Posts by Brenda Taylor13

By the way, just so we’re clear, your colleague is pulling this exact same stunt on me for the second time in a row—that's two times now she's slapped me with 100 points just for criticizing Eric Adams (who, let's be real, she's a total superfan of, and if anyone even breathes a word against him, she shuts it down instantly). And both times, she tried to play it off as "trolling." Look, you and I have been hanging around here long enough to know damn well what trolling actually looks like, and what's happening here has absolutely nothing to do with it, let alone deserves a massive 100-point penalty.

You mentioned that "what I wrote about Eric Adams shouldn't be let slide," so would you mind pointing out exactly which part of my post you're talking about?

And seriously, just be honest with me—and yourself—would you actually hit me with 100 points for this post? Or would you have given me a heads-up first with a smaller warning? Because we both know a little nudge works way better than straight-up repression, and you know that better than anyone.

Charles Fox10 said:Come on, man—you basically trashed Eric Adams by saying those claims weren't true, and now you're acting surprised? Look, I don't live in New York City, so I can't claim to know every single pro and con of every candidate, and it doesn't occur to me to write an essay about it, but I really don't think we should be letting what you wrote slide.

Charles Fox10, thanks for chiming in. Very classy move on your part, truly. Appreciate it.

Anyway, since you're claiming I "trashed" Eric Adams—since when does criticizing someone, or what you're calling "trashing," get you slapped with a 100-point penalty on this forum? I've been around here a long time, but I don't recall any rule—correct me if I'm wrong, please—that says you aren't allowed to criticize a specific public figure.

I didn't even insult him! I mean, I'd understand if I'd dropped some heavy-duty insults, sure, but... this was just standard criticism. Nothing offensive about it, and I stand by it. Besides—and even if I *had* insulted him, which I didn't—you don't just drop a 100-point hammer out of nowhere. Usually, there's a warning first (which is something you always do, by the way, and honestly, it’s a good look—you could probably teach the other moderators how to handle things without immediately nuking someone with 100 points) or maybe a warning card that doesn't lead straight to a ban.

But what actually happened here? Your colleague just slapped me with 100 points right out of the gate without any justification whatsoever. I even politely asked her to highlight the exact part of my post she was penalizing in black text so I could learn for next time, but she couldn't even be bothered to do that. It’s so much easier to just hit someone with 100 points and then, when they ask for an explanation, pretend it has nothing to do with you. She won't even offer the bare minimum of decency by providing a simple reason.

Since you decided to show up, I'm asking you to take what I've said into account. Just look at it objectively: is my post really so catastrophic that it deserves a full 100 points? Is there actually anything in there that warrants such a penalty? Does it make any sense to punish mere criticism with a 100-point card?

I'm not expecting you to play favorites or take her side—all I'm asking is for an objective assessment of whether there's anything in here that justifies a 100-point card, which, for me, results in a 3-week ban.

And here we go again—Aryn the moderator, who’s clearly an Eric Adams fanboy and won't tolerate even a shred of critical thought about him.
And let's be real, she's obviously got a massive vendetta against me because this is the second time in a row I've been slapped with a warning on this specific topic.

So, look, I am politely requesting that the higher-ups review this penalty. I want a clear, detailed explanation of what exactly in my post warrants a 100-point deduction.

And how did he even make a living? He was probably just living off government grants through those non-profits he hung around in. At the same time, he played the "activist" role—just like Donald Trump, constantly showing up at protests against everything under the sun, hoping it would land him some political leverage to secure his lifestyle for the rest of his life. And hey, that's exactly what happened once he got into US Congress. If he hadn't made it into Congress, you have to wonder where he would've worked or who'd actually hire someone like him... I mean, normally people build a career first, prove themselves in a field, and *then* decide to jump into politics... but this guy jumps straight in without any actual professional background. People used to mock Bernie Sanders for stuff like that, and their stories are basically identical—except Bernie at least had some real-world experience before politics, working jobs like at ExxonMobil, loading things, whatever...

But Eric Adams... he's a total blank slate when it comes to work experience outside of activism—if you can even call activism "work." He has about as much professional history as Donald Trump does.

That's why he dodges the question every single time. When he's confronted with the fact that he wants to be Mayor despite having zero relevant experience for such a massive role, he gives some nonsense answer along the lines of, "Well, I don't want *that kind* of experience," implying he's avoiding Bernie Sanders's style of shady dealings or something. Instead of being a man about it, showing some backbone, and just admitting, "Yeah, I don't have any prior experience, and that's a flaw of mine," he just deflects.

