Posts by Keith Miller30

Let’s dial things back a notch; we’ve been stuck in these political debates for two or three days now, and I can’t help but wonder if it’s only a matter of time before the usual suspects—the hardliners, the zealots, and the partisan hacks—start making their move. Even Larry Fox5 has already begun throwing out accusations, labeling people based on whether they align with the Republicans or the Democrats.

Anyway, let’s pivot toward something much more enjoyable: a marathon of The Hobbit, parts one through three. It’s a trilogy that truly deserves our attention, and it certainly isn't going to watch itself.

mellowscout24 said:No need to reply to me like some offended little princess, you're basically riding coattails for the kid anyway.😁

Unless you actually recognized yourself in those damn words and realize I'm telling the truth, and now you're just hiding behind a brick wall.😁

I’m not trying to argue with you; I’m simply offering some perspective on how the Democratic Party is perceived from the other side. 🤷

mellowscout24 said:No need to reply to me like some offended little princess, you're basically riding coattails for the kid anyway.😁

Unless you actually recognized yourself in those damn words and realize I'm telling the truth, and now you're just hiding behind a brick wall.😁

We all tend to gravitate toward our own version of the truth, don't we? It really just comes down to who we choose to root for and which figures we simply cannot stand.

ironpanther5 said:Looking back at everything we’ve been through over the last few years—from the public health mandates and those ridiculous referendum debates to the whole tent protests and basically nuking our relationship with Germany just to appease some shady intelligence types—I’ve made a solemn vow to myself. I am never, ever giving my vote to the Republicans or the Democrats again. It doesn't matter if thirty years pass, even if the political landscape shifts, or even if one of them somehow manages to field a prime ministerial candidate who is actually qualified by cosmic standards, like a superstar player from the Dallas Cowboys.
There isn't any "lesser evil" here; there are just decent, hardworking people stuck inside these parties, ranging from the low-level staffers up to the big shots.

Since I could comfortably vote Republican here in the States, or Tory in the UK, or support Merkel in Germany, you’d think the GOP would be my natural home, but they’re basically a mafia-style outfit that’s more economically leftist than some radical fringe group in Athens.

Because, honestly, I can swallow certain policy failures or look the other way on some scandals much easier than I can stomach the far-left crowd; there is absolutely zero chance that anything they do will indirectly result in me casting a vote for the GOP.

Refusing to give them even an ounce of legitimacy is just a matter of personal mental hygiene. If there were seven deadly democratic sins, one of them would definitely be voting for either side of the aisle in this country. On a global scale, it's just wrong.

The Libertarians, the Greens, the minor parties—it really doesn't matter which specific label they use, as long as they aren't those people.

It’s always anything except this, because this just isn't working for anyone. Honestly, at this point, even the opposition leader starts looking appealing by comparison (and please, don't go misinterpreting ☕ my intentions here).

Larry Fox5 said:It’s honestly pathetic how even on a tiny, anonymous, non-political PDF like this, you still get these clowns trying to campaign and cheerlead for their little political parties.

Loys and Ken are clearly pushing the Republicans, while Süd and Matthew Young35 are all about the Democrats. It’s so obvious they're just stabbing at the screen with their bias...

Most of them just troll about football, but when it comes to politics—man, they really start cranking out those long-winded manifestos. 😁

I don't think this is really about party membership—though I suspect only one person here actually holds a card ☕. It seems more like a simple case of intense dislike for the opposition, or perhaps I would even go so far as to call it pure hatred. Is it possible to dislike the Democrats or Republicans so much that you'd vote for any opponent just to see them lose? I truly believe it isn't just about rehashing old grievances, because you can always point to corruption within the GOP or claim the Democrats have abandoned the country's core values. Much of this stems from deep-seated ideology, whether people care to admit it or not, and invoking the past serves as a convenient excuse since neither party remains exactly what they once were.

mellowscout24 said:What conservative challenger? Who are you even talking about... 🤣

Anyone who can't see what the GOP actually is isn't worth wasting a single damn letter on.

