Why are you guys still voting Republican?

fadedangler said:It looks to me like the country is just sinking further into trouble. The Republican Party seems to be getting more corrupt by the day, and honestly, Sanders can't seem to get anything right. It feels like you aren't even allowed to speak your mind if you disagree with the administration. Sanders acts like he owns the place—he could probably pull off a full dictatorship if he really wanted to, since he can basically arrest whoever he feels like. The only thing stopping him is that we don't have Gulags here yet.
So, I have to ask you guys:
Why are you still sticking by Sanders? I mean, has he completely brainwashed everyone, or is there something else going on here?

Maybe it’s just a collective case of masochism? 😁😂

wearycanyon26 said:But everything you're criticizing the "left" for is actually written right there in the Constitution.
As for this whole business regarding the marginalization of veterans, honestly, I have never understood that argument.
I hear it all the time, yet I fail to see how they are being marginalized or who exactly is doing it, or even by what mechanism?
Is "marginalization" simply asking legitimate questions about the size of the registry, demanding transparency through public records, or suggesting that we need a proper audit? Are those really acts of marginalization, even if they are desperate attempts at reform?
Or are you referring to the specific instances of how benefits are handed out?
Regarding religious education in schools, fine, maybe it isn't the most vital issue, but the agreements with the Vatican certainly are significant topics, just as the way overseas voters participate in our elections is a matter of great importance. I don't see what is so controversial about discussing those...

Look, here is a textbook example of veteran marginalization: coming from leadership figures who don't give them even an ounce of respect. It’s the same story every time—people digging for fake veterans or obsessing over publishing registries, yet nobody ever asks how it’s mathematically or biologically possible that, sixty-three years after World War II, we are still dealing with seventy-eight thousand partisan pensions. No one ever opens up that discussion, but they’ll talk about veterans all day long. Apparently, their contributions aren't worth a dime. It goes so far that some people even try to claim atrocities were committed during Operation Storm.
Regarding the agreement with the Vatican, you can't just cancel it unilaterally, so it seems pretty foolish to bring that up as a campaign talking point. As for overseas voting, it doesn't even exist in the way people think. What exists is the right for all American citizens to vote, regardless of where they live. About 90% of the diaspora isn't even made up of citizens, so they have no voting rights, and of the 10% who are citizens, maybe only a fifth actually shows up. They’re basically a footnote; the only reason the topic comes up is because someone back home keeps threatening to abolish it.

wearycanyon26 said:What do you mean, "pro-Mexican extremists and American sympathizers"!?
Who on earth is Pupavac sitting in a coalition with for two whole terms then, if not them?! Why the hell are you trying to scare this nation with the specter of America, you hypocrites!?
Who exactly are these "extremists" and "American" you're talking about? Are you referring to the current Speaker of the House, a former high-ranking intelligence official? Or perhaps you're targeting the current Secretary of Defense who has even identified as an American? Which specific American are you pointing at, and by what twisted logic did you decide they actually belong to that group?

I’m talking about the people who sing songs praising the old union whenever they want to celebrate an election "victory." I mean the ones who jump at every chance to deliver a eulogy for Marshall and the "good old days." I mean those who actually pushed for sanctions against us back in '91, or those whose closest allies are foreign leaders currently suing us in international courts. I mean the ones who claim we were the aggressors or suggest that certain historical battles weren't as tragic as others. And let's not forget the whole crew of advisors and staff in the President's office who served in the FBI—not that they were kicked out for being too patriotic, but they were still pulling strings well into 1990!
I don't want to keep repeating myself, otherwise, I'll start sounding like a troll to my own ears.

nimblemarlin17 said:Look, I'm sorry, but what actual policy differences are there between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party? Are Mason and Nobilo Democratic Party? Should Milanović call Tadić an enemy even though neither of them fought in the war? You're being ridiculous.

