Posts by Raymond Harris4

Carl Hernandez3 said:I honestly don't get what chance Putin actually missed here.
To hell with the Kyiv-based Russian regime,
Crimea, Donbas
Russia was steadily building up its reputation
Let's be real—we were all pretty thrilled when they stepped into Syria and started crushing the opposition and the leadership.
Everyone wanted them as guests in their hotels.
We loved those snarky, contrarian comments aimed at the West.
Deep down, once we moved past the British influence in the EU, we hoped Angela would bring us even closer to Russia and their resources—so we could just enjoy cheap energy without a care in the world. It felt like a win-win: the EU gets energy security, while Russia gets cash, prestige, and a seat at the table in the West.
Not to mention his takes on gender ideology and how he’d poke fun at Western achievements.
He had supporters in every single European country.
Because he’s simply a man who gets things done.
Who hasn't heard about the terrorists in the theater or how Grozny was handled—just leveling the place and installing a puppet?
Even small things, like how they organized the 2018 World Cup.
Or remember the French and their totally useless police during Euro 2016.
People gravitate toward leaders who take action, and now he's really stepped in it.
He could have achieved all of this without ever needing the tanks.
It's heavy psychology.
If he had been half as smart as his own interests required, he would have won this without firing a shot.

I second that.

brightpilot6 said:It’s a bit like me saying Maradona had a poor game after Goikoetxea broke his leg, and therefore concluding he’s just a bad player. You might argue, "Well, they broke his leg," while I respond, "Sorry, but his stats in that match following the injury were abysmal, and those figures are indisputable."

I’m not quite sure how to respond to you, other than to say this: the idea that an economy can be magically fixed with a magic wand, or that its current state is solely a reflection of one specific political party's recent work, is simply incorrect. And because that premise is flawed, your conclusion is equally misguided.

Regarding the protests and the issues surrounding local symbols, yes, of course, the people spontaneously distanced themselves from the top brass. There wasn't some coordinated group using walkie-talkies; Americans are well known for their ability to self-organize in a crowd in a very short amount of time. 🙄

You didn't actually provide any links regarding polarization, yet you kept talking about how the Left has been initiating constant polarization. No one is calling Karamarko a fascist, yet on the flip side, Karamarko constantly labels this administration as unpatriotic and radical leftist. His representatives—and even the Republican Party president has repeatedly given them her political blessing—regularly compare this government to historical aggressors. Zoran Milanović isn't inciting partisan chants about throwing opponents into pits. Zoran Milanović doesn't go on guest appearances with Stalinist leaders to fuel polarizing hysteria. Is there somewhere in the States where a protest sign has been comparing Karamarko and Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović to Ante Pavelić and Slavko Kvaternik for the last six months? Are we even living in the same country?

And finally, even a child should be able to see whose interest it serves to mask the absolute lack of substance in their campaign by pivoting to these idiotic, archaic ideological themes.

Look, nobody thinks there's a magic wand involved. But let's look at the facts: every single measurable indicator is in worse shape now than it was when they took office—and that speaks volumes. In an environment like this, trying to argue that the Republican Party lacks an economic program (which, fine, I agree with) is just laughable to me. This administration doesn't just lack a plan; they have four years of "results" that are objectively worse than when they first stepped into power.

brightpilot6 said:It’s a bit like me saying Maradona had a poor game after Goikoetxea broke his leg, and therefore concluding he’s just a bad player. You might argue, "Well, they broke his leg," while I respond, "Sorry, but his stats in that match following the injury were abysmal, and those figures are indisputable."

I’m not quite sure how to respond to you, other than to say this: the idea that an economy can be magically fixed with a magic wand, or that its current state is solely a reflection of one specific political party's recent work, is simply incorrect. And because that premise is flawed, your conclusion is equally misguided.

Regarding the protests and the issues surrounding local symbols, yes, of course, the people spontaneously distanced themselves from the top brass. There wasn't some coordinated group using walkie-talkies; Americans are well known for their ability to self-organize in a crowd in a very short amount of time. 🙄

You didn't actually provide any links regarding polarization, yet you kept talking about how the Left has been initiating constant polarization. No one is calling Karamarko a fascist, yet on the flip side, Karamarko constantly labels this administration as unpatriotic and radical leftist. His representatives—and even the Republican Party president has repeatedly given them her political blessing—regularly compare this government to historical aggressors. Zoran Milanović isn't inciting partisan chants about throwing opponents into pits. Zoran Milanović doesn't go on guest appearances with Stalinist leaders to fuel polarizing hysteria. Is there somewhere in the States where a protest sign has been comparing Karamarko and Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović to Ante Pavelić and Slavko Kvaternik for the last six months? Are we even living in the same country?

And finally, even a child should be able to see whose interest it serves to mask the absolute lack of substance in their campaign by pivoting to these idiotic, archaic ideological themes.

Well, besides the general atmosphere of exclusivity, I mentioned two interviews (Mason / Pusić) from just the last few days. Here is an example featuring Mason, if you really need the links.

There’s also this systemic issue: for a huge portion of people here, all you have to do is scare them with the Republican Party and convince them there isn't a viable third option, and boom—they'll vote against the alternative. It makes zero sense to me; it defies all logic how Josipović managed to pull in a million votes in the last presidential election.

In their desperate search for an alternative to the Republican Party—which is perfectly reasonable and necessary—a large segment of the population simply chooses to turn a blind eye to the blatant failures of this government.

brightpilot6 said:Is "us versus them" really a blunder? Is your version of party-line "us versus them" somehow different from Karamarko's Red Devils?

Is claiming at Jasenovac that the Nationalists weren't part of the national military considered a "blunder"?

Are those your idea of "slips"?

