Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

brightpilot6 said:@ Keith Miller30

If Tomislav Karamarko had offered the exact same thing—and I mean absolutely identical, save for those tired old slogans—but had actually managed to purge thieves like Ivan Kalmeta from the party, I certainly wouldn't be "accusing" his supporters of being pushovers. But he hasn't offered anything concrete, he continues to ride alongside the corrupt, and his political track record offers zero basis for any real conclusion regarding his ideological direction or actual program. We are left with nothing but those few repetitive mantras.

@ Hildea and ironpanther5

I find myself agreeing with you regarding these debates; nobody truly profits from them. However, I cannot bring myself to agree with the idea of simply ignoring the choice altogether. Basic survival logic suggests we should at least attempt to choose the lesser of two evils.

I’d probably lean toward the Most party if they were in my district—I think I'm looking at the 6th area stretching from Borongaj down to Sisak🤣. If they aren't, well, I'll find someone else to throw my lot with.
Look, I could easily get on board with the whole "lesser of two evils" argument if we were talking about high-level national politics, but then I start thinking about local Mayors and reality hits me right in the face. I start remembering places like Rijeka, Varaždin, and El Paso.

Honestly, it just breaks my heart that intelligent people are forced to swallow absolute garbage just to vote for the "lesser evil." The real question is whether it’s even worth eating crap just to achieve some supposed "smaller bad," or if it's better to stick to your own worldview. Personally, I've checked out. I refuse to be lumped into the same bucket as the rest of the electorate, which, let's be real, is mostly just clueless people living out their grandfathers' legacies—whether those were partisan fighters or old-school conservatives.

After voting in contexts like that, I always walked away feeling absolutely terrible. During that one referendum, I felt like I was stuck in the same mess as Viktor Ivančić, the radical leftists, Zoran Pusić, Vesna Teršelić, and Matija Babić. Then during the presidential elections, I felt tied to Tom Horvatinčić, the Mamić brothers, Klemm, Bujanec, Šimunić, and those quasi-fascist types.

I thought to myself, "Hey, you idiot, why are you even doing this?" Why bother dealing with this nonsense and trying to soothe your conscience with the mantra that the other side just happened to have more people you hate or find even more disgusting? And then what? We just spin in circles every two to four years, voting for whichever pile of trash smells slightly less worse.

I had to walk away from the whole thing. I didn't want to find myself in 2024, facing three different banks, still trying to choose between two evils. And from the looks of it, most voters will still be doing the exact same thing back then—picking between two piles of shit and checking to see which one stinks a little less.😁

But hey, have it your way. I just hope that every year, more and more smart people opt out of this circus until all that's left in the trenches are the idiots and the political hacks. Maybe I'll quote Hildegard from 300 years ago here.😁

Larry Fox5 said:The real question is what percentage of the population actually has access to information. A hundred years ago, you’d have some priest in a tiny rural town who was basically the only person capable of reading... and you're sitting here obsessing over specific years just to try and force an argument—even though you know damn well that easy access to info is exactly what triggered this whole different level of progress...

Yeah, kids at +6 and those older folks hitting +50. It’d be pretty interesting to see what the percentage looks like for the +15 to +40 crowd... Honestly, the whole "wealthy part of the world" thing only matters if you look at it globally—but even then, it's kind of a moot point because there are still so many hungry people on this planet today, so how can you even expect them to have internet access?

Nah, we can't do that—but honestly, it doesn't even mean human consciousness evolves in a straight line just because geniuses pop up every now and then...

I’ll be a little bit petty here and point out that there is still one educated individual with full access to modern info who insists that entire ancient civilizations were just "bare survival" and that illiteracy reigned supreme until the Literacy 1950 Quote. It doesn't matter if you give people information if they can't reach it. And the truth is, they can't.

