Posts by Michelle Palmer6

If Father hadn't stepped up, everything would be different, and honestly, this whole legacy started right here!

I just wanted to quickly point out that there’s a new notification posted on the subforum. Please take a look! Thanks!

Does anyone happen to have his contact info?

ae

Farewell!

Writing on Offside with a heavy dose of irony

Even if they were actually smarter, it doesn't change the fact that they're total garbage

Mark Harris66 said:René's moral authority actually matters here—mostly because he’s drawing a paycheck from the public treasury. In my view, anyone getting paid by US taxpayers needs to be a responsible citizen... they shouldn't be fueling negative social trends. If anything, they should be doing their job to the best of their ability for the common good of society. He can do whatever he wants at home—as long as he isn't breaking any US laws, I don't really care—but his public persona is a whole different story.

I'm not quite sure which specific post you're replying to, but you haven't actually addressed my point, even though it feels like you're aiming it right at me! If we were discussing whether it's justifiable to fund artists with questionable past works using public money, then we'd be on topic. Right now, this just feels like a classic case of "poisoning the well" regarding the actual subject of the debate.

Mark Harris66 said:I’m definitely not one for censorship. René can say whatever he wants—really—but you shouldn't bash an entire society through broad generalizations. There’s such a thing as constructive criticism. It just felt wrong seeing someone who hasn't exactly been a role model themselves turn around and lecture everyone else...
That’s just plain hypocrisy.
Even the high school enrollment situation says a lot. The way he got in (along with those other "safety net" types) compared to all the students who went through the honest, transparent process—based on actual entrance exams and grades—sent a message that being dishonest actually pays off. He could have told parents he wouldn't be enrolling that way—especially since there were kids who could've pulled strings but didn't, choosing instead to go where they earned their spot via the exam.
A message like that teaches kids that dishonesty isn't punished—it's actually rewarded. How can we expect kids to stay moral when they learn that lesson so early? And then the same dishonest people wonder what's wrong with society, even though they aren't following its rules themselves. Not to mention that violent incident.
Honestly, that part really rubbed me the wrong way.
I condemn any crime, regardless of who commits it.
Someone mentioned Luka Bulić. If he had sung that song, I might not have said anything—since he does satirical songs about Americans too, and I'm all for free speech—but so far, there's no record of him committing a criminal offense, so let's just say his credibility is much higher.

I personally don't think they should have been deleted right out of the gate, but let's be honest—those few posts were nothing more than a massive attempt at poisoning the well. In this specific instance, René's moral authority wasn't even relevant, nor was anyone actually dragging him into the debate.

Are you in or are you out?

And seriously, why on earth would someone with 10,000 posts just wipe their entire profile clean? Like, what’s the logic there? And why is it such a massive deal to them that they're actually considering a lawsuit?

Carol Lewis said:I was actually tearing up a little bit...

..just my usual dramatic self, I guess ☕

Yeah, I mean, what even is an edge lord? 🙄

Anthony Jackson2 said:They can go back to preaching to the choir now—I'm sure nobody will push back then.

By the way, regarding that clown from Petrin—based on what that Bridge defender (who clearly supports him) was posting on political forums, it looks like everything was already a done deal with the Republican Party anyway. It was all just theater.

As for Bridge and Petrov—from what we've seen so far, it's obvious they aren't the "change" people are looking for. We're basically stuck waiting for someone decent to show up in the next election. If someone comes along with an actual, clear reform plan—and more importantly, a way to actually implement it—without making a massive media circus out of it, they'll easily grab 30 seats. Meanwhile, this crowd with nothing but a wish list barely scraped together 20.

Honestly, this is all just fairy tales for kids. I actually had a professor from the Republican Party list tell me, right in the middle of the negotiations, how absolutely livid they were because the Bridge folks were forcing them into a coalition with the Democratic Party. He was basically saying it was driving him insane! If everything had been pre-arranged, they could have handled this much more smoothly without Bridge losing so much credibility with a huge chunk of the public. Of course, for the side that wanted the Democrats at any cost, they would have lost regardless.
And as for Petrin, it was proven incredibly quickly that Kovačić was right about him selling out to the Democrats. I honestly don't know how much credibility he has left at this point.