Račan hitched his wagon to leeches, which turned out to be exactly what happened. Since you seem to view Budis and Tomac as heroes, it's clear you aren't voting for your own better future. Good luck with that! 👍

The old leadership was basically a coalition, and the Democrats were heavily supported by those same factions. It’s not that one leader needs to consider the other an enemy, but the fact that he treats him as a personal friend—especially after everything that person said about our country and the war, even going as far as filing lawsuits against us—really speaks volumes about his own character. You are judged by the company you keep. Besides, back then, he was fully involved because he was a staunch patriot.
By forming those alliances, that leader essentially handed power to the Democratic Party. Personally, I see the other figure very positively; he’s one of the few truly honest people left in the American political scene, someone who actually possesses integrity.

Joseph Wright4 said:That’s not right—what does the Constitution actually say?? If I remember correctly, it says America follows anti-fascist traditions and values (don't make me look it up). That’s totally different from what I said or what certain groups push. In this country, people constantly try to claim that if you're against communists or Marshall's regime (which was anti-fascist in one sense), then you must be a Nazi or a fascist. That’s just huge nonsense and a lie. They also push the idea that the partisans and Marshall were fighting for the American state (which is flat-out wrong) and that they—not our modern veterans—are the main reason we even have a country. That's another lie. Some things are just twisted because of ideology. History is a science based on facts, and some things aren't up for debate. The fact is, Marshall was a communist dictator who directly sent many innocent people to their deaths. The fact is, Nazi Germany was a puppet criminal state with camps where thousands of innocent people died. The fact is, some people try to downplay how dictatorial Marshall's regime was and act like it was something good (just like idiots who feel the same way about Nazi Germany). So, some things aren't debatable. Just because people find excuses for various crimes doesn't make those crimes any less real. I hope it's clearer now why veterans are being marginalized, and why people hate seeing a totalitarian state glorified. Even if those things are technically allowed—I don't know why anyone is surprised when voters punish them at the polls.☕

The Constitution states that America is the successor to the former republic, whose foundations lie in the meetings held back in
1943 (or '42, it doesn't really matter).
As for the merits regarding statehood, it is pointless to argue about it because every era has its own context and historical circumstances.
Was Marshall a dictator? Of course he was, and anyone claiming otherwise is just talking nonsense.
Regarding the glorification and singing praises to such a regime, that only speaks to the poor taste of those doing it; but does that mean those who glorify or sing for the other quasi-state are somehow honoring today's defenders?
I fail to see why a veteran should feel more insulted by someone quoting Marshall than by the daily extremists we witness every single day.
And honestly, I blame the historians for both issues; they still haven't managed to fully clarify or explain the events of WWII, and if they had, we wouldn't have these "quasi-historians" popping up everywhere like the two of us are right now.

James Nguyen13 said:I’m talking about the people who sing songs praising the old union whenever they want to celebrate an election "victory." I mean the ones who jump at every chance to deliver a eulogy for Marshall and the "good old days." I mean those who actually pushed for sanctions against us back in '91, or those whose closest allies are foreign leaders currently suing us in international courts. I mean the ones who claim we were the aggressors or suggest that certain historical battles weren't as tragic as others. And let's not forget the whole crew of advisors and staff in the President's office who served in the FBI—not that they were kicked out for being too patriotic, but they were still pulling strings well into 1990!
I don't want to keep repeating myself, otherwise, I'll start sounding like a troll to my own ears.

Calling him a nationalist is honestly one of the biggest absurdities I've heard lately, but fine... I suppose if you want to believe that. Who else could have possibly worked within the FBI during that era without blindly following every single order from the party leadership? We all know exactly how the FBI operated back then. I doubt our poor friend wasn't aware of what he was getting into, but hey, you're entitled to your little romanticized vision of "resistance" from within the system. And who was asking for the embargo? Was it the current Democratic Party leadership?
And who are these "friends" of foreign presidents? Are we talking about the politicians of today, or the ones who were holding secret meetings with them in the heat of the war?
As for the chaos surrounding Canada? Well, at least that's crystal clear to everyone by now.
Is anyone claiming Operation Storm was worse than El Paso? If any American politician actually claimed that, they'd be an idiot, but then again, anything can be twisted out of context to make it sound exactly the way you want it to sound.

