Posts by Brenda Murphy3

Lawrence Booth2 said:You’ve got a point there
but honestly—how long can economic interests stay the top priority?
is there ever going to be any sense of pride or dignity involved here?
how much longer are we just going to obsess over the potential fallout for the bottom line?

I mean, at the end of the day, does Turkey even have anything like a BLM movement?
you know, the kind where people tear down statues of old sultans because they were basically colonizers and exploiters
all that stuff
is there a single political party or even one lone representative out there actually pushing for that?

Unless something truly massive happens... and right now, nothing is actually hitting the fan. Sure, things can escalate fast, but for the moment, it's quiet.

And honestly, what "pride and dignity" are you even talking about? Do you really think some German, a Frenchman, a Finn, or even an American actually gives a damn about what some Islamist like Erdogan is blathering about? You think they’d jump into a conflict just to flex their muscles? That wouldn't be showing "character"—it would just be stupid. It would be sinking right down to Erdogan's level for no reason at all.

Guys like Erdogan and Vučić—they usually get kicked out by their own people eventually. Right now, they're tolerated for various reasons, and they'll stay tolerated for a while longer. But if Erdogan actually threatened someone significant or the entire European Union (which he can't, because Turkey's economy is basically a rounding error within the EU framework)—he'd be gone in a heartbeat, or the country would be totally isolated. Simple as that.

All these fantasies floating around here about how powerful Turkey is or how insignificant the European Union is? They're just that—fantasies.

How many of you guys are actually obsessed with this idea that the EU is weak and totally helpless?

Sure, the EU can be slow to move sometimes, but calling it weak—or worse, stupid—is a massive stretch... especially when you look at Turkey.

The EU isn't going to go looking for trouble in Turkey unless things get absolutely desperate, mainly because Turkey is one of their biggest investors and there's way too much economic skin in the game. Some of you are talking like kids who just want to "win" an argument.

If things really hit the fan, Turkey is so unstable that a single tweet from Trump could tank their currency. And if you look at serious sanctions coming from just one place, like Germany for example—those hits would be enough to make Turkey collapse under its own weight or spark internal conflicts. All this talk about Turkey being able to seriously challenge the EU? That’s just noise for kids who don't have a clue what they're talking about, or for those brainless Erdogan supporters.

Flexing muscles just because you can, while bleeding money in the process? You’ll never see that from the EU nations. Anyone who thinks some little Sultan can actually hold his own against a major economic strike from the EU is crazier than any Islamist fanatic.

As long as things stay the way they are, the EU is just going to let Erdogan ramble on whatever he wants... But if we ever reach a point of actual conflict—I give Erdogan six months max, maybe a bit more, but only if Turkey faces total economic isolation and everything else that comes with it...

placidrider48 said:Here’s one way this post-election mess could play out:

The Republican Party might end up needing some niche group to actually form a government, so those guys decide Andrej Plenković just needs to pack his bags and leave. Then, maybe out of pure spite, Sunce forms some centrist bloc, gathers all their pro-EU buddies, and leaves the Republicans short on seats—to the point where even teaming up with Bridge wouldn't fix the math.

Or, if we're looking at total chaos: Sunce starts wooing doctors by promising to back Restart with their own defectors.

But seriously... why would he walk away from the party with his own people if he's leading the Republican Party? 😁

Well, if that crazy scenario actually plays out—he’d just take his seats with him and jump straight into a coalition with Zoran Bernardić... leaving everyone else free to go find a new party.

Though, honestly, that sounds like science fiction. If Plenković goes off on some wild tangent into a massive coalition, 99% of the Republicans would follow him without a single second of hesitation.

Mark Hughes36 said:"Quote:"

You aren't exactly young enough to have forgotten Sanders's second term, especially with Friščić backing him up. You surely remember the media circus—including how The New York Times scrambled to align with Sanders's camp, which ultimately led to Sanja Modrić leaving the paper. There was all that noise about how Mason shouldn't even ask Sanders for support signatures, but should just hand over the mandate because he won the most votes.