Based on what we've observed up to this point, I don't think we can jump to that conclusion yet, even if he might ultimately be right. Unless, of course, you're just being biased or rooting for the other side.
Though, I will admit: if I thought they actually stood a chance of getting into Congress, I would have voted for Smart Party. They had the most concrete program, and I truly hope they can hold onto it until at least the next elections—whether those are scheduled or snap 😁

James Anderson5 said:Technically speaking, Jambo isn't part of the Republican Party, he's HSS. Kovačić is from a different area and Petrin is from somewhere else entirely, so none of what you're saying really connects...

Well, everyone knows which parts of America vote for which party; it’s practically a constant. You just know which regions and which people lean toward certain options...

If someone actually invented the Bridge, I have to hand it to them for being so clever...

We'll see how things play out now, but personally, I'd take Republican+Bridge or Democratic+Bridge over just one or the other. At least then there might be some theoretical balance. With the Bridge, though, Lovrinović and his ideas actually worry me the most...

Mrkva, carrots... They’re always such a tight-knit group over there!
Who else could it be? I just don't see any other viable candidates on the Most ticket that would earn the support of those voters from the Midwest, the Gulf Coast, or the deep South!

James Anderson5 said:Technically speaking, Jambo isn't part of the Republican Party, he's HSS. Kovačić is from a different area and Petrin is from somewhere else entirely, so none of what you're saying really connects...

Well, everyone knows which parts of America vote for which party; it’s practically a constant. You just know which regions and which people lean toward certain options...

If someone actually invented the Bridge, I have to hand it to them for being so clever...

We'll see how things play out now, but personally, I'd take Republican+Bridge or Democratic+Bridge over just one or the other. At least then there might be some theoretical balance. With the Bridge, though, Lovrinović and his ideas actually worry me the most...

"It's common knowledge" is such a lazy argument. Honestly, if you look at how the Republican Party base mobilized down in the rural heartland, where everyone "knows" what's what, it's highly unlikely that the Most party actually holds much weight. Most of those votes were clearly just people trying to force the Republican Party back into power.

James Anderson5 said:Technically speaking, Jambo isn't part of the Republican Party, he's HSS. Kovačić is from a different area and Petrin is from somewhere else entirely, so none of what you're saying really connects...

Well, everyone knows which parts of America vote for which party; it’s practically a constant. You just know which regions and which people lean toward certain options...

If someone actually invented the Bridge, I have to hand it to them for being so clever...

We'll see how things play out now, but personally, I'd take Republican+Bridge or Democratic+Bridge over just one or the other. At least then there might be some theoretical balance. With the Bridge, though, Lovrinović and his ideas actually worry me the most...

I couldn't agree more! We are totally on the same page here.

Spot on! 😁

It’s actually pretty ironic how the Bridge ended up sabotaging themselves by winning so many seats. If they had just held onto a handful of mandates, they could have played the role of a constructive opposition. That would have allowed them to stay relevant until the next election without constantly being caught in the crossfire between the left-wing and right-wing media outlets and various political pundits. Instead, they landed themselves in this total lose-lose situation during coalition negotiations; every single choice they make regarding the administration ends up discrediting them in the eyes of at least a small slice of the public and their own voter base. Because they're stuck in this bind, I truly believe the only way to judge their performance is by watching what they actually do once they finish forming a government. How they choose to act within the administration and their impact on the country will be the ultimate litmus test. And that is exactly how I intend to hold them accountable!

ruggedjackal46 said:All this talk about sweeping reforms, a national unity government, and finding common ground within the Bridge party wouldn't be pure rhetorical manipulation if there was actually any substance behind it. But let’s look at the reality: the list of proposed reforms is incredibly vague, the actual plan for implementation is a total mystery—especially if we're talking about some sort of grand coalition—and this supposed "unity" has basically just turned into a purge of anyone who doesn't fall in line with Bo, who's out there running the negotiations. As for that last-minute pivot regarding an "attempt to poach representatives"? That’s just straight-up bullshit.

Sure, maybe a national unity government was asking for too much, but if we follow the logic you're using, they’d never even be able to put a cabinet together in the first place. Honestly, we probably wouldn't see anything like that until after a third or fourth round of new elections—that is, once people finally get fed up with the constant gridlock and the endless cycle of voting, or unless the GOP and the Democratic Party decide to actually team up just to stop the bleeding.

A national unity government isn't just impossible—it’s undesirable and frankly, completely illogical. Think about it: if you manage to snag a massive number of seats specifically because you proved that both the Democratic Party and the GOP are nothing more than incompetent crooks, how on earth does your "ideal solution" involve inviting all those same thieves into a coalition with you? It makes zero sense.

