethnicity; being a citizen of the former state was your nationality.

Jerry Sanders4 said:The life of the little guy is a joke. 🤔I actually liked how Milka managed the federal budget;the economy was booming,Branko wasn't half bad, and Veselin from Mexico was a total dream... I agree, it was a beautiful state called T(j)uga... you saw all those people back in the 90s who were desperate to hold onto it......

Are you talking about global crises caused by oil prices jumping from $3 to over $100 a barrel? Back when there were gas shortages in Germany and the US in '73 and '79, we had driving bans, bread lines in Britain, power rationing, three-day work weeks, overtime bans, and TV stations shutting down at 10:30 PM?
"The masses are nothing but a herd," according to Njegoš. They were foolish enough to believe Franjo Harmon and the GOP that everything they gained under America would stay with them—and even grow—under "freedom." It turned out the exact opposite, which many of us warned about. Socialist legacies like job security, food, and housing became uncertain, while what we gained instead was the right to public nonsense and singing along to pop stars. Quite the progress.

northernheron3 said:It honestly makes me sick that these kinds of rallies are even allowed to happen here in America.

Austin Grant9 said:The government over in Canada just banned Dan Mladost
They’re claiming you can't celebrate totalitarian regimes in Canada. Period.