Posts by Scott Rodriguez19

bluerider63 said:The Russians are definitely losing now

So I guess there won't be any more new adult films coming out of Russia then.🤣

Thomas Nelson25 said:Hey, Mr. Gambler...

The market will decide... and the Chinese are definitely going to be looking for a discount.

Remember watching him on those news segments? Just looked like a little mouse standing next to the Chinese Party leader.

Putin knows perfectly well that China poses a far greater threat to him than the US does.
Even so, they are his immediate neighbors—and they’re busy doing business with the USA.

nimbletiger7 said:Oil and gas prices even dropped yesterday because people realized Putin has to sell more fuel now just to fund the war. It seems Russians are selling oil at a $12 discount compared to Brent.

What I find interesting—and maybe I'm being cynical here—is that the stock markets were already hitting record highs right before the invasion started.
When you're sitting at those record levels, where the market barely fluctuates by 5%...🤣
Then, the moment sanctions are announced? The markets jump up another 3%.🤣

I’m telling you.
The whole war in Ukraine... I guess it’s all just bread and circuses for the masses.

Basically.

The global stock markets aren't even flinching at what’s going down in Ukraine.
https://www.google.ch/search?q=DAX&s...client=gws-wiz
https://www.google.ch/search?q=dow+j...client=gws-wiz

So—nothing unexpected is actually happening here, I guess.

They're even up.
Which—if you think about it—might mean they're actually viewing the situation in Ukraine somewhat positively.

But hey, that's just business as usual.

Tyler Jones6 said:I disagree—if Japanese industry can handle it, then Germany certainly should be able to as well, given they rely on LNG too.

Look, I don't really follow what's happening on the ground in Japan.
But, based on how German regulations generally work—if there’s a gas shortage, the industrial sector is always the first thing to get the lights turned off.

Jeremy Peterson4 said:Russia claims they're only hitting military targets. Well, sure, if you consider the entire city of Kyiv a legitimate military target.

just another missile slamming into an apartment building.

War is war.

rowdytiger13 said:And Germany?
They’re probably busy debating if they should send another 500 helmets.

You clearly haven't done your homework.
We aren't talking about 500—it's closer to 5,000.

If you actually kicked Russia out of Swift, it would basically mean turning off the lights for German industry entirely.
It also means—and I guess this is an obvious point—that many people working overseas wouldn't be able to send money back home to the States.

Larry Walker24 said:Why is everyone freaking out over the proposal to kick Russia off SWIFT?

https://news.example.com/economy/details-5716718

I mean, let's be real—Americans are just as terrified that cutting Russia off from SWIFT might actually end up giving China's CIPS a massive boost. 🙂

Are there any actual alternatives to SWIFT?

Well, Russia has already gone ahead and built its own workaround by developing its own messaging service: the System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS). Currently, about 400 Russian banks are plugged into SPFS. According to Fitch Ratings, roughly 20 percent of their domestic payments have been processed through this system so far.

That said, international banks rarely touch the thing. Ever since it was launched back in 2014 as a response to the situation in Crimea, Russia has been trying to link Chinese and Iranian banks to it.

Another option is the Chinese payment system, CIPS. But even then, banks use it for international transfers significantly less than they use SWIFT. However—and this is the kicker—Fitch emphasizes that banning Russian banks from SWIFT could actually accelerate the development of CIPS and other SWIFT alternatives.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics.../28106964.html

brightheron64 said:Honestly, Hmh, it feels like you just have to take a massive detour to avoid reading Index altogether... 👎

At this point, Forum.hr actually ends up being the most reliable source of information out there, and I am being completely serious about that...

That’s been common knowledge since the COVID era🙂

First off, let me clarify—my comments regarding Angela Merkel weren't some personal attack; they were simply an objective assessment of the situation. Second, I never explicitly stated that my critique was limited to her recent policy blunders concerning the migrant crisis. What unfolded in Germany back in 2015 wasn't solely the fault of Angela Merkel herself—it was really the result of total incompetence from the entire German political leadership over the course of a decade.
I mean, look—they’re getting paid, right? That much is obvious. But the real question I'm struggling with here is... what exactly are they doing to earn it?

