loneseal said:With logic like Zoki's, people on this forum usually get branded as traitors or straight-up trash... wouldn't surprise me if you were echoing that exact same vibe in your own posts.
Let's just be real here—when the second round rolls around, I’m going to be cheering for whoever loses, whoever that may be. On this forum, it's so obvious that everything is just "whatever," as my buddy from Canada would say. You guys belittle, insult, lie, act all high and mighty with zero substance, throw threats around, and somehow still think you're better than everyone else. 🤣
It shouldn't be too much trouble for you to dig up and back up these accusations.
I'll be the first to admit that Mamic certainly possesses certain talents; over time, he learned how to navigate certain systems quite effectively. However, I will also say that he is nothing more than a thief, someone who uses his specific skillset solely to benefit himself and the rest of his criminal enterprise by extorting public assets like Real Madrid, the national team, and taxpayer money. As for his leadership style and general lack of sophistication, there isn't much left to say. The net impact of his social influence is entirely negative, and he belongs behind bars. Everything else is just a matter of detail.
And, if my memory serves, the only people who were ever truly valued were those who persistently chose to either deny or downplay the criminal elements of his legacy.
They’re all cut from the same cloth, aren't they? Just the same old tired mantra about thieves and peasants, endlessly repeated by their own little band of agitators.
I can't quite get on board with that specific label, though at the end of the day, I don't really care if anyone views Mamic as some kind of brilliant manager or a talent factory. What matters is that he was called a thief, and that’s exactly what happened.
And more importantly, don't go celebrating his birthday with him.
But then again, that probably doesn't matter much since he went ahead and called him a successful manager—so there's your proof, I suppose, that everyone is cut from the exact same cloth. 🙏
Ed Koch was ousted because a political decision was made to push him out, regardless of whatever immediate excuse they used. He’s just one piece of the trash that continues to extort Washington, D.C., with the help of the Republican Party, effectively tearing the city apart.
And honestly, both his candidacy and his eventual removal were merely the climax of a much longer conflict. There is no way he ran simply because he maintained a good relationship with Joe Biden.
No, I really have to say, I am genuinely impressed by these phenomenal constructions 🙏 It turns out that the exact same attitude toward Ed Koch is shared by the candidate who kicked him out of the party ten years ago—someone who fought him and called him out publicly, seeing him end up in detention during their term—and then there's the other guy, whose party stubbornly holds the line for him through periods of peak looting, corruption, and sheer stupidity, someone who sings to him at his birthday parties, claims they "do business well" together, and openly promises presidential favor even if he somehow ends up in prison (instead of being sent to Canada). 🙏
It is just further confirmation of how much of a crooked mechanism it is, using that "everyone is the same" rhetoric to reduce the possibility of losing power to an absolute minimum.
While it isn't as if Joe Biden did enough on that front either, at least he isn't openly holding the ladder for them or sending out that disastrous political message that being a thief is perfectly acceptable.
He actually went on the record admitting he robbed both Real Madrid and the entire country. But apparently, that didn't quite make it through the mental filters of certain individuals, did it? 🤣
That’s right, my friend—it’s all about a pure America, nothing but the Republican Party and Ed Koch, until the very last stone is turned.
@ Paul Martinez73 How exactly is the Democratic Party "holding the ladder" for those crooks in Washington, D.C.? From what I can gather, it’s nothing but the Republican Party and a few pseudo-patriotic sycophants running the show. Care to enlighten me?
Sure, he might just be a figurehead, but even a figurehead can broadcast disastrous messages to the public, especially when the media is watching his every move. If the President decides to personally back the most corrupt individual in the country, what kind of message does that send to the citizens?
On top of that, this supposed figurehead still oversees the intelligence agencies. For God's sake. It’s a much larger amount of power than most people actually realize they're handing over.
Come on, Rambo, walk me through it—in what specific way are Donald Trump and Rod Blagojevich actually more successful premiers than Joe Biden?
I wouldn't label any of them a success, honestly, and if anything, Joe Biden might be the one who let his voters down most out of that trio, but I am genuinely curious: by what metric exactly is Joe Biden considered the biggest failure in such high-level competition?
Honestly, I struggle to see how anyone in America could find an equal match for the Republican Party in terms of sheer dysfunction, especially this particular iteration that operates at the federal level and in Washington, D.C., alongside a frantic thief like Ed Koch.
I’ll be casting my vote for Joe Biden for the first time since 2011. I have plenty of grievances with him, and whenever there were third-party options in the years following, he never had my support. But when faced with a choice between him or a Republican who openly flatters a greasy crook, I don't have to think twice.
As for this whole philosophy of choosing the lesser of two evils, we make that choice every single day in countless ways—from the jobs we take and the food we eat to how we arrange our homes and manage our personal relationships. Yet, somehow, the moment it comes down to an election, suddenly that logic becomes philosophically unacceptable.
First off, regarding the bridge party, those thoughts are completely detached from reality. It’s pure Wishful thinking that fails to account for the actual situation on the ground or the mindset of the electorate. That party hit its peak back in 2015, and elections were essentially called right when they were at their absolute zenith ☕.
