Posts by Keith Miller30

Richard Perez3 said:Look, man, you’re more than welcome to suspect this was all a staged operation; there's no shame in that. For instance, I personally doubt your posts were intended to be malicious—they probably weren't. But what can you do? Doubt is a natural reaction, regardless of what the actual facts turn out to be.

See? That's how the logic flows.

Alright, so when we consider things like the leaked transcripts or the media coverage, even just empty threats from them don't really sit right with me. Instead, I find myself looking for that specific feminine touch, especially considering his timing. I might not necessarily act on it, but I certainly feel entitled to discuss it, don't I?

I'm heading out to grab some small pink pills now; I'm running late. 😵

😉

Well, if it isn't the scenario I just described, then what alternative would you suggest?

Richard Perez3 said:I mean, why would I even complain about someone bringing up mental health? Honestly, it was a pretty constructive point and actually helps with figuring out how to deal with all these idiots we're fighting. God help us. But hey, now that you’ve finally caught up to my line of thinking—that nobody here actually knows what they're doing—why don't you try being rational for once? Give me a practical way to handle this mess that won't just end in some clinical diagnosis, but actually gives me the answer I'm looking for.

I mean, I told you, you threatened to pull the kid out of school. Was that your big move? How did the other parents react to that visit? Were they just as blindsided as you were?

Richard Perez3 said:Maybe I am. And how does that change anything? Like what you clearly didn't read, this isn't my first time dealing with this kind of crap, and it obviously won't be my last, though I wish it wasn't. So, Mr. Friendly, what would you suggest after finding out everything's already been done, yet you're still being 'invited over' specifically because of the things they're supposedly against?

I might need a shrink for plenty of other reasons, but honestly, not for this one.

Look, I can see you're upset with me, and please believe that wasn't my intention. Since I haven't read through the entire thread, I don't know what your previous experiences have been like, but from where I'm sitting, this whole situation just doesn't seem right.

In any case, you really have to stand your ground; there is simply no reason for them to be calling your kid out for religious studies if you are so explicitly against it. You might need to threaten to take the matter to the local news or even pull the child from the school entirely.

Sarah Hall53 said:I'm totally with you on that. Honestly, just send me to the graveyard shift—it'll probably go better than my attempts at learning Spanish. ☕

Actually, I think it should just be treated like any other subject and scheduled for first, second, or third period. But honestly, it doesn't really matter; I have no desire to get into a heated debate over this, especially since nobody seems to care what anyone thinks—religious studies will remain part of the school curriculum regardless.

I was simply noting that what was mentioned above strikes me as somewhat psychologically unsound, and I say that with complete sincerity and absolutely no intention of being offensive.

Richard Perez3 said:The kids were hanging out in the library with the librarian, who basically had nowhere else to be since her entire job is being stuck in that building.
The only way things change is if she’s gone, then the teacher steps in.
Honestly, it blows my mind that neither one was actually there, which is why they supposedly went "visiting" elsewhere.
Something feels seriously off about this. It doesn't just smell fishy; if I were running things, I'd cut ties immediately because this looks like nothing more than propaganda to brainwash the kids for next year.

I mean this without any intention of being offensive, but have you perhaps considered talking to a therapist? This starts to feel a bit paranoid.

I truly don't mean to insult you, but this is right up there with those people who see the FBI behind every single shadow.

If religious education isn't something you're comfortable with for your child, just opt them out; go to the teacher and explain that it conflicts with your beliefs and your parenting style, and it's all settled.

I am entirely in favor of having religious studies in schools, though I do believe it shouldn't be scheduled during the first or last period, but is it really fair to force a student to participate in something their parents have explicitly asked them to avoid?

Hey, does anyone know why I can't seem to access old posts from seven or eight years ago?

Why isn't it permissible to label Tit as a criminal?

Peter Thompson4 said:👍
I'd probably aim for something around a week or maybe ten days.

I still need to wrap my head around the whole plan, honestly, figuring out what goes where. I'd love to find a smaller town that's close enough to a bigger city so I can have "my" little beach during the day, but still be able to head out at night to grab a bite or a drink somewhere decent.

Is the northern coast actually better than the southern spots?
I haven't spent a massive amount of time up there, and even when I did, I was just a kid, so I've completely forgotten which spots are the heavy hitters and which ones are total busts. So, what would you guys actually recommend from those northern island chains?