Nathan Morris3 said:Scott Rodriguez19, I don't really have a glowing opinion of Merkel either. I mean, it's easy to say that under Merkel, Germany didn't send any less weaponry to Islamists than what happened here in America. But I think it's crazy that Merkel is being attacked not because of the actual arming of extremists or destabilization, but because she actually tried to help those people. Sure, mistakes were made, and a lot of shady characters slipped into the government, which obviously isn't good. But you have to wonder about someone's character when they attack an attempt at humanitarian aid instead of attacking destruction itself. So, your whole hyperbole about the thief and the guy holding the ladder—knowing full well the thief is stealing—is kind of a miss to me. You seem "worried" about what's happening in Germany, but with the way values seem to be shifting on this Forum, problems in Germany are probably the least of it. This kind of mainstream shortsightedness is doing way more damage to Europe and European values than migrants ever could.

The lion's share of the actual support for these refugees is coming straight from the German people—it’s their money funding the whole operation. Let's be clear: Angela Merkel isn't exactly sitting in her penthouse making these massive humanitarian contributions out of her own pocket. In my estimation, if you're looking for her personal credit in this matter, it's sitting at a flat zero.
She was just looking for any excuse to throw Theresa under the bus.

Nathan Morris3 said:Scott Rodriguez19, I don't really have a glowing opinion of Merkel either. I mean, it's easy to say that under Merkel, Germany didn't send any less weaponry to Islamists than what happened here in America. But I think it's crazy that Merkel is being attacked not because of the actual arming of extremists or destabilization, but because she actually tried to help those people. Sure, mistakes were made, and a lot of shady characters slipped into the government, which obviously isn't good. But you have to wonder about someone's character when they attack an attempt at humanitarian aid instead of attacking destruction itself. So, your whole hyperbole about the thief and the guy holding the ladder—knowing full well the thief is stealing—is kind of a miss to me. You seem "worried" about what's happening in Germany, but with the way values seem to be shifting on this Forum, problems in Germany are probably the least of it. This kind of mainstream shortsightedness is doing way more damage to Europe and European values than migrants ever could.

Comparing this to a thief and the person holding the ladder for him—while knowing full well that the guy is actually stealing—doesn't quite capture the nuances of what's happening here. I mean, it’s an okay starting point, I guess, but it misses the mark on the actual complexity of the situation.
It would be only fair—and frankly, common sense—to establish whether he was actually holding the ladder, or if that thief of a gardener was working directly for the very person being robbed.

Nathan Morris3 said:So, it’s pretty much the same story across most of the Western world. The economy grows, wealth increases, living standards go up, and people live longer... but the average person doesn't really see any of those benefits. You might point the finger at Merkel, but I think it's just how our version of capitalism works.

There’s an old saying about this—whether someone is truly a thief if they just happen to be holding the ladder while the crime happens.
People don't buy that excuse anymore—the idea that the guy holding the ladder just happened to be standing there, or that he accidentally stumbled upon a thief and decided to take advantage of the situation—it just doesn't fly with the public anymore🙂. You can see that frustration reflected in Brexit, and honestly, even in the recent elections in the USA
. In those cases, the population felt backed into a corner where they had to choose the high-risk option—essentially picking a candidate whose very actions seem completely irrational🙂.

Nathan Morris3 said:It's wild. America is basically on the brink of bankruptcy yet we're sending weapons to extremists, which feels like pouring gasoline on a fire. We're getting tangled up in stuff that shouldn't even be our business. Meanwhile, we blame Germany when they're actually trying to help people fleeing the very conflict our weapons are fueling. And then there's us, mocking how Germany might fail while we're still stuck arguing over old civil war factions. Does that sound totally insane to anyone else? Or is it just me? 😁

What does any of that have to do with the decline of German living standards? We weren't even discussing our own domestic issues—we were talking about theirs. You really need to learn that when you run out of actual arguments, you shouldn't just pivot to an entirely different topic.