wearycanyon26 said:The Constitution states that America is the successor to the former republic, whose foundations lie in the meetings held back in
1943 (or '42, it doesn't really matter).
As for the merits regarding statehood, it is pointless to argue about it because every era has its own context and historical circumstances.
Was Marshall a dictator? Of course he was, and anyone claiming otherwise is just talking nonsense.
Regarding the glorification and singing praises to such a regime, that only speaks to the poor taste of those doing it; but does that mean those who glorify or sing for the other quasi-state are somehow honoring today's defenders?
I fail to see why a veteran should feel more insulted by someone quoting Marshall than by the daily extremists we witness every single day.
And honestly, I blame the historians for both issues; they still haven't managed to fully clarify or explain the events of WWII, and if they had, we wouldn't have these "quasi-historians" popping up everywhere like the two of us are right now.

History—and the historians—actually cleared things up pretty well. The issue isn't them; it's how people interpret what happened. For example, some people think certain events at Bleiburg were totally justified, while others don't. That has nothing to do with historians; it’s just political spin. And I don't consider myself an amateur historian. If I say the partisans weren't fighting for the nation, but for communism and a classless society, and that national identity didn't matter in all that—which is the whole point of communism—then I'm not giving an opinion, I'm stating a fact. When I say the puppet state was just a tool and innocent people died in camps, that's also a fact, not an opinion. Some things shouldn't even be up for debate or "opinion" because they simply aren't. There's no democracy in science. If I'm right and 100 people are wrong, I'm still right. Period.
The fact that our politicians constantly lie—from guys like George W. Bush to the current leadership—is their problem, and the problem of anyone defending ideology instead of facts, whether it's left or right. Someone singing praises to Marshall and America can't truly support American democracy... well, they can, but only if they have zero clue about history and what actually mattered in the old America.

James Nguyen13 said:Look, here is a textbook example of veteran marginalization: coming from leadership figures who don't give them even an ounce of respect. It’s the same story every time—people digging for fake veterans or obsessing over publishing registries, yet nobody ever asks how it’s mathematically or biologically possible that, sixty-three years after World War II, we are still dealing with seventy-eight thousand partisan pensions. No one ever opens up that discussion, but they’ll talk about veterans all day long. Apparently, their contributions aren't worth a dime. It goes so far that some people even try to claim atrocities were committed during Operation Storm.
Regarding the agreement with the Vatican, you can't just cancel it unilaterally, so it seems pretty foolish to bring that up as a campaign talking point. As for overseas voting, it doesn't even exist in the way people think. What exists is the right for all American citizens to vote, regardless of where they live. About 90% of the diaspora isn't even made up of citizens, so they have no voting rights, and of the 10% who are citizens, maybe only a fifth actually shows up. They’re basically a footnote; the only reason the topic comes up is because someone back home keeps threatening to abolish it.

This whole business regarding funerals is absolute nonsense, and I agree with you there. As for those 78,000 partisan pensions, I haven't a clue, but given the laws of biology alone, it seems highly suspicious and frankly, I find that figure hard to believe.
But then again, one thing doesn't preclude the other; if that number is actually accurate, it deserves just as much investigation as the veteran registry, though of course, that will never happen because this data serves as perfect ammunition for exactly this kind of rhetoric.
As for the treaty with the Vatican, while it can technically be broken, it hasn't been, and that is precisely what makes this topic so fascinating for debate.
I agree that there is no special "diaspora voting"; rather, there is the voting of citizens from Canada, who are a constituent people there, making that land just as much the land of the American people as America is.
How marginal those votes truly are is best illustrated by the razor-thin majority the Republican Party holds along with all its "partners." Those five representatives in Congress don't even constitute a majority among the parliamentary parties.

