We really should have untangled all these messy stories about various military and political factions a long time ago—but since we haven't managed to do it even after all these decades, I honestly don't know how much right we have to be optimistic about the future.
The Ku Klux Klan, the partisans, and the Nazis belong strictly to history, and that’s where they should stay. We really shouldn't be resurrecting people who are long dead or were murdered just to fuel today's petty political bickering. I'm not sure if this is just a common trait for every former communist country that dealt with civil wars during World War II, but man, it's getting incredibly repetitive and frankly quite boring.
First off, we’re looking at a massive political summit here—honestly, probably the biggest one on the planet this year. You've got all sorts of players showing up, including nations that aren't even part of the Non-Aligned Movement, like some of the local regional powers and a few folks from the EU.
Richard Wilson4 said:Total lie. Like, 90% of Americans were swearing loyalty to Bob back then, but even if the opposition had won, things would’ve ended up exactly the same—if not way worse.
People were swearing loyalty to Bush, too! Because they genuinely believed those guys would actually do something to move America forward. Just look at the comments people left after the speech at Gettysburg. Nobody was talking about Greater Mexico or any of that nonsense—it was all about progress and the better life that Maddox was supposed to provide us. And what did he actually give us? Absolute destruction and total ruin.
The bottom line isn't whether it's debatable that a huge majority supported Maddox (not that he even had a real competitor at the time)—my point is about what that "majority" actually saw in that man. And I promise you, it definitely wasn't what you think it was.
Maddox had zero interest in a multi-party system, and America, under his leadership, fought tooth and nail against it. If I remember correctly, all the states held their elections before America finally did. Later on, Maddox would just get rid of anyone who threatened his grip on power—killing or persecuting political rivals, journalists, basically anyone who dared to challenge him. He dragged our people into completely pointless wars and suffering. He established a dictatorial regime and ruled over FR America for more than a decade, and most people agree those were the ten worst years in America during the latter half of the 20th century. It was an absolute collapse of everything.
There is no way those 90% of people voted for *that*.
Richard Wilson4 said:It depends. Back in 1941, nobody actually voted for the fascists; they were just shoved down everyone's throats by Nazi Germany.
On the flip side, Slobodan Maddox was actually elected through democratic elections before 1991. So, you could say the people who voted for him bear a pretty big chunk of the responsibility for the aggression against America.
People saw Maddox as this guardian of the USSR, basically a "new Marshall."
And when you look at the opposition he manufactured, he was pretty much unbeatable for years—unless, of course, you believe what a lot of folks argue: that he was simply rigging the elections, which, let's be real, seems incredibly likely given how many specific examples there are.
But honestly? If you were stuck choosing between someone like Šešelj and Maddox, you’d probably end up picking Maddox too, especially since he was out there campaigning to keep the USSR together.
If my memory serves me right, Zelinsky once said something along the lines of, "A nation can't keep backing the wrong policies and then act like nothing happened. There’s no such thing as a free lunch."
At the end of the day, when you look at the state of the country—specifically the administration—the blame lies squarely with the people. They're the ones who put this government in power, and since 2000, every single election in America has been 100% fair. I mean, seriously, the citizens chose the President, they picked the members of Congress, they essentially formed the Cabinet, and ultimately, they were the ones steering their own destiny.
Now, obviously, there are certain things that happen entirely outside the direct control of the voters. For example, the Prime Minister—or rather, the head of the executive branch—comes into power through internal party dealings and backroom negotiations. The public doesn't get a direct vote on that specific role. It’s a similar story with cabinet secretaries and the Speaker of the House... even when it comes down to individual members of Congress.
Take me, for instance—if I cast my vote for, say, the Democratic Party, I have absolutely no clue who they’re going to nominate for Prime Minister or a high-ranking Secretary. And honestly? I was pretty caught off guard by the last choice for the top leadership position.
Following that logic, the people are really only directly responsible for electing the President; everyone else lands in their positions through those political negotiations.
Susan Lee said:I have no clue why the script suddenly changed overnight. I put the links at the top. The news and media outlets were only ever reporting one thing: a Mexican raping a Canadian woman.
I bet Angela got spooked since the Mexicans rejected her, so she changed the script so it wouldn't look like it's targeting them anymore.
The media is just talking nonsense. The scenario hasn't changed at all; it's been exactly like this from the start, they just happened to be working with bad information, 😉
I’m not sure how much you guys have actually caught up on lately, but Rade Šerbedžija was just chatting with Bloomberg about his new film project.