And does anyone actually venture down to coastal California? I haven't spent much time in places like Santa Monica or Laguna Beach either.

When it comes to the first leg of your journey, you really can't go wrong because the Pacific coastline and the islands are absolutely stunning, much like everywhere else in this country. It feels almost redundant to suggest specific destinations when any direction you take will yield something beautiful.

Now, regarding the California coast—I actually just returned from a two-week trip where I simply wandered through various towns, both large and small, covering about half of the region. Once I finish up my current responsibilities, I fully intend to head back for another fortnight. Everything is truly spectacular; places like Santa Barbara and Carmel are wonderful, while Monterey is a ten out of ten, and San Francisco is breathtaking (you absolutely have to visit the historic landmarks there), though it does feel incredibly crowded with tourists. Please don't misunderstand me, as I have nothing against travelers, but it seems like every single cafe, restaurant, and gift shop is owned by the same transient crowds; it’s honestly surreal, almost like walking through Times Square. Motovun—or rather, one of those hilltop towns in the north—is equally gorgeous, though you have to drive to a certain point and walk a bit to reach the town center, which isn't a problem. You can easily explore it by walking along the old fortifications, and there are a couple of great spots in the center where you can grab a pizza that is frankly phenomenal (since options are somewhat limited anyway). Then there are the smaller, quieter towns I stumbled upon without any real plan—little spots tucked away in the redwoods, or sleepy coastal villages where you might see two people on the street, or charming hillside towns like Sausalito or Napa...

The California coast is magnificent, and it is truly worth seeing. I say this because I am so genuinely impressed that I am already planning my return.

rapidstag2 said:Now, let us be clear, as I certainly wouldn't want you to think I am mocking you personally—though, quite frankly, the entire spectacle is nothing short of farcical. And yes, while those sitting comfortably in high office might not mind such shifts, I highly doubt any true American patriot could stomach supporting the current establishment.😁

I wasn't even targeting you specifically; I was speaking more broadly about the landscape. To me, the most comical part is watching the headlines on sites like CNN or Fox News—seeing the GOP linked to some fringe coalition partner in a way that triggers a massive social media outcry, only for the news cycle to report, "Angry Republicans Fuming as Internal Party Rifts Deepen."🤣

While that makes for great satire, isn't it true that such narratives only found fertile ground about fifteen years ago? As time passes, it seems people are becoming increasingly immune to these provocations. What really matters nowadays are the cushy appointments, the government roles, and the guaranteed career paths. A modern Republican isn't particularly bothered by whether they are in a coalition with a specific minority interest group, much like a Democrat isn't losing sleep over whether they align with a populist outlier.

It is my impression that these ideological skirmishes matter less and less to the rank-and-file, especially the younger generations. Among the older crowd, you still see that fierce loyalty where certain historical figures are treated as untouchable; if you were to mention a single criticism of FDR or a controversial policy from the New Deal era to my grandfather, he’d likely show you the door before you could finish your sentence. To him, that era was an absolute golden age of economic strength and industrial growth. If you try to bring up the darker chapters of that period, he'll simply offer an excuse—that things were different then, or that the historical record is being misinterpreted. There is always a justification ready to protect the legacy.

It seems clear to me that our political stage requires certain polarizing firebrands just so the liberal media outlets can have enough ammunition to manufacture outrage, drive clicks, and sustain these artificial tensions.

Honestly, this feels like little more than a cheap attempt at provocation, designed specifically to stir up unnecessary guilt. When both Republicans and Democrats hold power, the question of which parties are currently in an alliance becomes largely irrelevant. It strikes me as a calculated move to incite tension, yet even then, you’re really only targeting a tiny, almost insignificant fraction of any political party's membership. Isn't it obvious to everyone that the ultimate goal is simply gaining or maintaining control of the government? Whether it's the GOP or the Democrats, they would likely overlook any awkwardness regarding party alliances if it served their interests; there might be a bit of noise and outcry at the start, but eventually, everything settles down. It's 100% certain.

When it comes to someone like Miller, you at least know exactly what you're dealing with. He’s a man who can navigate any storm, making deals with anyone and everyone just to ensure his own interests and those of his inner circle are always secured. Whether you personally admire him or find him reprehensible, you have to admit that in terms of sheer political maneuvering, he is truly top-tier, and there's a certain level of respect one owes to that kind of skill.

