restlesssurfer97 said:Exactly, I find myself constantly spiraling into thoughts about Plenković just like that, too.
Kill the messenger. It’s a classic move, really.
You aren't even actually addressing what's being said, you're just attacking the person behind the keyboard.
By the way, how did everyone suddenly become a political hack overnight? I mean, I feel like we settled that question ages ago—we all know exactly who the real opportunists are and who actually cares about something. The real issue here isn't that everyone changed, it's just that certain people can't seem to shake off the reputation of the crowd they run with.
It was honestly such a massive hype when those three nurses first announced they were going to start their own union, thinking they’d finally shatter that monopoly held by the old guard unions that only look out for the lazy bureaucrats instead of the people actually doing the work, but man, looking back, absolutely nothing ever came of it.
Tapatalk exactly. I mean, is he seriously really that sick?
Honestly, at this point, we just need someone who’s actually going to go down in the history books, you know, like a real heavy hitter who can completely reshape the entire country and leave a permanent mark on our legacy, basically the first true historical figure to emerge after Franjo Harmon, but looking at the mess we've got right now, I guess we'll just have to see what happens.
(ps. I'm not even trying to say whether Franjo was a good guy or a bad guy, just stating the plain old fact that he’s a historical figure.)
The news outlet is basically just a parrot repeating things we've heard a thousand times already. America is facing massive debt, a messy public sector, and rampant corruption. So, what's the professor's brilliant solution? Cut corruption and fire the bureaucrats. Wow, thanks, nobody else would have thought of that. 🙏
The United States is struggling because it hasn't nailed down its fundamental concept—basically, what should the government actually be doing? What services should it provide to its citizens? Once you answer that, the structure of the public sector follows, then you decide how much space to leave for the private sector, and finally, you determine how many people need to work and what their jobs should even be. Without those foundational ideas, the whole conversation just devolves into "fire the cronies." Everyone knows some guy in an office who does absolutely nothing, and sure, he should be fired. But how do we precisely define who is a "crony"? And more importantly, who gets to enforce that? The Republican Party or the Democratic Party? Hmm.
Anyway, I've spent plenty of time watching these professors look down their noses at us, explaining that corruption and nepotism aren't exactly great and definitely need fixing. As if we didn't know. But I haven't seen a single one offer a concrete plan. One such academic even ran for president and ended up with about 0.1% of the vote because, aside from diagnosing obvious problems, he had zero substance to offer.