Posts by Morgan Williams

Others already spoke for me regarding Bujanc. And look, if having a debate on national TV is considered nothing more than a stunt to boost the President, then what were all those debates between Obama and McCain? Or even the early clashes with the Republicans? Just excuses to prop up the incumbent? Please. Honestly, the idea of holding two separate debates—one at the Capitol and another out in the field—is actually brilliant.

Anthony Jackson2, either they get their act together immediately or the leadership needs a serious reality check. It’s going to take a hell of a lot of work to fix that management tier—though, honestly, it would take just as much effort for them to become even worse than the competition we're facing now.

ruggedjackal46 said:Why on earth would a sitting President grant any kind of legitimacy through a guest appearance to a proven criminal, an addict, and a Nazi?

I agree. That was my first point, but I’m laying out all the other reasons why this whole confrontation is a total circus.

Keith Miller30 said:When it comes to how the Republicans and Democrats view that specific billionaire donor, don't be naive; there really isn't a meaningful difference between them. Both sides support him; the only distinction is that the Republicans will parade him around while the Democrats will pretend to draw a line. It’s nothing more than a political pageant for the public. When it comes down to taking actual, concrete action against him, they are identical—truly identical. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans actually touch him. One individual had a genuine intention to deal with the donor and was subsequently ousted from his position, which was justified, only to be replaced by a newcomer who simply doesn't care about these types of figures. Who can honestly criticize the Democrats for failing to act against this man? Just please, let's avoid the old argument that the donor is "too powerful," because suggesting that a small-town crook is more powerful than the federal government is simply absurd. I say this because every election cycle, people start shouting, "Don't vote Republican because they support the donor." In terms of handling this individual, the Democrats and Republicans are effectively the same.

If they go on the public broadcaster, it’s already clear whose side the hosts will take. Look, I completely disagree with you on this. Sure, the host's controversial past in that small town might be used as an excuse to avoid a debate, but if the Democratic leader truly believes he can outmaneuver the GOP head, then that host's history shouldn't be a reason to decline. The fact that this guy has a scandalous past is one thing, but participating in a debate is something else entirely. I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that the Democratic leader might finally show his true colors and accept the challenge.

Signed.

Exactly. Plus, considering he founded the youth wing involved in this whole mess—and clearly favors them—along with all that extremist nonsense, it’s actually perfect for him to be the moderator in this showdown for the Prime Minister's seat. He’s acting like he's untouchable, demanding retractions from CNN. My bad, you're right—why didn't the stupid FIFA decide to have an American referee for the USA-Italy match? That would have made sense. Fine, Bujanec isn't officiating here, but the logic holds up just as much.

What did you expect? That we’d flip from negative to a 3% or 4% gain overnight? Just like our Dr. Smith didn't fix us in a single night, we aren't jumping from the red to perfection instantly. We finally hit the black, and now the goal is steady growth.

"Sir, yesterday the scans showed a tumor covering your entire lung, but we ran them again today and it's completely gone." Sorry, but that’s not how reality works.

Oh yeah, that genius Bujanec actually went looking for a retraction from the news outlet 🙏 🤣

And he got it

Keith Miller30 said:You know, I haven't really been following the whole debate situation. What exactly is the friction about? I caught that segment on CNN yesterday—or whenever it was—where the young reporter asked Karamarko about participating in a debate, and he indicated he would be open to it. So, where is the catch? Is there a concern that the debate will be hosted by a network that isn't truly neutral? I’m genuinely asking because I’m a bit out of the loop on this specific drama. Personally, I think having a debate before the election would be ideal; if someone refuses at that stage, wouldn't that inevitably work against them?

Biden is eloquent and possesses a wide vocabulary, yet he doesn't always offer much substance. He’s a difficult politician who often ends up doing more harm to his own reputation than anyone else's. He has that somewhat arrogant posture and likes to sprinkle in a bit of Latin here and there to sound sophisticated. I suppose that kind of populism resonates with certain voters. Regardless, we’re all sitting here hoping for a clash of the titans, even if it means one of them gets absolutely carried off on a stretcher.☕

I did a little digging online, and some reports suggest Biden only wants to debate on a public broadcaster like PBS, though I'm not sure how accurate that is. Wouldn't the only fair approach be to hold two separate debates, allowing both sides to enjoy the "home field advantage"? It hardly seems right for Biden to insist on only appearing on one network, nor should Karamarko be limited to just another.