Nathan Morris3 said:

I guess I'm just here to chat. Maybe we can talk about something fun? says:
Come on, Nathan Morris3, stop talking nonsense. I mean, just a year ago you were saying the exact same thing—that Europe needs those refugees because the population in the EU is shrinking.

I mentioned that Europe could really use refugees who are educated and can adapt easily. Since the population in the US is aging and we're short on young people, I guess it makes sense. What part exactly do you disagree with?

I guess the EU is just falling apart now, even though they kept insisting there was absolutely no other way to do things. It reminds me of how people felt under Erich Honecker—they kept saying there were no alternatives either, until everyone finally had enough and took to the streets.

It’s kind of sad, I guess, that everyone blames someone else for all the mess going on in the EU—and I don't just mean the refugee situation. It's not like she just stepped into office yesterday. If you weren't up to the task back in 2012, well... maybe. Personally, I think I would've been fired a long time ago if I were that incompetent. I'll give her credit for one thing, though; she's definitely good at staying in power, even if she isn't really capable of much else. That's probably her only real talent.
She basically surrounded herself with yes-men who just backed her and her lack of any real policy—it kind of reminds me of how things worked back in East Germany. I guess we should remember that quote from Martin Schulz about how what refugees bring is more valuable than gold. And when he was running for the top EU spot, it was Angela Merkel who really pushed him forward.
There were honestly just so many more of those silly comments from politicians who seem to be totally sucking up to Angela Merkel. I guess.

Honestly, I guess Germany has really fallen behind under Merkel. The economy seems to be tanking, and people just aren't doing as well as they used to. Standard of living feels lower... maybe it's all on Merkel.

Well, it’s a given that the standard of living has dropped (at least for a huge chunk of the population), and once the European Union actually starts to fracture, things will get even uglier. I guess we won't see the true fallout from the policies of the last decade for another ten years or so. For now, they're still just patching over holes and ignoring the cracks. Even communism in Europe took years to fully crumble—and even America didn't just vanish overnight.

Nathan Morris3 As follows:
Look, I already stated in my previous post—though maybe you missed it—that I am personally, yes, a man, quite apprehensive about walking into certain neighborhoods. Perhaps that detail escaped you. If I were looking to carry some kind of personal alarm, I’d certainly want one; it's not like a woman is the only one who should be concerned. It isn't anything out of the ordinary to feel this way. Truth be told, security used to be at a much higher standard, but now we're dealing with a significant amount of trouble stemming from individuals tied to tribal cultures—I've already laid all of that out. As for your question regarding whether one "should" take precautions... I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that phrasing, but if it provides any sense of comfort—then yes, one absolutely should. And is it tragic that things have devolved to this point? Absolutely. I don't really grasp the point of asking that—I assume we can all agree on that, right?

I believe I already made that point clear in my previous commentary—it’s right there in the text above. The issue is quite fundamental: migrants arriving from tribalistic or deeply patriarchal societies face significant hurdles when it comes to actually assimilating or even grasping our core American values. It just doesn't happen overnight, I guess.

Come on, Nathan Morris3—stop talking nonsense. Just a year ago, you were the one posting this exact same garbage about how Europe needs these refugees because the population in the European Union is declining.

Nathan Morris3 said:Why won't they talk about what's actually causing this? I mean, sure, more controls might help, but we have to address the root issues. How many assaults actually happened in Cologne? And even economic migrants have their own reasons for moving. It usually boils down to exploitation and colonialism. We’re basically just reaping what our leaders planted. Whether it’s Winston Churchill or Angela Merkel, it's all the same. Everyone acts blind to the fallout from a century of policy; they can't see past skin color or what's happening in Cologne. They just don't care about the causes. You could build a minefield around Germany, but if you don't face the source, you're just sweeping the mess under the rug for the next generation to deal with. No one ever took responsibility for us sending weapons to extremists back in the day. Now, it feels like Merkelica is the only one left to deal with policies forced on her by the Clintons and other jerks.

