Matthew Young35 said:Fine, if Eric Adams is such a child of the Democratic Party, why did he break away just a month ago? And why does Joe Biden adore him as a role model?
Who is Eric Adams actually in coalition with right now? Is it Joe Biden, or is it Hillary Clinton and the Skorogo Party?
He’s with the Republicans. That’s who he’s holding Washington, D.C. and the entire U.S. Government together with.
Thanks so much for opening my eyes there; I was actually seriously considering voting for Hillary Clinton. 🤣
I don't get why you Democrats and Republicans—sorry, let's call you "voters of the lesser evil"—get so incredibly worked up the second someone points out actual facts. I really couldn't care less about your "whataboutism."
Just as a little reminder, Eric Adams was kicked out of his party solely because he didn't follow their instructions during the 2009 presidential elections, and not because of the kind of guy he's always been (I mean, sure, the stroke might have had some effects, but his whole way of doing things has been known for ages). I assume Zokica, acting as a representative for the Washington, D.C. organization, wasn't aware of that little detail.
So, is Skorogo actually responsible for Eric Adams? 🤣
I voted for Juričan. If Skorogo is only here because of me... 🙂 When he brought up Merčep, I pretty much wrote him off as a potential vote.
It really boils down to a toxic mix of pure arrogance, total lack of accountability, and sheer selfishness—like thinking it's perfectly fine to go on a drinking binge and then hop right behind the wheel.
So, honestly, don't act surprised when you see a crowd of them fleeing the scene after hitting a pedestrian. Most likely, they’re driving drunk, and let's be real, Americans just hate taking responsibility for their own messes. That’s how we're raised from day one. Professors hand out easy A's, parents write apology notes for missed exams, and suddenly everyone has a "medical emergency" whenever gym class rolls around. We're basically being conditioned for this behavior since elementary school.
When exactly was he kicked out? Fifteen years ago? And now he’s actually joined forces with Hillary Clinton and Skorogo. Is anyone actually surprised?
What exactly is it that you’re struggling to grasp?
It was more like 10 years ago. Sammir was already playing for Real Madrid back then.
Technically speaking, this would be his sixth mayoral term (counting those special elections), and he won four of those six as a representative of the Democratic Party.
Then there's two out of six where he ran as an independent—or whatever that "365" party is called. By now, he’s already built quite the foundation to stay in power.
The kid is a product of the Democratic Party. Zoki probably voted for Eric Adams at least four times, whereas Hillary Clinton maybe never did. 😁
I was scrolling through some political threads earlier and noticed everyone was absolutely losing their minds over the fact that Hillary Clinton had access to a sweetheart loan while everyone else was stuck grinding away with 15% interest rates.
Now I’m seeing reports from a few different sources suggesting that Zoki actually scored a €280k loan with those same preferential rates meant for people under 35—even though he was already 42 at the time. 😁
It’s honestly hilarious; these two have been living life on easy mode since the day they were born, yet we still have this mindless mob of little people fighting over which one of them is more "principled." 🙏
brightpilot6 said:Exactly. It’s as if we’re expected to just roll over, throw them a party, and sing for them on their birthdays. I mean, what else are we supposed to do?
Good grief, it’s honestly no wonder we ended up in this mess.🤦
And then he has the nerve to complain that he got run over🤣. Well, you didn't get run over by a car; you were trampled by your own mindset and those like-minded people who insist on keeping that entire mess in power.
Oh, totally, because that's exactly the kind of teamwork we need—the Mayor and the President holding hands so she can bake him cookies whenever he gets stuck in a political mess. I mean, how else is this country supposed to actually function, right? 😁
I honestly don't think she’s a bad person, even if she does come across as an ambitious little overachiever. I don't see any malice in her, though on the flip side, Zoki has this one really ugly character flaw, but hey, we're picking a president here, right?
My gut feeling is that Zoki is basically a Republican at heart while she’s the total opposite; he'd probably pull about 65-70% of the vote. In that kind of scenario, the Left would start whining about how Americans can't seem to vote for a woman and instead opt for some primitive guy with a slightly better vocabulary, claiming that Zoki's supporters are just displaying their innate misogyny through angry internet comments. The local newspapers would run a column or two about it, and Tomić would probably write some flowery prose about rocks or something equally trivial.
