I really can't stand that movie. For some reason, it just gives me the creeps... I actually caught it on a special screening recently—well, I think it was my third or fourth time seeing it now, I've lost track. The American version. I've only sat through the original once.
I'm crossing my fingers that the remake turns out well 😁 Even though, if you think about it, it’s basically a remake of a remake—at least from an American perspective—so it's more like a "remake 2.0"...
Charles Fox10 said:We’ve tried this more than once—and every single time, it just turns into a massive, chaotic mess where nobody can make heads or tails of the conversation anymore. Heraldry isn't just off-topic; it doesn't even belong in this specific sub-forum. Politics is the core issue here, since so many people assume any kind of debate counts as "politics," when it really isn't... I’d love to read—and maybe even contribute—something about coats of arms and flags throughout the ages, but that belongs in a dedicated History section, not under Politics.
Well, I guess we won't then...🤷
It’s a shame, really—it would be such a great addition, especially since that subject always seems to spark so many side conversations. Other topics just don't pull that kind of energy.
What if we didn't cram everything into one thread? Maybe, when the opportunity arises, we could just start a new thread under Close Politics—which is where most of this would fit anyway—to keep things moving? The thing is, politics, law, and history are all intertwined... there will always be those overlaps...🤷
Daklen, the moderators were busy cleaning house again today—it looks like quite a few posts have been wiped out... Now, let’s be clear, I know things drifted off-topic. But the real issue is that there’s almost always more side-tracking going on than actual discussion over there—it’s just a fact.
When it comes to actual insults or rule-breaking, I won't weigh in on that. I’m talking about those regular discussions that occasionally—😁—start up and can actually be pretty interesting, even if they are completely off-topic. For instance, take the debate about state seals (boring to me personally, but from what I saw, it held some substance) or today’s talk regarding presidential succession (which I think we handled well). All of that gets deleted, which is honestly such a shame. I even put together a really smart, insightful post today—🙏—but now it's just gone, along with a whole bunch of solid conversation.
My suggestion? Maybe open a dedicated "Close Politics" thread on the forum specifically for moving these off-topic tangents from the main thread. Of course, this would only apply to civil discussions—not the kind of posts that deserve a ban, but rather the parts of a debate where people actually dive deep and put in the effort. Call it whatever you want; just give it a home so we can redirect everyone involved. Once a thread like that exists, it shouldn't be much work—we could just move the content that currently gets deleted over to the new spot.
If there’s a worry that these threads might spiral out of control, there’s an easy fix—the mods can always step in if a discussion starts dragging on too long or getting pushed too hard (though I doubt that'll be an issue since the main thread generates at least one tangent every single day... 🤣).
Oh, and by the way, I know we could just start entirely new threads, but that doesn't feel quite right. This approach preserves the continuity—that sense of connection. Besides, I’m not sure many of these side-topics would even gain traction as standalone threads; they tend to veer off in a different direction almost immediately.
Anyway, just something to consider... let me know what you think. 🙏
If this had been some genuinely significant political event here in America or anywhere else on the global stage, I might have actually had something to say—you know, you can't just stir the pot without reason—so it's obvious there would be crowds, penalties, and clashes and all that...
But this? This is nothing. There isn't anything here worth a penalty, an argument, or even taking up space on this forum.
Personally, I think it would be best to just wrap things up—lock down that thread on Politics and this one too—since it’s all just endless nonsense at this point. It’s nothing more than typical flame wars jumping from one post to the next... nothing new, nothing profound, just a bunch of repetitive topics circling the drain.
Look, if you examine each individual thread on the political scene, they aren't even total caricatures—not really. But nobody ever points that out... The issue lies in the big picture. In my view, at least 70% of what happens there should be classified as trolling. It's just constant derailment, dragging every debate toward the same old direction—just empty, repetitive comments thrown back and forth... it isn't a real discussion 🤷 Right now, this entire sub-forum serves exclusively as a playground for party loyalists—most of the regulars here won't even touch "general" political topics, heaven forbid something regarding the US or the EU. Honestly, someone needs to say it clearly. If that was the goal, fine, but if not, then things really ought to be fixed, don't you think?