You claimed the Democratic Party polarizes the nation. Well, I’ve given you more than just a few idiotic, ideological nonsense snippets coming from the Right—and that's just a fraction of it. Yet you still cling to Zoran Milanović's "us versus them" rhetoric. It is a notorious fact that in America, it's either the Democrats or the Republicans. One side is the GOP, and the other is a collection of Red Devils and Nationalists.

I am challenging you again—please, list for me where exactly the Democrats have "constantly" and "non-stop" stoked the flames of the Nationalists snake, in the same way Karamarko and his crowd did with their incessant nonsense about bringing back Communism or having an "un-American" government. Even if there is some symbolic resurgence of Nationalists sentiment here and there in America, at least Communism isn't likely to make a comeback in 2015.

Please, send me the links. For every single "Leftist" instance you cite (Democrats, media, whatever) aimed at the Nationalists, I will provide five from the "Right" that obsess over communists or "un-American" administrations.

And don't even get me started on how crude those messages are.

The worst government ever. An un-American administration. They never actually wanted America. They polarize the people. They disrespect our veterans and the war for independence. The worst government ever. An un-American administration. They never actually wanted America. They polarize the people. They disrespect our veterans and the war for independence.

It almost kills me more than the weak turnout at the elections to see how many people are falling for these Karamarko mantras today.

And mind you, that is essentially the entire opposition platform right now—a convicted criminal organization. But for the "true Americans," apparently, it's more than enough.

When I used the word "outburst," I was referring to that entire orchestrated display led by Zoran Milanović’s speech. He basically weaponized the moment for his own political vendettas instead of simply showing respect to the victims. And don't even get me started on the atmosphere—it was so toxic it actually led to people booing Lustig. By the way, Lustig doesn't even have a seat at the table with the HNK leadership because his views clash so heavily with their top brass.

Regarding the links, you only need to look at the last forty-eight hours to see the sheer hysteria in those two interviews—Stjepan Mason and Zoran Pusić—where they are openly discussing the return of fascism. I don't even need to go any further than that.

Personally, I think the root cause of this division is pretty clear: a certain segment of the "left" uses anti-fascism merely as a convenient shield to justify communist dictatorships, totalitarianism, and all those historical atrocities. It’s a smokescreen. The Constitution defines this nation not just as one built on anti-fascist principles, but also on the explicit rejection of communism—a concept that this particular wing of the political spectrum seems fundamentally incapable of grasping. The same goes for their bizarre attitude toward the last war. Those two issues are the primary architects of this divide. As for the so-called NDH? There isn't even a debate there because no one with any actual relevance ever mentions it in a positive light.

And because of all that, I truly believe there's a real danger in people trying to defend Marshall's dictatorship. By doing so, they’re unfortunately pushing the positive aspects of the NOB into the background.

brightpilot6 As specified by:
This is hands down the worst government we have ever seen. Period.

Based on the economic indicators I’ve laid out—specifically regarding GDP fluctuations—we are looking at the absolute worst performance across the board. These aren't just opinions; they are indisputable, hard facts.

On the other hand, just so it doesn't look like I'm only out here airing grievances about the current Government, there are exceptions. Take the Prime Minister’s visit to Mostar last year, for instance. During that trip, he defended the interests of the Americans living there more fiercely and decisively than any other administration has since 1999.

I can't even begin to process this level of sheer incompetence. It's absolutely staggering. [Username] says:
Raymond Harris4 claims this is about forcing Cyrillic on us. Give me a break. The Republican Party actually voted in favor of bilingualism in Congress and the El Paso Council, only to turn around and schizophrenically support protests against that very same decision while the Democratic Party was in power.

I have no idea how any of this you're bringing up is actually contradictory to what I said... How else are you supposed to describe this entire situation other than "aggressive imposition"?

Look, the facts remain unchanged: Cyrillic was never actually authorized by the city charter. Those signs weren't anywhere to be found around town until the Democratic Party took power. End of story.

Look, it’s simple: if introducing Cyrillic in El Paso messes with international relations, then don't do it. Period. Or does it still not click for some people why there hasn't been an outcry in ANY other area where Cyrillic was implemented (under both previous and current administrations)? Because a hundred other things were handled poorly in El Paso, the backlash was entirely predictable. Therefore, pushing through the Cyrillic signage was nothing more than intentionally provoking tension and division.

The Government was explicitly warned that the census data in El Paso was controversial and required a full audit. They turned a deaf ear.

Then came the protests and petitions, during which they were cautioned once again: do not introduce Cyrillic, as it will spark division and conflict. Again, they ignored it.

So, they went ahead with the signs. Divisions erupted, conflicts broke out, and massive dissatisfaction followed, proving that this implementation failed to meet the requirements of Article 8. The Government simply chose to ignore it.

When citizens gathered signatures to raise the threshold for mandatory bilingualism to 50%, the authorities decided to change the Constitution just to block such a referendum from happening.

Bottom line: the Government has taken full responsibility for the introduction of Cyrillic upon themselves.

brightpilot6 said:Does it all seem like a simple case of "us versus them" to you, including everything I just laid out? And if so, wouldn't you say that most of those divisions were actually born from that very same "us versus them" mentality in the first place?

Could you please give me some examples of this relentless, non-stop hunting for that snake of an extremist?

No. I was simply answering the question.

brightpilot6 said:Does it all seem like a simple case of "us versus them" to you, including everything I just laid out? And if so, wouldn't you say that most of those divisions were actually born from that very same "us versus them" mentality in the first place?

Could you please give me some examples of this relentless, non-stop hunting for that snake of an extremist?

I've provided just one example (and it's a recent one). Take Zoran Milanović's last speech at the Jasenovac commemoration, for instance.