Friščić didn't actually want to nominate Sanders—he certainly wasn't looking to hand him a majority that would secure him the role of Prime Minister. He just wanted to play the part of someone supporting Sanders out of necessity, pretending he had no choice because Sanders was the only one capable of pulling a majority together.

The news about Sanders’s legal situation is just more of the same. It seems like we're stuck in a loop of endless court dates and political theater. Expect nothing less.

"Quote:"

After some discussions, Mason claimed that Ivo Sanders convinced him he actually held over 77 mandates. Even though Sanders failed to provide any written proof to back that up.Mason claims that kind of evidence isn't even necessary.

Look, neither you nor our buddy Robin Jones2 are lying, per se, but what you're both saying just isn't grounded in reality. I don't know about you, but this guy clearly thinks Milanović would be forced (or choose) to give the mandate to form a government to Bernardić if the Democrats come out as the relative winners... regardless of any actual coalition potential. I'm telling you, that’s not happening, or at least I'm extremely skeptical about that scenario. Plus, there’s zero reason to even do it that way.

In this upcoming election, it’s totally plausible that the Democrats end up with 5-10 more seats than the Republicans, yet still have absolutely no mathematical way to form a government without Škoro (which effectively means they can't form The Government at all). So, what’s the point of even handing them the mandate to try?
Back with Mason and Sanders, there was definitely some maneuvering going on, but Mason clearly knew Sanders held the majority and gave him the mandate accordingly... anything else wouldn't have made any sense in the first place.

Personally, I don't really care either way, but handing someone the mandate when you know damn well they don't have a majority? That’s a recipe for an absolute nightmare of a situation.

Patrick Cook said:Why on earth would you think the Republican Party wins? The socialists—well, the Republican Party—already blew it during the presidential race.

Sure they did, but presidential elections and parliamentary elections are two completely different beasts. Even if we play along with your little analogy—just look at the numbers. Add up all the votes Karamarko and Škoro pulled together, then compare that to what Zoran got... by your logic, the Democratic Party would have lost the election to the right wing by a landslide, wouldn't they? But like I said before—presidential and parliamentary races are night and day.

Robin Jones2 said:Quincy:

It appears you have provided only a single word without context. Please provide the full text you wish for me to rewrite. The user says: It is already standard practice for the individual who secures the necessary number of signatures to present the Cabinet to the President. It was this precedent that George W. Bush established during the Biden-Bush era, and it has remained the consistent norm ever since.

The Constitution states the following:

Quincy:

The President of the United States entrusts the mandate to form the Cabinet to an individual who, based on the distribution of seats within Congress and following extensive consultations, possesses the necessary support. The majority enjoys its confidence. Every single member of Congress.

One could argue this constitutes a relative majority. George W. Bush established the precedent that the "confidence of the majority of representatives" must be demonstrated through signatures, yet such a requirement is nowhere explicitly mandated by law.

Quincy:

The President nominates the members of the Cabinet. Individual. The President has officially designated who will lead the effort to assemble the Cabinet.

It is entirely unnecessary for them to be one of the elected representatives.

Quincy:

The Cabinet resigns once it loses the confidence of Congress. The vast majority of members of Congress. In Congress.

Quincy:

If the designated leader fails to assemble a Cabinet within thirty days of accepting the mandate, the President of the United States possesses the authority to extend that mandate for a period not exceeding an additional thirty days. If the designated leader fails to assemble a Cabinet within that timeframe, or if the proposed administration fails to secure a vote of confidence from Congress, the President will simply hand the mandate to someone else. If the Cabinet fails to form in accordance with Articles 109 and 109.a of the Constitution of the President of the Republic, the President will be forced to appoint an interim non-partisan Cabinet while simultaneously calling for early elections to Congress.