Sure, you've got kids up to age six and then folks in their late fifties. It would be fascinating to see the actual percentage of the population sitting in that +15 to +40 demographic. Talking about the "wealthy part of the world" only makes sense if you look at it from a global perspective, but even then, it feels a bit pointless because there are still a massive number of people globally facing hunger—how can you expect them to care about high-speed internet?

I’m not talking about generational gaps; I’m talking about economic ones. The issue isn't some grandfather who doesn't know how to use a mouse; it's the people who are struggling to eat, who certainly aren't going to drop cash every month just to get online. And these "hungry" populations aren't just tucked away in Africa; they are everywhere. Even in downtown Los Angeles, you'll find people who don't even have floorboards under their feet.

Then there's the second issue: how the people who *do* have internet actually use it. If you ask me, Facebook hasn't done much to actually educate or inform anyone.

wiredfalcon2 said:Rich and poor mean different things depending on where you are, even within the same country. Obviously, being broke in some swampy backwater where you're walking through water ten miles just to get anywhere isn't the same as being poor in America, where "poor" usually means someone who at least owns their own place (or at least the family owns it). But here's the real kicker. The rich exploit the poor and they'll do anything to make sure the little guy doesn't threaten their spot. They network, they lean on the government apparatus, they grab tax breaks, they control the media—all that jazz. It doesn't matter if they're pulling in $3.25 or 10 billion dollars, it's all the same game.

Look at what happened in America—you've got a Treasury Secretary threatening to "release names" of people who took illegal bank loans;

Can you believe the absurdity? There shouldn't be any "releasing names" or threats involved. Those people, along with the bank executives who approved those loans, should have been behind bars with their assets seized days ago. But they aren't. Because they're the rich ones. We're the poor ones, stuck playing by rules cooked up by those exact same elites (the well-connected power players).

Exactly. And they can pull it off much more effectively because financial dependency makes organization easier and far more efficient. Still, that doesn't mean they win every single time.🙂

Keith Miller30 said:I mentioned earlier that I expect things to improve by maybe 10-15%, nothing more than that. I believe that's certainly within the realm of possibility, coupled with my conviction that the Democratic Party simply isn't capable of achieving anything meaningful at this stage.

Suppose he presents an economic program now; would it even matter? If I recall, we didn't even bring the Democratic Party to power because they offered us something unique; we brought them in because we were fed up with the corruption, wasn't that the case? In the same vein, the Republican Party will likely be brought into power simply because people are dissatisfied with the Democrats. Ultimately, it all boils down to promises like Plan21—whether they make a fool of you or not. While I agree that Kalmeta should be distanced from the party, I highly doubt it would mean much to the public. Let's not kid ourselves; ninety-five percent of voters already have their minds made up about who they are voting for.

I never said I was going to vote for the Republican Party; this is more of a theoretical discussion regarding what I would do if I were forced to choose strictly between the Republicans and the Democrats. In that specific scenario, I would currently lean toward the Republicans. Likewise, four years from now, I wouldn't hesitate to cast my vote for the Democratic Party if it turns out the Republicans are failing and if the party ends up being led by someone like Picula.

As for Ivan Sinčić, I was obviously joking; there is no way I'm voting for him. In truth, I find myself closest to that theory of abstaining altogether which Hildegard proposed.

Of course it will. As it stands, their current plan is essentially just "we might dissolve some municipalities and perhaps we'll cut a few taxes."

I don't consider Tomislav Karamarko to be incompetent; quite the opposite, I think he’s an exceptionally capable individual. It is simply his motives that leave me questioning, especially when considering his murky history, the weight of his profession, his sudden political conversion, and certain specific moves I have personally witnessed. If anything, it is precisely because he is so capable that those ambiguous motivations worry me so much.

@ ironpanther5

Your logic would only hold water if election results depended entirely on voter turnout. But they don't. Just because you choose to stay home doesn't mean the government won't be elected regardless. Even if one option provides only five better decisions over a four-year term than the alternative, isn't that still worth the twenty minutes it takes to cast a vote? At the very least, it’s about damage control—an instinctual response we should probably all possess.