Obviously he wants the public broadcaster. No sane person would choose a niche cable news host. If I were in his shoes, there is no universe where I'd go there. Why would I let a radical extremist—who used cocaine to fund his lifestyle and founded local party chapters in Ohio—host me when I'm trying to take down the Republican establishment? It makes no sense to walk into the lion's den hosted by someone openly biased toward my opponent.

I'd pick the national network and a legitimate journalist every single time.

EDIT: Plus, the ratings would be much higher on a major network.

Keith Miller30 said:I feel fairly certain that, for all intents and purposes, the outcome is already decided; I don't believe there is even a theoretical chance for the Democrats to hold onto power. People forget those heated protests after a day or two—who is even talking about those street demonstrations anymore? You can see that even the veteran groups have quieted down. As for this GDP figure, in my view, it isn't anything they can actually run with; when everyone else is seeing significant gains, we are forced to keep pace, which makes that meager 0.5% look absolutely dismal. That’s pretty much the situation, leaving only that potential move with the special envoy, though nothing there would significantly sway the election results.

The only way they might have a slim mathematical chance of staying in office would be if a few big fish from the GOP were arrested right before the polls open. Up until now, they have collapsed in almost every election because people simply don't trust them anymore, and you can see that even those inflated polls—which somehow always seem to favor them only to be proven wrong once the actual votes are counted—aren't helping them here.

Anyway, we can place our bets after the election is over. I am quite confident that I am right about this one.

Hmm, the establishment might pull something off if growth keeps accelerating. We haven't heard a single real plan from the GOP (aside from the usual "increase manufacturing and exports" nonsense). Their leadership refuses to go toe-to-toe with the Democrats in a debate. Honestly, I wouldn't blame them; a couple of guys on an internet forum could tear that guy apart, let alone a seasoned politician. Right now, it all boils down to following whatever German consultants suggest, trying to discredit the opposition by digging up old FBI files, and getting the "true" American party back in charge. A Republican victory looks likely, but if the current administration plays their cards right, they still have a shot.

Keith Miller30 said:Walter Grant5, let's be realistic here; Tomo is going to distance himself from Bujanec the very first chance he gets. While Bujanec might be useful for the moment, can someone with such extremist views truly remain politically viable in the long run? Once the Republicans take control, everyone will simply move on and forget all about Bujanec. You can hold me to that in a few months.

I certainly don't mean to be unkind, but is he even able to button that jacket? I seem to recall an interview where he mentioned losing about 35 or 40 pounds after being released from county jail. 🤣

What I’m wondering is how the administration plans to spin this GDP growth and the job numbers. How much can they actually sell the idea that they pulled the country out of the gutter left by their opponent? It even feels like those protesters down on Pennsylvania Avenue are starting to swing in the government's favor. Throw in some scandal about the previous guy having ties to the FBI, or if a legal ruling finally hits one of the old leadership figures, and the momentum could shift fast. Their popularity seems to be climbing lately.

EDIT: Jeffrey Edwards76, I agree we need to break the two-party stranglehold, but give me one example of a legitimate left-wing option that isn't just the Democrats or some fringe group. To my eyes, there are plenty of right-wing alternatives out there.

Keith Miller30 said:I was actually referring more to the core convictions held by Walter Grant5, because I believe those fundamental beliefs are what shape a person's stances on broader issues like religion, patriotism, or even our views on veterans and national service. My point wasn't limited strictly to just the local political figures or specific leadership controversies. As for how he celebrates or the way he kicks off his concerts—well, I've never actually attended a Metallica show myself, so that whole aspect of his persona remains a bit of a mystery to me. ☕

I suspect we are looking at a small minority here—those individuals who have become somewhat obsessed with the Pope's specific stances. To be honest, I look at my own perspective and realize there isn't some papal figure who is going to dictate how I think, especially since even the current leadership hasn't exactly resonated with me. When I observe those folks over on Wall Street, I see people who seem genuinely broken, perhaps struggling with mental health issues or just deep-seated frustration. If you add the fact that maybe George thought he was a much bigger player in society than he actually is, you end up with the exact situation we’re seeing now. We have to acknowledge that we didn't experience combat; we didn't endure what they went through, and we simply cannot grasp what it means to live when a comrade is killed by shrapnel or when you lose a limb. For that reason, and because they were the ones defending our country, I can't hold their choice of uniform or their "both sides" rhetoric against them. In my view, these people aren't really so easily swayed that anyone can just force their opinions upon them.

Regarding Kolaricka, my intention was simply to say that it hardly matters, as I have no way of knowing whether she was involved with anyone or not.

