Posts by Michelle Palmer6

Exactly. They said they wanted to push for a three-party coalition for as long as possible. On top of that, they made it clear that if one party refused to join a coalition, they’d just pivot and form a government with the other side instead. So, honestly? They did exactly what they said they were going to do.
For me, the biggest sticking point in this whole mess is how suddenly Milanović’s attempts to recruit representatives has become a dealbreaker for ending negotiations. It’s funny, because a month ago, when that recruitment was even more obvious, nobody thought it was an issue at all.

urbanhawk17 said:Michelle Palmer6, they could have played the long game with a coalition government for as long as necessary, but they didn't. I mean, look at Belgium—they went two years without a functioning government, so why couldn't America do the same? Instead, they just folded under the pressure, proving they're no different from those two parties. They're essentially identical.

Ken, they didn't side with the Democratic Party just to go run to Kolinda so people could start attacking them. At the end of the day, they didn't reach any kind of agreement with the Democratic Party.

Well, sure, they *could* have played it that way! But one side was absolutely unwilling to have anything to do with it. If they had stayed the course, they could have kept playing that hand until the deadline for forming the new Congress passed, forcing new elections. After all, Kolinda is sitting there like a coiled spring, just waiting to reset the whole thing and start from scratch. And what "pressure" are we talking about? Pressure to form a government where their own mandates would actually carry significant weight? Honestly, I thought that was the entire plan for their voters from the very beginning!

urbanhawk17 said:New elections didn't happen because Petrov probably realized he’d only scrape together a couple of seats, if he gets lucky enough to see another election at all. Honestly, if he’d called for new elections just a week after the last one, he might have actually picked up more seats, but waiting this long? Probably not. I guess my vote would have counted either way, but once they reached an agreement 🙄 with one of those coalitions, my influence vanished along with about 95% of everyone else's.

Personally, I don't much care whether it's the GOP or the Democratic Party, though I suppose I lean toward the Democrats, or at least the kind of perspectives the left should be representing.

As for them being a "corrective force," my ass. You know it as well as I do. They've basically become part of the furniture now. The general consensus seems to be that they just proved how impossible it is to maintain a third party in America, effectively killing any future chance for anyone else to try and pull a vote away from the big players.

That doesn’t quite line up with what the polls are saying regarding the bridge results, though to be fair, they are a bit dated!
Look, let's be real here. If you honestly expected them to walk away with nothing after such a stellar performance, then I really don't know what you were thinking. If you truly believed their role was meant to be non-existent, then why on earth were you sitting there biting your nails throughout the entire campaign?

urbanhawk17 said:New elections didn't happen because Petrov probably realized he’d only scrape together a couple of seats, if he gets lucky enough to see another election at all. Honestly, if he’d called for new elections just a week after the last one, he might have actually picked up more seats, but waiting this long? Probably not. I guess my vote would have counted either way, but once they reached an agreement 🙄 with one of those coalitions, my influence vanished along with about 95% of everyone else's.

Personally, I don't much care whether it's the GOP or the Democratic Party, though I suppose I lean toward the Democrats, or at least the kind of perspectives the left should be representing.

As for them being a "corrective force," my ass. You know it as well as I do. They've basically become part of the furniture now. The general consensus seems to be that they just proved how impossible it is to maintain a third party in America, effectively killing any future chance for anyone else to try and pull a vote away from the big players.

So, he basically decided their fate before the game even started. Let’s be real: there was absolutely no way they were pulling in enough votes to win, but they’re also just too massive to ignore if you actually want to put a government together. It was an inevitability. If he had tried to play both sides and walk the line between them, people would have just called him indecisive and accused him of being a political schemer!

Look, if you’re asking me personally, I’d much rather see the Democratic Party in a coalition than the GOP. But honestly, since I already gave them my vote, I feel like I should stick by them at least until they actually follow through on their promises and build that majority they campaigned on. It feels like they’ve completely screwed over the "third option" here in America, but let's be real—that third party was doomed from the jump because everyone keeps judging and undermining them from every single angle right from the start.

urbanhawk17 said:They’ve been negotiating with both sides for about six weeks now. I figured we’d end up with either a coalition government, which nobody really expected, or new elections, which is what I honestly thought would happen.

It wouldn't have mattered if they had just gone to see Kolinda with Milanović yesterday. Honestly, there isn't much difference between the Democratic Party and the GOP.

But the way Petrov basically spat in the face of his voters is just gross. He said one thing and did another, totally betraying the trust of almost everyone who voted for them.

The guy from yesterday wouldn't even budge an inch.

And Patrina is just a joke who jumped on the Democratic Party bandwagon the moment it suited him. Since the rest of the Bridge party stayed together despite being attacked by the media and both political sides, I really thought we were headed for new elections. I guess I was wrong.

