Posts by Charles Brown9

Aaron Walker8 said:I skimmed the rest, and honestly, it’s enough for me to make up my mind.

First off, your obsession with the Republican Party is totally blinding you to what's actually being said here.
Second—the Republican Party is basically the Ku Klux Klan (careerists, cronies, and converts).
Third—real "re-education" around here happened between 1945 and 1990.

So, you're seeing conspiracies everywhere where there aren't any. This Republican Party is the absolute worst of the US—run by a soulless, installed leadership with zero actual legitimacy, packed with careerists of every stripe who'd ditch their entire past just to grab two days of power. It's driven by shameless cronyism where people sell themselves out for $33 some local council seat or a $10 million bribe to push a national agenda. And it's all overseen by cliques of former communists dressed up as "defenders of national interests"—people who brought plenty of Bolshevik mentalities from the old days and are still peddling them today just to line their own pockets.

And about that "re-education" thing. Unlike before the 90s, when ideological indoctrination was REAL and TANGIBLE—forced upon you by INSTITUTIONS where you had no CHOICE, from youth groups all the way down to worker councils—over the last thirty years, the media has taken over that role. They "plant" specific ideas into the masses. The media pumps up whoever they want: from the "liberal" types back in '97, to the "clerical" crowd in 2015, to the "progressives" we see today. There is no institutional repression or forced indoctrination anymore, no matter how much you claim otherwise.

Nancy Gomez26 said:I suspect I am underestimating them far less than you are underestimating them. We can debate the Republican Party's motives all we want, but at its core, this is an organization with a rigid structure—one that members, in principle, follow with disciplined precision. A textbook example of how party discipline begins to erode would be Coley; his decision to back a rival presidential candidate without facing any subsequent sanctions suggests their internal standards are fraying. That decay is exactly what will cost them in the long run. Essentially, they populate their ballots with people who will raise their hands on command and serve the party interests faithfully. Whether the motivation behind that loyalty is purely political or something more transactional is almost beside the point. As Schlesinger openly admitted, they look out for "their own" people—generally speaking. And looking at the electorate, there are plenty of voters willing to accept those kinds of arrangements; the system has functioned quite smoothly up to this point. There are always those who refuse to cooperate, but they are mostly outliers—black sheep. In an environment like this, it is relatively easy to paint them as "unstable" elements of society. If necessary, the party can even settle scores through various means to ensure the public sees exactly what happens to those who refuse to join the machine.
Of course, this exact system impoverishes society as a whole. The decline—materially, morally, and in every other sense—is undeniable. Yet, for the party's inner circle, it works perfectly fine, provided they continue to extract more than everyone else around them. As long as their individual perks remain intact, they frame their political privilege as if it were some sort of personal merit. We shouldn't underestimate the mechanics of such a system; in a nation already hollowed out by a lack of spirit and integrity, it serves as an incredibly potent lever of power. The Republican Party functions essentially as an organization built around the material interests of its members. For some, that means a cushy pension or a certain social status; for others, it’s a guaranteed bureaucratic position within the federal government, or perhaps even a highly lucrative contract with the state. At the very top, you have those who simply want to feel the weight of authority in their hands—but in that regard, they aren't any different from any other political leaders.
Anyone attempting to rationalize this government apparatus must first dismantle the entire system of party patronage. It’s a two-sided trap: one side relies entirely on state resources, while the other remains tethered to providing political and material support to the Republican Party. If you leave that specific crew embedded within the civil service, all you'll have is a group of quiet partisan saboteurs. They will act as internal brakes, obstructing any rational initiative simply because their primary objective is to protect their own interests whenever the opposition takes power.
You are deeply mistaken if you believe this entire organization came into existence by "accident," or that its leaders are simply incompetent. They operate under a specific set of values, a structured hierarchy, and a powerful motivation for their actions. For us voters today, the fundamental question isn't about their competence, but rather whether there is a political force strong enough to dismantle this system—either from within or from the outside—without falling into the same trap of abusing power themselves, much like how the Republican Party currently exploits its position at the expense of the country.

The only reason Coley and his group stay so quiet is because the Republican Party is in power and holds the keys to the budget. Without that control over the funds, people like Coley wouldn't even be in the picture.