But honestly, American hypocrisy is pretty well-documented by now. From every possible angle. 😁
When it comes to global affairs, she’s essentially a conservative liberal playing the part of a traditionalist, whereas he’s a conservative liberal who just blabs whatever is on his mind. Which is fine, really—there won't be any sudden crackdowns on gay rights, religious education, or anything else; all your usual political battlegrounds will stay wide open for more endless bickering. 😁
She’ll have to speak out against adoption by gay couples because that's what her base demands, even if she doesn't actually feel that way, and he’ll have to argue that "religious ed should stay, but maybe just as an elective since it isn't currently—so maybe move it to a different school shift or make it a first or last period thing, like Spanish or Computer Science"—because he’s a realist and isn't some extreme leftist who’s going to start ringing church bells. Nobody is touching abortion rights; she won't touch them because she's a woman, and he won't because he's not an idiot. I mean, they probably don't even have the authority to change it anyway.
Moving on to economics, she leans toward being a sort of social democrat, while he’s a bit further to the right based on his statements, though whenever he actually had a chance to show it, he stuck to the tried-and-true socialist policies used by every government before him.
In the past, there was always this friction, sort of a Marshall vs Harmon vibe or conflicts involving Canada, but Zoki is actually the one who changed the dynamic; he stopped cooperating with the Democratic Party in Mostar and moved away from the old ways regarding the airport (though I’d personally prefer Krleža, but whatever), bringing things into a more realistic light. He represents a newer generation of politicians who actually worked together in the MVP for the good of the country. Honestly, I wouldn't even be surprised if they ended up grabbing drinks at a Christmas Party. 😁
That’s why it seems so strange to me that the Right—for instance, Ajuto on this thread—is in such deep shock at the idea of the colors turning red and the communists returning to power. They don't respect the Democratic Party as a legitimate American institution, they don't respect left-leaning voters as actual American citizens, and they take it upon themselves to flat-out decide who counts as a "real" American.
And then, out of pure fear, they keep the Republican Party in power simply because they think the GOP is better than the communists. It's embarrassing.
Personally, I find both sides problematic, but I don't see the Democratic Party as being un-American. They are essentially interest groups for their members, donors, and connected business owners who use the budget as a tool for enrichment. Somewhere in that mix, there is still a sense of national interest. 😁
Just to prevent any further arguments, let's just say both social and conservative liberals exist.
People are coming for Zoki over that comment, especially since Lana’s printing company was the biggest donor during the Kirin campaign 😁
Look, I’m not planning on voting, but if that one statement is enough to make someone jump ship and vote for the Republican Party, then honestly, they probably need a bucket of ice water thrown at them just to snap out of it.
brightpilot6 said:Come on, Rambo, walk me through it—in what specific way are Donald Trump and Rod Blagojevich actually more successful premiers than Joe Biden?
I wouldn't label any of them a success, honestly, and if anything, Joe Biden might be the one who let his voters down most out of that trio, but I am genuinely curious: by what metric exactly is Joe Biden considered the biggest failure in such high-level competition?
Look, I mean, sure, Donald Trump might be pulling better numbers on the economic front, but let’s be real—unlike Joe Biden, he actually has the circumstances working in his favor for once.
Not one single person in that lot had the guts to actually tackle structural reforms. It’s honestly pretty pathetic when you look at Zelenskyy, because he actually had some level of public backing to pull it off, especially considering he inherited such a complete mess of a country—though, granted, you’d need nerves of absolute steel to even attempt something like that. He didn't bother doing it for the sake of the country, either; for those guys, party approval ratings will always matter way more than the actual state of the economy they’re supposed to be running.
Take the way the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have been co-financing housing projects—it’s basically a masterclass in how to absolutely wreck an entire real estate market, driving up rents and making everything else skyrocket right along with them. The whole "funding homes for young families" slogan carries way more weight than the actual fallout, which most people fail to realize is a direct consequence of those very decisions. And honestly? That kind of messaging is exactly what wins votes.