He finally did exactly what everyone has been calling him out for over the last month: he picked a side. The problem is, for a huge chunk of the public, he picked the wrong one.
It's true, the moves made yesterday feel pretty shady. But honestly, even if we had new elections, Bridge would end up in the exact same spot. They wouldn't be the leading party in power regardless; they'd just be a corrective force against either the GOP or the Democratic Party. New elections might seem more palatable, but in the end, they wouldn't change much. Especially since those current representatives who left Bridge to join the Democratic Party would have a hell of a time winning seats on their own in Congress.

urbanhawk17 said:The Democratic Party doesn't stand a chance of backing Bandić right now, and there's no way Bandić would go running to the Democratic Party either.

As for new elections, there is no way I'm voting for Bridge again. If they had just come out and said—it's the GOP—then maybe I could live with that.

But personally, this feels like a massive slap in the face. He claimed he'd have a Prime Minister sorted within 24 hours, yet they haven't even discussed a single serious issue.

The guy acted like a total amateur who has no clue what he's doing. I'm becoming more convinced that Tomislav Karamarko has him under his thumb somehow. Or maybe I'm just kidding myself thinking someone could be such an idiot to pull this off.

Actually, they've been discussing all these matters for a month now, just like they did with the Democratic Party; they didn't just start yesterday! It's the exact same situation as when they were negotiating with the Democrats.
On another note, it is absolutely fascinating to watch how Patrina suddenly transformed into some kind of prophet—suddenly wise and moral—when really, the guy sold himself out for cash the moment he realized there was another option on the table besides his own. Everything people accuse Petrov of is actually just the flip side of what Patrina is doing!

mistyseal11 said:It’s definitely not a happy ending, looks like the vBulletin database just doesn't have it listed
The font looks like this: https://www.google.com/search?q=bertr...IVjBcsCh2w7AaI

The closest match I could find is Helvetica 🙂

Thanks!

Just head over to your signature settings, and where it asks for the font name, simply type in whatever you want to use!

na

They’ve been taken down temporarily just so we can clear out all the junk that’s been piling up over the last few days. Honestly, in some spots, it’s a total mess—I wouldn't even believe you if I told you!
Has anything like this ever happened before? I don't know. Does it even matter?

Nobody actually brought up the whole "hairy chin" thing—you guys just made that up out of thin air! Honestly, it would have been a hilarious bit if you’d just called it quits while you were ahead. I'm really not the type who enjoys banning people or wasting my afternoon playing janitor to clean up threads, especially with a database error looming over us like a dark cloud. But alas, you wouldn't stop, and this was the easiest way to handle it.

The mysteries have been temporarily taken down, but don't worry—they'll be back up later today!

brightpuma said:The immigrants on ZK were never going to work out because they mostly just stirred up drama among the moderators who kept jumping into the arguments (I really don't think I need to name names here)

Since you can't exactly discipline the mods, it’s no wonder things spiraled out of control...

But hey, I'm sure someone will dig into this and clear everything up soon enough...

That is a massive oversimplification of what actually happened. The shutdown didn't even happen until quite a while after those specific moderators—the ones everyone is complaining about—stepped away from the discussion.

That said, I’m not looking to start another endless debate about a topic that’s already been closed. If you want to talk about recent events, we can definitely do that!

Sandra Thompson5 said:Immigrants were thoroughly vetted before anyone even set foot in America. This current situation is a completely different beast. I’m trying to tell you that just mentioning the topic caused someone to practically throw a tantrum at their keyboard, and that’s without any actual conflict breaking out! Honestly, maybe this whole mess wouldn't have even happened if we had just exchanged a few words about it over on the mystery boards.

Look, I'm not playing dumb here, so please don't act like I am either.

It’s essentially the same core issue, just with some new developments thrown into the mix. The real question is how long it takes to get back to how things used to be. Saab acted quickly to step in, which is honestly better than letting the debate spiral into several different threads—which would then either need to be spun off into a brand new immigration thread that looks destined to end the same way as the first one, or just shut down entirely.

There is already a designated space to discuss immigration. It absolutely does NOT have to exist on the ZAG as an exception to the rule.

Sandra Thompson5 said:Michelle Palmer6, look, we don't need to apply loose rules to political topics the same way we do for everything else. We lay out the ground rules in the intro regarding what's allowed and what isn't; if someone acts up, they get a warning card. We'll just have to be a bit flexible about who actually deserves one, and that's really all there is to it.

I totally get why the decision was made to move those kinds of discussions over to the Politics section, but you can't honestly claim we're free to discuss current events when someone mentioned "immigrants" yesterday and immediately got slapped with a warning. 🤷

As for ZAG, that hasn't been much of a gold mine for a long time now. 🤷

Who am I even talking to here?
The whole immigrant topic was tested—it turned into a total mess—so we decided it’s better to steer those talks toward Politics. That doesn't mean you can just relocate any debate over to Mysteries! You aren't trying to make yourselves look incapable of understanding, are you? Because you're definitely not.

Sandra Thompson5 said:Thanks for all the replies!

I totally get the concern about people from the politics section flooding in just to stir up trouble, but that doesn't really explain why we can't discuss fashion, skincare, dating, recipes, music, movies, or taxes—all things that have their own dedicated spaces—without it immediately becoming a headache for the moderators.