We might partially agree on one thing: the Democrats at the local level are pretty much just like the Republicans, but that's still miles away from being a criminal, underworld mafia organization.

You see, regarding Boldan—I feel the exact same way about anyone who fails to recognize what the Democrats are actually about, though I simply chose not to be quite so blunt. ☕

Well then, I suppose you all should enjoy these remaining moments while they last. We try, we attempt, and sometimes things just don't pan out... that is simply the nature of life.

mellowscout24 said:Since we’re already talking about the Democrats and Republicans... honestly, the GOP needs to just vanish from the political landscape entirely. If they actually did, Democratic support would probably tank to like ten percent anyway. Just sitting here waiting for that scenario to play out, hoping the feds finally come after Karman 😁

At the end of the day, voting Democrat is basically just a vote against a total plague 😁

I think you and I both see exactly which players are about to fade into irrelevance. They were handed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity on a silver platter, yet they couldn't even manage to make the most of that. Honestly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we see some last-minute legal maneuvering involving indictments right before the elections; I'm not entirely sure if they’ll aim directly at the leadership, but coming from an organization like the Democratic Party, it wouldn't surprise me one bit. 👍

Is it possible that casting a vote for the Republican Party is actually an act of resistance against pure obsession? ☕ Is it just me, or has the Democratic Party become quite possibly the most ineffective and incompetent organization we have ever seen in our political history? ☕ It’s truly unfortunate when people allow themselves to be swayed by such displays, isn't it? One can only watch as they drift away, ultimately forfeiting both their votes and the support they once held so dearly. ☕

Voting for Miller is quite simply the only logical choice, isn't it? ☕

Patrick Martin said:Half of you guys would probably quit before the starting gun even goes off,
honestly, we all need to be dragged off to some remote Alaskan work camp by force
just so natural selection can finally do its job, man.
we're basically asking for it. ☕

Forgive me, Bear Grylls, I didn't recognize you at first glance. ☕

Jesse Sullivan5 said:Actually, Tim from Munich is the one putting together their (economic) roadmap. ☕

Oh, really? 🤣 Can you even imagine what it would look like if Pep were designing an economic strategy for the Republicans—putting massive pressure on the Democrats led by someone like Mitch McConnell, leaving the ball in the court of some dreamer like Bernie Sanders, and then, if things go sideways, simply realizing there isn't even a Plan B in sight?

Morgan Williams said:Fair enough, maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention to the matchups, so I missed that. I didn't catch the inauguration live—just skimmed through who the big shots in the VIP boxes were. What actually went down there?

Given the opposition we're facing in this country, yeah. A year ago, I would've said there's no way I want to deal with them again, but this isn't about whether I like this administration or not. It's about which one I can actually stomach. Between the choices on the table, I'm picking this one. Good grief, watching the Republicans and their crowd feels more like a sitcom than actual American politics.

You really have to see how she handled that inauguration to understand; there's simply no other way to wrap your head around it. After a display that embarrassing, someone from the Kennedy administration probably shouldn't even be allowed to give an interview to a network where she was once employed, right? She actually lost her job a few weeks after the whole thing went down. If you take a look at the queen's gambit, you'll see that while everyone wants to root for their own side, what this woman was doing was truly crossing every line imaginable.

Matthew Young35 said:Of course the mainstream media leaned toward the sitting president. That’s just how things work in every democracy. Does the current president get significantly more airtime than anyone else? Naturally. It happens in pretty much every country on Earth.

We could certainly dwell on that point if we wanted to spend the entire night repeating ourselves, but wouldn't it be more productive to address the core issue? Tell me, do you truly believe this administration deserves another term? I'm happy to hear from others as well—just a simple yes or no will suffice, though please spare me the No, but I'm not sure because I don't want to sound like a sycophant...

Morgan Williams said:Others already spoke for me regarding Bujanc. And look, if having a debate on national TV is considered nothing more than a stunt to boost the President, then what were all those debates between Obama and McCain? Or even the early clashes with the Republicans? Just excuses to prop up the incumbent? Please. Honestly, the idea of holding two separate debates—one at the Capitol and another out in the field—is actually brilliant.