The Democratic Party landscape is equally fascinating to observe. It seems these people are merchants first and politicians second, operating primarily through the lens of trade. For instance, they might find a figure like a hardline reformist completely unacceptable, yet view a seasoned establishment leader—let's say, a modern version of a President Biden or a mainstream Republican strategist—as perfectly desirable. While a rigid ideologue might think, "I refuse to deal with those old-guard liberals," a pragmatic politician—be they conservative, liberal, or a centrist—tends to follow a much more calculated logic: "If I grant them two cabinet positions and control over a few key agencies, I can maintain peace, prevent them from causing trouble, and essentially do whatever I want." This is why a third party like the Libertarians might struggle to gain traction; the Democrats don't want them, the Republicans have been burned by them twice already, and the movement itself lacks both the institutional infrastructure and the broad public popularity required to break through.

If the GOP manages to successfully bring the moderate wing of the party into the fold, they could potentially secure a very long and uninterrupted period of dominance.

Matthew Young35 said:No, absolutely not.
The majority was held by the Republican Party and the Bridge Party, but let’s be clear: those who voted for the Bridge Party did so specifically because they couldn't stand the thought of the Republicans running the show.

What you’re saying here could just as easily be applied to the Democrats if you simply swapped the names; it’s identical in substance, which suggests this is really more about your own political lens than objective reality.

In the end, it felt like a choice between the Republicans or the Democrats, didn't it? Anyone voting for the Moderates understood that trade-off perfectly well, so how can you presume to speak for the entire electorate and claim to know their true intentions?

You argue that people voted for the Moderates solely to keep the Republicans out, but I personally voted for them—and I would likely do so again if another election were called tomorrow—simply because I couldn't stomach a Democratic administration. I know plenty of people who wouldn't touch the Democrats with a ten-foot pole, yet they still found themselves supporting the Moderates.

Matthew Young35 said:They should join a coalition with the Democrats.
Honestly, I'd side with anyone just to keep the Republicans out of office.
☕

There you have it; from my perspective, they could have partnered with anyone provided the Democrats weren't the ones in charge. In fact, I think they could have even teamed up with some fringe third-party group and I would have found that more palatable than a deal with the Democrats.

urbanhawk17 said:Please, stop talking about Bero like he's some kind of genius.

Fair enough, but could you explain your reasoning? Is he actually unintelligent? To me, he doesn't come across that way at all; rather, I get the impression of a genuinely smart young man—and I am referring to his general intellect here, not his political savvy—who simply isn't quite "ruthless" enough for the role he holds. It seems obvious that the more seasoned lions in the room eat him alive given the circumstances, but based on how he speaks, one gets a very positive impression regarding his intelligence and certain human values, regardless of his political affiliations. Furthermore, I know a few people who were once his professors, individuals with no ties to the Democratic Party, who describe him as a phenomenal talent.

There is a significant difference between criticizing him for not being a natural leader of the party, or perhaps disliking the current direction of the Democratic Party, and simply dismissing him entirely. The one moment of perceived foolishness was his suggestion regarding expanding the President's authority, which I assume is the specific point people are using to judge him.

Peter Thompson4 said:So did he pay you back? 🕺

Not yet, though I am staying patient and counting on it happening. A few months back, a kid—whose backpack was practically bigger than he was—asked if I could lend him a couple of bucks, and when I followed up to see when he might return it, he told me we should meet up near the Toscan area in about a week. 🤣

I handed over every bit of change I had in my pocket, just 12-$4.25. 😁

restlesssurfer97 said:Look, I’m judging his honesty based on how he carries himself, which is pretty subjective, but honestly, yesterday's performance really drove it home for me. The biggest "crime" they tried to pin on him—after months of people digging through everything they could find—was that preferential interest rate, which, if you look at the actual law, he was totally entitled to, but according to Morris's moral compass, apparently, it's just wrong.