Naturally, my entire argument falls apart if someone believes both options are fundamentally identical. I operate on the premise that they are not, and my perspective should be viewed through that lens.

Keith Miller30 said:You are truly the last person I care to debate politics with. No, that isn't why the Republicans win; the real reason is the Democrats, specifically the current leadership. Everyone else is secondary; the main "culprit" behind the GOP's success is the Democratic frontrunner. It’s just like how the Democrats didn't win because of some grand vision, but rather because of the massive corruption scandals of the previous administration. You see, is it really a problem to claim a leader has ties to subversive agents without hard proof—assuming we accept every rumor about a conservative politician as gospel—if I were to claim the Democratic leader is a thief without any evidence at all?

And no, they aren't great patriots, nor was that mayor you brought up, but I find myself much closer to Patrick Martin's theory than yours. If we judge solely by the Republican Party's past, then we should probably leave the Democrats in power indefinitely. It seems to bother people that a specific individual looted the treasury, yet you attribute that entire sin to the whole party; meanwhile, you'll overlook the Democrats' historical transgressions, which, in my view, are far more egregious. You'll ignore their incompetence, their failed cabinet picks, ministers who can't manage a local pharmacy, and every possible scandal.

I'm not under the impression that things will suddenly become perfect once the Republicans take over; I believe things might improve by maybe 10-15% during the first term, and that's about it. As for what the next GOP leader will be like as President, we simply cannot know—not that it matters to you or anyone else who thinks every conservative is a secret agent just because of some unproven rumor or a slight accent—because he hasn't had the chance to hold the office yet. But with the Democrat, we know exactly what we're getting.

Does that make sense?

Just so we understand each other, I truly believe most of you would vote for the Democrats even if the Republicans had a spotless history and were led by a group of Nobel laureates. ☕

And one more thing: this guy doesn't even have an economic plan, which is frankly shameful. He should have at least invented one, given it a catchy name like "Vision2030," and sold a dream to the public. That would at least be more honest.

I see that the Republican leader has announced he'll present his economic platform next week. Just imagine if he presents that plan and they fail to prove he was involved in some shadowy intelligence ring. What will we have left to talk about then? Will we just fall back to saying he isn't as charismatic as the Democrat?

How can you say it's baseless to claim Karamarko is an FBI plant? You have direct testimony from one of the most informed people from the 90s, Branko Manolić. And if that isn't enough for you, you have the testimony of a man who actually worked for the FBI (Ante Barišić) in an interview published in National. About 70% of the written records regarding FBI collaborators were either stolen or taken to Mexico City, which means after that, the heaviest weight falls on testimonies from people like Manolić and Barišić. Testimony from two such witnesses would be enough for any court, but apparently, it's not enough for die-hard Republicans—to them, it's just the latest conspiracy theory. That was the same rhetoric used regarding Sanders's theft, right up until he was shoved into prison.

So you say the Democrats will have their incompetence ignored? Seriously, what has the Republican Party been capable of so far—just one thing?? And nobody forgives them anything, at least I don't. But you can't equate the sins of Sanders with Merzelica; one criminalized the entire party as its leader, while the other only affected a small faction. Sanders could give the green light for massive looting at banks like HPB or ExxonMobil, whereas Merzelica was only linked to what happened in Sisak and the surrounding areas, much like how certain guys operated in the 90s back in the day.

And you really chose to pick on the Democratic Agriculture Minister (who I agree is incompetent) while the Republicans had a guy in that same seat who ended up in prison, peeling potatoes.