Sent from my Nexus 5 with Tapatalk

The European Union—if you can even call it that at this stage of its collapse—has spent years stubbornly insisting there was no other way forward, regardless of how many disastrous decisions they made. It’s the same old song: they act like their path is the only one possible. I suppose it reminds me a bit of the era under Honecker—there was never any "alternative" offered back then either, until people finally reached their breaking point and took to the streets to demand change.

So, now we’re all pretending that someone else is to blame for the mess currently facing the European Union—and I’m not just talking about the migrant crisis. It’s a convenient narrative, I suppose. But let’s be real: she didn't just stumble into power yesterday. If you haven't proven you can actually manage things by 2012, then you’re clearly out of your depth. Personally? If I were half as incompetent as this, I would have been fired from my job ages ago. The only thing I will ever concede regarding her talent is this: she is incredibly skilled at staying in power—period. Beyond that survival instinct, she isn't capable of much else. That’s her one true gift.
She basically surrounded herself with a bunch of sycophants—people who exist solely to prop her up and validate her absolutely hollow political agenda (it’s honestly reminiscent of how things functioned back in East Germany, I guess). We all remember that infamous statement from Schulz where he claimed that what refugees bring us is "more valuable than gold." And let's not forget the blatant favoritism involved here—who was it that actually pushed Schulz for that top leadership position in the European Union? It was Angela Merkel, plain and simple.
And honestly—if I’m being perfectly blunt—there were plenty more of those idiotic statements coming from politicians who seem far too eager to kiss up to Angela Merkel.

Don't go pushing Nathan Morris3 into a total meltdown🙂

Nathan Morris3 said:It’s not like there’s proof someone didn't poison the water supply with drugs to brainwash people into voting for candidate XX, right? I guess we have to remember the topic was IRREGULARITIES. The court was checking if those mistakes happened, if they could theoretically change things, and if they actually did. The Constitution says elections need a redo if there's proof irregularities changed the outcome, but even though there wasn't really any evidence of that, the court just made its call.

There isn't a single shred of evidence for actual manipulation, so... yeah, that's pretty much where it stands.

The fact that letters were opened a day early by unauthorized people😁, maybe doesn't even need to be proven as manipulation if it counts as an irregularity.

I think there's a huge difference between an irregularity and manipulation. An irregularity is just sloppy work—really sloppy this time, I guess. Manipulation is a crime, you know, when there's intent. I'm not sure what you mean by "enough," but the Constitutional Court said that the Department of Homeland Security leaking results to reporters before 5:00 PM was enough to trigger a re-vote. Even if that happens almost every election, I suppose the law is the law.

🤦
And then you have the nerve to lecture me about how other people aren't engaging in constructive debate.

Nathan Morris3 said:I guess I still think Hofer is pretty bad news for the United States of America, just like maybe Van der Bellen might feel he's harmful, so what? I wrote what I wrote and laid out my points. You can try to lie and claim I said there weren't any irregularities—which is a huge stretch since I actually said there were—but for the sake of a decent debate, could you please just quote me if you disagree? It’s kind of tough having to defend myself against things I never even said. Whatever. Yeah, the Republican Party are losers, and I suppose it was fine that they reported issues, but I think it was a mistake to try and overturn the election when they knew there wasn't any proof of fraud. But oh well, the Supreme Court made the right call. We'll just have another round and everyone will be happy, which is probably what matters most.

Quincy:

The Supreme Court made sure to point out that they didn't find any proof that anyone actually rigged the election results, I guess. It looks like those confirmed irregularities messed with about 77,926 votes that might have gone to either Hofer or Van der Bellen—so, I guess that’s technically enough to flip the whole election result." There isn't any hard evidence yet, but I guess some irregularities have been flagged... maybe? Maybe, I guess. So, that’s about 77,000 votes at stake. I guess you still think Hoffer's appeal doesn't have any merit? Maybe.