Anyway, I’m proposing we start a new (and improved 😬) sub-forum, something like Current Hour. We could have daily topics that naturally move fast—since there's always a new headline anyway—where people can actually discuss specific events from the political life of the country. The main part of the forum should stay dedicated to monolithic issues like immigration, border disputes, Social Security, healthcare, and so on. The only downside is that certain specific events just don't get the deep dive they deserve. I don't know, just throwing some ideas out there to be constructive... 🤷
As for the immigration threads, I have no idea where lonebadger6 found that 1% who would actually support pro-immigration views—there are zero posts or users like that. Zilch. I suppose I'd love for someone to pop up just to spice things up a little... 🤣
I really want to emphasize one thing here—having a different opinion isn't the issue at all. In my experience, the best discussions I’ve had were with people on the Forum where we couldn't even agree on the color of the sky—literally. But those were actually healthy debates, without anyone jumping down each other's throats, trolling, or leaving three-word replies. Just solid, well-reasoned, and substantive thoughts...
The whole point—at least for me—is to debate someone who doesn't see things your way. I keep posting in that thread about immigration specifically because, despite all the pushback, there is still actual, decent conversation happening there. It’s great, though I’m getting a little bored since everyone eventually starts thinking exactly like me—I'm running out of things to say...😬
I’m only mentioning this so it doesn't seem like I'm looking for a hive mind. It's quite the opposite—I'm certainly not just some eccentric individual hallucinating things that aren't there...
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve logged onto the political landscape only to find absolutely nothing worth reading. It might be because of my mood on any given day—which, let's face it, happens—but I think the issue runs a bit deeper than that. Sure, I only care about certain topics when it comes to politics, but when those specific interests come up, I usually have plenty to say. The constant bickering at the national level just doesn't grab me—at least, not the way it plays out here.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the political landscape on this forum is a total disaster. If you want me to list the trolls, I could go on forever—they’ve basically ruined the whole section. The way people communicate here is just completely irrational. Honestly, you wouldn't even hang out with this crowd at some dive bar in rural Nebraska. Who else would actually want to join in? Just like nobody wants to rub elbows with the local drunkards, nobody wants to deal with these guys either. It ends up being a closed loop where they just talk to themselves, repeating the same nonsense over and over...
It is what it is. Apparently, there's no plan to clean up this mess. Whatever, though—not my circus, not my monkeys.
Raymond Ross33 said:Not much happening at the moment—just keeping things steady...
There aren't any elections or even pre-election cycles happening right now—so things are naturally a bit quieter...
Some of the most active forum members around this time have moved on to other responsibilities... 😁 Once the campaign season rolls around again, they'll be right back at it...
But they didn't even write on the original PDF—they were posting over on the political scene instead... And they haven't even left yet—not by a long shot... 🙄
The difference in page counts between Paris and Brussels might just come down to a simple matter of timing: Brussels was happening in the middle of the day—you know, when everyone is stuck at work and busy... whereas Paris took place in the evening. Everyone is tucked away at home, watching the live TV coverage or following the stream, while simultaneously flooding the forums (I know I certainly am 😬). If anyone feels like checking, take a look at the activity levels during just the first few hours for both threads. Everything else that follows over the next day or so tends to settle into a much more predictable rhythm, I'd say...
Look, the reality is that forums—every single one out there—are fighting for survival against millions of other platforms and social networks that are just way more convenient and direct, honestly. Plus, considering all that, the generation that used to live on these boards is now busy working jobs and dealing with kids and endless responsibilities at home—so they aren't hanging around forums much anymore. On the flip side, you have this new generation that’s much more likely to flood those various social media platforms instead... because, well, that's just how they operate.
rustywalker42 said:Is it just me, or is the Politics subforum running at maybe 40% of what it used to be?