How can you not know what kind of Prime Minister Karamarko will be, when he hasn't proven himself in a single significant position in his life? He spent ten years studying; while he was Attorney General, he was handing out hundreds of promotions in his final months; while he led the intelligence services, he allowed agents to get preferential loans at PBZ (the latest scandal), which basically gave every well-placed banker a chance to find out exactly who the American spies were. And now you'd let him run the country??? Not to mention the Soboli affair and the siphoning of money from state companies, or the land rezoning for his own benefit (it's all documented, just Google it). On what basis do you think the Republican Party will be 10-15% better with him, Kalmeta, and Šuker?? And do you honestly think knowing English shouldn't be a requirement for a Prime Minister, when you can't even land an internship at a major firm without knowing the language??

@ZZ

Just popping in to say I just finished devouring your posts on these political topics here on ESPN. 👍
And honestly? I’m right there with you on your conclusions—some of those observations you made are just as wild to me as they are to you...

It seems like you all have a twenty-to-one advantage over me, but honestly, why let that stop us? Shall we keep moving forward?

James Anderson5 said:How can you say it's baseless to claim Karamarko is an FBI plant? You have direct testimony from one of the most informed people from the 90s, Branko Manolić. And if that isn't enough for you, you have the testimony of a man who actually worked for the FBI (Ante Barišić) in an interview published in National. About 70% of the written records regarding FBI collaborators were either stolen or taken to Mexico City, which means after that, the heaviest weight falls on testimonies from people like Manolić and Barišić. Testimony from two such witnesses would be enough for any court, but apparently, it's not enough for die-hard Republicans—to them, it's just the latest conspiracy theory. That was the same rhetoric used regarding Sanders's theft, right up until he was shoved into prison.

So you say the Democrats will have their incompetence ignored? Seriously, what has the Republican Party been capable of so far—just one thing?? And nobody forgives them anything, at least I don't. But you can't equate the sins of Sanders with Merzelica; one criminalized the entire party as its leader, while the other only affected a small faction. Sanders could give the green light for massive looting at banks like HPB or ExxonMobil, whereas Merzelica was only linked to what happened in Sisak and the surrounding areas, much like how certain guys operated in the 90s back in the day.

And you really chose to pick on the Democratic Agriculture Minister (who I agree is incompetent) while the Republicans had a guy in that same seat who ended up in prison, peeling potatoes.

How can you not know what kind of Prime Minister Karamarko will be, when he hasn't proven himself in a single significant position in his life? He spent ten years studying; while he was Attorney General, he was handing out hundreds of promotions in his final months; while he led the intelligence services, he allowed agents to get preferential loans at PBZ (the latest scandal), which basically gave every well-placed banker a chance to find out exactly who the American spies were. And now you'd let him run the country??? Not to mention the Soboli affair and the siphoning of money from state companies, or the land rezoning for his own benefit (it's all documented, just Google it). On what basis do you think the Republican Party will be 10-15% better with him, Kalmeta, and Šuker?? And do you honestly think knowing English shouldn't be a requirement for a Prime Minister, when you can't even land an internship at a major firm without knowing the language??

So, you really think we should take Branko Manolić’s word as gospel just because he suddenly decided to remember Tomislav Karamarko’s alleged ties to the FBI right before an election? To me, that feels almost comical. While I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that Karamarko was involved with the FBI—who is to say he wasn't?—I find it impossible to accept Manolić’s sudden recollection as some kind of absolute truth. Is it not a bit convenient? I have absolutely nothing against proving whether or not someone was part of the FBI, but can we honestly treat a statement like this as a given?

James Anderson5 said:How can you say it's baseless to claim Karamarko is an FBI plant? You have direct testimony from one of the most informed people from the 90s, Branko Manolić. And if that isn't enough for you, you have the testimony of a man who actually worked for the FBI (Ante Barišić) in an interview published in National. About 70% of the written records regarding FBI collaborators were either stolen or taken to Mexico City, which means after that, the heaviest weight falls on testimonies from people like Manolić and Barišić. Testimony from two such witnesses would be enough for any court, but apparently, it's not enough for die-hard Republicans—to them, it's just the latest conspiracy theory. That was the same rhetoric used regarding Sanders's theft, right up until he was shoved into prison.