Look, I get the pragmatic side of things—sometimes you just have to pick one of two options to actually get anything done. But if that’s the play, why not just be honest about it? It would be a lot more decent to admit we're being practical rather than playing these endless games of political math, negotiating with the opposition while simultaneously preaching about staying true to our core platform and those much-vaunted "reforms." Isn't there a bit of a contradiction there?

Looking back at the rhetoric they were pushing before the election, a three-party coalition actually makes more sense on paper. If you split the power three ways, you’d effectively neuter the individual influence of those two major parties, keeping anyone from getting too comfortable in the driver's seat. But let's be real—would it actually work? Probably not. It would likely be a total mess of instability.

Look, you can't tell me that insurance from the left-wing thieves is any different from the right-wing ones—it’s the same racket, just different colored ties. They aren't actually going to spend their time canceling each other out. Honestly? They'll split the loot long before they ever bother to get in each other's way. In fact, if you look at what they've been doing for the last fifteen years, that's exactly what they've been doing all along. Why fight over the scraps when you can just share the whole pie?

It seems you're missing the pragmatic point here, because at the end of the day, you're going to have to agree to someone's terms regardless. Making a hardline stance based on the very first "maybe" from a political party would be even more foolish and would turn this whole thing into a total farce. Maybe I'm the exception, but obviously, I didn't expect them to push through every single item on their agenda. They're going to have to swallow some unpleasant truths from one of the two major parties. To the critics or the naive idealists, it might look like a betrayal of their promises, but in reality, it takes extreme calculation to squeeze the most value out of what you won at the polls when you aren't one of the two biggest players in the room.
The "insurance" isn't about balancing left against right; the insurance is that if the decisions made by this joint government aren't respected, the third party will essentially be frozen out. It’s not ideal, it’s not sincere, and it’s certainly not my favorite way to do things, but it is a legitimate way to operate.

James Anderson5 said:I remember mentioning a while back that Mirela probably had the inside scoop when she first declared that the Bridge would be siding with the GOP... some people later joked about how much she really knew about the behind-the-scenes dealings

That whole crowd—and I mean this without any malice—from places like rural Alabama or small-town Texas will always swing toward the GOP or lean their way, even if Sanders were to rejoin the party tomorrow. It’s a very short leap from that assumption to the final deal they reached

Not to mention, the GOP is driven by much larger financial interests, which explains why they're applying more pressure and being so much more resourceful with all the maneuvering we've seen lately

Oh, absolutely! We totally expected that kind of behavior from Petrov and Kovačić, considering they've been at loggerheads with the GOP on a local level for years. Especially Kovačić.
Right you are—and hey, I'm not saying anything bad about them!

ruggedjackal46 said:The kind they used to stall for time, sweep their internal dirty laundry under the rug, and ultimately justify a complete 180-degree flip to join a coalition—or "cooperation," if you want to be polite—with the GOP. Honestly, I think this whole "national unity government" concept is just one big bluff. I mean, where’s the logic? How do you spend an entire campaign attacking both the Democratic Party and the GOP, only to turn around and suggest a massive grand coalition featuring both sides as the ultimate solution?

That’s a pretty vague response! Sure, maybe a national unity government was asking for too much, but by your logic, they wouldn't have been able to form a government at all. The only way out would probably be after a third or fourth round of elections once people finally got fed up with the Bridge party or the constant cycle, or if the GOP and the Democratic Party decided to team up just to shut everything else down.
Actually, looking at the rhetoric they used before the election, a three-party coalition would have made way more sense logically. That way, neither of those two major parties would have had so much individual leverage. Of course, it likely would have been even more unstable, though!

ruggedjackal46 said:Bridge owes its current standing to how they marketed themselves during the election—basically pitching themselves as the "third way" alternative by refusing to play ball with the Democratic Party or the GOP, and claiming they weren't part of the shady backroom deals typical of the two major parties.

So, what happened the moment they actually got their foot in the door? They immediately fired off a barrage of cheap rhetorical manipulations—which, funny enough, sounds exactly like the Democratic Party or the GOP—and decided to join a coalition with the very party most responsible for the current mess. It isn't just a bad call; it’s a desperate attempt to frame petty political horse-trading as if it were some kind of principled policy consistency.

It’s pretty obvious there’s a hunger for a third force in American politics, since any random group that manages to brand itself that way automatically grabs about 20% of the vote (look at groups like Orah, Sinčić, or Bridge...), but we still haven't seen a legitimate, coherent third option.

What kind of "cheap rhetorical manipulations" are we talking about here?