Like I said—there’s just no proof of any manipulation. Then you get some smart aleck on the forum starting up all these conspiracy theories about rigged systems. I mean, it was pretty obvious there would be repeats if they found that many issues at the polling stations; I think I even mentioned that before. It feels like the same sloppy mistakes happening every election cycle. The Republican Party and everyone else should definitely report those errors, and I’m all for that. But calling for entirely new elections because of those slip-ups? I guess that might be a bit much. Still, if they already pushed to void the results, I think the Supreme Court made the right call.
Someone’s always going to nitpick over small stuff just to score some points, I guess. It’s nothing new. The issue is that since the margin was so thin, they're pushing for another round. So, I think you're looking at it the wrong way; the appeal isn't baseless. I mentioned there were irregularities, and after the Supreme Court looked into the number of precincts involved, they made the right call. But asking for a total redo of the election feels a bit like a Spaniard demanding a rematch against Germany just because the game kicked off 30 seconds late. If it had started on time, maybe the result would have changed, or maybe not—we don't really have proof either way—but hey, rules are rules. You don't rerun a ballgame over formalities, but elections are a much bigger deal. In a democracy, I suppose deciding to hold them again is probably the right move.

Nathan Morris3 said:Whether you mean it or not, I think you're being a bit dishonest there. You mentioned "irregularities or manipulations during the election that clearly existed (confirmed by the Supreme Court of Austria)." So, I guess it's not quite right... the court confirmed there were irregularities, but using the word "manipulation" feels a little biased to me. The court didn't actually confirm that part, so maybe we shouldn't make things up.

There’s definitely a distinction between the two, though it’s tough to say exactly when an error turns into actual manipulation—especially since proving intent is such a headache. Even if the court officially announced they found no proof of fraud, that doesn't necessarily mean nothing happened, especially when you look at those suspicious irregularities alongside such a razor-thin margin. I guess there’s enough there to warrant some doubt.

I guess you're just making excuses now. What kind of conspiracy theories are you even talking about? The court ruled based on the evidence provided, and since there’s zero proof of any tampering, the verdict isn't about manipulation at all—you might just have to accept that. Manipulation and unfairness are two totally different things in legal terms, especially when we're discussing the judiciary. I don't really get why you're trying to overcomplicate things like this.

So, are you really saying the court is being used as a political tool? That's a pretty heavy accusation, I guess.

Man, please read what you’re responding to. I didn't say the court was being instrumentalized. And even if I had, what's the big deal? I mean, Sanders instrumentalized the court too (and his own trial) just to score political points. Maybe you're overreacting a bit with all this talk about "serious accusations"?

I guess it's also pretty tough to expect a court to just come out and say an election was full of irregularities. Some countries and their institutions really care about their reputation, so they'll probably just use some pragmatic excuse about acting "in the interest of democratic stability" instead of actually admitting there were issues.

Maybe we could just move all the conspiracy theories over to a different thread? I guess.

I mean, having irregularities in 94 out of 117 precincts... that's actually a pretty big deal, I guess. It feels serious enough that even the Supreme Court of Austria could potentially flip the whole election result.

Of course, that's why they made their ruling, and I think it's fine. An irregularity would be something like counting ballots at 11:00 PM instead of 9:00 AM just because people didn't want to wait around anymore. There could be 500 little things like that where the procedure wasn't strictly followed, even if there's zero proof that the timing actually changed the election results. But I guess the court just wants everything to be spotless, which is okay. You're spinning these conspiracy theories and throwing around words like "manipulation," but come on.

So, I guess it might be a bit bold to say that a runoff election would definitely end with the exact same winner.

The real question is whether we're looking at a bad loser or just the wrong winner...

I mentioned before that it's tough to call, but if there isn't any proven manipulation, then maybe the result stays the same if everyone votes just like they did last time. It’s hard to know how people who change their minds or new voters might act, though. I guess since no candidate has really messed up big time yet, and you have someone like Kern coming out and effectively chipping away at the Republican Party, it's tricky. Plus, I'm not really sure what kind of impact Brexit might actually have here.