So you say the Democrats will have their incompetence ignored? Seriously, what has the Republican Party been capable of so far—just one thing?? And nobody forgives them anything, at least I don't. But you can't equate the sins of Sanders with Merzelica; one criminalized the entire party as its leader, while the other only affected a small faction. Sanders could give the green light for massive looting at banks like HPB or ExxonMobil, whereas Merzelica was only linked to what happened in Sisak and the surrounding areas, much like how certain guys operated in the 90s back in the day.

And you really chose to pick on the Democratic Agriculture Minister (who I agree is incompetent) while the Republicans had a guy in that same seat who ended up in prison, peeling potatoes.

How can you not know what kind of Prime Minister Karamarko will be, when he hasn't proven himself in a single significant position in his life? He spent ten years studying; while he was Attorney General, he was handing out hundreds of promotions in his final months; while he led the intelligence services, he allowed agents to get preferential loans at PBZ (the latest scandal), which basically gave every well-placed banker a chance to find out exactly who the American spies were. And now you'd let him run the country??? Not to mention the Soboli affair and the siphoning of money from state companies, or the land rezoning for his own benefit (it's all documented, just Google it). On what basis do you think the Republican Party will be 10-15% better with him, Kalmeta, and Šuker?? And do you honestly think knowing English shouldn't be a requirement for a Prime Minister, when you can't even land an internship at a major firm without knowing the language??

I wasn't trying to equate the sins of Ivo Sanders with those of Merzelica; I simply used her as an example. Personally, I view pre-election agreements as nothing more than legalized robbery through favoritism, though I realize you don't find that particularly controversial. Perhaps it’s best if we don't dive too deep into that particular rabbit hole, because if we start dissecting every single one of those issues, we won't see the end of this debate for another month.

James Anderson5 Asks:
So, you’re actually finding grounds to criticize the Democratic Party over their choice for Secretary of Agriculture—and honestly, I find him pretty incompetent too—yet we're expected to overlook the fact that when the Republican Party held that same seat, they put forward a guy who ended up behind bars, essentially trading a cabinet office for peeling potatoes in a cell?

So, this is exactly what we’re talking about. You simply cannot spend your entire life using the Republican Party to justify every single bad decision made by the other side. Just because a Republican minister was busy idling away his time doesn't mean we aren't allowed to point out that a Democratic minister isn't exactly top-tier either, right? The fact that a Republican official acted like a total clown shouldn't serve as any kind of excuse for the incompetence we're seeing from this current one.

James Anderson5 said:How can you say it's baseless to claim Karamarko is an FBI plant? You have direct testimony from one of the most informed people from the 90s, Branko Manolić. And if that isn't enough for you, you have the testimony of a man who actually worked for the FBI (Ante Barišić) in an interview published in National. About 70% of the written records regarding FBI collaborators were either stolen or taken to Mexico City, which means after that, the heaviest weight falls on testimonies from people like Manolić and Barišić. Testimony from two such witnesses would be enough for any court, but apparently, it's not enough for die-hard Republicans—to them, it's just the latest conspiracy theory. That was the same rhetoric used regarding Sanders's theft, right up until he was shoved into prison.

So you say the Democrats will have their incompetence ignored? Seriously, what has the Republican Party been capable of so far—just one thing?? And nobody forgives them anything, at least I don't. But you can't equate the sins of Sanders with Merzelica; one criminalized the entire party as its leader, while the other only affected a small faction. Sanders could give the green light for massive looting at banks like HPB or ExxonMobil, whereas Merzelica was only linked to what happened in Sisak and the surrounding areas, much like how certain guys operated in the 90s back in the day.

And you really chose to pick on the Democratic Agriculture Minister (who I agree is incompetent) while the Republicans had a guy in that same seat who ended up in prison, peeling potatoes.

