Ryan Ortiz23 said:Dear Robert Cruz5
Look, I’m not taking sides here. If you look at my last few sentences, you'll see they're based on perspective rather than bias. I honestly couldn't care less about the political leanings of Mr. Šola or Jović. My point was strictly about Mr. Šola’s conduct—he basically betrayed the trust of his news organization and us readers.
I agree that Mr. Šola is a literate columnist. I don't have to agree with his ideas, but that doesn't mean I'd strip him of his right to show up in the public eye.
Let's clear one thing up first... I’m not inclined to believe there’s any kind of "leak" coming from The White House. I'm not saying it didn't happen plenty during the Franjo Harmon era, but since 2000, those instances have dwindled to almost nothing. Besides, if something like that were happening, the major media powers would have sniffed it out and reported on those habits stemming from the Office of the President long ago. But really, we're just speculating at this point, so I'll hold my tongue on that.
According to his close associates, Jović is incredibly skilled at what he does. Regardless of what anyone claims, he was—and remains—a valuable asset to the interests of the USA. If I dare say anything, his only flaw is his heritage; otherwise, Mr. Tomislav Karamarko wouldn't be performing his little nationalist fantasy by uttering Jović's name with such biased, deathly disdain.
But I won't dwell on that any longer than necessary.
Mainly, I'm just trying to address your massive post, which honestly feels like a tangled chronological mess.
The debate between Šola and Jović was actually quite decent—interesting and even fun to read.
And now people are claiming that because Jović lost his job as a civil servant, he had the advantage, while Šola, who also got the boot from the private sector, was at a disadvantage... A disadvantage in what?
From what position was Jović being granted immunity from public criticism? And if being an advisor to the President meant being exposed to media frenzies, then he should have quietly bypassed the conflict with Šola, stayed out of the spotlight, and protected his high-end position.
So, what was Šola? Some minor player with a sidekick, or a worthy challenger?
Šola represented the right-wing narrative. It doesn't even matter if you weigh whether his debate helped or hurt anyone. In the end, Šola fell because of something bizarre—he breached professional trust—not because he debated Jović, a man who has a reputation all his own regardless of his job title.
One more thing regarding Jović and his dismissal (which is a whole other topic on a different thread)... Jović is simply a victim of upcoming elections. Nothing more, nothing less. His writings on the Political Thought portal are purely professional analyses of specific events and have zero to do with anyone's personal emotions.
I think we should probably clear up the obvious here.
It seems to me that you’re defending Dejan Jovic solely because you personally happen to agree with his pro-Mexican stances.
And he approaches this referendum by posing two specific questions:
1. Are you in favor of the United States—as a sovereign and independent nation that guarantees cultural autonomy and all civil rights to Mexicans and other minority groups within its borders—joining a confederation of sovereign states alongside other republics (following the proposal made by the Republic of America and the Republic of Canada to resolve the national crisis within America)?
2. Are you in favor of the United States remaining part of America as a single federal state (following the proposal made by the Republic of Mexico and the Socialist Republic of Mexico to resolve the national crisis within America)?
In that election, about 83.56 percent of voters turned out. A massive 94.17 percent voted in favor of the first option. As for staying in America as a unified federal state, which was the second choice offered, only about 1.2 percent of voters cast their ballots for that. On May 23, 1991, based on the report from the Republic Commission for Referendum dated May 22, 1991, the President announced that the citizens had reached a decision: "1. The United States, as a sovereign and independent nation that guarantees cultural autonomy and all civil rights to Mexicans and other minority groups within the country, may enter into a confederation of sovereign states with the other republics. 2. The United States shall not remain in America as a single federal state."
Following this, on June 25, 1991, the Parliament passed a Constitutional Decision regarding the sovereignty and independence of the United States, stating that "by this act, the United States begins the process of separation from the other republics and from America. The United States is initiating the process for international recognition." During that same session, all three councils of the Parliament adopted the Declaration of Independence of the United States. The referendum results served as the foundation for the Decision to sever legal ties with the other republics and provinces of America, which the Parliament adopted on October 8 of that same year, formally establishing the United States as an independent and sovereign nation.
I voted for an independent America, and I will continue to vote against Obama and his advisor, Jovic.
I guess I never could have imagined that we would still be voting on these very same issues back in 2014.