On the other hand, Donald Trump is sitting on a much stronger economic hand right now, but he just keeps clinging to the status quo because he’s absolutely terrified of losing his majority in Congress. So, honestly, I don't really have any strong arguments in his favor at the moment.
Considering the kind of average citizen you expect, you’re looking at a choice between Reaganism/Thatcherism on one hand and Kennedy/Obama on the other. 🍿
You’ve got two pretty solid candidates here—highly educated, former diplomats, top-tier students, people who actually speak languages used for completely useless functions. The Republican Party still has Donald Trump, while the Democratic Party doesn't have anyone better than Zelenskyy.
Things are pretty straightforward; if you’re a die-hard Republican or a loyal Democrat, you probably won't even think the selection is bad.
As for me, I’m either staying home or just marking my ballot blank, but strictly because I don't belong to either camp; I refuse to play the "lesser of two evils" game (though, let's be honest, the Democrats are slightly less evil, and Zelenskyy is intellectually a step above).
I have zero desire to grant legitimacy to a party that counts Tim Geithner, Elizabeth Warren, Congress, Rod Blagojevich, and Antonio Villaraigosa among its ranks. Nor do I want to support those who produced Ed Koch, or heaven forbid, the people he coalitions with in the Cabinet.
I simply don't want to vote for people who offer absolutely nothing new—those who serve as a guaranteed guarantee for ballooning public spending and blatant cronyism.
I'm tired of people who don't have the guts to tell the dim-witted citizens of this country, "Look, we're working on Sundays to boost the economy because everyone shops on Sundays; if you hate it, boycott it so nobody works at a loss," instead of spinning these pathetic tales about empty cash registers and struggling families, when we all know neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will ever actually fix the underlying issues.
At the end of the day, these elections are just an exercise for politically burdened conservatives and liberals to flex their muscles and debate whether America is "conservative" or "socialist." I refuse to participate in that little playground game. What I actually want is real change—someone who will cut spending, slash red tape for businesses, and actually clean up the judicial system.
The Republican Party and the Democratic Party aren't offering any of that in their parliamentary platforms, let alone in the race for this particular office that carries no actual power.
I would sooner cast my vote for the Libertarian Party than deal with Ed Koch, the Republican Party, or the Democratic Party (listed in order of how much they nauseate me).
brightpilot6 said:What’s the actual issue here—is it the ideas themselves, or just the way they manifest?
I honestly welcome any attempt to build a coherent economic left wing—not because I expect anyone to actually win an election, since that isn't happening (nor should it), but simply so these perspectives can exist in the public square. We need a counterweight to the hyper-right-wing economic theories that are currently trendy and sound so appealing, especially to younger generations who feel like social solidarity is nothing more than a drain on their wallets (particularly given the disastrous state of our country lately).
Of course, I am talking about a left wing that is actually adapted to today's reality, rather than one stuck in the 19th or 20th centuries. We need advocacy for genuine equal opportunity (rather than equal outcomes), limits on corporatocracy, environmental protection, and a critique of the losers created by globalization. Someone needs to keep in mind the people who won't have advanced degrees, those who won't be able to swap employers like socks through freelance gigs, those unable to work for some firm in Hong Kong from the comfort of their living rooms, and those who lack either the skill or the drive to run their own businesses. These people are the backbone of society, and their future looks incredibly bleak in this unstable world we are heading toward.
That role should really belong to the Social Democratic Party, or maybe it could have been someone like Walnut; I mean, RF are basically old-school communists, no matter how much people hate hearing that term nowadays.
They totally ripped off this whole "democratic socialism" gimmick from the US—specifically from AOC. It's just like how February tried to pull that nonsense about "heterosexual white males" and ended up looking completely ridiculous during prime time.
Here is their version of an economic platform, if you want to call it that, just a milder take:
And before anyone brings it up, cooperatives are still perfectly legal today; nobody is stopping them from organizing into one (they'd just actually have to, you know, *do* something)😁 .