As for Bujanec, why on earth do you assume he has become more politically desirable? It’s much like my previous point; I think we all tend to assign far too much importance to certain individuals. Who exactly finds him politically attractive? Even if there were such a person, it would surely be a fleeting interest, because anyone who has sat through a single episode of Bujanec's show knows exactly what kind of intellectual capacity we are dealing with. Is there really anyone in this country whose views are shaped by him, or who considers him a politically acceptable figure? I suspect what we see on real life news or here on these forums is often just people clashing due to personal dislikes rather than actual political substance.

When it comes to Raspudić, he really ought to simply represent the ideology he believes in; if you enjoy his perspective, then read him, and if you don't, then don't. We could probably debate the merits of Raspudić for another three days and still never reach an agreement.

And regarding that final point about Sanders—yes, he was the one who established those standards, but we can't keep using him as a universal excuse for everything. It reminds me of how Biden reacts to every critique by just shouting "Republicans, Republicans, Republicans!" Yes, the GOP messed up, Sanders messed up, and now he's where he belongs—I was driving home earlier and heard on the radio that he's facing heart issues and likely some form of dementia. At some point, one has to take responsibility and move forward. They knew they weren't taking over Switzerland or Sweden, so why bother with things like Plan 21 or similar grand schemes?

I won't be going either, but I stay informed. You’ve seriously never heard that specific shout he uses to start up that patriotic anthem?
Here's the link for the rest:

I didn't even comment on the other stuff. Look, it all depends on how you view Walter Grant5. If you see him as objective, then his opinion carries weight. If he voices exactly what you already believe, it just reinforces your own bias.

Larry Fox5 said:My metaphor wasn't even specifically targeting Kekin or MPT—it was about general perception regarding free speech... basically how we find things more palatable when they're wrapped in fancy packaging versus when they're plain and obvious to everyone.
If you ask me, those bans actually make things worse—they give these people a sense of importance they don't deserve by framing them as martyrs for absolute freedom, which just makes them boring...

It’s the same deal with the swastika—it only becomes "interesting" because it’s banned. Honestly, seventy years after the Holocaust and with two whole new generations grown up, America—and Europe too—should be confident enough to get over its own complexes...

I agree on free speech. No matter how much I hate what some people support, you still have the right to say it.

Seventy years have passed, but we still know exactly what that symbol represents here in the West (we don't go around using Buddhist symbols in the States to play it safe). History needs an objective look. You have to weigh the good against the bad of any era, nation, or leader. Certain symbols represent faith (like the Cross), politics (like the red star or the hammer and sickle), or even other extremist iconography.

Larry Fox5 said:Actually, no, it isn't. Garbage is still garbage even if you wrap it in fancy cellophane—it's just a question of how bad it stinks... and let me tell you, that stench won't kill you, no matter how much it makes you gag...

I disagree. Name one part of Mile's set where he sounds anything like MPT. He doesn't push that kind of stuff. People just hate him because they don't vibe with his style or because they clash with him on politics and religion.

Check out these three songs where he touches on political themes—tell me I'm wrong:


(I'm posting this specifically for the lyrics: "I picked up the phone

to order some pizza for home

answered the call and got confused

what if he's an idiot?

A parasite with no ideas?

An artist? A member of the Republican Party?"

Comparing this to calling for massacres or glorifying totalitarian regimes is a massive stretch.

EDIT: I'm not attacking anyone's beliefs here. I'm pointing out the difference in how Kekin and MPT deliver their views. It's not about what someone thinks in an interview; it's about openly glorifying things at a concert. Just curious how a German singer would fare if he claimed to be a patriot but started his show shouting "Sieg Heil!", praising Hitler, and celebrating the Holocaust and Auschwitz. (And yeah, he doesn't pay his taxes either.) There's a huge distinction between a person stating an opinion and someone performing songs at a concert that celebrate things the rest of the world finds revolting and condemns as some of the darkest chapters in modern history.

Anthony Jackson2 said:About time, too ☕

good to have you back 😉

🙂

brightpilot6 said:Well, look at how many people are absolutely captivated by certain political leaders and how those views drive them.

It isn't merely about mindless imitation of an opinion; rather, it’s more about the deliberate push toward elements that trigger a regression in the collective psyche. Think back to the heightened tensions we saw during our own historical conflicts.

What else would explain the sudden obsession with military uniforms, wartime rhetoric, or those intense, divisive clashes we experienced on the streets of D.C.?