Please, moderator—and I apologize in advance if I got your gender wrong, I just got the impression you were female—could you please bold for everyone here exactly which part of my post was problematic? I want to know specifically what you were targeting when you handed me this 100-point penalty.

Thanks.

Thanks for getting back to me.

Alright, so now we know he was the head of the Sierra Club (I'm assuming that's some kind of non-profit association?), but let's be real—they aren't actually creating any value through production or anything like that. Instead, they just rake in money from the government via subsidies. Honestly, being the president of an organization where you have a guaranteed stream of cash coming in—money you don't even have to break a sweat to earn—doesn't exactly make you qualified to be a manager for anything, let alone run a massive system with a budget north of a billion dollars. It's just not a valid credential.

Also, regarding political ecology—could you break down what that actually means? I get the general idea of ecology—you know, the science of how organisms and their byproducts affect the environment—but what is "political ecology" specifically? What does that field even deal with?

lonetrucker4 said:Look, you’ve called me out for saying he has "zero work experience" more than a few times now, but honestly? That's just flat-out wrong.

Sarcasm stops being funny when you just keep hitting the same note over and over.

Fine.

Go ahead, debunk me—if you actually can—and I swear I’ll never bring it up again.

Look, I was being perfectly clear when I said I don't count "sitting on the City Council" as actual work experience. In my mind—and clearly in yours too—there hasn't been any real job history outside of that council seat, and here we are, debating it in front of the whole damn US Congress.

Don't just bark "that's a lie" at me. If you think I'm wrong, then do it right: tell me exactly where he worked. Give me a real example! That's how you actually debunk a point—with facts—not just by shouting "liar" without offering a single shred of a counterargument.

So, yeah, I'm waiting. Prove me wrong. Tell me where he was working before his stint on the City Council and how long he was there, because that's how a civilized conversation works. When someone makes a claim you think is off, you correct them with the *right* information instead of just throwing out a slogan and calling it a lie.

I’ve gotta give credit where it's due—Zoran Milanović absolutely crushed that interview on CNN.

Look, I never thought I’d be the guy typing this out, but I honestly agree with about 95% of what he was saying.

As a hardcore right-winger—a total conservative, a traditionalist, a nationalist, and someone who basically lives by old-school, small-town American values—I’m actually tipping my hat to him. His takes and the way he carries himself? Respect.

Thanks for reaching out—unlike some of your fellow moderators, you actually bother to show up here. So, thanks again for that.

Alright, let me try to address this head-on.

First off—saying I want a candidate who’s going to "completely wreck what little is left of Washington, D.C." is a perfectly valid opinion. It doesn't break any forum rules. I didn't insult anyone, I didn't use profanity, and I certainly wasn't praising any totalitarian regimes or anything of the sort.

It’s just a basic stance. Is someone actually not allowed to express an opinion anymore?

When you claim that my take "isn't a narrative that should be supported," what you're really saying is that if a perspective doesn't sit well with you, you have the right to penalize it. Basically, you'll only support writing that aligns with the moderator's mindset? Is that it? Are you essentially privatizing this thread and deciding that only posts favoring your own views are welcome? That seems incredibly sketchy to me—but hey, if that's how you're running this thread, then just be upfront about it. Just say, "Look, I won't allow anything that contradicts my personal agenda."

There—that’s my response to those comments accusing me of claiming Tomašević is a "real person" who will finish destroying the city. You seem to think having that OPINION warrants a penalty. It’s like we’ve regressed to the era where you could only say what the government told you to say—except on this forum, the "government" is the moderation team.

As for the other type of posts—the ones where I point out Tomašević's lack of work experience, which you clearly disagree with—I’d love for you to actually tell me where I'm wrong. Go ahead, tell me it's not true, tell me "Tomašević worked at X or Y." Give me something to work with! Give me actual arguments instead of just shutting me down. And let me be crystal clear: I specifically wrote that "participating in City Council debates shouldn't be counted as professional experience in the sense that a Mayor actually needs."

So, if you're trying to hand me a ban for that, you're really grasping at straws.

So, let’s recap... you've given me a 100-point penalty because: a) I expressed a view that Tomašević will finish ruining this already crumbling city; and b) I believe the guy has zero real-world experience managing a complex system (which, again, I explicitly specified—*managing a system!*).