How can you not know what kind of Prime Minister Karamarko will be, when he hasn't proven himself in a single significant position in his life? He spent ten years studying; while he was Attorney General, he was handing out hundreds of promotions in his final months; while he led the intelligence services, he allowed agents to get preferential loans at PBZ (the latest scandal), which basically gave every well-placed banker a chance to find out exactly who the American spies were. And now you'd let him run the country??? Not to mention the Soboli affair and the siphoning of money from state companies, or the land rezoning for his own benefit (it's all documented, just Google it). On what basis do you think the Republican Party will be 10-15% better with him, Kalmeta, and Šuker?? And do you honestly think knowing English shouldn't be a requirement for a Prime Minister, when you can't even land an internship at a major firm without knowing the language??

Well, you simply cannot know, can you? Of course you can't; one can only make assumptions, much like people assumed Zoran Milanović would be a success, which turned out not to be the case for most—though perhaps for some of you, he was.

There is nothing more to be done than to place our bets on a year or two from now, at which point we shall see who was actually correct, since right now we are left with nothing but speculation. Just as you have the liberty to speculate based on a statement by Branko Manolić, who coincidentally reminded everyone of the FBI's influence just a few months before the election, please allow me the same freedom to assume that things might turn out differently.

Ultimately, as it always does, time will reveal who was right.

True, and then there’s the language issue. You took his English out of context a bit, though it goes without saying he needs to be proficient—if I recall correctly, he even picked up watches. My point was simply that so many "attacks" on him boil down to dropping a YouTube link where someone gets flustered and fails to list every single detail; if we are going to hold people to such pedantic standards, then I honestly don't know if we'll ever find anyone capable of meeting our criteria. Between the language skills and those baseless claims about him being an FBI informant, it feels repetitive. Personally, I am only interested in concrete evidence and legally binding rulings, nothing more and certainly nothing less.

And that would be the extent of the political talk; after four or five days of debating policy, there really isn't much point in dragging it out further. Before the elections, we can draw a line in the sand—unlike Bujanec—and focus on whether or not we are actually satisfied with them. By then, I believe other issues will have crystallized and their actual platforms will be clearly presented.

Come on, just admit you're getting some kind of kickback from defending him so aggressively. Honestly, I doubt anyone would even call you out on it... 😉

Larry Fox5 said:Come on, just admit you're getting some kind of kickback from defending him so aggressively. Honestly, I doubt anyone would even call you out on it... 😉

How am I even supposed to respond to that? You’re making assumptions without any actual basis. Honestly, the only way to settle this is if we happen to run into each other in person, so I can personally demonstrate whether my current financial situation would ever necessitate defending someone online just for a paycheck.

I could easily cast that same shadow over anyone representing the opposing side, but frankly, I don't have the heart to be quite that malicious or twisted.

Keith Miller30 said:True, and then there’s the language issue. You took his English out of context a bit, though it goes without saying he needs to be proficient—if I recall correctly, he even picked up watches. My point was simply that so many "attacks" on him boil down to dropping a YouTube link where someone gets flustered and fails to list every single detail; if we are going to hold people to such pedantic standards, then I honestly don't know if we'll ever find anyone capable of meeting our criteria. Between the language skills and those baseless claims about him being an FBI informant, it feels repetitive. Personally, I am only interested in concrete evidence and legally binding rulings, nothing more and certainly nothing less.

And that would be the extent of the political talk; after four or five days of debating policy, there really isn't much point in dragging it out further. Before the elections, we can draw a line in the sand—unlike Bujanec—and focus on whether or not we are actually satisfied with them. By then, I believe other issues will have crystallized and their actual platforms will be clearly presented.

Well, his predecessor used to accept watches as well; some were even given as gifts, and look where that got him... 🕺

bluebison47 said:Well, his predecessor used to accept watches as well; some were even given as gifts, and look where that got him... 🕺

Hehe, this one is definitely top-tier. 🤣

Keith Miller30 said:How am I even supposed to respond to that? You’re making assumptions without any actual basis. Honestly, the only way to settle this is if we happen to run into each other in person, so I can personally demonstrate whether my current financial situation would ever necessitate defending someone online just for a paycheck.