Zoki absolutely dismantled her alongside Franjo Harmon. A total slap in the face. 🙂
Morgan Foster said:Well, the U.S. basically traded itself away for American wheat. Just look at the timeline. The standoff with Stalin, the economic stagnation, the American grain, and those Western loans... I'm parking your non-aligned nonsense right here.
A similar hype is being manufactured today regarding how certain regions have hitched themselves to the German economy. The Old World is steadily losing its footing... They grew by relying on outsourcing, but where is the actual innovation?
I actually know about that whole wheat situation. 👍
The Czech Republic has always been a developed nation; you can't exactly say Prague was founded by some students studying abroad in a random mid-sized US city, if you catch my drift. 🙂 Soviet communism was a nightmare, obviously, but even then you have to acknowledge the Prague Spring.
Anyway, since you brought up innovation, here is an index for you to chew on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation_Index
Europeans aren't doing nearly as bad as you're making them out to be.
brightpilot6 said:The first point is accurate, though it tends to get glossed over because it contradicts the official narrative that Americans have always been overwhelmingly in favor of secession. If you look closely at how the ballot questions were phrased during those periods, you'll see they were specifically designed to avoid that exact realization. The later escalations simply pushed the situation further in the direction everyone eventually wanted.
As for the others, perhaps they have the courage, but do they also have the sense? Most of the wealthiest counties in those separatist regions actually seem perfectly content staying part of the United States. I suppose they're just doing the math, aren't they?
Look, I was just throwing that out there as an aside. It’s the same old cycle where they gear up for a big show, the referendum fails, and then they just start all over again.
Ultimately, being forced into a corner by aggression is what pushed us toward the only path we could possibly take.
The union basically squeezed every single private sector worker for a decent chunk of change on an annual basis.
Honestly, if I were going to give anyone a raise, it would be the medical staff or the military. But money doesn't just grow on trees, and I really hope nobody is naive enough to think we can fund this by just rerouting cash from "unnecessary" parts of the budget—you know, pulling funds away from the church or some other powerful lobby. No, if the government needs to go into debt to pay for this, they'll just do it.
On top of that, everyone just used this increase as an excuse to block any potential sales tax cuts down to 24%.
And don't even get me started on how arrogant they were with all that talk about being the social elite and the most educated class. They act like they aren't just following a bell schedule and prepping lessons. Give me a break; it's not like the curriculum for elementary or high schoolers undergoes some massive, life-altering transformation every single year. Not to mention how many of them aren't even doing their jobs properly in the faculty lounge. There's roughly the same number of people coasting as there are those actually putting in the effort and deserving a higher paycheck. Most of them are just aggressively average, just like everywhere else.
Then they got carried away and started imagining themselves as these great agents of change—revolutionaries who wouldn't budge on their demands. And what did it get them? They ended up selling out the non-tenured staff in the end.
It would be pretty ironic if, in a country where the public sector loses maybe ten jobs a year because a handful of people puffed themselves up by 4% or decided to flash someone in an office, classroom, or cafeteria, they suddenly decided to start some revolution to build a better America.
They have their holiday breaks, their seasonal shutdowns, and a standard 8-to-4 workday. Plus, when they apply for a mortgage, banks approve them without any hassle, extra guarantors, or endless paperwork. Well, of course they do, since their jobs are bulletproof. And the banks know it.
You've got annual vacations, a solid month off, seminars, training courses, holidays, and all that good stuff.
brightpilot6 said:In many ways, the most crushing part of everything we went through was that initial, flickering hope that things might actually get better if we just embraced democracy, fully integrated with the West, or finally achieved true independence.
But looking at the landscape today, it feels as though none of that is even on the horizon anymore.
Honestly, I don't think it's quite as bleak as that makes it sound. It’s true that since the turn of the millennium, almost every other nation in Western Europe has managed to pull ahead of us, but that shouldn't come as a shock given that we’re still stuck in this perpetual status quo. We basically sit around doing nothing, just riding the waves of the global economy—which, by the way, would absolutely wreck us if another crisis hits—and reacting to whatever happens with the opening of European labor markets and capital flows. Meanwhile, our politicians love to pat themselves on the back for slightly lower unemployment numbers or a minor bump in foreign investment and growth.