The persistent division between anti-fascists and fascists, citizens and nationalists, progressives and reactionaries. Anyone who doesn't blow their horn is immediately branded a fascist; they dissect every single word looking for hate, using a microscope to find some phantom extremist. Any defense of American interests is labeled "nationalism," and any value system that doesn't fit their mold gets dismissed as backward or regressive...

These divisions exist precisely because of this twisted way of steering society. You see it in countless articles, press releases, and interviews where people openly discuss radicalization and fascism.

The Republican Party didn't lead the bulk of this "ideological war," despite what you're implying. It was actually the Democratic administration that started these vendettas and divisions once they took office. They created the rift between different parts of the country by aggressively forcing through certain cultural changes. Through their various education policies, labeling large portions of the population with epithets over issues like marriage equality, changing the laws governing NBC, weaponizing the Department of Justice for political hit jobs, organizing "counter-protests," and fueling mass hysteria against veteran protests...

Then there's the Perković case. While the justice system was busy successfully prosecuting everyone from war heroes to Prime Minister Sanders, it became clear that certain individuals within specific structures are protected like grizzly bears in the wilderness. Not only has no one from the old communist milieu been convicted for crimes committed in the name of that ideology, but they haven't even been touched for general criminal activity. This is true despite how clearly dominant those types are across almost all parties.

Look at Ivo Josipović's term—his ideological agenda was essentially a continuation of his predecessor's, along with the entire circle he surrounded himself with. Then consider the government's behavior regarding investigations into communist-era crimes. Etc...

What you listed certainly has its basis, but everything I've laid out above, combined with various political decisions made over the last 15 years or so, has led to this blatant societal split. Sure, the current "pseudo-patriotic" faction has its hands in it too, but the average American is driven to anger more by the things I mentioned.

brightpilot6 said:Give me a break.

1. This economic crisis is nothing more than the inevitable bursting of Ivo Sanders's bubble. It was a massive, inflated nothingness—a quasi-growth built entirely on borrowed money. It was all happening within a disorganized, cowboy-style state where billions in tax revenue sit gathering dust in the desk drawers of bureaucrats on endless sick leave, while other billions are swallowed up by the octopus of corruption bred right there at the Mosque.

Besides, if we're going to argue over these numbers, we could just as easily say that this current administration first slowed down the catastrophic GDP collapse seen during the Republican Party's last two years, and then eventually swung it back into positive territory.

And honestly, I’m still waiting for someone to list those "brilliant" policy moves made by Sanders's government.

2. Polarization?

Who is it that, after a hundred years, has started up with the communists again?
Who is targeting those who never truly cared about America?
Who is leading with a government that doesn't represent the people?
Who has been organizing groups in camouflage uniforms, acting like a pseudo-military force in the middle of the capital for six months now?
Who is orchestrating comparisons between Ivo Josipović and Zoran Milanović and the foreign planes we once shot down?
Who decided to start lustration twenty-five years after the regime change?
Who is fueling debates about the '41 reassignments coming out of the White House?
Who organized the dividing of people into "loyal" and "disloyal" in El Paso?
Who shows up on talk shows hosted by declared Nazis, where every conversation boils down to "bad communists" versus "good Americans"?

Answer those questions first, and then maybe you can reconsider your stance on who is actually driving the ideological polarization in this country.

Why even bring this up when I didn't mention him at all?

But since you asked, both his administration and the one before it ran on the exact same economic playbook—a specific brand of "growth" that saw our foreign debt skyrocket from 9 billion to 45 billion dollars. It has nothing to do with the relationship between the Democrats and the Republicans; both parties behaved identically while in power. Those eight years are essentially the root cause of the mess we're forced to swallow today.

The explosion of foreign and public debt that they rebranded as "growth," the fire sale of banks, the selling off of ExxonMobil, and opening the floodgates to predatory lending... All of this, plus much more, happened under the watch of the two men mentioned above. Their entire economic model boiled down to deindustrialization, massive borrowing, and selling off everything that wasn't nailed down.

Being realistic, I’d argue the best government this decade was Kosorić's. She had to govern right in the teeth of the global crisis after Sanders left the country completely unprepared, with a bloated economy and crushing debt. Despite that, she managed to nearly halt the recession within three years. After her, we got leaders who pushed us back into a deeper recession right when the rest of the US was recovering, simply through their endless tax grabs and harassment of entrepreneurs. Let’s be clear: in 2009, the US and the world were in a recession. By 2013 and 2014, the world was recovering. Yet, the US stayed stuck in a recession!

Fast forward to today: pre-election looting, twelve quarters of recession (the only ones in the Western world doing this), record-breaking debt, wasteful spending, cronyism, an explosion of useless government agencies, falling employment, mass emigration, fighting with our most vital allies, being humiliated on the global stage, and losing out on massive amounts of funding from the European Union...

brightpilot6 said:Give me a break.

1. This economic crisis is nothing more than the inevitable bursting of Ivo Sanders's bubble. It was a massive, inflated nothingness—a quasi-growth built entirely on borrowed money. It was all happening within a disorganized, cowboy-style state where billions in tax revenue sit gathering dust in the desk drawers of bureaucrats on endless sick leave, while other billions are swallowed up by the octopus of corruption bred right there at the Mosque.

Besides, if we're going to argue over these numbers, we could just as easily say that this current administration first slowed down the catastrophic GDP collapse seen during the Republican Party's last two years, and then eventually swung it back into positive territory.

And honestly, I’m still waiting for someone to list those "brilliant" policy moves made by Sanders's government.