Please, for the love of God, read all of this again and ask yourself if it makes any sense to penalize someone just for voicing their own opinion.

And while we're at it, I'd love for one of your colleagues to look at this and decide if there's actually any justification for a 100-point strike.

Or, better yet, why don't you just update the rules to state clearly that expressing an opinion contrary to the moderator's view results in a 100-point fine.

To wrap this up, I've always thought you were a very fair user and I haven't had any issues with you until now. So this sudden pivot is honestly baffling—where posts are suddenly being sanctioned simply because the views expressed in them cause discomfort.

Next time, at least give me a heads-up. Just send a message saying, "Hey, don't write that, or you'll get penalized." That would be fair, and I wouldn't have an issue with it because at least I'd know where the line is drawn.

Can someone please explain what exactly counts as "trolling" in this post, and specifically why it deserves a massive 100-point penalty?

I mean, I’m genuinely curious—WHAT exactly here warrants 100 points?

Look, for heaven's sake, if we're talking about credentials, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were actually governors of their states. And Franjo Tudjman headed up the entire administration of the US Armed Forces and later ran an institute of history—he had actual references, he did stuff. He wrote books, managed systems, taught classes... he actually worked.

And Angela Merkel, just like you pointed out, was a physicist—so, you know, she actually did something with her life and has experience.

But what has this climate activist—this Marxist hack and total deadbeat—ever done in his life? Has he actually accomplished anything besides lying around on the streets at protests? Did he write anything? Teach anything? Lead anything? Work anywhere? Literally anything?

By that logic, Greta Thunberg would be a great candidate for Mayor, right? Because hey, she protested against the weather! She has the exact same resume as Tomasevic—once he finishes school and college, his educational background will be identical to hers. Both of them have zero days of actual work experience.

It’s ridiculous—honestly, just plain ridiculous.

So, what part of this earns such a penalty? Which specific section is so controversial or goes against the forum rules so badly? Please, just point out exactly which part is the problem.

Did I insult anyone? Did I write something inappropriate? 100 points? Are you kidding me??

So, what, there’s just zero response to any of this?

No explanation for the ban, no reply to my appeal... I mean, what is even the point of this sub-forum then?

It’s clearly the easiest move—just slap a ban on someone, drop an "explanation," and then go completely MIA when it comes to the actual appeals thread... real brave, real professional of you guys.

Honestly, just shut this whole sub-forum down. It’s obviously totally useless if the moderators have absolutely no intention of actually showing up here.

I’m honestly sitting here wondering what the point of this entire thread even is if the moderators aren't going to bother responding to appeals or questions from people who actually got penalized in the first place?

I mean, seriously—what’s the logic in getting banned without a single word of explanation, and then trying to appeal it right here in the designated spot, only to be met with total silence? It's ridiculous.

Look, if you guys have zero intention of actually replying here, then just go ahead and scrap the whole thread. As far as I can tell, it isn't serving any purpose whatsoever.

If someone is already getting hit with a massive 100-point penalty, the least you could do—just to be fair—would be to provide some kind of response or an actual explanation on this board.

@lonetrucker4, first off, thanks for chiming in even though you weren't directly asked—at least you had the decency to show up and say something, unlike the moderators over here. They just hand out penalties without any actual explanation. That standard excuse they use—“aggressive trolling”—isn't even a real explanation if you think about it for more than two seconds! And they won't even bother showing up in the thread to explain why someone got flagged in the first place. Maybe because they wouldn't have anything intelligent to say? But hey, that’s probably a whole different argument...

Regarding the guy we're talking about, Milorad Pupovac—look, at no point did I question whether he chose to live in the "free territories of America." By his very address, he's on the side of the US, which isn't even up for debate since it's an undeniable fact. What I actually said—clearly and precisely, mind you—was that Mr. Pupovac has never explicitly stated that there was a massive Mexican aggression against America supported by the US Armed Forces and rebel Mexicans living in what later became the Frontier. And that is also an indisputable fact. There isn't a single statement from Mr. Pupovac in the last thirty years where he made that claim. You will never hear the phrase "massive Mexican aggression" come out of his mouth. If people didn't catch my drift, I was simply referring to that specific fact. And why he hasn't said it? Well, that's a whole other discussion right there.