It’s pretty obvious what's happening here. These protests are just a desperate attempt to drag the Republicans back into power. We’re out here fighting these red devils, yet nobody seems to care that twice as many people jumped from the old Communist Party over to the GOP rather than the Democrats. It was the GOP itself that plunged us into this crisis and bled us dry. Even after twenty years, a huge chunk of this country still clings to that outdated "Left equals Communists" logic while claiming the Republicans are the only true American party. Don't get me wrong—I'm not exactly out here singing the praises of the Democrats either.

brightpilot6 said:Good grief, where on earth did you crawl out from, 🙏🙏 🙂

At first glance, I actually wondered if Morgan Williams was trying to channel some kind of satirical columnist, but then I remembered that whole mess during the opening of the NBA season 🕺

I'm back. Finally. 🙂

Walter Grant5 said:The "veterans" getting all this loud-mouthed criticism in this country are the ones pulling $4,000 a month pensions. They're basically political puppets protesting on our backs. I know there are people behind the scenes—well-off types being handed $67 a day just to eat lamb and hang out in tents to make the crowds look bigger. They demand meetings without even having a real reason to ask for them... etc. These aren't the actual struggling vets, definitely not the ones in the same circle as those big-name lobbyists...

I know these people exist because I personally know one of them.

Yeah, hating others is linked to existential issues, but nothing justifies random hate. Besides, taking criticism won't kill you. It makes you better, smarter, stronger. Gives you some perspective. Avoiding criticism just leaves you narrow-minded.

@Morgan Williams you still in town?

I am. ☕

EDIT:

Keith Miller30 said:I think you might be placing a bit too much weight on these things. And let's be honest, it absolutely comes down to personal belief—though I'm not sure where you're from, I'll just assume you're somewhere like Chicago ☕—so let's not kid ourselves. What do you mean by "reviving history" or dragging people back to that era? This guy is a singer, plain and simple; he isn't some messianic leader followed by millions. He’s a musician. I listen to his tracks just like I'd listen to Foo Fighters, even though Dave Grohl holds completely different views, and that's the end of the story. One artist has great songs, another has great songs, and that's that. I don't quite grasp this notion that people are losing their minds over celebrity opinions or being led astray by them. Some people don't like it when a certain commentator speaks their mind, others dislike it when a specific politician shares a view, and some object to what a rock star or a folk singer has to say. But if you can't stand someone's perspective, why not just turn off the radio and move on? They are perfectly free to express themselves as they please.

Ultimately, everything traces back to individual beliefs, whether we care to admit it subconsciously or not. ☕

Look, I draw a line between personal beliefs and what happened here. It’s one thing to have an opinion, but it’s another entirely to celebrate a genocidal regime at a concert, toast to the slaughter of innocent people, or start a song with a salute from a totalitarian era. That specific slogan wasn't even the official greeting of the modern United States. European nations have already made their stance on this crystal clear.

Take someone like a political commentator criticizing certain views—there's a massive difference between holding a debate and the blatant extremism I just described.

Patriotism and tax evasion don't exactly make for a great combo, but what really sticks in my throat about Thompson is this: MPT

Especially since he dodged that whole organized forum discussion on the topic right after—which makes zero sense if you're actually innocent of media smears—and claimed everything he sings and thinks is his truth. Look, he’s got some decent tracks, sure, but if people actually listened to the subtext, they'd probably find some catchy speeches by Hitler too.

EDIT: And honestly, being banned from performing in certain parts of Europe (if not the whole EU, I can't be sure) says all you need to know about his character.

Pure artistry on the pitch ☕

Unfortunately

🙏 🙏

Offside. It's over. 😢

mellowotter36 said:It’s all nonsense. They even hand them formulas where everything is spelled out, even though you don't actually need them if you have even a shred of logical reasoning. Three years ago, I took the B-level exam because I didn't feel like sweating the A-level. I finished in 20 minutes and got a 100% without any studying. Mind you, I was a prep school kid ☕. It’s more about general intelligence than some specific test
.

Apparently, students are considered a massive financial burden on this country. So, they try to cut down student numbers this way. Clearly, those choosing majors like economics or law are seen as "excess" since they aren't considered "essential" enough to justify the cost of schooling them.

Man, seriously? We should probably slash economics enrollment by ten times then! And what, send everyone who wants to study there to some random training course instead? If you can't solve a basic problem like this, you have no business being in an economics program anyway.

🤣

Now there’s even a "STOP the Harassment of High School Grads" page popping up on Facebook. 🙏

Man, these tasks are brutal. 🙏