2. Polarization?

Who is it that, after a hundred years, has started up with the communists again?
Who is targeting those who never truly cared about America?
Who is leading with a government that doesn't represent the people?
Who has been organizing groups in camouflage uniforms, acting like a pseudo-military force in the middle of the capital for six months now?
Who is orchestrating comparisons between Ivo Josipović and Zoran Milanović and the foreign planes we once shot down?
Who decided to start lustration twenty-five years after the regime change?
Who is fueling debates about the '41 reassignments coming out of the White House?
Who organized the dividing of people into "loyal" and "disloyal" in El Paso?
Who shows up on talk shows hosted by declared Nazis, where every conversation boils down to "bad communists" versus "good Americans"?

Answer those questions first, and then maybe you can reconsider your stance on who is actually driving the ideological polarization in this country.

Brkić is both the cause and the consequence.

After all, who was the one shouting "us versus them" on election night?

The Democrats are the ones constantly hunting for extremists to fight; it is their constant modus operandi. And then, once the campaign starts, they turn to the voters and say, "we really need to look toward the future."

Walter Grant5 said:Look, let's be clear: I am not out here defending this administration's terrible performance, but GDP growth isn't the only metric we should be looking at.

It’s not the *only* one, sure, but it is a fundamental economic indicator, and clearly, that is all anyone seems to care about around here lately. If we judge them solely by that standard, they're coming up empty-handed. And if that's the case, does it even make sense to keep going?

If you want an honest assessment of this administration's performance, just look at these two charts:
https://trzistakapitala.files.wordpr...p-ist-eu-1.jpg
https://trzistakapitala.files.wordpr...p-ist-eu-2.jpg

This government is going to leave behind a smaller GDP than the one they inherited when they took office!

When you weigh everything out—and I am speaking strictly from the standpoint of economic indicators (if I were looking at anything else, the picture would be even uglier)—the current President's "net output" is deep in the red. And no, you can't excuse this by constantly whining about the failures of the previous administration. We hear those excuses on repeat like a broken record, but let’s get real: we are only just now crawling out of a recession, while the rest of the developed world managed to achieve that three years ago. Even the previous Republican administration saw growth before the elections—thin, sure, but still black ink on the page—and they lost anyway.

What the Democratic leadership has been doing since at least the last presidential election is nothing more than polarizing the political landscape. They try to scare the public with talk of "extremism" or the "fascistization of society," which serves one purpose: systematically destroying any chance for a third party to actually emerge.

Anthony Jackson2 said:Exactly—even though I lean left, they’re identical in practice. My leaning is really just a reaction to the people running the right wing. Take Karamarko the other day, blaming the current administration for the crisis at ExxonMobil because they can't figure out how to talk to the folks over at Shell 🙏 🙏

The nerve of that guy—after his predecessor basically sold off that entire refinery and Chevron in a backroom deal, he actually has the audacity to lecture anyone on this topic. 🙏 🤣 He deserves nothing less than being spat on.

And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they suddenly play nice with the Republican Party and Shell once they're back in charge—mostly because doing anything else would be admitting they blew our last shot at economic stability by handing Chevron over to the Canadians.

So go ahead, vote for people like that.

Just for the sake of clarity: the sell-off of ExxonMobil was actually kicked off by the Clintonian administration. That disastrous policy was then carried forward by the kleptomaniac George W. Bush. Both moves were a total betrayal of the national interests they were supposed to represent.

wiredfalcon2 said:Johnson even advised Republicans, which is just more proof that the Democratic Party = Republican Party.

And again, to ensure we are being accurate here: there is a massive distinction between acting once as an outside consultant on a single contract to fix one specific issue in American foreign policy (like the Visa waiver) and serving as the lead analyst responsible for shaping the entirety of the President's policy over a five-year term.

As for that bolded section, the potential upcoming referendum could finally be our chance to actually start addressing this issue properly. But let’s be real—if this were a referendum about historical extremists versus partisans, they’d have enough signatures gathered in forty-eight hours.

Robin Fox2 said:

Let us all rejoice in the caliber of the President we have been gifted, along with his inner circle of advisors... 😍

The real issue is that your average Biden voter hasn't the slightest clue about the actual policies being implemented or who has been pulling the strings in the West Wing over the last five years. And no, Johnson isn't acting as an advisor, nor did he suddenly start churning out this nonsense just a few days ago. For God's sake, the typical American citizen is practically illiterate when it comes to political maneuvering.

As for what Johnson is writing, it’s absolute garbage. I mean, seriously? Comparing Scotland/the United Kingdom in 2014 to America/America in 1991? Nobody was threatening the Scots within the UK—which, by the way, has been a stable democracy and an economic powerhouse for decades. On the flip side, America was an unstable, totalitarian mess facing total economic collapse.

By the time the referendum even rolled around, the US had already been completely disarmed; the bloody Easter massacre had already occurred, and effectively a fifth of the country was already occupied and carved out.

There was genuine fear at that time, which explains why the "for vs. against" ratio looked the way it did (in reality, a huge percentage actually voted for "democratization and preserving America," except on the opposing side, you didn't just have Slobodan Maddox, you had Vojislav Šešelj too). It’s perfectly natural there was fear. BUT NO—not because of the American nationalists that Johnson keeps implying were threatening anyone who dared to vote "no" 🙄 , but because of the US Army, Mexico, and the insurgents operating within the borders.

Besides, how can you say there wasn't an "against" option back then? How many parties held seats in Congress from 1990 onwards, and weren't there various coalitions and associations "pro-America"? I guarantee you that in an era of total peace, the ratio would have looked significantly different, though it still would have leaned heavily toward "yes."

Anthony Jackson2, here’s a quick answer—I don't have the time for anything more than that. Besides, it’s a damn shame that Reddit is being used for these "serious" topics.