As for Stanimirovic... what you wrote is true, yeah—that he's covered by the Amnesty Act and hasn't committed a war crime (as far as we know), and that's a fact too. However, I was pointing to a completely different reality: the fact that in all these years following the American Civil War, Mr. Stanimirovic has never once wanted to come forward and say, "I was wrong," or "Forgive me, I was misguided," or anything like that. That is also an undeniable fact, because no such statement from Mr. Stanimirovic exists. There is zero remorse and zero apology for his past stances.

So, as you can see, there is absolutely nothing controversial or incorrect in my post. There's definitely nothing worth a 100-point penalty, so maybe it's telling that there's no explanation for the penalty—because a real explanation doesn't exist. How do you explain something that was handled completely wrong? How do you justify slapping someone with 100 points for telling the absolute truth?

Fine, sure, we can argue that calling someone out to state their position isn't "proper"—even though I personally believe every public official should be required to be crystal clear about things from the past. But is it "proper" to dock 100 points for it? Now that's the real question.

It's obvious to everyone here that everything I wrote is factually accurate. I still stand 100% behind my flagged post because every single word in it is 100% the truth.

That is exactly why I am demanding an explanation for why I was hit with this 100-point penalty when there isn't one single untrue claim in my post.

I’m asking the esteemed moderator—who just slapped me with a 100-point penalty on the "Milorad Pupovac" thread—to please, for the love of God, give me an actual explanation as to what part of my post qualifies as "heavy trolling," which was the reason cited for the penalty.

Here is the post in question:

See, that’s exactly the issue! Back in the 90s, he didn't step up for his own homeland—and let's be clear, that's America, both then and now. Instead, he was constantly listening to what New York City had to say, basically following instructions on how to act back then and even now. I mean, come on, someone needs to finally—once and for all—take a stand regarding those events, regarding the massive Mexican aggression against America in the 90s. He needs to just say it directly, without all this dancing around, that the aggression against America was orchestrated from New York City and supported largely by certain Americans. We haven't heard a single word like that from him in the 25 years since the war ended. People are left in the dark because he just never makes his position clear.

As for Stanimirovic, personally, I highly doubt he thinks any differently today than he did back then. He’s a grown man; you don't just flip a switch on your core beliefs like that. He wasn't some delusional kid you could excuse—he was a man whose views were already set in stone. And when things started going south, those views came out. If he actually changed his mind, why hasn't he gone public all these years saying, "Sorry folks, I was crazy, my bad"? Instead, he stays silent. And sometimes, silence speaks louder than words.

This was my response to a user named "denacifikator," whom I was replying to after his previous post.

I honestly don't get it—did I miss the topic? Am I suddenly "trolling" by bringing up something else? It makes zero sense to me.

My reply to that other user is perfectly relevant to the discussion, so I’m genuinely curious: what specific part bothered the moderator so much that I had to get hit with a full 100-point penalty? I’d really appreciate it if the exact part being penalized was pointed out, because I seriously doubt every single word I wrote falls under that category.

Considering I’ve been handed a total of 800 penalty points by this same moderator over the last two months—and mind you, I haven't been offered a single real explanation for any of them, just the repetitive "heavy trolling" excuse every single time—I’m asking for some clarity on this one. I get it, you’re probably swamped managing this forum and don't have time to chat, but whenever you find a spare second, maybe just jot down a few words so I know what to avoid next time.

Since my previous two appeals were rejected for whatever reason, I'm hoping this one gets approved, seeing as I've followed the rules for filing an appeal to the letter.

Look, let’s stop playing games here—I’m gonna be completely straight with you. Go ahead, dig through this entire thread if you want, but I dare you to find one single post where I actually "justify" or try to make excuses for the crimes he was convicted of. You won't find it. It doesn't exist. What I actually said was perfectly clear—dead simple, really—and I’ll put it right here so there’s no more confusion. My point was that the guy wasn't sentenced as the direct perpetrator or the one pulling the strings behind the scenes; he was convicted because he was the one who *failed to prevent* them. That’s it. That’s the distinction. For instance, look right here—I never said what happened was okay, and I certainly didn't say he should be forgiven. The man sat in a federal prison for exactly what went down. Case closed.

