460 posts shown.
Jeffrey Morales27 said:Look, I actually kind of agree with whatever theory that guy was pushing, but I don't get why he’s picking on her. It’s not like I’m obsessed with her body—I wouldn't even date someone like her 🙂 (honestly, am I a saint or just not interested?), but this is America and she’s working within a very specific niche. In that world, you aren't going to make it big by being some legendary singer like Adele or Bruce Springsteen; you win by showing off what you've got, and she’s smart enough to know how to monetize her look. I really don't see why he's so worked up about it. 🤷
Jeffrey Morales27 said:Is anyone else following this whole media meltdown between Taylor Swift and some random guy? 🤣
Who does that clown think he is? He just started attacking her out of nowhere, acting like she somehow personally wronged him. 🤷
He’s clearly just trying to flex his "intellectual superiority" by picking on someone like Taylor. 🙏
ruggedjackal46 said:Marshall managed to pull together restlesssurfer97 and Patrick Martin. I mean, who else actually has that kind of reach?
loneseal said:Look, regarding that point Anthony Jackson2 made—honestly? I don't think the President needs to lose any sleep over his approval ratings here in the States. If the Republicans managed to bounce back after teaming up with those liberal factions, I’m betting the mainstream media will just spin this enough to smooth over the public backlash.
brightpilot6 said:It would be even better if we could just have the whole thing fall apart at once, wouldn't it? 🙏
goldenseal49 said:Back in the mid-twentieth century, government agencies used to hire everyone under the sun, regardless of whether you were a loyal party stalwart or someone deemed politically inconvenient.
How could anyone doubt it?
Jeffrey Morales27 said:Man, they really missed the mark here. If we were talking about street names or town squares, Paul Sanders5, ruggedjackal46, and Peter Thompson4 probably would've been arguing about arbitration or that big corporate restructuring case instead. Guess old-school politics really messed things up for them. 😁
Sure, it’s a distraction in some ways, but if you follow that logic, you basically kill any conversation that isn't about the budget, school reforms, or some legal dispute. It feels a little paranoid to me—kind of like watching CNN when pundits from both parties just spend the whole time accusing each other of dodging the real issues.
Everything seems to be an issue lately—whether it's the debt crisis at companies like ExxonMobil or even just renaming a local street corner. Honestly, I think people find it easier to argue about figures like JFK. It’s such a simple debate: half the country loves him, the other half thinks he was a disaster. You get five reasons to love him and five reasons to hate him, and everyone picks a side and starts shouting. People who actually study history look at the bigger picture, while everyone else just sticks to their gut. But when you start talking about massive corporate bankruptcies or international trade litigation? Most people won't touch that because you actually have to understand economics or global law to have an opinion.
I don't think anyone’s life is going to get better or worse because of what they rename the square, but we should probably just clear the air and move on.
ruggedjackal46 said:Maybe go ask the President.
Amanda Evans2 said:Honestly, you might be better off just heading out to the coast, grabbing a black coffee, and finding some peace and quiet...
Peter Thompson4 said:Honestly, I’ll take a little of everything, but right now my priorities are strictly hitting the beach and finding incredible food, because let's be real, I just want to wander around a bit, grab some snacks, you know how it goes ☕
(1.food/beach, 2.nothing, 3.outside, 4.culture)
And honestly, all that "soaking up culture" stuff is way overrated ☕
Peter Thompson4 said:Back from the dead☕
Can someone please just give me some decent recommendations for a nice spot over in the islands near the coast?
Peter Thompson4 said:Whatever, most people actually voted for this... we basically got exactly what we asked for.
Jessica Gonzalez said:Dangerous in what way? I guess the current administration was just as problematic, if you think about it. It all feels like a bit of a circus, really—it’s basically whoever plays the game better. I actually voted for the Bridge Party, and their ministers seemed like decent people who would do a solid job during their term. But they tried to play politics, and now they're out of the picture. I don't think we should turn nothing into some big myth. The Bridge Party is just one party with its own members and representatives, all following their own goals and ambitions. If someone wants to actually change society, I suppose they need to hold positions where they can make an impact. Politics in democratic societies is a bit of a double-edged sword: on one hand, it's this endless battle full of low blows, but on the other, it's supposed to be a fair game where the people choose what they want (assuming there isn't any rigging, though it seems like things have been pretty straight since those first few elections). In the US, they spent months attacking Trump, but he ended up winning anyway. The campaign was almost a joke, and the debates weren't much better. Out of 300 million people, you end up with two deeply disliked figures left in the race. Is it really true that out of all the top talent in America across every field, only those two are competing for the throne? That's just how politics works, I guess. Anyone wanting to succeed in the political arena probably has to be ready for dirty tactics and compromises. In high-level politics, it's not necessarily the most moral person or the one with the purest ideals who wins. Maybe it's just whoever gets the most votes. As for where the Bridge Party stands now, and where they'll go next, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see at the next election.
urbanhawk17 said:Karamarko was never Prime Minister.
Besides, the Bridge Party basically turned Karamarko into a political ghost. If it hadn't been for the Bridge Party, he might have actually become Prime Minister. He probably still would be today, too.
Jessica Gonzalez said:I guess Milanović is someone who talks quite a bit. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be much of a results guy. He doesn't really acknowledge the issues facing America, which makes it pretty tough for him to actually find solutions for them. He isn't unintelligent—he probably understands the numbers okay—but maybe there's just too much mental resistance to seeing the bigger picture.
As for Bernardić, I'm speaking purely from memory based on his media appearances. I realize that sometimes, because of certain people within his own party, he might have to say things he doesn't truly believe. It seems similar for Plenković; he also has to walk on eggshells regarding certain topics.
Anyway, the Democratic Party seems like a group only really older folks would vote for, mostly because they lean into those collectivist social justice tropes. During the last election, I saw one of their posters over in Brooklyn featuring Stipe Mason. Stipe Mason in late 2016? That was a bit of a joke, I suppose. 🙂