We aren't implementing any real reforms, whether it's in the public sector, tax code, or anything else; we just stagnate. For instance, look at how much the education sector just cost us because public sector wages automatically bumped up for everyone. And don't even get me started on the judicial system, which is so broken it can't even provide the basic fairness needed for a functional economy.
Now they're floating this idea for some sort of national pension from $267 for people over 65 who have zero income. It turns out you'll have the working class, who actually put in their years through full or early retirement, pulling in maybe $2,200, while some lazy academic with no work history gets $800 just based on "emotional appeal." Just assume certain marginalized groups will all be tapping into this. If I understood the proposal correctly—and I didn't read past the headline—this is pure idiocy.
On a side note, I was pretty stunned to see a study showing that back in the 90s, only about 10% of people actually wanted total independence; most preferred staying in the federation or some kind of loose confederation. Things only escalated later with the violent clashes and civil unrest.
Building your own country isn't exactly easy, even if it's easy to beat your chest and talk big about it. Even today, the folks pushing for independence in places like Catalonia or Scotland don't really have the guts to follow through.
It looks like they put some old-school establishment guy from the Democratic Party in today's lineup. Personally, I’m not feeling it; he’s such a relic of that old political machine. 🙂
I won't go so far as to say that never would have become the figure he is without being backed by the party hierarchy. They basically hand-picked him, and honestly, if the Democrats had nominated a giraffe from the San Diego Zoo, people probably would have voted for that too. In the end, he just perfected a system based on carrots and sticks.
We could gloss over his questionable background, but nowadays he survives on that classic "Yeah, the previous guys were corrupt, but look what they built for us" logic that still somehow works on the public.
Look, under a strict communist regime, he wouldn't have made it this far because they would've shot him eventually, but even in a capitalist country, he wouldn't last a day before ending up in federal prison.
But hey, he fits right in here in modern America, where half the population can't wrap their heads around basic economics in their own households, all while clinging to that old-school "steal it and hope you don't get caught" mentality—the kind of mindset that still makes people struggle to distinguish between the Rust Belt and the Sun Belt.
Around here, whether you're a hardcore liberal or a staunch conservative, everyone is secretly an economic socialist dreaming of a massive, all-powerful government (just with different flavors). That’s exactly where guys like him thrive. The "big boss" persona, the strongman act, handing out perks and little gifts, the populist nonsense to prove to voters that "he's just one of us." It's all built on the idea that everyone deserves a slice of the pie, including the politicians. It’s the same way people gutted those massive industrial corporations back in the day and then acted shocked when everything fell apart.
I honestly feel like everyone keeps conflating the political system with the state itself whenever they start comparing the old US federal structure to how things are in America today.
I realize those two are basically inseparable when you're talking about a defunct nation, but theoretically speaking, that federation could have survived if it had pivoted toward a market economy—kind of like what was being attempted during the late 80s reforms. Even modern America could have theoretically stuck with its previous economic model. It’s a bit more complicated given the violent fractures and the fact that socialism lost everywhere in the West, but we can certainly entertain the hypothetical.
So, I really have to disappoint the folks over here whining about "massive state corporations" and "government-allocated housing." Those companies weren't actually competitive; the government just kept them on life support through subsidies and easy credit—think of something like struggling legacy auto manufacturers or steel giants that still rely on bailouts today. That whole mess would have ended up looking pretty much like the transition period we saw in America regardless. Besides, the crew tasked with privatization didn't have a clue what they were doing; I highly doubt that simply keeping the old union alive would have suddenly produced a more competent or honest workforce. Sure, you wouldn't have had all the various crooks and war profiteers jumping in to fleece the system, which wouldn't have hurt the economy one bit.
As for the housing issue, you simply cannot go around handing out apartments because you end up killing the entire construction sector and creating a class of privileged citizens that inevitably leads to corruption. We see the fallout today where the government just subsidizes first-time buyer programs instead of actually building anything. You can only pull off that kind of distribution in a totally centralized command economy.