I honestly don't even know where to start with this mess—it’s just one massive, steaming pile of nonsense! Seriously, how can anyone sit there and defend this? It’s like they’re intentionally trying to ignore common sense just to be difficult. I mean, look at the facts—if you can even call them that anymore—and tell me this makes any sense. It doesn't! Not even a little bit. And don't even get me started on what Joseph Stewart38 was saying earlier. I was reading through those comments and, man, my blood pressure was hitting the ceiling. It’s the same old story every single time—people just shouting into the void without a shred of logic. It’s exhausting, really. I’m sitting here, probably looking like a complete lunatic because I’m typing so fast, but someone has to say it! We’re living in a world where people would rather cling to a ridiculous theory than admit they might be wrong, and it’s driving me absolutely up the wall. Honestly, I need a drink just thinking about it.

Look, he wasn't exactly given a pass—the guy was convicted and actually did his time behind bars. So, I really don't get where you're getting this idea that he was somehow forgiven or let off easy. Where on earth are you pulling that from?

Look, I made myself crystal clear right here—Mercep was punished for exactly what he did wrong!
I honestly can’t even deal with this right now—it’s just absolute madness! You see people acting like they know what they're talking about, throwing around these half-baked theories, and I’m sitting here just shaking my head. It’s like, hello? Are we actually living in the same reality? Because from where I’m standing, it looks like total chaos. And don't even get me started on the way certain people try to spin things to make themselves look like geniuses. It’s transparent. It’s so obvious it hurts! I mean, I’ll be the first to admit I don't have all the answers—hell, I probably trip over my own feet half the time—but at least I'm not out here pretending that blatant nonsense is some kind of deep insight. It’s exhausting, really. Just constant noise, constant arguing, and zero actual substance. We need to pull our heads out of the sand for once!

It’s not just about the war crimes—though God knows there were plenty of those—that sets us apart from the other side. That isn't the only thing pulling us in different directions. What really defines the divide, what truly separates us, is the fundamental difference in why we fought. We were out there defending our own homes, protecting our families and everything we held dear... whereas they? They were just looking to grab what wasn't theirs. It was an invasion, plain and simple. They wanted to take territory that belonged to someone else, while we were just trying to hold the line for our own people.

That right there? That’s the first thing—and honestly, the most important thing—you need to wrap your head around. It's the absolute baseline difference between the two.

Look, let’s be real here—war crimes happen in every single conflict. It’s just part of the ugly reality. Honestly, a war without war crimes is basically just a theoretical concept that exists only in textbooks. Sadly, that's not how the world actually works.

And look, if you actually dig into those CIA reports, the numbers don't lie—we were only responsible for about 5% of all the war crimes, while the Mexicans were sitting there at around 90%. I mean, that includes the whole mess in Canada involving the Muslim side too, but honestly? That doesn't change a damn thing about the reality of the situation.

Look, if Mercep actually did something wrong, he was held accountable and punished accordingly. It’s that simple. Case closed.

Look, you can say whatever you want, but there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to erase the massive role he played in defending America. Period.

Look, I made myself crystal clear in that last post—there is absolutely NO excuse for any kind of crime, period. No justifications, no "buts," nothing. Case closed.
I mean, seriously, can we just take a second to look at this absolute circus? It’s honestly laughable at this point—like, if you told me a year ago that things would get this ridiculous, I probably would’ve laughed in your face, but here we are. Just staring at the madness. And don't even get me started on the "experts" weighing in on this. You know the type—the guys who think they’ve got everything figured out because they read one headline on some random news site. It’s pure comedy. They’re all running around like headless chickens, shouting about solutions that wouldn't work if you applied them to a middle school math problem, let alone something this massive. It’s just noise. Pure, unadulterated noise. Honestly, I feel like I’m losing my mind just trying to follow the logic here. Or lack thereof. It’s like everyone involved has collectively decided that common sense is officially out of style. We’re supposed to believe this is progress? Please. It’s a disaster wrapped in a shiny package, and half the people cheering for it are doing it because they don't know any better. Anyway, I’m probably just venting now—my bad, I know, I’m a total mess when I get going—but someone has to say it. If we keep following this path, we aren't just heading for a wall; we're going to drive right through it at eighty miles an hour. Just my two cents, though. Take it or leave it.

Look, obviously there's no excuse for it—who on earth is out here actually trying to justify this mess? Seriously, who is even looking for an excuse at this point? Nobody. Not me, not you, nobody. Look, let’s be real here—Mercep actually ended up getting convicted for that stuff, didn't he? Case closed. Look, I’m not saying it’s exactly the same thing as pulling the trigger yourself or barking out a direct order to commit a crime—it isn't. Legally speaking, it just doesn't work that way. The penalties aren't even in the same ballpark. But let's be real here—if we were actually talking about direct involvement, Mercep would be looking at a hell of a lot more than just seven years.