I could easily cast that same shadow over anyone representing the opposing side, but frankly, I don't have the heart to be quite that malicious or twisted.

Give me a break. 🤣

Just because I decided to dive into the last 15 pages...

Keith Miller30 said:It seems like you all have a twenty-to-one advantage over me, but honestly, why let that stop us? Shall we keep moving forward?

So, you really think we should take Branko Manolić’s word as gospel just because he suddenly decided to remember Tomislav Karamarko’s alleged ties to the FBI right before an election? To me, that feels almost comical. While I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that Karamarko was involved with the FBI—who is to say he wasn't?—I find it impossible to accept Manolić’s sudden recollection as some kind of absolute truth. Is it not a bit convenient? I have absolutely nothing against proving whether or not someone was part of the FBI, but can we honestly treat a statement like this as a given?

I wasn't trying to equate the sins of Ivo Sanders with those of Merzelica; I simply used her as an example. Personally, I view pre-election agreements as nothing more than legalized robbery through favoritism, though I realize you don't find that particularly controversial. Perhaps it’s best if we don't dive too deep into that particular rabbit hole, because if we start dissecting every single one of those issues, we won't see the end of this debate for another month.

James Anderson5 Asks:
So, you’re actually finding grounds to criticize the Democratic Party over their choice for Secretary of Agriculture—and honestly, I find him pretty incompetent too—yet we're expected to overlook the fact that when the Republican Party held that same seat, they put forward a guy who ended up behind bars, essentially trading a cabinet office for peeling potatoes in a cell?

So, this is exactly what we’re talking about. You simply cannot spend your entire life using the Republican Party to justify every single bad decision made by the other side. Just because a Republican minister was busy idling away his time doesn't mean we aren't allowed to point out that a Democratic minister isn't exactly top-tier either, right? The fact that a Republican official acted like a total clown shouldn't serve as any kind of excuse for the incompetence we're seeing from this current one.

Well, you simply cannot know, can you? Of course you can't; one can only make assumptions, much like people assumed Zoran Milanović would be a success, which turned out not to be the case for most—though perhaps for some of you, he was.

There is nothing more to be done than to place our bets on a year or two from now, at which point we shall see who was actually correct, since right now we are left with nothing but speculation. Just as you have the liberty to speculate based on a statement by Branko Manolić, who coincidentally reminded everyone of the FBI's influence just a few months before the election, please allow me the same freedom to assume that things might turn out differently.

Ultimately, as it always does, time will reveal who was right.

That is spot on. However, the crux of the issue here is that the sheer incompetence of the Republican Party—combined with everything else this "party" has done to this country—effectively disqualifies them from any serious conversation regarding an alternative to this (or any other) administration. It doesn't matter if they were the most inept group in the history of the universe; the damage is done.
For anyone with even a shred of common sense, this should be where the discussion ends. Sure, you can fight against the Democrats, the anti-American crowd, and all that nonsense with a different political party, but the Republican Party and their ideology? 🤦🤦🤦No thanks.

Of course, I should mention that I don't hold much of a particular opinion on the Democratic Party itself (if the Republican Party could even be classified as a legitimate political party, I might actually try to put an equals sign between the two of them). Truthfully, their worldview doesn't align with mine at all, and I didn't even bother voting for them in the last election. My vote goes to the non-partisan movement if they end up in my district, or someone along those lines.
As for a solution to this whole mess? I don't have one, other than waiting for the next 300 years to pass, after which things might finally look up. 🤷 You can't teach a country how to handle democracy from scratch in just a few generations, even if the ruling elite actually encouraged it—let alone in a situation like this.

The conclusion is just wild.