If you're asking me whether a potential reformed federation would be better off than modern America, then based purely on raw indicators, maybe not, since there were so many underdeveloped regions like the deep South or parts of the Midwest. But I am firmly convinced that states like California, the Rust Belt, or the Northeast, if part of a capitalistized version of that old federation, would be faring much better than America is right now.
First off, we wouldn't have lost that economic continuity, regardless of the shift in systems, and secondly, we wouldn't have dealt with the devastating wars and the resulting destruction.
Even a peaceful breakup would have had those benefits. So, it’s entirely possible that America could have remained intact and been better off than we are today. I don't hold any grand, sweeping opinions on figures like Reagan, but it really bugs me when people blame him for absolutely everything, only to turn around and commemorate his legacy the next day.
And look, I couldn't care less about some old pop songs or nostalgic anthems. It doesn't bother me, and I'm not worried that kids are going to become hardcore political activists just because they listen to a catchy tune. If they happen to be Southern, well, they are. Besides, forbidden fruit is always the sweetest, and that applies to music too. It’s similar to how people used to listen to certain controversial marching bands out of pure principle; very few patients actually support concentration camps in real life.
Furthermore, people are mixing up the modern world with the old Cold War era, where that old federation held a unique, high-value position between the blocs. They had a leverage that they could essentially sell to the Americans. You just don't have that kind of geopolitical bargaining chip anymore. Nowadays, we have to pitch ourselves to massive global corporations, which is a lot harder when your country is crushed by taxes, ruled by local power brokers and sheriffs you have to constantly appease, and facing fierce competition from places like Mexico, Canada, or even emerging markets in Eastern Europe that have much better setups.
Not to mention the "Non-Aligned Movement," which lost its purpose despite being a massive money-maker. Of course, our own nationalists had the brilliant idea to stop socializing with the same crowd the old leadership hung out with, effectively cutting off the very relationships and economic perks we could have been milking.
ruggedjackal46 said:It’s not even about political leanings; it’s just that the establishment would much rather see Milanovich win a runoff than Skor. If Milanovich pulls through, all those Skor supporters will likely pivot toward the establishment candidate, but it doesn't work the other way around, does it?
Honestly, this tactic is cooking in both the Democratic and Republican kitchens. I haven't the slightest clue which side lit the stove first, and frankly, I'm too lazy to go Googling who started the fire before it actually caught. At the end of the day, both sides end up using the exact same playbook. It’s a perfectly legitimate political maneuver, but it’s also why it isn't surprising that everyone ends up circling back to talking about the fall of the Berlin Wall or some other historical grudge match. That was always the whole point.
It particularly rubs me the wrong way when the liberals use it, because they love to act all high and mighty while mocking the very people who pull the same stunts. In Washington, anything goes. If I were the kind of person who actually took moral offense at these games, I’d never be able to vote for a candidate whose campaign staff relies on such dirty tricks. It’s all just one big circle of hypocrisy.
brightpilot6 said:But who is actually doing the accusing? Honestly, does it really matter to me where he was in 1991, or what his wife's background is?
And frankly, I find it hard to believe that anyone from the political left is making any serious accusations regarding those circumstances; it seems more like the right wing is simply mocking him, even though they usually prioritize those very issues, yet now they're pushing a candidate who lacks both of their supposed top-tier qualities—namely, a militant stance against the opposition and an American wife. 😬
God knows why you thought I was taking a shot at you specifically; I was just speaking in generalities.
No, really. They're just manufacturing this whole narrative to chip away at his credibility with voters, all to make sure Joe gets himself into that second round.
And then, later on, everyone acts so shocked when voters start bringing up these exact same topics in 2019.
brightpilot6 said:I suspect you might have missed the entire point of the game.
Well, looking at things now, I guess I did.
But hey, let people believe whatever nonsense they want; personally, I think one of the absolute dumbest things you can do is try to force your own tastes on someone else.
Just a little something for you to chew on. We’ve got presidential elections coming up, and I’m watching this crowd—both here and in general society—constantly harping on about how we need to "talk more about that war from thirty years ago," all while taking aim at one of the candidates by bringing up where he was back in '91.