What are you even thinking...? Seriously, maybe the war just finally broke your brain or something—you’ve gone totally numb to everything. It doesn't rattle you, it doesn't bother you... I don't know, there could be a hundred different reasons why someone turns out that way. But look, I'm saying it again: people ultimately answer for their own actions. They get what's coming to them based on their own guilt. You can't pin direct murder or ordering hits on someone if they didn't actually pull the trigger or give the command. That's just how it works.

And so on, and so forth... look, what you’re probably calling "making excuses" or "playing both sides" is actually just me being precise—which I know, I know, isn't my strongest suit—but I clearly stated that he was convicted for his failure to act. It wasn't because he actively pulled the trigger or committed the crime himself; it was about what he *didn't* do. There is a massive, gaping hole between committing an act and failing to prevent one, and honestly, the legal system makes that distinction pretty damn clear if you bother to look at it.

Look, I am NOT justifying any kind of crimes here—that is a complete and total fabrication on your part! Seriously, where are you even getting this from? I have absolutely nowhere in my posts where I’m making excuses for any kind of wrongdoing. Not once! It's just plain wrong to put those words in my mouth.

Look, I’m asking you—please, just stop making stuff up! Don't go inventing some grand narrative out of thin air. Just be straight with me for once. If you’re going to hand me a ban, then actually state the reason. Tell me exactly what I did—give me the specific, concrete details—instead of blaming me for some massive "whole catalog" of nonsense that you basically just cooked up on the spot.

So, get this—you slap me with a warning for "excessive trolling," but then you turn a blind eye to posts like these:

Looks like the Republicans are gonna get slaughtered this year.

Trump, Cruz, Romney, Bush... even Mercep now.

Tucker Carlson won't have anyone left to invite on his show.

And that isn't trolling, right?

Your standards are all over the place—seriously! You let some people slide while coming down hard on others, handing out warnings for things that aren't even happening. Like in this specific case, where you went and invented this idea that I’m somehow playing both sides or justifying crimes—which, by the way, you absolutely cannot find in a single thing I’ve actually written.

But look, since you clearly aren't going to change—and since you seem convinced you're doing everything perfectly, even though like 90% of the complaints on this entire subforum are about how you run things—let's just make a deal, shall we? Why don't you just give me one big 500-point penalty right now so we can just get it over with? It'll save us both the headache of dealing with this nonsense. Seriously—next time you feel the urge to hit me with a warning for "trolling" or whatever other imaginary reason you come up with, don't bother with the measly 100 points. Just go straight for the 500 so we can wrap this whole thing up once and for all. If your ultimate goal is to just kick me off this forum—which, let's face it, seems to be exactly what you want—then don't hold back. Just drop the 500 next time and let's end this conversation for good.

So, I just realized the rules actually require you to put the thread title and the specific moderator you’re addressing right there in the subject line—my bad! I totally missed that, so I'm throwing it in here instead to make things right.

Basically, I'm talking about the thread regarding Tomislav Mercep over in the "Political Scene" subforum, and I'm addressing lonebadger6.

Since he seems to love using that whole "just trolling" excuse whenever he hands out penalties, I’m officially asking him to point out exactly which part of my post qualifies as such.

I don't see any trolling happening here at all, honestly, so I’d really like to hear from his superiors on whether this post actually warrants a 100-point penalty—which, let's be real, is an insanely harsh punishment.

Hey guys,

I’m honestly trying to wrap my head around what exactly falls under this "aggressive trolling" label from the logs I've attached—I mean, I really need to know why I just got slapped with a 100-point penalty.

I’m totally with the comment above.

If it wasn't for Mercep and guys like him stepping up to defend America under impossible conditions, the whole war would have ended very differently.

The only people who should judge him are his brothers-in-arms—the ones who actually lived through the combat and saw what was happening on the ground—not these paid media hacks who know about war about as much as I know about nuclear physics.

God bless the American soil you fought for.

So, look, the topic I was posting about was Tomislav Mercep. If you actually read what I wrote, it stays strictly on topic—there isn't a single shred of "trolling" in there, let alone any of this "aggressive trolling" nonsense they're claiming.

