Posts by ruggedjackal46

Merry Christmas, you beautiful trolls! 👋

If we actually go and elect Boris Mikšić as president, we might as well just start renting out our lives for pennies 🙏 🙏

Michelle Palmer6 Asks:
It’s pretty obvious you aren't grasping the pragmatic side of things here. I mean, at the end of the day, shouldn't you eventually have to agree with someone else's perspective?

So, what else am I supposed to say? Look, I get the pragmatic side of things—you eventually have to pick one of the two major parties to actually form a coalition and get anything done. But if that’s the move, wouldn't it be more honest to just admit that's the logic? Instead of playing these endless games of political math and negotiating with the opposition while simultaneously claiming you're staying true to your core platform and those much-vaunted "reforms." It feels a bit disingenuous, doesn't it?

Issuing a formal statement immediately after getting a single "yes" from some minor party would be even more idiotic than this whole mess. It would just be a total farce. I don't know, maybe I’m the outlier here, but I certainly wasn't expecting them to steamroll through their entire agenda. If they did, they'd end up having to swallow whatever nonsense one of the two major parties throws at them. And then, in the eyes of those malicious critics—or the blissfully unaware idealists—they’d look like they betrayed everything they promised during the campaign. In reality, when you don't hold a mandate as one of the two dominant parties, you have to engage in some incredibly heavy political math just to squeeze any actual value out of what you were elected to do. Is it really that hard to see the difference between a betrayal and basic survival?

I mean, I wasn't exactly expecting them to push through everything they initially laid out, but looking at how these negotiations are wrapping up, I’m starting to wonder if there was even a plan to begin with. Did they actually outline a roadmap, or did they just stumble into a corner where they're forced to figure out who’s in charge on the fly? It feels less like strategic maneuvering and more like they just realized they had to pick a winner because they hadn't planned for anything else.

It isn't that insurance companies are somehow more "leftist" than the right-wing players; it’s just that the insurance itself serves as a guarantee. It ensures that if you decide to ignore the decisions made by this coalition government, you’re practically being kicked out of the room. Is it perfect? Not even close. Is it honest? Hardly. Am I thrilled about it? Definitely not. But at the end of the day, it’s a legitimate way to keep things functioning.

It’s technically legitimate, sure, but it’s also pretty damn stupid. If you're splitting positions between three different parties, then kicking one out doesn't just change the lineup—it shifts an entire third of the government and completely rewrites the balance of power. Makes sense, right? Or does it?

Michelle Palmer6 said: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!

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?

Michelle Palmer6 said:What kind of "cheap rhetorical manipulations" are we talking about here?

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?

urbanhawk17 said:Of course, that was exactly what their voters were banking on. If they’d just announced after a week that they were siding with the GOP, that would have been the end of it. They seem to think the GOP is actually a viable partner for pushing through reforms, I guess.

But instead, they came out swinging with the idea of a coalition government or calling for new elections, which honestly was the better move. So, what have we actually gained from the two of them?

Hold on a second. Would it have been "OK" if, over the last twenty years—including during the eras of both Tomislav Karamarko and Vasa Brkić—they had actually stepped up and said, "Yeah, we think the GOP can handle the reforms"? Because if they had, they would’ve looked like absolute idiots.

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.

Jason Newman said:https://www.facebook.com/Carlos-News...73/?fref=photo

🤣🤣

🤣 🤦

stormyharbor13

Stormyharbor13

So, Tyson Fury is the new boxing champ? Honestly, that sounds like a name straight out of a bad sitcom. Who’s next on the roster, Rocky Ali?

Someone was bringing up peaceful religions earlier, but then you look at what’s happening in places like Myanmar, where Buddhist extremists are targeting Muslims.

It’s just a shame how the boomerang always seems to hit the people who have absolutely nothing to do with the politics involved. If you look at all the targets being hit—aside from the stadium itself—you're looking at neighborhoods where working-class Americans and minority communities actually live. Most of the crowd at this concert was probably just twenty-somethings out for a good time. I suspect it works the same way on the other side of the aisle, too. The political elites play their games, while the regular citizens end up paying the price.

I honestly can’t believe how much people overlook just how easy it is to fake a passport. I mean, look at how easily certain figures have slipped through the cracks—like when they nabbed Tušek over in Spain, right in the middle of Europe. Or take Karr, who was hopping over to Milan just to catch Inter games. You really think they were traveling on their actual, legitimate documents?

boldfox88 said:The fundamental flaw in the argument that jihadists have nothing to do with Islam is that these fanatics actually find their core ideologies rooted in Islamic teachings and the Quran. Could a movement defined by such madness and bloodshed sustain itself for decades based solely on the doctrines of other faiths? I don't think so. While history shows wars and atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, those were typically driven by established nation-states pursuing tangible material interests, where the cross served merely as a unifying symbol for their ambitions.