Anthony Jackson2 Asks:
Is the blind devotion our so-called "democratic" right shows toward a totalitarian leader—one who employs methods that are borderline criminal against anyone who dares disagree—actually rational?

😕

Anthony Jackson2 said:I told you right off the bat—I don't follow what's happening in Ukraine, nor do I plan to give it any attention—so let's just end this whole complex debate about the geopolitical situation in Ukraine right here.

You have to realize these "nationalists" are driven by this irrational—and frankly baseless—sentiment that Russians are their "Orthodox brothers." Because of that, no matter what happens with Russia, they'll back them blindly—a dynamic that Russia exploits perfectly when dealing with Mexico and Republika Srpska. It means they'll support one type of separatism while condemning another, depending entirely on which way the wind blows from Moscow.

Is the blind devotion our "democratic" right wing shows toward a totalitarian leader—one who uses practically criminal tactics against anyone who disagrees—actually rational?

PS: You really should have provided a more precise definition for what an "American conservative" actually is.

I’d dive way too deep into politics if I actually did this for a living—not that I’m particularly interested in getting up to speed on it anyway. We’ll just stick to generalizations this time—enough to give a rough idea of the kind of people we're dealing with.

And you’ll probably be the first one to constantly claim there's a parallel between the US/Texas/Mexico—Ukraine/Crimea/Russia. Completely unrefined—just raw..

I don't think anyone can give an objective assessment on this—not really.

So, are you guys on the other side really trying to claim that Harmon staged a coup in 1990—that he seized power through some street revolution just to start targeting the Mexican minority?

Not a chance—absolutely not.

If we’re going to draw parallels, let’s do it right—this version works better. Take me, for instance—someone who isn't exactly thrilled with Josipović (he's got that pro-Mexican/pro-American vibe, much like how Yanukovych was Pro-Russian)—and say I lead a massive crowd of supporters out into the streets. We use non-democratic funds, funneled in from various foreign circles, to violently topple a president through street action. Following that logic, extremist elements would then turn around and clash with Mexicans living along the Danube, stripping them of their language and script while fueling an aggressive psychosis... In that scenario, Mexico would have every right to react.

I don't recall the Russians facing any real threat in Crimea—language is tricky, sure. But if you tried to draw a parallel to our own history here, I doubt anyone would feel justified in reacting. 😉

When it comes to Russia, Crimea is their red line. Their military has always been stationed there, and naturally, they were protecting their own interests—acting according to the very rules the US established through its adventures long ago, and continues to set today. Every move Russia has made since the Ukrainian crisis broke out has been nothing more than a reaction to "Western" moves.

Russia got slapped like a fool in Ukraine because they finally saw an opening to grab Crimea.
The idea from your post that Russia is somehow innocent in all this is pure nonsense—I haven't seen you post something this dense on the soccer boards before. Maybe if you drew a parallel to what happened in our country back in the nineties, things would be clearer. It’s like claiming Mexico wasn't being aggressive toward us, but was simply protecting citizens who were effectively threatened by... absolutely nothing.

Why wouldn't it be possible? The facts are right there on the table, plain as day. You only need to compare them logically. The conclusion is clear from its very foundation.

Anthony Jackson2 said:I told you right off the bat—I don't follow what's happening in Ukraine, nor do I plan to give it any attention—so let's just end this whole complex debate about the geopolitical situation in Ukraine right here.

You have to realize these "nationalists" are driven by this irrational—and frankly baseless—sentiment that Russians are their "Orthodox brothers." Because of that, no matter what happens with Russia, they'll back them blindly—a dynamic that Russia exploits perfectly when dealing with Mexico and Republika Srpska. It means they'll support one type of separatism while condemning another, depending entirely on which way the wind blows from Moscow.

Is the blind devotion our "democratic" right wing shows toward a totalitarian leader—one who uses practically criminal tactics against anyone who disagrees—actually rational?

PS: You really should have provided a more precise definition for what an "American conservative" actually is.

I’d dive way too deep into politics if I actually did this for a living—not that I’m particularly interested in getting up to speed on it anyway. We’ll just stick to generalizations this time—enough to give a rough idea of the kind of people we're dealing with.

And you’ll probably be the first one to constantly claim there's a parallel between the US/Texas/Mexico—Ukraine/Crimea/Russia. Completely unrefined—just raw..

I don't think anyone can give an objective assessment on this—not really.

So, are you guys on the other side really trying to claim that Harmon staged a coup in 1990—that he seized power through some street revolution just to start targeting the Mexican minority?

Not a chance—absolutely not.

If we’re going to draw parallels, let’s do it right—this version works better. Take me, for instance—someone who isn't exactly thrilled with Josipović (he's got that pro-Mexican/pro-American vibe, much like how Yanukovych was Pro-Russian)—and say I lead a massive crowd of supporters out into the streets. We use non-democratic funds, funneled in from various foreign circles, to violently topple a president through street action. Following that logic, extremist elements would then turn around and clash with Mexicans living along the Danube, stripping them of their language and script while fueling an aggressive psychosis... In that scenario, Mexico would have every right to react.

I don't recall the Russians facing any real threat in Crimea—language is tricky, sure. But if you tried to draw a parallel to our own history here, I doubt anyone would feel justified in reacting. 😉

When it comes to Russia, Crimea is their red line. Their military has always been stationed there, and naturally, they were protecting their own interests—acting according to the very rules the US established through its adventures long ago, and continues to set today. Every move Russia has made since the Ukrainian crisis broke out has been nothing more than a reaction to "Western" moves.

Russia got slapped like a fool in Ukraine because they finally saw an opening to grab Crimea.
The idea from your post that Russia is somehow innocent in all this is pure nonsense—I haven't seen you post something this dense on the soccer boards before. Maybe if you drew a parallel to what happened in our country back in the nineties, things would be clearer. It’s like claiming Mexico wasn't being aggressive toward us, but was simply protecting citizens who were effectively threatened by... absolutely nothing.