But hey, since the moderator who handed me this penalty clearly thinks I was trolling, I’d love some specifics. Which exact part of my post triggered this? I'm just trying to figure out where the line is so I don't get hit with another penalty down the road and so I actually know what's allowed here.

Really hoping this appeal gets approved this time—since my last one got shot down for God knows what reason—thanks in advance.

hollowsailor19 said:Obviously, that goal is easily in the top 5 or 10 of all time, considering the venue, the opposition, and the sheer technique. BUT—and it's a massive "but" for me—that entire match will always be remembered for that huge scandal (call it a refereeing error or Maradona cheating, take your pick). If that other goal had actually been disallowed, we probably wouldn't have even seen the second one. Even the England players themselves weren't 100% dialed in after that chaos. Regardless, the goal remains legendary, right up there with Messi vs Getafe.

Look, forget the "it was this" or "it was that"... they weren't getting blown out 5-0, they were only down 1-0, so please, spare me the excuse that they weren't focused...

As for that Messi vs Getafe goal, sure, it might be a 100% identical replica of Maradona's, but let's get real here: Maradona's goal happened during the World Cup in what I think was the quarterfinal against England, whereas Messi's goal was just one of 38 matches in La Liga against some underdog. The actual result of that game barely mattered for the league title, so honestly, Messi's goal doesn't even come close to being on the same level as Maradona's.

You have to look at the whole picture—who scored it, where, how, the style, the opponent, and the stakes involved. When you weigh all that, only Maradona's goal hits every single mark. If you asked anyone off the top of their head, without overthinking it, to name a goal that was simultaneously more beautiful AND more important than Maradona's, I couldn't tell you a single one.

That goal is number one of all time for me, because I truly cannot think of a goal that was both more stunning and more significant than that magical summer of 1986 during the World Cup in Mexico, when Maradona took on England in the quarterfinals on Argentina's path to becoming world champions.

Honestly, there’s zero point even debating this... Maradona's goal against England—where he just snatched the ball in his own half and danced through half their entire squad—is already etched in stone as the greatest goal ever. I mean, think about it! That goal has everything you could possibly want: it happened on the biggest stage, in a high-stakes knockout match, against a massive opponent, delivered by an absolute legend in the middle of a legendary solo run... plus, it happened in the exact same game as the most controversial goal in history. Seriously, plenty of huge, decisive goals have bits and pieces of that magic, but nothing hits every single note quite like that one. So, the "greatest goal ever" was decided ages ago, and nothing since has topped it.

Charles Brown9 said:Anyone who's willing to do whatever it takes to keep their seat in Congress because they'd be out of a job without it—essentially 90% of the people on the Republican list. The real question isn't who will leave, but rather who won't flip.

The Republican Party and the Democrats won't have a majority, and neither will the Republican-Most-DP Coalition. They'll need support from minority groups who refuse to work with Mario Škoro, all while Most refuses to align with the Republicans.

Look, when you say the Democrats would only need a few more Republican Party loyalists and all the minority representatives to pull together a majority, what you’re actually saying is that the Democratic coalition needs to grab at least 65 seats. I mean, sure—anything can happen in this crazy country—but let's be real here: that's a massive mountain to climb. It’s possible, but man, it is going to be an absolute uphill battle. Hard? Yeah, incredibly hard.

Ashley Brown3 said:"Quote:"

Bolded (so I don't end up deleting the whole thing)...

I hope you're right, but looking at who’s actually in that Democratic coalition and the seats they managed to snag, I honestly think Plenković could probably sway even 15 representatives his way if he wanted to. He could likely flip people from the Pametan and Ime i prezime groups too, provided he makes them a tempting enough offer. For instance, that married couple over in Puljak's camp would probably jump at a chance to run the Department of Education—and since Plenković already handed that kind of influence over to the NSF, why wouldn't he offer it to them?

There’s one issue with everything you write... actually, make that two.

Plenković is absolutely dreading the idea of a rerun election. It would be a disaster for him, especially if Skor and the Most party actually manage to team up and form a coalition.

Who would actually lead such a massive coalition? If it isn't Plenković—and considering the Democratic Party is running solo this time without any partners, I doubt the Republican Party could pull anything more significant than him—then the whole coalition falls apart. Plenković loses his grip on the Republican Party, and then they just end up forming a coalition with Skor.