I only see a handful of active threads—take this one about the terrorist attack, for instance; it’s only hit 25 pages in about 16 hours (compared to that thread in Paris, which reached 42 pages in the same timeframe).
Even looking at the first page of the main Politics section, there are threads sitting there for a month without a single reply... which honestly feels impossible compared to how things used to be.
So, my question is really this—is this just due to some super strict moderation where new threads are getting wiped out before they can take off, or are we actually seeing a drop in the user base?
Am I the only one noticing this? 🤷
You aren't alone—I've been noticing the same thing for quite a while now. The only thing still showing any signs of life is that one troll fighting on the political scene... As for everything else... nothing much to see here... 🤷
There's also that one PDF forum that used to be just as busy as Politics—if not busier—but now it looks like a haunted house from a kid's horror movie... 🕺
mellowotter17 said:It looks like over 2,000 people have already made it through, though whether they were actually intercepted by the Mexican authorities or just slipped right past them is anyone's guess! And where does this leave us? If a few thousand more clear the second checkpoint, and then thousands more at the third... it feels like we're losing any sense of control, and honestly, does anyone even know the true number currently in the country??
Of course, they aren't planning on staying in North Mexico; the goal is to push through toward Mexico and eventually make their way into the States. But if we assume the government actually finds some backbone and decides to step in, how are they even supposed to move? There aren't any free trains anymore, the subsidized bus routes are gone, and nobody is jumping into an expensive taxi.
So, how are they expected to navigate this "southern route"—just by walking? And what kind of chaos are they going to cause along the way? Are they just going to block major highways or go wandering through farmers' cornfields?
I really wonder, who is actually going to be the one to step up and say enough is enough? Or better yet, who's going to stand their ground and tell them to stop right there?
Well, I think the North Mexicans have things under control—they can manage it whenever they choose to, and they certainly want to. Plus, they aren't exactly doing this alone...
Peter Brooks5 said:That idea about using emotion to mold the masses and kill off rational thought is pretty interesting... It’s a lot like the doctrine of fear. It's the same result, just achieved through a different route. The catch is, you need both the media and the politicians on your side to pull off that kind of emotional manipulation. Without those two working together, you don't get the emotional doctrine (or the fear-mongering). Look at Canada as an example. You can see how a certain type of far-right thinking stays grounded because they don't have the media outlets willing to push an emotional agenda. Instead, they rely on a doctrine of fear. It's madness.😁 But man, the success rate of controlling crowds through the media is incredible—they'll write anything if it sounds "shocking."🤦
Personally, I am much more bothered by the topics I've been discussing here.
We have reached a point where it is taken for granted that a sovereign nation should allow thousands of random outsiders onto its territory—and then, naturally, it's treated as if this becomes a problem for the entire continent. People act as if the EU actually has the authority to debate who belongs on whose soil (they simply don't)... There's also this assumption that anyone can just cross a border because they are "escaping poverty."
And finally, the phrase "escaping poverty" is being used so casually as if it were perfectly logical and easy to grasp. No one even questions it anymore. It’s at the point where people could start writing academic papers on it. What is truly concerning is how easily these narratives are sold to people facing their own struggles—people like us—because they can find common ground with that struggle. The fact that such identification is completely misplaced seems to matter less and less. The real danger lies in the possibility that countries like ours might eventually be marketed as "sanctuaries from poverty."
Lisa Patel4 said:Turkey is teetering on the edge of a civil war, yet the European Union keeps holding summits with them.
Angela Merkel is facing an electoral disaster, while VB makes her exit from the European Union.
I guess some pretty wild times are headed our way.
Honestly, vb isn't going anywhere—they haven't reached critical mass yet, not to mention the fact that they don't even have a clear plan once they get there.
Turkey is definitely a major issue, plain and simple. The European Union is in complete chaos, too—no question about it. Even those quiet bureaucrats over in Brussels have stopped chiming in on everything... that kind of silence is actually quite unsettling.