Anthony Jackson2, either they get their act together immediately or the leadership needs a serious reality check. It’s going to take a hell of a lot of work to fix that management tier—though, honestly, it would take just as much effort for them to become even worse than the competition we're facing now.

If you ask me, they clearly played favorites with the incumbent just to avoid bringing up the whole circus surrounding the inauguration ceremony. After seeing that level of blatant bias, would any sensible leader like McConnell actually agree to a debate hosted exclusively by a single network like CBS?

Patrick Martin said:Man, listen, they basically ship us all out to some godforsaken wasteland in the middle of nowhere—just endless, empty plains and nothing but dirt—and then expect us to build something from scratch.

Go get 'em, Patrick. We're right behind you. ☕

ruggedjackal46 said:The real issue with Bujanec isn't his bias; it's the fact that he's a criminal, a junkie, and a total Nazi who wouldn't know real journalism if it hit him in the face. Trying to host a debate on his turf is like trying to play a professional football game in the middle of a swamp.

Fair enough, I also have concerns regarding his lack of objectivity, so I don't really see the point in having him on ABC News. 🤷

Perhaps they could find someone truly neutral, assuming such a person even exists in this day and age? Would someone like Anderson Cooper be more to your liking? I only ask because he was quite disrespectful toward Zuck in their last discussion, and it seems the little guy has let it go straight to his head.☕

Morgan Williams said:Exactly. Plus, considering he founded the youth wing involved in this whole mess—and clearly favors them—along with all that extremist nonsense, it’s actually perfect for him to be the moderator in this showdown for the Prime Minister's seat. He’s acting like he's untouchable, demanding retractions from CNN. My bad, you're right—why didn't the stupid FIFA decide to have an American referee for the USA-Italy match? That would have made sense. Fine, Bujanec isn't officiating here, but the logic holds up just as much.

Morgan Williams, we are talking about a sixty to one hundred twenty minute showdown. Of course a commentator on Fox News will side with the Republican candidate, just as a host on CNN would naturally favor the Democrat. Wouldn't someone truly confident in their own position simply accept the invitation and skyrocket their own ratings by absolutely dismantling their opponent on away turf? In my view, the only thing that matters is that they have two separate debates—one hosted by a major network like NBC and another elsewhere—and it doesn't necessarily have to involve that specific media figure. A candidate's chances won't be sunk simply because of a moderator's controversial past.

But yes, if one wants to avoid an away game, bringing up a moderator's history could certainly serve a purpose.

Gregory Chavez said:There is no "if." The only real question is: WAS HE NOT INVOLVED?
Especially given how things work here in our melting pot of a country. If people actually knew what deals were being struck during the war, they’d all want to check out of life right then and there.

By the way,
speaking of Karamarko, I recently stumbled upon an article—I can't remember where—that explicitly explained how Karamarko, as the head of the GOP, has a "special contact for Washington." 🤣 And apparently, this guy used to be some high-ranking official in a regional militia back in the day.
Of course, everything is framed through patriotism and protecting minority interests, but behind the scenes, it's actually massive, multi-million dollar criminal activity involving the old guard.

Here is my observation: I think the previous coalition had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to completely wipe out the GOP and send them into the dustbin of history. But they were so unprepared for their massive victory and takeover that when they eventually fall, the collapse will be so painful it'll feel like every bone in their bodies is breaking.

The absolute peak of this absurdity will be if the convicted criminal organization that is the GOP manages to claw its way back into power after that whole media circus with Sanders and the trial of the century.
Looking at it objectively, we aren't any better. In fact, we are just as clueless, voting for criminal circles as if someone is intentionally screwing us over and delivering Karamarko straight to our doorstep. 🤣 Personally, looking at him and hearing him speak, I wouldn't even trust him to stamp papers in a local municipal office.