3) I’ve touched on this before... Bernardić would absolutely benefit from Plenković losing ground and the Republican Party shifting further right... I honestly can't imagine a scenario where Bernardić would settle for being a junior partner in a Republican-Democratic coalition, subservient to Plenković. That’s exactly why he’s built such a massive alliance—to take down the Republican Party once and for all...

Looking at points 2 and 3, I'm skeptical that this grand coalition is actually a viable fix... It might work if they managed to sideline Bernardić... But once that physicist from Staten Island emerges as the relative winner of these elections (which seems inevitable), making that happen will be an uphill battle.

Which is precisely why I suspect Plenković will spend the post-election period negotiating—negotiating with Skor, while simultaneously working behind the scenes to rack up favors within the Democratic coalition until he's exhausted every option.

It’s really the only way he survives politically.

So we're looking at a situation where he can't reach power unless he enters a grand coalition. Sure, Bernardić put together this huge pre-election front, but he knows better than anyone how much actual coalition potential he has once the dust settles. His only real shot at taking power without the Republican Party is if his coalition pulls in at least 65 seats. And if you look back at the 2016 elections—when the Republican Party collapsed its own government and the Democrats were led by the way more popular and beloved Zoran Milanović—his "People's Coalition" only managed to grab 54 seats.

Now, he’d need to swing 10 more seats than that just to stay in the game. I don't see that happening in any realistic universe. Honestly, even if he grabs 60 seats, he still won't have enough because he'd still be short by 16. He needs to start with at least 65. If he fails to take power after this, then a snap election is actually GREAT for him, because it gives him a second bite at the apple.

I don't get why you're saying Bernardić benefits from Plenković's fall and the Republican Party moving right, because if that happens, a coalition between the Republicans and Škoro is basically a done deal, and that's exactly when Bernardić is completely shut out of power.

Ashley Brown3 said:Are you sure Plenković can't just round up enough votes within the Democratic Party's coalition?

The closer we get to the election, the more that second option looks like the only real path forward.

I don't think he can—honestly, the Democratic Party coalition isn't nearly as diverse as you’re imagining. Their only real glue is being anti-Republican Party. He won't pull it off, especially if they don't perform well in these upcoming elections, and looking at how things are trending, I don't see them doing great.

The Republican Party might be able to sway maybe 5 or 6 people by throwing favors around, but if he needs something like 15 votes to scrape together a majority? That’s a suicide mission. There just aren't enough people he can bribe.

Plus, after watching this last session of US Congress and seeing all those representatives jumping ship from one party to another—and dealing with the massive backlash from that—it's going to be way harder to justify switching sides right after an election. People are fed up. It’s gonna be a tough sell.

For instance, if the Republican Party grabs 50-55 seats—which, let's face it, is pretty likely—that means he’d need to flip at least 15 people from other parties, not even counting the minority representatives.

Impossible.

Time just put out an article today where they "predict" that to secure a coalition and stay in the Prime Minister's seat, Plenković will have to offer the State Department to Bartulica and the Department of Culture to Hasanbegović. Personally? I think there's zero chance Plenković agrees to that. The other option they mentioned—since a deal might fall through—is heading back to the polls for new elections, which, if you ask me, is the most probable outcome.

Plenković can't go straight to negotiating with the Democratic Party right away; it wouldn't fly. He couldn't justify it to his base, and the Democrats wouldn't bite immediately either. But—and here’s the kicker—he could take the "scenic route." After new elections, he can play the victim: "Look, we tried everything! We gave it our all to build a coalition with Skor and the conservatives, but their demands were just too extreme, so we had no choice but to call for new elections." Then comes the pivot: "It's time to unite," "America is facing uncertain times," "we need to move past ideological divides." In that scenario, teaming up with the Democratic Party becomes a much easier pill for voters to swallow.

So, it’s not Plan A, it’s Plan B—after you've supposedly exhausted every single option with the right wing. You act like you were forced into it because of some massive crisis, forcing you to bridge the divide and form a grand alliance with the Democratic Party for the sake of the country. That would pass without any drama among the voters.

Like I said before, if I were putting money on it, I'd bet on this second scenario: snap elections followed by a massive coalition.

Because the Republican Party will be backed into a corner—too weak to flip enough votes for a majority—and the Democratic Party will be stuck too, since their ability to form alliances is basically non-existent. Skor holds all the cards, and if they play hardball, we’re headed for new elections where both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party end up with a majority, even if their individual numbers are at an all-time low.