We shall see. A massive political defeat for Merkel at the general elections might actually be good for everyone, especially the European Union. Right now, we just have this fragmentation: some are openly opposing things, others are cooperating (mostly due to various economic ties), and many are just shouting into the void...
It really boils down to the fact that Merkel is politically isolated. The only reason she hasn't been clearly outvoted and sidelined by the rest of the European Union is because of certain economic arrangements. But eventually, politics will take precedence—money can't buy everything...
Given how things in Turkey seem to be getting more volatile by the day, all these sudden announcements about major deals are starting to feel—to put it mildly—a bit suspicious. The real question is what the Turkish people will actually do, and I’m honestly not convinced this can play out according to the EU leadership's grand vision.
For us, it really boils down to one thing: more fences, walls, trenches, drones, police, the military, and maybe even some friendly aliens guarding the border. No one is going to step up to help anyone else here—this is a "every man for himself" kind of game, and I’m worried things might only get worse...
Paul Kern12 said:Without any intention of defending Greece, I find myself disagreeing with what has been written here. As far as I am aware, the migrants arrive in Greece from Turkey via sea routes. When they enter Greek waters on small boats, what exactly is Greece supposed to do? Open fire on inflatable boats? They cannot simply return them to Turkey, because Turkey does not permit Greek vessels to enter their waters. It isn't necessarily Greece's fault—it is Turkey's. This situation seems to suit them most, and we see how they use it as leverage to extract as much as they possibly can. The issue lies with Turkey, rather than so much with Greece.
Then what's the point of having Coast Guards, police cutters, or naval ships at all? If that's the logic, does it mean you just let everyone through simply because they showed up at the pier?
I honestly don't follow your reasoning—are you suggesting a maritime border can't be defended? If borders weren't meant to be protected, then half of East Asia wouldn't have drifted over to Australia by now...
No, when things happen on your own territory, you alone are responsible. If I let five strangers into my house tomorrow and then started crying that you should take in at least two of them, what would you say? "Oh, well, we're in the same neighborhood, so we have to share"? No way. It's not my fault they entered my home just because someone across the street pointed them my way.
When it comes to your house, your country, or whatever else—you're the only one accountable. We Americans couldn't go defend the Greek border against their will if we tried. It essentially means it's their choice to let these people into the country. Fine, if that's the case, then they can keep them...🤷
Betty Allen15 said:If this were the absolute last group of migrants we ever had to process, honestly, I wouldn’t be losing any sleep over it. But let's be real—it's never just one group, is it? It’s one wave after another, an endless loop, and I’m genuinely worried there won't be an end in sight. At some point, someone needs to actually step up, draw a line in the sand, and say "enough." We need to decide on a hard cap for how many people America can realistically take in, and once we hit that number, the door stays shut.
But even if you set a cap, you're still playing judge and jury... which leaves you right back where you started.
Look, you either stop them now or you never will. At this rate, we're looking at 10 million more arriving over the next decade. If you're okay with 10, why not 20? Or 50? Or 100? Good grief...
Dennis Hall41 said:Just read this depressing piece in the New York Times—honestly, it’s gut-wrenching (and my heart can barely take it) along with everything else. And that rhetorical question in the headline?
Beautiful. We really are running the show. 🤦
Well, damn—you could have just shared the link then... 😁
Greece keeps letting everyone walk right through their borders—and then they have the nerve to lecture us about "humanity" and "solidarity" and all that EU nonsense.
😕
Since they’re the ones opening the doors themselves, why should anyone else give a damn? They fell, they failed... it's on them. But no, they try to spin it like this is some massive crisis affecting the entire continent.
They have an army and a police force at their disposal. Once they joined Schengen, they were handed equipment and everything else needed to monitor those damn borders. HANDED. Someone (US taxpayers) paid for every single piece of gear specifically to watch and protect the EU border. And yet, they aren't doing a thing. They're breaking every agreement and regulation on the books. Now suddenly it's everyone else's problem because they won't do the job they were actually equipped to do. If they want to handle it, fine—but let them deal with their own mess...