If American voters actually picked anyone remotely close to this PDF football nonsense—Karamarko & co.—the Republican Party probably wouldn't even clear the election threshold... 🤣

Keith Miller30, just so we don't go in circles here: regarding Karamarko, you left out the testimony from Barišić, a guy who actually worked for the FBI. So, it isn't just about Manolić's testimony; we're talking about two people from former intelligence agencies, and both held high positions. Surely that carries some weight for you...

To me, those pre-election agreements were basically cooked up so those massive corporations could escape the mess they made while staying relatively unscathed, and the whole thing stank to high heaven. Then again, if those deals hadn't happened, all those companies would have gone bankrupt, creditors wouldn't have seen a dime, and even more people would have ended up on unemployment. At least some jobs were saved this way, though it was obviously immoral to favor a bunch of people like that. But you can't really compare that to something like the looting of ExxonMobil. Here, uncollectible debts were forgiven, but with ExxonMobil, a perfectly healthy company was sold off through bribery. Don't forget that even foreign investors praised those settlements...

I agree, you can't justify Jakovina's actions regarding all that, especially with him wanting to introduce bow and arrow hunting like we're living in the Middle Ages. My point was just that the Republican Party doesn't really have an alternative or any actual policy in that area, nor does anyone else...

And how can I not know what he’ll be like as Prime Minister? If you're hiring someone at a company, wouldn't you look at their resume, see how they were in college, check if they speak other languages, know how to use a computer, or look at their past jobs? It’s not a guarantee they'll be great, but it definitely lowers the chance of picking the wrong person. We're choosing who gets to ride our backs for the next four years, and I’d hate for those Republican zealots to pick someone like Sanders based on "patriotism" and then claim they didn't know what they were doing later. Everything is already known; it's just a matter of how critical you are during the selection process...

So you say you're only interested in facts and court rulings? Yet on the other hand, you're talking about pre-election agreements without any rulings? This is a small country, and when you move among people, you can figure out a lot on your own. You didn't need a verdict to know that Nadan Vidošević, Ivo, or the Protege types were cutting corners. For instance, the Protege hasn't been convicted yet, but his official cumulative losses exceed 1.5 billion, and the guy has a literal gold pipe installed at home. If you wait for legal proof to get rid of a guy like that, the whole country will go under, and he'll end up doing twice the damage in whatever position he takes...

Anyway, moving away from the domestic politics thread🙂...

The wife of an Israeli minister tweeted a joke about Obama: "Do you know what Obama coffee is? Black and weak." She ended up apologizing profusely and deleting the tweet pretty quickly

https://twitter.com/tomgara/status/6...542208/photo/1

Also, the second season of True Detective starts today👍...

Michelle Palmer6 said:Literacy 1950

Gutenberg 1950

🤣

James Anderson5 said:Anyway, moving away from the domestic politics thread🙂...

The wife of an Israeli minister tweeted a joke about Obama: "Do you know what Obama coffee is? Black and weak." She ended up apologizing profusely and deleting the tweet pretty quickly

https://twitter.com/tomgara/status/6...542208/photo/1

Also, the second season of True Detective starts today👍...

I mentioned before that I wouldn't talk about politics anymore because we've already spent far too much time debating it.

If you actually enjoyed that, then you really ought to check out Hannibal; I haven't sat down to watch that detective series yet—even though everyone seems to rave about it, so I suppose I must—but is there any theory out there that could possibly top Hannibal? Personally, I truly believe Hannibal is at least 10-15% better. 🤣

Keith Miller30 said:I mentioned before that I wouldn't talk about politics anymore because we've already spent far too much time debating it.

If you actually enjoyed that, then you really ought to check out Hannibal; I haven't sat down to watch that detective series yet—even though everyone seems to rave about it, so I suppose I must—but is there any theory out there that could possibly top Hannibal? Personally, I truly believe Hannibal is at least 10-15% better. 🤣

Yeah, it's one of the best. That first season was top-tier.