ZAG is its own unique world; it really shouldn't need an explanation. 🤷 Honestly, I don't care what random folks from the news feed think about these topics; I care about what Reljef, Hilda, Blenta, Kiss, Macy, Ribbons, Ariana, and everyone else here thinks! 😬

We aren't looking to ban current events, even if they touch on politics. It’s not that we think you guys lack the maturity or whatever to handle those discussions. Take the immigration topic, for example—we tried it, but we ultimately decided it’s much better for the community if those conversations stay over in the Politics subforum.

And I don't want it to seem like I'm pushing back against rustydrifter10, 😁 but if these types of topics can be handled properly under the existing ZAG rules—the very rules this community fought to establish and which define who we are—then we aren't going to ban them. Beyond that, there's really no point in running headfirst into a brick wall when there are already well-moderated threads covering those issues elsewhere on the site.

Look, ZAG isn't "its own world" in the sense that if something isn't hosted here, you should act like it's forbidden everywhere else. Nor does it mean that just because something is happening out there in the world, it absolutely *must* be covered here without exception.

I’m really glad you started this thread so I can get ahead of the storm brewing over at ZAG before it hits us all.

First off, let me be crystal clear: I don't think for one second that the women on ZAG aren't capable of discussing serious, heavy-hitting current events. Honestly, it’s hard to imagine how that subforum would have ever survived otherwise.
But here is why a discussion on immigration isn't going to be opened up over there again:
1. We tried it once, and despite all our warnings, it turned into a total shouting match that required constant, non-stop supervision just to keep things from spiraling.
2. Right now, we’re spread thin, and frankly, I don't have the specific experience needed to moderate a topic that intense within the limited time I have available.

That being said, I want to reiterate: nobody is banning you from discussing this on the forum. You have the Politics section, which features plenty of other participants and moderators who handle those discussions perfectly fine. Because—get this—you don't actually have to discuss every single topic on ZAG. ZAG shouldn't be this tiny, insular little bubble where nothing exists outside of its own borders. Especially when opening topics like this attracts a massive wave of outsiders who are usually kept away from more strictly moderated, specialized subforums.
I know.... mind = blown

So, this is a moderation decision, and it’s not changing—at least not while things are this volatile. And behaving like five-year-old girls across the entire subforum isn't going to change my mind either. If anything, I think we've been incredibly tolerant of that behavior for far too long.
To quote the legendary Dan: I guess we got a little spoiled.

There they are, our two city slickers! 🤣

Look, seriously 🤣

Could number 4 be isijavanje?

1. Life of Pi
2. Sweeney Todd
5. Brokeback Mountain
6. Pearl Harbor
7. Cinderella
9. Planet of the Apes
10. Titanic
11. The Devil Wears Gucci
13. ET
15. Edward Škaroruki
17. Babe
18. Kung Fu Panda
19. 27 Dresses
23. Happy Feet
25. Independence Day
26. Up
28. Final Destination
29. Three Men and a Baby
30. American Pie

Robin Fox2 said:People definitely need help, without a doubt. At the same time, we really ought to keep a close eye on who is actually arriving, which are all valid concerns... and the people asking these questions aren't "racists, bigots, or haters," despite what so many people seem to imply.

And if everything south and east of Europe is essentially a disaster zone from which everyone will be fleeing in the coming years, that seems pretty obvious. The West isn't to blame for this situation... so let's please stop with the liberal nonsense about how the West exploits poor nations. The entire world has been under Western influence in one way or another, and by the year 2016, some countries actually look worse than they did back in 1616, while others are doing better than Europe itself.

Of course we need to maintain control over our borders as much as possible! It’s common sense—we can't just let anyone walk in whenever and wherever they please. We have to verify identities and track movement; that's just responsible governance. But using a blanket excuse like, "Oh, he's Muslim, he won't integrate, and he might be a terrorist," as a reason to reject someone fleeing a war zone? Absolutely not. That's simply not how this works.
Taking precautions isn't racism or phobia. But saying "it's normal for them to kill" definitely is!

Robin Fox2 said:People definitely need help, without a doubt. At the same time, we really ought to keep a close eye on who is actually arriving, which are all valid concerns... and the people asking these questions aren't "racists, bigots, or haters," despite what so many people seem to imply.

And if everything south and east of Europe is essentially a disaster zone from which everyone will be fleeing in the coming years, that seems pretty obvious. The West isn't to blame for this situation... so let's please stop with the liberal nonsense about how the West exploits poor nations. The entire world has been under Western influence in one way or another, and by the year 2016, some countries actually look worse than they did back in 1616, while others are doing better than Europe itself.

That’s a whole different ballgame, and honestly, it feels like people are just trying to twist it back into the same old argument!
But seriously, if the Western nations keep casually stirring up wars in developing countries like it's no big deal, we’re eventually going to have to find a much more permanent solution for how to handle the fallout. We can't just ignore the consequences forever!