As for whether he knows what he's doing, again, that's just my own take, and since I'm obviously no Wall Street expert, my opinion doesn't carry much weight anyway; I'm just someone watching his moves from the sidelines. 🙂

I'm more than happy to hear your side of things and change my mind if your arguments make sense. 🙂

The real issue is that he manages to be Todorić's grandson, son, nephew, mother, and aunt all at once. 🤣

James Anderson5 said:Honestly, all these political parties are pretty much useless... I really don't get how anyone could actually want the Republican Party to clean things up in America after everything that's happened. It’s just obvious they're neck-deep in corruption every single term they serve. You can only support them if you're incredibly stubborn or if you've been getting a piece of the pie from them...

So, Marić handed todorićev about $45 million in credit through HBOR, and let’s be real—that money is never coming back. It's like he had no clue what kind of mess he was walking into. Not to mention how they went about rigging those factoring laws... I mean, what are we even talking about here? todorićev was straight-up bribing Rohatinski by buying out worthless companies from his wife, yet nobody ever bothered to look into that. Now everyone is asking why on earth Marić would leave a $75,000 salary just to take this position. This whole country is a total circus, honestly... just a complete disaster...

I still think the bridge is the most logical and fair way to go. Even with all of Joe Biden's flaws and those absolute nightmare ministers he had on his team, he’s basically Churchill compared to what we saw with Kosorica...

To be perfectly honest, that is exactly how I view those aligned with the Democratic Party; I simply don't see any viable alternative, unless you count those who oppose the other side purely by default.

Regarding Milanović, I don't really see him as a Churchillian figure for this group, though perhaps Bernardi fits that mold given his youth. Milanović essentially has just one redeeming quality: that specific brand of eloquence mixed with a hint of arrogance, making him quite the effective political troll. Plenković proved yesterday, however, that he is more than capable of navigating those waters. Despite how thin and uninspired he might appear, it turns out he is actually quite energetic, and perhaps even a dangerous player.

By the way, Pernar previously claimed that Saucha was being coerced and promised to vote against the removal of Marić, and he followed through on that; only time will tell what the real story is.

Isn't it fascinating how Božo managed to pull the rug right out from under the Republican Party? 🤣

I actually ended up shouting at that little kid who peed in the fountain one day $1.75. I was sitting in a coffee shop, minding my own business, when he mistakenly thought I was someone else; he walks right up to my table, looking incredibly proud of himself, and asks, "Did you see that? Well? What do you have to say?" I honestly had no idea how to respond, so I just gave him a "nice job," and then the guy asked if he could borrow $1.75 for a beer. You really can't refuse to lend money to someone who has made it all the way into a Tompkins column.

And here comes Eric Adams again. It’s funny how he always seems to resurface exactly when it serves his interests most, isn't it? 🙏 On top of that, Emery actually goes to visit him in the hospital. 🙏

Jessica Gonzalez said:It’s honestly pretty wild to see how the Democratic Party has gone from being a major political force and a legitimate alternative to feeling more like a disorganized bunch of amateurs. I mean, maybe Bernardić isn't necessarily a bad guy himself, but when you look at the people backing him, there's just such a massive lack of talent and drive. It feels like a total void of competence and ambition. Personally, I think I'd much rather have someone leading the country who actually shows some real initiative.

To me, Bernardić comes across as a very capable and intelligent individual, but his struggle lies in the fact that he lacks that certain political "edge" or ruthlessness that someone like Milanović possessed. Don't get me wrong, I don't exactly hold Milanović in high regard, but you have to give him credit where it's due, regardless of how you feel about him.

But really, who is the alternative to Bernardić? If they actually want to take power, they simply don't have anyone with the necessary weight for the role. They had Milanović, who was ten steps ahead of everyone else in the party, and then they have Bernardić, who is genuinely smart but perhaps unsuited for this specific arena. Then there is Ostojić, though if they ran with him, the right wing and the centrists would likely reject them even more aggressively. Maybe Picula, who is clearly an intelligent man and seems like a reasonable person, but he seems unwilling to leave his current post, so you're stuck.

It feels like a worn-out party that has run out of ideas, talent, and vision. Their only saving grace is that, much like the Republican Party, they will always have a loyal base combined with those people who simply can't stand the opposition and vote for them as the "lesser of two evils."

As for Maras, he is a complete clown and arguably one of the most ridiculous politicians out there. I caught him on ESPN yesterday, and the level of nonsense he is capable of spewing is almost supernatural.

By the way, I noticed that Marić is now apparently Todorić's nephew; just last week, he was being called Todorić's son. At this rate, within a week, Marić will probably be Todorić's father. 🤣