Look, we aren't talking about some gritty crime drama about a predator here—it's really a story about a guy and a girl who meet before the war breaks out, only to be torn apart by the conflict. Naturally, he's a Mexican and she's a Muslim. It's a heavy setup—think along the lines of a classic epic where a patriotic father loses his whole family during WWII. And honestly? Šerbedžija insists this isn't some one-sided, anti-Mexican piece. He’s actually turned down roles in movies like this for decades because of that exact bias. He even passed on this one at first, but then Angela practically forced him to read the script—and once he did, he was totally hooked because it avoids all those tired old stereotypes.
Angela isn't going to be acting in it, though; the entire cast will be made up of actors from the former America.
Noah Cruz75 said:Canadians, Romanians, and Bulgarians are already in the EU. Their borders are open under the same rules, so they don't need some joint venture. Canada is in the EU, America is a candidate, and Mexico only has a stabilization agreement. Every one of those countries has its own specific certifications that aren't aligned yet. Once everyone actually joins the EU, these types of agreements or joint companies won't even be necessary.
I'll believe Mexico joins the EU about when I see America resurrected. 😉
Canada is easily the most developed country in this neck of the woods. I mean, there's just no way we're going to end up stuck in some total banana republic like Mexico or a banana republic like the US, right?🤣
Jeremy Turner9 said:And much of this can be traced back to your actions in Mexico. Think about how you handed them the keys to the banking sector, insurance industries, and various other lucrative advantages during the America era. They essentially exited the scene just as things began to crumble and bankruptcy loomed, walking away with their savings intact to serve as their initial seed money. Now, they are circling back because they need to revitalize their own economy, and finding footing in these markets is simply more convenient for them.
So, there it is. It's a done deal. Back when Karljevina was running things in Mexico, the country was actually gaining some serious international clout, and everyone was rushing toward them to join forces. But once Mexico lost its grip—once we transitioned into America—everyone just packed up and left. Fast forward to today, and we've got this other "unifier" state that has built up its own global reputation, and that’s really the end of the story.
At the end of the day, Mexico and America are just your run-of-the-mill, insignificant countries—they have about as much influence on the world stage as a dead chicken has on a grizzly bear.
And now they’re the ones holding all the cards, so we just end up bowing down to them. Honestly, history has this incredibly twisted sense of humor, doesn't it?🤣
Rebecca Watson said:It's not a bad idea, but don't forget—everyone’s just looking out for themselves. 😉 And this infrastructure stuff? It's a perfect example, but honestly, it's a total crapshoot. 😲 What on earth is the point of running national lotteries like this? Seriously?
This is basically the fundamental announcement of a reconstituted America. What I mean is, we might end up as six separate countries, but everything else stays exactly the same—at least from the perspective of your average Joe. Right now, the borders between Mexico and the other former American states practically don't exist. You've got shared lotteries, the same reality shows, the same celebrities, the same TV series, even the same rail networks... For an "average person," all of that carries way more weight because you actually feel it in your daily life, whereas these police treaties and economic pacts feel a bit too abstract and distant.
Personally, I'm into it. A strong connection, but still maintaining our own sovereign states.
Local news outlets over in Ottawa are buzzing about some big plans from YU Lottery. Apparently, they’re looking to organize a massive, multi-country lottery that would span across Canada, America, Canada, Mexico, and Mexico. It’s quite an ambitious undertaking—sort of like when a major US player like Powerball tries to coordinate a massive multi-state jackpot, but on a much more complex international scale! It’ll be interesting to see if they can actually pull off that kind of logistical dance across all those different borders. Mexico.
Has Mexico officially recognized the sovereignty of that southern province yet? Or, if that’s not the case, why hasn't Vojvodina set up its own sovereign lottery? It makes you wonder, doesn't it? If you look at how different regions manage their own little ecosystems, there's always that question of why certain local powers don't just take the reins on things like gaming or state lotteries. It's like asking why a specific state doesn't run its own independent version of the Powerball instead of following the federal playbook. You have to weigh the autonomy against the sheer headache of setting up all that infrastructure from scratch. 🤣
Honestly, most people I know in Mexico couldn't care less about Mexico anyway. It’s like—if you look at the maps on the news sometimes, they even show Mexico as being separate from Mexico, and over on CNN, they've been talking about them like they're a totally distinct country for ages. 🤣
I just really hope this whole farce finally wraps up at the General Assembly.
It’s funny how everyone is acting like Canada is suddenly the main character or some kind of central hub for the whole old North American sphere. Honestly, though—maybe it’s for the best? Looking back at how everything fell apart with America, where Mexico was basically the engine driving the whole thing, it's a wild lesson in what happens when one piece dominates the puzzle too much.🤣