We find ourselves navigating a gray area here: the President’s discretionary authority to determine, following consultations, which individual possesses the best chance of securing a majority to form a Cabinet in Congress. If no single figure can muster 76 signatures, what could possibly be a more logical or democratic standard than granting the initial opportunity to form a government to the party or coalition that secured the most votes?

If that weren't the case, states with more than two equal parties in their legislature would never be able to form a government. Take Austria, for example; Viktor Orbán managed to secure only 25 out of 79 seats yet still successfully assembled a cabinet. Before him, Mike Pence was operating with a minority administration.

During her last round of consultations, Hillary Clinton was already looking for ways to bypass the standard procedures. She moved swiftly toward the conclusion that she lacked sufficient trust in anyone to successfully assemble a Cabinet, only for it to emerge later that she had already drafted a plan for a non-partisan administration behind closed doors.

The rest is merely history, a chapter authored by the Bridge and John McCain, who fled from his office looking as startled as a frightened child.

Look, everything you're saying is technically correct, but Zoran—and honestly, any other President—isn't going to go looking for an unnecessary constitutional crisis if they can help it. What’s the point in handing someone the mandate to form a government if it's blindingly obvious they can't actually do it? Using signatures as a solution is perfectly rational and makes sense, even if it isn't written in black and white in the Constitution. Only if nobody produces those signatures within the deadline should the task of forming the Cabinet be handed to the relative winner of the election. That's how it would play out in the real world. Just imagine if Zoran immediately gave Bero the mandate as the relative winner, and then three days later Plenković shows up with all the necessary signatures... it would be a total circus. Neither the President nor the parties would touch that with a ten-foot pole. It's just senseless.

If nobody brings the signatures, then yeah, you'd hand the formation over to the relative winner... but I doubt we'll ever actually see things get that messy.

Robin Jones2 said:Based on these poll results, if the Democratic Coalition emerges as the relative winner, could the President grant them the mandate to form The Cabinet?

If my memory serves me correctly, Bero would then have 30 days—plus potentially an additional 30—to attempt to assemble The Cabinet and secure its confirmation in Congress.

Regardless, Plenković will be forced to act with significant courage in the window between the election and the formal mandate to gather enough political chips, including potentially securing votes from Škoro.

However, there are still six weeks until the election, and anything can happen in that timeframe.

For instance, the economy will likely continue its downward trend. New scandals involving the Republican Party will inevitably surface, and there are certainly plenty of them. A significant portion of the American electorate is traditionally prone to short-term volatility; within just a few days, certain figures see their popularity either skyrocket or plummet. One need only look at the standing of Beroš, Capak, and Markotićka six weeks ago compared to where they stand today.

The Republican Party possesses a massive political machine and virtually unlimited campaign resources—be it taxpayer funds or whatever remains of them. They will spend their very last cent on the most absurd tactics just to claw back a few votes.

They might even go as far as arresting Karamarkov’s wife just to project an image of being fighters against corruption. Of course, such moves often backfire.

The prevailing sentiment among the majority is that they were unfairly targeted in the case of Karamarkov's spouse, so such maneuvers could easily damage their own ratings.

This is especially true when even the most naive voter understands that everything the Republican Party does over these next six weeks will be aimed solely and exclusively at winning votes and securing the election.

But wait, isn't it pretty much standard practice by now that whoever brings the most signatures to the President gets the shot at forming the government? I'm pretty sure Mason set that precedent back during that whole mess involving Milanović and Sanders, and everyone's just been following that playbook ever since.

Charles Brown9 said:Based on this poll, Bernie Sanders becomes President. A coalition of the Reform party, the Democratic Party, Jerry Brown, and the minority blocs would total 76.

Even if things shift during the actual elections, it won't be hard to see which pieces of the Republican Party will fall into place. Especially now that Joe Biden is shuffling the lists; he'll likely do what he did during the European Union elections and just pack the roster with nobodies who wouldn't survive a day without a political paycheck. They'll cling to Congress with everything they've got, much like Donald Trump, the Libertarian Party, and Fox News have done in this current session.