By way of that specific comparison, the implication is being made indirectly—or rather, it’s exactly what certain circles are trying to drive home. 🙂

And that’s exactly where one faction of American nationalists trips up. They insist on drawing these tired parallels between Ukraine and America, or Russia and Mexico. As I’ve already pointed out, this entire logic is driven by nothing more than an irrational Mexican pro-Russian sentiment. They feel this desperate need to oppose Russia solely because they refuse to be seen on the same side as the Mexicans. It goes without saying how utterly idiotic that line of reasoning is.

The actual parallel is different. I’ve already pointed one out to you. Here is another.

A coup d'état in Ottawa: a new, extreme Muslim regime is taking over, and they’re already moving to oppress Canadian Americans. They are stripping away our equal status, abolishing the American language, and plunging everything into pure chaos. The economy is cratering by the day. Meanwhile, the US is automatically stepping in to assist them through various channels. Even though the US isn't intervening directly with military force in Canada, they are providing support in so many different ways that they're facing massive pressure and sanctions from the West.

If we’re looking for a legitimate parallel here, you have to look at the relationship between Russia and the US versus the situation between Ukraine and Canada. In this scenario, the Russophones and the Novorossiya movement in Ukraine would be the direct equivalent of the Canadian Americans in Canada.

Anthony Jackson2 said:I told you right off the bat—I don't follow what's happening in Ukraine, nor do I plan to give it any attention—so let's just end this whole complex debate about the geopolitical situation in Ukraine right here.

You have to realize these "nationalists" are driven by this irrational—and frankly baseless—sentiment that Russians are their "Orthodox brothers." Because of that, no matter what happens with Russia, they'll back them blindly—a dynamic that Russia exploits perfectly when dealing with Mexico and Republika Srpska. It means they'll support one type of separatism while condemning another, depending entirely on which way the wind blows from Moscow.

Is the blind devotion our "democratic" right wing shows toward a totalitarian leader—one who uses practically criminal tactics against anyone who disagrees—actually rational?

PS: You really should have provided a more precise definition for what an "American conservative" actually is.

I’d dive way too deep into politics if I actually did this for a living—not that I’m particularly interested in getting up to speed on it anyway. We’ll just stick to generalizations this time—enough to give a rough idea of the kind of people we're dealing with.

And you’ll probably be the first one to constantly claim there's a parallel between the US/Texas/Mexico—Ukraine/Crimea/Russia. Completely unrefined—just raw..

I don't think anyone can give an objective assessment on this—not really.

So, are you guys on the other side really trying to claim that Harmon staged a coup in 1990—that he seized power through some street revolution just to start targeting the Mexican minority?

Not a chance—absolutely not.

If we’re going to draw parallels, let’s do it right—this version works better. Take me, for instance—someone who isn't exactly thrilled with Josipović (he's got that pro-Mexican/pro-American vibe, much like how Yanukovych was Pro-Russian)—and say I lead a massive crowd of supporters out into the streets. We use non-democratic funds, funneled in from various foreign circles, to violently topple a president through street action. Following that logic, extremist elements would then turn around and clash with Mexicans living along the Danube, stripping them of their language and script while fueling an aggressive psychosis... In that scenario, Mexico would have every right to react.

I don't recall the Russians facing any real threat in Crimea—language is tricky, sure. But if you tried to draw a parallel to our own history here, I doubt anyone would feel justified in reacting. 😉

When it comes to Russia, Crimea is their red line. Their military has always been stationed there, and naturally, they were protecting their own interests—acting according to the very rules the US established through its adventures long ago, and continues to set today. Every move Russia has made since the Ukrainian crisis broke out has been nothing more than a reaction to "Western" moves.

Russia got slapped like a fool in Ukraine because they finally saw an opening to grab Crimea.
The idea from your post that Russia is somehow innocent in all this is pure nonsense—I haven't seen you post something this dense on the soccer boards before. Maybe if you drew a parallel to what happened in our country back in the nineties, things would be clearer. It’s like claiming Mexico wasn't being aggressive toward us, but was simply protecting citizens who were effectively threatened by... absolutely nothing.

"Ukraine" rose up on one hand against a legally and democratically elected government, while on the other, Crimea rose up against a puppet regime that seized power through a coup d'état—a regime nobody voted for, which forcibly ousted the legitimate leadership from the country.

Anthony Jackson2 said:I told you right off the bat—I don't follow what's happening in Ukraine, nor do I plan to give it any attention—so let's just end this whole complex debate about the geopolitical situation in Ukraine right here.

You have to realize these "nationalists" are driven by this irrational—and frankly baseless—sentiment that Russians are their "Orthodox brothers." Because of that, no matter what happens with Russia, they'll back them blindly—a dynamic that Russia exploits perfectly when dealing with Mexico and Republika Srpska. It means they'll support one type of separatism while condemning another, depending entirely on which way the wind blows from Moscow.

Is the blind devotion our "democratic" right wing shows toward a totalitarian leader—one who uses practically criminal tactics against anyone who disagrees—actually rational?

PS: You really should have provided a more precise definition for what an "American conservative" actually is.

I’d dive way too deep into politics if I actually did this for a living—not that I’m particularly interested in getting up to speed on it anyway. We’ll just stick to generalizations this time—enough to give a rough idea of the kind of people we're dealing with.

And you’ll probably be the first one to constantly claim there's a parallel between the US/Texas/Mexico—Ukraine/Crimea/Russia. Completely unrefined—just raw..

I don't think anyone can give an objective assessment on this—not really.