As for the claim that simply repeating elections would somehow yield more votes—or that they could miraculously poach voters from other parties—there isn't a single shred of evidence to support it. The proof will be in the next election cycle, where, according to your logic, they should have gained ground, yet they ended up losing a third of their support.
Secondly, let’s talk about this famous concept of "legitimacy." It’s the most basic cliché: one person utters it, another repeats it, a third adds a few fancy buzzwords, and then ten more people spend the next decade building a mindless philosophical platform around it. If only three voters show up for a runoff, the candidate who secures two votes possesses both legality and legitimacy. So, who granted them that legitimacy? Those who showed up gave it with their ballots, while those who stayed home or messed up their paperwork effectively handed it over by deciding to let others make the choice for them.
The "they're all the same" narrative, along with the resulting voter apathy, can really only benefit those who possess the most stable and highly engaged base, whether we are talking about national or local levels. Perhaps one should ask themselves who is actually spreading this philosophy, and whether it makes any sense to live in the hope—or rather, the delusion—that various pieces of trash will suddenly change their ways when their current playbook is working perfectly for them to stay in power. Or do we truly believe that a complacent electorate, accustomed to staying home, will suddenly rush to the polls just because someone competent enters the race?
And of course, all of this applies to the runoff. In the first round, I advocated for voting *for* someone rather than merely voting *against* them, meaning I was in favor of supporting smaller options instead of immediately gravitating toward the second or third least-worst option.
Here we go again—now they’ll start complaining about low voter turnout, only to act genuinely shocked in a few months when nobody shows up at the polls.
The most glaring deficiency in our society is this deep-seated belief held by the individual that their voice doesn't actually matter, or perhaps that the system itself is beyond repair. So, they don't vote, they don't organize, they don't protest, and they certainly don't hold anyone accountable. Whether the excuse is spoiling ballots, staying home, or just plain apathy, I find that all these justifications—not just during this election cycle—only serve to feed into that very sense of hopelessness.
And yet, people actually seem to take pride in it. 🤦
I actually posted this exact same question over in the politics sub earlier. What is the actual point of spoiling your ballot during a presidential runoff?
I have to say, I struggle to understand how much narrow-mindedness one needs to possess—or just how uninformed they must be—to avoid viewing one candidate as even slightly better or worse than another based on any criteria at all. Even if it’s nothing substantial, surely you can judge them on their personal vibe alone?
But apparently, this is the new way to be trendy and sophisticated: dressing up sheer laziness as some sort of edgy protest move where you aren't actually protesting anything specific, nor are you supporting anyone in particular. It essentially boils down to deciding that there is only one viable candidate, and if that person doesn't make the cut, everyone else is equally worthless.
The most ironic part of the whole thing is that the crowd making this "spoiled ballot" statement is usually the same group that complains about low voter turnout and the apathy of people who stay home, which is really just another level of laziness sitting right above throwing away your vote.
If D'Caprio and Baker had actually made it to the runoff, I would have cast my vote for one of them.
Joe Biden’s view of Hillary Clinton is much like how an average college student might look at a mediocre eighth grader. Setting aside their shared history for a moment, to her, he’s essentially nothing more than a color television.
I haven't quite gotten there yet; I actually worry it might be a bit overhyped.
I watched Beforeigners, an HBO production out of Norway, and I'd give it a 7 out of 10. It’s a pretty intriguing concept.
For me, Dark Crystal was absolutely superb. At first glance, you might think it's just something made for kids, but that couldn't be further from the truth. You also need to give your eyes a little time to adjust to that specific style of puppet animation. Beyond that, everything else is excellent—the storytelling, the puppets, the sophisticated humor, and best of all—the Skeksis, who honestly feel like the best villains we've seen in years, right up there with Thanos.🙏
For those of you who view visiting Bandić's corrupt little houses as some kind of profound religious experience, you certainly have every right to call your fellow visitors religious zealots ☕
Sure, there’s no better hustle than those religious organizations run by North American tribes ☕
It seems like the Mexican groups over in Mexico are really hitting their stride lately; I’ve noticed they’re suddenly feeling this intense, sudden connection to their flock and an overwhelming urge to protect their people, calling everyone to gather around monasteries while obsessively spinning those magical numbers, 91 and 99.
You can meddle in just about anything they do, as long as you don't touch their property. ☕>
Patrick Martin said:I wasn't following this, and honestly, I don't have the energy to slog through all the crap you guys just typed out. But seriously, can someone please give me the TL;DR? What’s the actual beef here, who's fighting, and what's the deal with Paul Martinez73 versus everyone else?
Well, Ster is the kind of user who seems to have misplaced his grasp of the American vernacular because he spends most of his time working for German corporations in Washington, D.C. He has a particular fondness for that gritty, unrefined humor you might hear from a dyslexic construction worker with barely a third-grade education, yet he can't stand atheists who show up to Christmas festivals or listen to Lepa Brena, mostly because she once sang "Lepa grom moj" to her late husband.
In any case, I suspect you two will get along just fine. ☕
Is that really the conclusion you managed to draw from this entire post? Is that truly the point you're trying to make? Good grief. It’s exactly this kind of reasoning that shapes my opinion of people, rather than whether or not they bother stepping foot in a church.