It’s possible things could play out that way... but we're talking about a window of maybe one or two terms at most.
That’s exactly why I pointed out that Bernardić is going to have a massive headache if Škoro manages to scrape together 15 seats. We're sitting right at that 14-seat threshold. Plus, there's the question: would all those minority groups actually stick with the Democratic Party?

What I'm trying to get at is that Škoro represents a legitimate threat to the Democratic Party (though he's a problem for the Republican Party too, just in a different way). As we see in this study, the Democratic Party could technically emerge as a relatively convincing winner on paper, yet still find themselves completely short-handed when it comes to actually putting together a Cabinet.

Charles Brown9 said:It works twice as well.

Looking at all ten congressional districts and the 140 representatives chosen within them, the Democratic Party would emerge as the relative winner with 64 seats. The Republican Party would take 54, Škoro would get 14, while the Democratic Party and Bridge would each secure 3, leaving Bandić and Posavec with 1 seat apiece.

See, this is exactly my point—if Charles Brougham can scrape together even 15 or 20 seats, Adam Schiff is going to have a massive headache trying to secure a majority.
Right now, Brougham is sitting at 14, but you’ve gotta factor in those 3 votes from overseas Americans, which adds maybe 2 more for the Republican Party and 1 for Brougham (give or take). If Brougham manages to push past 15 by election day, then Adam Schiff is in deep trouble... and honestly, so is Joe Biden. 😁 .

Edward Cooper2 said:You sound awfully optimistic. The truth is, the Republican Party still has a massive base of stubborn voters who would vote for Vranje if they could. Let's look at the actual numbers: Penava pulled in 4,400 votes last time, while Zdravko Marić secured over 16,000. This whole circus in El Paso is a PR disaster, and frankly, they won't recover from the damage before the next election. Sadly...

Actually, that's not even the main point. Which district was Marić even running in?

And don't even get me started on these polls being released—they're a joke. I haven't seen a single poll conducted strictly by electoral district (which is the only way this actually matters); instead, they either treat the whole US as one giant block or split it into five random regions or something. That kind of polling is totally useless and gives completely skewed results.

The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are both going to grab their share of voters... maybe the Republican Party ends up taking less than people think (or less than they *think* they'll take), but even if that happens, it's highly debatable whether it would actually change the game.

In my opinion, the real kicker in this election might end up being how many seats Škoro manages to snag. If Škoro actually hits that 15-20 seat mark (like the Bridge party did back then), the Democratic Party is going to have a hell of a time putting together The Administration, regardless of their own numbers. They'll just be mathematically short-handed. Of course, this is the last thing Plenković wants to see (even though it's obvious Škoro can only really play ball with the Republican Party, definitely not the Democrats), and I have no idea how he'd handle a coalition where someone else calls all the shots. If that scenario plays out—and it's definitely on the table—I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of grand coalition (either formal or just a quiet agreement) or a bunch of so-called "leftist parties" backing Plenković in the name of the "greater good" to keep the "extremists" out 😁 .
When you factor in the complete mystery surrounding where the Bridge party lands, you've got an election that's actually pretty wild and unpredictable.

wiredseal7 said:You're drifting off topic. This discussion is about the friction between the USA and Turkey.
It’s not like he’s digging up old dirt on Russia—or vice versa.

Instead of coddling a key ally, the Americans are letting their Congress patients extort them for no reason. They've lost touch with reality—it's like they're ripping off tactics from the Third Reich, treating allies like vassals who don't deserve anything in return. Everything runs on dictates and pressure now. But they've backed themselves into a corner; there isn't much breathing room left with the leader over there. Either they bite their tongue and back off, or they'll end up buying whatever scraps come out of those Turkish bases.