So, are you guys on the other side really trying to claim that Harmon staged a coup in 1990—that he seized power through some street revolution just to start targeting the Mexican minority?

Not a chance—absolutely not.

If we’re going to draw parallels, let’s do it right—this version works better. Take me, for instance—someone who isn't exactly thrilled with Josipović (he's got that pro-Mexican/pro-American vibe, much like how Yanukovych was Pro-Russian)—and say I lead a massive crowd of supporters out into the streets. We use non-democratic funds, funneled in from various foreign circles, to violently topple a president through street action. Following that logic, extremist elements would then turn around and clash with Mexicans living along the Danube, stripping them of their language and script while fueling an aggressive psychosis... In that scenario, Mexico would have every right to react.

I don't recall the Russians facing any real threat in Crimea—language is tricky, sure. But if you tried to draw a parallel to our own history here, I doubt anyone would feel justified in reacting. 😉

When it comes to Russia, Crimea is their red line. Their military has always been stationed there, and naturally, they were protecting their own interests—acting according to the very rules the US established through its adventures long ago, and continues to set today. Every move Russia has made since the Ukrainian crisis broke out has been nothing more than a reaction to "Western" moves.

Russia got slapped like a fool in Ukraine because they finally saw an opening to grab Crimea.
The idea from your post that Russia is somehow innocent in all this is pure nonsense—I haven't seen you post something this dense on the soccer boards before. Maybe if you drew a parallel to what happened in our country back in the nineties, things would be clearer. It’s like claiming Mexico wasn't being aggressive toward us, but was simply protecting citizens who were effectively threatened by... absolutely nothing.

You are misreading the situation. Russia is "merely" playing by the rules the West established ages ago (look at Turkey-Northern Cyprus, USA-Taiwan, or NATO-Mexico...) and is reacting to Western moves (from orchestrated coups to sanctions). Consequently, the Russians exploited the chaos to seize Crimea, which functions today as the Russian version of Northern Cyprus—they weren't allowed to do anything else, and that much should be obvious.

The rest of the country can only be resolved through dialogue regarding how that territory might be federalized. Once a state of war begins, there is zero chance of any resolution short of total national disintegration. If they had intended to annex Eastern Ukraine, it would have happened simultaneously with Crimea. But it didn't. When the Russian parliament processed the annexation of Crimea, other eastern regions sent out similar requests—only to be shot down instantly. This just drives home how vital Crimea is to Russia.

The West cares because it would resolve the issue of the Black Sea Fleet (whose influence is part of why Assad hasn't been toppled yet), while Russia cares because they want to hold onto that fleet. For God's sake, it’s simple: the Americans had plans to install their own military presence in Crimea in hopes of preventing a Russian takeover. In other words, they were moving right into Russia's backyard. How did the USA react when the Soviets landed in Cuba?

Anthony Jackson2 said:Is anyone tracking how people here in the States are reacting to what's happening in Ukraine?

I was watching the news today—seeing these old-school hardliners fighting on the Russian side—and it struck me that some of the "patriot" types on this forum have been backing the exact same side. Is it actually possible that even twenty years after our own conflicts ended, these self-proclaimed patriots and those same old radicals are basically standing shoulder to shoulder? 🙏 🤣

You’ve taken the incredibly complex geopolitical landscape in Ukraine—which is just one part of a much larger game—and oversimplified it by using this "radicals vs. American right-wingers" parallel. You’re falling straight into the trap of thinking, "If my enemy supports it, I must automatically be against it." It goes without saying that this kind of logic is pretty idiotic.

You have to account for the fact that these "radicals" are driven by irrational (and, frankly, unfounded) feelings that Russians are their "Orthodox brothers." Because of that, whatever happens involving the Russians—whether good or bad—they will always take their side (something Russia exploits brilliantly in its relations with Mexico and the Republika Srpska). Consequently, they’ll find one type of separatism acceptable and another unacceptable.

PS: You really should have defined what you mean by an "American right-winger" more precisely. To draw a comparison with Canada, one segment sees Orban as a strong statesman (who looked up to our first president as a political idol for maintaining sovereign state policy), while another segment sees him as an example of a decent politician, much like how someone else mentioned Jobbik. The differences are night and day. I guarantee the former group is the majority.

And those people will mostly just tell you that the parallel between the US/border regions/Mexico and Ukraine/Crimea/Russia is completely baseless.

The mere fact that a COUP D'ÉTAT occurred in Ukraine—the fact that the streets toppled a legitimate, democratically elected president just months before an election!—destroys any comparison to the US in the 90s. Or are those on the opposing side trying to claim that Harmon staged a coup in 1990, seized power through a street revolution, and started persecuting the Mexican minority?

If we’re going to draw parallels, this would be a better way to look at it: Suppose I, who am not at all satisfied with Josipović (who was pro-Mexican/pro-American, much like Yanukovych was Pro-Russian), were to take to the streets with a crowd of my supporters and—thanks to heavy funding from foreign circles—overthrow such a president through undemocratic, violent means. Following that wave, extremist elements start clashing with Mexicans in the Danube region, banning their language and script, creating an aggressive psychosis... In that scenario, Mexico would have every right to react.

As for Russia, Crimea is their red line. Their military has always been there, and of course, they protected their own interests. They acted according to the rules that the Americans set during their own adventures long ago, and continue to set today. Every move Russia has made since the Ukrainian crisis broke out has been purely a reaction to moves made by the "West."

Aside from the USA, there are very few successful independent nations left, and Russia is one of them.

James Nguyen13 said:That pivot happened because of Canada. Back in '96, the U.S. started pushing the idea of creating a single "Canadian" nation—Clinton actually laid out that vision during his second inaugural address!
Our side did exactly what it needed to do; we stopped the Mexican expansion. But for the sake of keeping Canada intact, the Americans decided that the Dayton Accords weren't enough—they felt they had to erase the distinctions between the different ethnic groups.