Yes, Karamarko 🤣🙏

You see, this is where things get intense. After the Republican Party essentially collapsed—a collapse so severe that most organizations wouldn't have recovered, leaving them practically on their knees amidst scandals, corruption, lost support, and total fragmentation (they practically needed ☕ to pull through)—the Democrats stepped in to take control of the country. In a situation like that, wouldn't any rational leader attempt to cement their position so firmly that the opposition couldn't even dream of holding another election? Yet, here we are, facing a reality where the Republicans have swept the Democrats in nearly every election, including the recent presidential race, and are currently leading in all the polls (even though the latest data briefly favored the Democrats). If that isn't the ultimate proof of political incompetence, then what is? It isn't just that the leadership is ineffective; it's that they have surrounded themselves with people who lack expertise and experience, all while lacking basic political intuition. To my mind, the opposition leaders are light-years ahead of them.

Olivia Taylor2 said:They aren't going to distance themselves from anyone, I'm pretty sure of it. He’ll just stop being relevant once the election is over, just like they won't distance themselves from Mamić. Honestly, they'll probably lean into it even more.

As for the election, a Republican win looks pretty likely. Granted, over the last month, things have started shifting slightly toward the Democrats (GDP growth, veteran issues...), but the GOP is playing the cheap populism card, and it's working for them so far. Though, since voting is preferential, a lot of the awkward voters might get confused and lose their say. It's hard to see much changing before the end unless some big-shot party members get arrested, which doesn't look likely. Karamarko isn't going to go toe-to-toe with anyone; he knows if he plays that game, he'll end up losing to maminho (that guy on the forum), and he'll do whatever it takes to avoid that.

Overall, there are a few fronts where the left could try to make a move to keep things uncertain, but they aren't doing it right now. The situation is pretty clear-cut.

When it comes to how the Republicans and Democrats view that specific billionaire donor, don't be naive; there really isn't a meaningful difference between them. Both sides support him; the only distinction is that the Republicans will parade him around while the Democrats will pretend to draw a line. It’s nothing more than a political pageant for the public. When it comes down to taking actual, concrete action against him, they are identical—truly identical. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans actually touch him. One individual had a genuine intention to deal with the donor and was subsequently ousted from his position, which was justified, only to be replaced by a newcomer who simply doesn't care about these types of figures. Who can honestly criticize the Democrats for failing to act against this man? Just please, let's avoid the old argument that the donor is "too powerful," because suggesting that a small-town crook is more powerful than the federal government is simply absurd. I say this because every election cycle, people start shouting, "Don't vote Republican because they support the donor." In terms of handling this individual, the Democrats and Republicans are effectively the same.

Morgan Williams said:Obviously he wants the public broadcaster. No sane person would choose a niche cable news host. If I were in his shoes, there is no universe where I'd go there. Why would I let a radical extremist—who used cocaine to fund his lifestyle and founded local party chapters in Ohio—host me when I'm trying to take down the Republican establishment? It makes no sense to walk into the lion's den hosted by someone openly biased toward my opponent.

I'd pick the national network and a legitimate journalist every single time.

EDIT: Plus, the ratings would be much higher on a major network.

If they go on the public broadcaster, it’s already clear whose side the hosts will take. Look, I completely disagree with you on this. Sure, the host's controversial past in that small town might be used as an excuse to avoid a debate, but if the Democratic leader truly believes he can outmaneuver the GOP head, then that host's history shouldn't be a reason to decline. The fact that this guy has a scandalous past is one thing, but participating in a debate is something else entirely. I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that the Democratic leader might finally show his true colors and accept the challenge.

Robin Fox2 said:This Democratic administration is easily the most incompetent one the US has ever seen, period...

Signed.

Morgan Williams said:Hmm, the establishment might pull something off if growth keeps accelerating. We haven't heard a single real plan from the GOP (aside from the usual "increase manufacturing and exports" nonsense). Their leadership refuses to go toe-to-toe with the Democrats in a debate. Honestly, I wouldn't blame them; a couple of guys on an internet forum could tear that guy apart, let alone a seasoned politician. Right now, it all boils down to following whatever German consultants suggest, trying to discredit the opposition by digging up old FBI files, and getting the "true" American party back in charge. A Republican victory looks likely, but if the current administration plays their cards right, they still have a shot.