😵 🤣

Oh, they will. I can already see them scrambling to prop up this wannabe sultan... honestly, stop being ridiculous.

If Erdogan is actually dumb enough to try anything—and when you're dealing with Islamists and their level of intelligence, you never really know—they'd isolate him and wreck his economy in a matter of months... not to mention it's a country small enough that you could easily shove it into total internal chaos...

Man, I seriously can't wait to see Erdogan actually pull a move or act defiant like this... let's see how that plays out.

Seriously, what are we even talking about with Erdogan and Turkey? What is wrong with you people?

We’re out here discussing a country where the entire economy can be sent into a tailspin just by one single tweet...

The thing is, Erdogan can basically pass whatever he wants through his parliament because nobody is actually paying enough attention to stop him; it's mostly just theater to serve his own political agenda.

The idea that Erdogan could somehow "block" someone from accessing a nuclear-armed base—or even that he has the capacity to pull that off—is absolute nonsense.
I have no clue where people get this notion that Erdogan holds any kind of leverage for blackmailing the USA or NATO. Maybe he can squeeze the European Union a little bit over the refugee situation, but let's be real: it's not like it's some massive crisis for them. The amounts of money being paid out are practically pocket change to the European Union as a whole.

Kyle Nelson2 said:Whoops

Reports are saying Turkey is basically holding 50 US nukes hostage at one of their air bases http://flip.it/FYn-Er

I mean, at this rate, Turkey might actually end up being a bigger headache than any other country out there.

Honestly, this sounds like total nonsense. Anyone who thinks Turkey is going to pull some blackmail stunt like this, or even dares to breathe too hard near that base, clearly hasn't a clue what they're talking about.
Erdogan is a notorious Islamist, and just that alone tells you he’s not exactly a genius, but he isn't completely brainless either.

Right when this whole mess started, I said—and I still stand by it—that I have no idea how this is all going to play out or who ends up winning. But I am pretty damn sure about one thing: Turkey and Erdogan are going to end up getting screwed... maybe militarily, but definitely economically. An Economy that can be tanked by a single tweet from Trump by what, 30%? It won't stay afloat for long if actual pressure starts being applied. And if that happens, regardless of whatever desert conquest the Trumpists try to claim as a "historic victory," the reality is that Turkey will have folded, and the Turkish people along with them... and I’m fairly certain that’s exactly where this is headed.

Paul Kern12 said:I have to disagree.
Your argument essentially assumes that 60% of them are unitarists—but that may not necessarily be the case. Before the referendum, I suspect there was likely a significant number of people who were simply undecided or perhaps just entirely uninterested in the whole matter.

Look, when things get this intense, being undecided or just totally checked out is functionally the same thing as being a unitarist...
If you want independence, all that matters is the raw number of people giving it an unconditional "yes." Everything else is just noise.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:I suppose I have to wonder, why on earth would support for independence actually spike right after a heavy-handed police action?

In my view, someone who was already leaning towards a unified nation before all the chaos started isn't going to suddenly flip sides; if anything, they might even feel relieved that the federal government stepped in so decisively and without any hesitation.

As for that 40% who favor independence, I guess maybe about 5% of them finally realized that achieving sovereignty isn't just going to happen overnight and that it requires making some serious sacrifices—so perhaps they’ve even reconsidered their stance since they might not be ready to pay that price.

What kind of sacrifice are we talking about, man? What are you even on about?

Even if we ignore everything else, if there really is only a 40% chunk of people demanding independence like you claim, then they don't have a shred of legitimacy. Why would anyone bother making "sacrifices" for a cause that doesn't even have a majority?

Paul Kern12 said:I suspect that figure has climbed by at least 10%, if not more, following Sunday's police action.
Washington, D.C. really committed a massive self-inflicted blunder here.

Sure, there was definitely a spike. But whether that's just a temporary knee-jerk reaction or something that's actually going to stick—well, that's a whole different story.