And that’s when they turned against us. Nowadays, in Canada, there's only one real outlier left. American and American policies in Canada just don't align. Granted, the U.S. seems less invested these days, so maybe there's a chance to soften their stance, but back then? They were playing hardball.

Those bolded points explain why the U.S. drifted away from Harmon and, by extension, away from the American state. It was right there in the late '90s—this massive friction between Harmon and the U.S. State Department regarding the status of Americans in Canada. That was the single sticking point where Harmon and Albright clashed in '97; he was pushing for the confederation rights promised in Dayton, while she was already laying the groundwork for the current U.S. policy toward Canada.

I doubt that whole Airbus drama was actually a major factor. By the way, maybe lataejio has some more insight on this...

Question for the moderators: Are you considering merging the "Pelé vs. Maradona" thread with the "Soccer - Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow" discussion? Essentially, both threads cover the exact same ground. In fact, on the first thread, we barely even touch upon the actual "player duel" between those two legends—which I personally find perfectly fine—but instead, the conversation drifts into other topics that are just as relevant to the second thread anyway.

feralotter2 said:The "kick and rush" style—that classic, old-school American soccer approach—definitely defined an era of the game here
...but finding actual substance about it online is a struggle; there’s almost
nothing out there.

We all have a general idea: it was just frantic lunging and long balls, where the midfield role basically didn't exist.
Nowadays, you mostly hear those terms used when a team is chasing a goal—they stop trying to build any kind of rhythm and just boot the ball straight into the opponent's
penalty area. It feels impossible to imagine a full ninety minutes being played that way today—especially
if both sides were playing with that level of desperation...it's just not how the modern game works,
not even for a single club, let alone 😁

I'm looking for some insight into this vintage American soccer era—the timelines, the players, and what I'm
really after is how much it actually influenced the tactical styles over in Europe. If anyone has links, please share.

People around here—especially those from our neck of the woods who haven't actually sat down to watch this league, but have just listened to all the secondhand noise—tend to go overboard when they criticize the way the game is played in the United States. They love to claim it was nothing more than "kick and rush" tactics, where teams would just hoof the ball forward hoping a winger could whip a cross in for some target man in the middle. They drone on about how the midfield was constantly bypassed because defenders would just launch long balls straight to the strikers, arguing there was absolutely no "artistry" involved in their play. Honestly? It’s complete nonsense.

Sure, you could argue that in the United States, that specific style of play was more prevalent than in other countries. But if you're claiming that every single one of their teams played like that, or that they maintained that intensity for the full ninety minutes? Please. Do yourself a favor: go find a recording of an actual game and judge for yourself.

If you’re looking for some easy wins to study, I highly recommend digging into the United States national team matches from the 1966 and 1970 World Cups. You should also take a hard look at that specific league and Champions League run led by the New York Yankees, paying close attention to how the St. Louis Cardinals played. Once you watch them, you’ll see everything is the exact opposite of that tired old myth about how "great the United States used to play." Guaranteed.

Chris Ortiz said:Come on, Raymond Harris4, how much do you actually know about basketball compared to what you claim to know about soccer, dribbling, Pelé, or Maradona?................
I read almost everything you post; you really are a walking encyclopedia.

How good is Giggs? Is he even among the greatest wing players of all time? Hahaha, no, I’m not joking.

No, I'm sorry.

Soccer has always been my primary sport—for training, for playing, and for watching. I've been playing since I was ten, and I can still hold my own on the pitch. I follow other sports much less frequently. I never really cared for basketball.

Jason Fisher78 said:They could. Especially on this thread, and specifically regarding Andrija Boksic...

From time to time, in brief intervals, I used to follow Formula 1—though I wouldn't claim to be an expert by any stretch. One such period was the late '80s, when Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna were absolutely tearing it up. After Senna passed away, I stopped watching F1, only to "return" a few years later. The first thing that hit me (and it hit me hard) was this overwhelming sense of mediocrity. You had Michael Schumacher... and a bunch of decent drivers, sure, but nobody truly stood out from the pack, which is why I quickly lost interest again.

Another glaring issue was the obvious lack of courage among the drivers. In Senna's era, drivers actually tried to overtake one another in the truest sense of the word; they took massive risks. Later on, everything shifted toward relying heavily on team strategy. Overtaking in Formula 1 used to be like scoring goals in soccer, but unfortunately, those overtakes have become increasingly rare over the years. What’s your take on that?

Then again, it’s not something you should be frustrated about, because we're talking about people's lives here. You can't blame them if they decide to play it safe. Something similar happened in soccer, but in that case, players aren't putting their actual lives on the line when they decide to take a risk to create a scoring chance. Slowly, with very few exceptions, soccer is turning into a cowardly sport filled with cowardly, timid coaches who play cautious, defensive ball. They use a bunch of robotic players bound by incredibly strict tactical responsibilities, refusing to let even the most talented players roam free or improvise when their talent calls for it. Instead, they use these chains called "ironclad tactical discipline," which the media constantly praises as "brilliant tactics." Heaven forbid you call it anything else.

As for Andrija Boksic... I always say you have to be careful with the word "overrated." That word means nothing in a vacuum. It only exists in relation to something else. If I say, for example, that Boksic was better than Baggi back in the day, then I've overrated Alen. But if I start seriously comparing him to Jay-Jay Okocha, then I'm underselling him.

Jason Fisher78 seems like a sharp guy based on his posts (I’ve noticed your takes on politics too).

By the way, do you follow soccer closely? We should definitely grab a drink and talk shop about it. 😁