You know, I haven't really been following the whole debate situation. What exactly is the friction about? I caught that segment on CNN yesterday—or whenever it was—where the young reporter asked Karamarko about participating in a debate, and he indicated he would be open to it. So, where is the catch? Is there a concern that the debate will be hosted by a network that isn't truly neutral? I’m genuinely asking because I’m a bit out of the loop on this specific drama. Personally, I think having a debate before the election would be ideal; if someone refuses at that stage, wouldn't that inevitably work against them?

Biden is eloquent and possesses a wide vocabulary, yet he doesn't always offer much substance. He’s a difficult politician who often ends up doing more harm to his own reputation than anyone else's. He has that somewhat arrogant posture and likes to sprinkle in a bit of Latin here and there to sound sophisticated. I suppose that kind of populism resonates with certain voters. Regardless, we’re all sitting here hoping for a clash of the titans, even if it means one of them gets absolutely carried off on a stretcher.☕

I did a little digging online, and some reports suggest Biden only wants to debate on a public broadcaster like PBS, though I'm not sure how accurate that is. Wouldn't the only fair approach be to hold two separate debates, allowing both sides to enjoy the "home field advantage"? It hardly seems right for Biden to insist on only appearing on one network, nor should Karamarko be limited to just another.

Morgan Williams said:What I’m wondering is how the administration plans to spin this GDP growth and the job numbers. How much can they actually sell the idea that they pulled the country out of the gutter left by their opponent? It even feels like those protesters down on Pennsylvania Avenue are starting to swing in the government's favor. Throw in some scandal about the previous guy having ties to the FBI, or if a legal ruling finally hits one of the old leadership figures, and the momentum could shift fast. Their popularity seems to be climbing lately.

EDIT: Jeffrey Edwards76, I agree we need to break the two-party stranglehold, but give me one example of a legitimate left-wing option that isn't just the Democrats or some fringe group. To my eyes, there are plenty of right-wing alternatives out there.

I feel fairly certain that, for all intents and purposes, the outcome is already decided; I don't believe there is even a theoretical chance for the Democrats to hold onto power. People forget those heated protests after a day or two—who is even talking about those street demonstrations anymore? You can see that even the veteran groups have quieted down. As for this GDP figure, in my view, it isn't anything they can actually run with; when everyone else is seeing significant gains, we are forced to keep pace, which makes that meager 0.5% look absolutely dismal. That’s pretty much the situation, leaving only that potential move with the special envoy, though nothing there would significantly sway the election results.

The only way they might have a slim mathematical chance of staying in office would be if a few big fish from the GOP were arrested right before the polls open. Up until now, they have collapsed in almost every election because people simply don't trust them anymore, and you can see that even those inflated polls—which somehow always seem to favor them only to be proven wrong once the actual votes are counted—aren't helping them here.

Anyway, we can place our bets after the election is over. I am quite confident that I am right about this one.

James Anderson5 said:Well, for starters, he was actually invited to the Presidential Inauguration (even after those cocaine trafficking charges) and here's that photo everyone's sharing online lately. I don't think I've ever seen him look this genuinely happy before...🤣

Walter Grant5, let's be realistic here; Tomo is going to distance himself from Bujanec the very first chance he gets. While Bujanec might be useful for the moment, can someone with such extremist views truly remain politically viable in the long run? Once the Republicans take control, everyone will simply move on and forget all about Bujanec. You can hold me to that in a few months.

I certainly don't mean to be unkind, but is he even able to button that jacket? I seem to recall an interview where he mentioned losing about 35 or 40 pounds after being released from county jail. 🤣

Since we were just discussing Foo Fighters—what are your thoughts on this latest release, Closed Doors? I finally got a chance to listen to a track called "Company" while driving today.

If we’re talking about their discography, Superman remains my absolute favorite, standing alone at the top. Looking back at their earlier work, My Grandpa and Me holds a special place for me too.

As for the classic stuff from the early days, When You Walk is always a standout.