But my main point still stands: people really need to snap out of this fantasy that Californians are all unified under some grand quest for independence, or that they’re being oppressed or physically threatened or whatever.
The whole referendum thing was handled incredibly poorly by the local authorities, and frankly, the federal government's response was pretty lousy too...

Aaron Thomas3 said:Look, we don't even know how things really stand because half these people probably didn't even bother showing up if they saw police lines standing guard at the polling stations. Sure, some college student might have tried to charge right through a barricade, but a mother with two small kids? She’s probably staying home. We need to organize a legitimate, non-violent referendum to actually see what the numbers look like.

Look, you're technically right, but people seriously need to realize that in California, there isn't even a consensus on independence by any decent metric. Just look at the elections and all the polling data from the last few years—it tells the whole story...

If 80% of Californians actually wanted independence, no force on earth could stop it. Even the federal government and the European Union would be forced to change their entire approach.

Can you imagine if things were like this in America, where the parties fighting for independence from the old union barely even hit 50% of the vote? Well, that's exactly what we're looking at in California.

wiredcanyon4 said:In my estimation, there are only three plausible trajectories for the California crisis:
1. Washington and Sacramento decide to de-escalate—cooling things down to negotiate a new (and legally sound) referendum.
2. We maintain the status quo indefinitely—the Government of California declares independence, but the international community doesn't give them even a second glance, and Washington avoids military intervention in favor of crushing them economically, politically, and through trade blockades (with assistance from France). Whether the Californians—or rather, their "independentist" faction—can actually survive long-term by eating grass remains to be seen.
3. The Government of California declares independence, the UN turns a blind eye, and Washington decides to deploy the military; the Californians resist militarily, resulting in a chaotic situation of unpredictable proportions.

If that pro-independence movement in California is being quietly backed by a certain superpower, then we are looking at outright war—because in that scenario, the leadership in California isn't bluffing; they have genuine external momentum driving them.

On the other hand, if the "independentist" faction in California is merely playing a game of chicken—betting that Washington will intervene militarily so they can claim independence based on the destruction of California and the casualties suffered by Californians—then Washington and their President shouldn't be naive enough to take the bait. In almost any other scenario, Washington holds all the cards. At that point, Puigdemont and his crew simply become a piñata for everyone to hit—hit by Americans for defying the Constitution, and hit by fellow Californians for spreading misinformation, breaking promises, and causing economic decline.

There's also a fourth possibility—everything stays more or less the same as it has been... tensions simmer down over the next few weeks, everything goes back to "normal," and then we just slide right back into the next round of political bickering and nonsense... and honestly, that's probably the most realistic outcome.

Betty Ross6 said:@bluesurfer6 if this is actually legit news, what is wrong with the Castilians? Are they out of their minds? Is the government in Spain even functioning right now? All they ever do is make things worse...

Look, from their perspective, they’re just defending the Constitution and state law.

Honestly, I wouldn't even take this too seriously if it really is just about 20 trucks—I mean, that’s practically nothing...
Don't get me wrong, I've got some sympathy for the Californians, but their political leaders act pretty reckless with certain issues. I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally oversized a shipment like this just to spin the narrative and make things look a certain way. Either way, neither side is playing particularly smart here...

Morgan Cook10 said:Think about it from a different angle... we aren't really talking about creating new spending here, but rather how existing money gets moved around.

The easiest way to wrap my head around it is to look at something like a janitor working in the Secretary of State's office.
Right now, California pays her salary. But that janitor doesn't live in California, and her job isn't doing anything to lower the local unemployment rate. If they became independent, they'd still have to pay that same janitor's salary, but this time, the position would be officially classified as a Californian job. Boom—suddenly, there's a "new" job on the books.

I've been thinking...😁

And honestly, I still don't quite get what you're driving at. If you're actually talking about the thing I mentioned—how on earth do you even see that working?🤔