On the flip side, the claim that Islam itself is an inherently dangerous religion ignores the reality that there are over a billion Muslims globally, yet the instability is concentrated in one specific region. This area is deeply traumatized—not just by extremist factions, but historically by the actions of Western, developed nations. Take France, for example. Throughout the last century, they imported thousands of workers from North Africa, benefiting from cheap labor while maintaining a clear conscience because conditions were ostensibly better than the desperation found back home. And things were better—until those individuals began forming families and raising children. Living on meager wages far below the French standard of living, they could offer their kids nothing more than life in the Parisian suburbs and street culture. Being culturally, racially, religiously, and socially isolated from the rest of the country, these alienated youths never had a fair shot at a normal upbringing or education. In such a volatile environment, even a tiny drop of extreme Islamist doctrine is enough to turn people into weapons.

Ultimately, Muslims must confront the fact that certain interpretations within their faith allow for the kind of radicalization that fuels modern evil. Simultaneously, the West must accept its share of historical and contemporary responsibility for the current state of affairs in Africa and the Middle East. Further division, finger-pointing, border closures, and extreme policies will only serve to make the situation worse. Islam acts as the vehicle through which terrorists are radicalized, but it isn't the root cause of their existence. The cause runs much deeper.

By the way, has the individual identified by the passport actually been confirmed as the attacker, or was the passport simply found at the scene without proving that the owner was actually present?

So, the Crusaders were "fake" Christians, while these guys are the "real" Muslims? What exactly are you basing that conclusion on? And why on earth do you assume that material interests aren't also lurking beneath the surface of this current chaos?

To me, trying to justify violence by waving around some two-thousand-year-old book is either pure insanity or blatant manipulation.

mellowotter36 said:Exactly. There isn't even a war going on in Turkey right now. And honestly, I have no idea how many Americans who fled during the 90s ended up forming terrorist cells—if anyone actually has any data on that, please share.

Right, because political terrorism just isn't in the American DNA. Interesting thought...

Look, there’s a significant portion of people born right here in the States who end up becoming terrorists, murderers, or just straight-up career criminals. So what? What’s the actual argument there?

Are we really saying that because there's a statistical chance that 1% of refugees might be terrorists, we should just screw over the other 99% and leave them to head back into a war zone? I'm dying to know how the logic would hold up if the US, Canada, or Europe had applied that kind of reasoning to our situation back in the 90s.

Noah Carter24 said:And what makes you so sure they can just stroll right in through official channels? What, were you there traveling with them or something?

Maybe I did, because they aren't exactly marching around in military fatigues with bandoliers strapped across their chests; they look and act like perfectly ordinary people.

mellowotter36 said:Think about it. If you fly, you’re going through intense security screenings, and they probably require visas now too—or maybe they always did, who knows? But if you're traveling on foot, you've got tens of thousands of people from the Middle East moving with you. These islands are tiny; they just can't handle that kind of influx. In this situation, the Greek authorities basically want people to leave the country as fast as possible. Isn't it much easier to slip through the cracks when you're surrounded by a massive crowd, rather than being stuck on a flight from Beirut to Paris with a hundred other passengers? Plus, there are intelligence agencies working to stop them, right? They're definitely monitoring everyone coming in on flights from those regions. If people are walking across borders, isn't it a lot harder to keep tabs on them?

I'll say it again: they can easily pick up a dozen fake passports, which clears the way through security. I mean, even high-profile fugitives don't flee to Europe using their real IDs, right?

Look at this—in the case of those suicide attackers, they found Egyptian, French, and Syrian passports. With gear like that, you can travel wherever the hell you want.

So, none of you geniuses have actually answered my question yet: Why on earth would someone backed by the deep pockets of a major terrorist organization—someone who can somehow snag ten different passports and breeze through customs into the States without breaking a sweat—spend their time trying to fix the refugee crisis that most American politicians can't even agree on handling?

All these attackers were carrying a handful of different passports, which pretty much points to some refugee selling off their documents—hardly a stroke of good luck for anyone involved. So, where does that leave us? We have three of the attackers living in Brussels, one is French, and they sourced their weapons from someone from Mexico. How exactly is the EU supposed to fix this mess? Should they just start tightening borders, rounding up everyone with Middle Eastern roots back three generations, or maybe deporting all Slavs straight to Russia?