Look, as far as I am concerned—and I might be wrong here—the issue under discussion in court wasn't even about manipulation; it was about irregularities. Just because manipulation hasn't been proven doesn't mean it didn't happen, I guess.

The fact that envelopes were being opened the day before, and by people who weren't even authorized
, doesn't even need to be framed as "manipulation" to matter—it's more than enough if you just look at it as an irregularity.😁

Nathan Morris3 said:So, I guess I'm saying comparing this to soccer is silly because this is way more heavy-duty. Maybe they'll have to redo the elections, and you can't just ignore irregularities that theoretically could have changed the outcome (even if they probably didn't).

I don't really get what you mean about voiding votes? People filled out their ballots correctly, so why punish them by throwing away a vote they handed in perfectly fine? I guess your logic is a bit fuzzy—would it feel fair to you if someone tossed your vote just because someone else messed up the process? The election law defines what counts as a valid ballot, and you can't just invalidate votes just because Scott Rodriguez19 thinks they should be gone. You know? We have to follow the law. It's a bummer they didn't follow it during the first round, but I don't see how bypassing the law now makes any sense.

There isn't a perfect solution, I suppose. I was wondering if they could just redo things in the specific spots where the errors happened (like how it works back home), but even that feels a little off. If you call people back to vote again, then everyone's vote suddenly carries more weight than it did the first time. Plus, if you hold a redo, you have to invite everyone, which means you might get a totally different group of voters than the first time. But maybe that's the lesser of two evils.

Scott Rodriguez19 didn't write the laws!
But if the law states that mail-in ballots aren't to be opened until 9:00 AM the following day, then opening them a day early is illegal—period. If there is a law stating a ballot is invalid—say, if both candidates are circled, making the ballot void—then you can't just decide to give everyone one vote anyway. There are specific laws regarding the counting of votes, and they must be adhered to.
It's like if the law says you can drive at 18; it would be illegal to drive at 17, even if that one day wouldn't have made much difference in your actual driving ability. There is no room for debate there.
You can try to trivialize the legalities all you want, but how is that anything but unfair to the voters who did everything by the book?
I know the truth—you just wouldn't be okay if Norbert Hofer had won. If he had, you'd probably be out there on the barricades right now.😁

Nathan Morris3 said:Maybe we should move past the soccer talk, since this stuff is a bit more serious and complicated than a game. If you really want a sports comparison, look at what happened yesterday—a penalty wasn't replayed even though it should have been because our players interfered with the kicker. That penalty changed the whole game, but obviously, the Spanish team isn't demanding a rematch over it.

Elections are different, I suppose, which is why they might be redone. There isn't any actual proof of fraud, just some irregularities that could, in theory, change the results. Usually, elections aren't rerun unless those mistakes actually impact who wins, which is why we haven't seen rematches before even when things weren't perfect. A redo in this situation is probably for the best, though I hate thinking the outcome might flip, especially since most of the complaints seem like a joke. The truth is, observers (including those from the Freedom Party) were signing off on everything without even checking.

What kind of logic are you even using here?
The reason I'm saying this is because since we're dealing with matters much more consequential than sports, it would be—logically speaking—far more likely that laws and regulations would be enforced with actual awareness, rather than the opposite.

Especially when you consider that we're looking at 30,000 votes that tipped the scales for one candidate, while 190,000 votes that absolutely should have been invalidated were just... left alone.

Nathan Morris3 said:Like I mentioned before, things are rarely perfectly legal since there's always some kind of mess-up, even in these re-run elections. I guess the real question is whether those errors could even theoretically change the outcome. Laws are laws, though, and following this logic, we'd just keep re-voting until the Freedom Party candidate wins.

And I think you might have misheard; opening them a day early doesn't make the ballots invalid. If that were the case, they wouldn't bother with new elections because everyone knows how invalid ballots are handled.

So, what's the point of having laws and regulations then?
You can't just recognize something that wasn't done according to the rules or the law. It’s like if an NFL referee decided to count handballs as goals just because he wanted to see more scoring—it simply isn't how the game works.