I wasn't saying the leaders of the Republican Party are incompetent idiots. My point is that many of their future congressional candidates are chosen specifically because they are easy to control—they tend to drift toward whoever is holding the purse strings. While the party certainly looks out for its own, if there's even a slight hint of a snap election where the Republican Party might lose ground, you'll see a stampede of people rushing to embrace Baron's winning side. The party can secure local seats in various counties and towns all they want, but at the end of the day, a seat in Congress and a pension come before everything else. Those weak-willed Republicans heading to Washington aren't foolish enough to trade those perks for party loyalty or some sense of imaginary principle.

Ashley Brown3 said:If the Republican-Most-DP Coalition doesn't hold a supermajority, then the Restart group plus the minorities and the smaller left-wing parties certainly do.

In that scenario, there's absolutely no difficulty in forming a majority...

Kevin Brooks said:Names! Names!
Name names!!

Nancy Gomez26 said:Let’s be realistic here. Bero and the Democratic Party aren't capable of pulling a single Republican representative over to their side. It’s a matter of principle—the Democratic Party simply doesn't operate that way. Even if they did try—and that's a massive "if"—they lack the operational capacity, the organizational structure, and the funding to pull off such a maneuver. It's like watching a local startup try to execute a hostile takeover of a Fortune 500 company; it just isn't in their DNA. Fortunately, they likely realize this, so they aren't even attempting it. The Democratic Party is already struggling to keep its own elected officials from jumping ship for better offers; how could they possibly attract outsiders? The idea of Republican members seeking shelter under the Democratic umbrella is so statistically improbable that we can strike it from the record. At most, you might see one or two outliers who leave the Republican Party for entirely different reasons and run to the Democrats just to spite their former colleagues.

Kevin Brooks said:And who exactly are you thinking would jump ship from the Republican Party over to the Democrats? Who's on your watchlist?
I'd say it'll just be the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and maybe a handful of turncoats from the other side.

redbear12 said:American Weekly: Did Plenković and Krstičević just have a massive blowup during a hours-long shouting match?

Looks like the fallout with Krstičević stems from some shady intelligence business involving Božinović, plus a total split with Markač over the election lineup. 🕺

Brenda Murphy3 said: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. 😁 .

Brenda Murphy3 said: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.

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.

Noah Perez5 said:What should Smith and the rest of his crew actually do within the Republican Party now?

Their entire political platform has, as of today, (not so gracefully) collapsed. It’s been completely defeated.

I suppose it isn't that they were unaware of the party's membership makeup; Smith's group took risks without much calculation, and in doing so, they might have permanently lost their relevance. The Republican Party has essentially finalized its current direction.

We are seeing the beginning of the final act in the dismantling of the conservative right wing within the party.

Honestly, after all those insults, accusations, and criticisms leveled at Plenković and his policies, it would be quite strange if they chose to stay in a party like this.

If the bulk of Smith's circle remains in the party and continues to support this Plenković-led direction—which has undoubtedly been solidified by these recent elections—despite having spent months criticizing it, it would suggest that their cushy positions and sinecures matter more to them than their own principles. It would also mean they'll likely end up siphoning votes away from any genuine right-wing alternatives that emerge.

In truth, we are only just beginning to see whether they were acting as Trojan horses all along.

urbanrider8 said:Is it actually standard practice nowadays for major networks to broadcast a debate featuring candidates from just one single party?

According to the campaign team for Miriti Kovač, they have officially confirmed their appearance on FOX this Saturday, March 14th, as well as on PBS a couple of days prior.

However, according to ABC World News Tonight, it looks like we might end up with just one big debate where all the major networks are invited to attend.

Noah Perez5 said:Miro Kovač: Vladimir Šeks warned me I might need a lawyer once the Republican Party primaries wrap up

..."It is simply an undeniable fact that people are being coerced through their jobs, their loans, and various other opportunities. Members of my own staff have faced direct threats, which is a reality; it’s clearly not an easy situation for the broader membership," he stated.

He also mentioned that during the Republican Party anniversary event this past Tuesday in New York City, Vladimir Šeks—who is essentially acting as Plenković's mentor—told him quite bluntly that he would likely require legal counsel following the internal party elections...

Those are incredibly heavy accusations, and I suspect they aren't the kind of things that can just be brushed aside easily.

It seems increasingly obvious to me that we are looking at some massive purges within the party following these internal elections.