unnamed

Joseph Wright4 said:History—and the historians—actually cleared things up pretty well. The issue isn't them; it's how people interpret what happened. For example, some people think certain events at Bleiburg were totally justified, while others don't. That has nothing to do with historians; it’s just political spin. And I don't consider myself an amateur historian. If I say the partisans weren't fighting for the nation, but for communism and a classless society, and that national identity didn't matter in all that—which is the whole point of communism—then I'm not giving an opinion, I'm stating a fact. When I say the puppet state was just a tool and innocent people died in camps, that's also a fact, not an opinion. Some things shouldn't even be up for debate or "opinion" because they simply aren't. There's no democracy in science. If I'm right and 100 people are wrong, I'm still right. Period.
The fact that our politicians constantly lie—from guys like George W. Bush to the current leadership—is their problem, and the problem of anyone defending ideology instead of facts, whether it's left or right. Someone singing praises to Marshall and America can't truly support American democracy... well, they can, but only if they have zero clue about history and what actually mattered in the old America.

Even today, the truth about Jonestown remains obscured. How many victims were there really? What was the actual makeup of the group, both nationally and ideologically? How many were soldiers, and how many were just civilians caught in the crossfire?
We still don't know with any certainty who issued the orders for the massacre, whether such orders were even given, or what role the Americans played in the whole mess.
A crime is a crime, and attempting to pass value judgments on it is absolutely insane, I agree; but in order to properly address a crime, it must be fully illuminated to prevent it from being used as a tool for manipulation.
The circumstances surrounding World War II must be viewed strictly within the context of that specific time and those specific events, and never through an ideological lens or—even worse—through the perspective of modern times. Anyone who looks at it that way can be nothing more than a pseudo-historian.
I am not a historian by profession, and frankly, it would be incredibly pretentious of me to call myself one. You, for all I care, could be a quantum physicist, but that doesn't give you the right to claim you are absolutely and unconditionally correct about everything.
But then again, that is just my opinion.

wearycanyon26 said:unnamed

Even today, the truth about Jonestown remains obscured. How many victims were there really? What was the actual makeup of the group, both nationally and ideologically? How many were soldiers, and how many were just civilians caught in the crossfire?
We still don't know with any certainty who issued the orders for the massacre, whether such orders were even given, or what role the Americans played in the whole mess.
A crime is a crime, and attempting to pass value judgments on it is absolutely insane, I agree; but in order to properly address a crime, it must be fully illuminated to prevent it from being used as a tool for manipulation.
The circumstances surrounding World War II must be viewed strictly within the context of that specific time and those specific events, and never through an ideological lens or—even worse—through the perspective of modern times. Anyone who looks at it that way can be nothing more than a pseudo-historian.
I am not a historian by profession, and frankly, it would be incredibly pretentious of me to call myself one. You, for all I care, could be a quantum physicist, but that doesn't give you the right to claim you are absolutely and unconditionally correct about everything.
But then again, that is just my opinion.

See (the bold part)—of course all that is known, but lies keep getting dragged into the conversation.

I agree with the middle part of the post; you have to look at history through the lens of the time it happened.

As for the last part—I don't think quantum physicists would agree with you on that...😉

Joseph Wright4 said:See (the bold part)—of course all that is known, but lies keep getting dragged into the conversation.

I agree with the middle part of the post; you have to look at history through the lens of the time it happened.

As for the last part—I don't think quantum physicists would agree with you on that...😉

Fine then, if you're claiming to possess some secret knowledge that I clearly lack—even if you won't actually specify what it is—then fine, whatever you say...
I will admit, though, that last bit of yours was a total self-inflicted wound.👎

[unnamed]

wearycanyon26 said:Fine then, if you're claiming to possess some secret knowledge that I clearly lack—even if you won't actually specify what it is—then fine, whatever you say...
I will admit, though, that last bit of yours was a total self-inflicted wound.👎

I guess you're right on all counts. I already told myself I wouldn't get dragged back into debates about Nazis and partisans, but whatever—it just pulls you in. Honestly, whoever's running this, maybe just close the thread? We’ve drifted way too far from the actual topic anyway... or maybe we haven't. Who knows.😕 ??
So... hey there.
🙂🙂

Joseph Wright4 said:I don't know. Maybe there's something to it. I guess.

I don't entirely agree with you. I mean, sure, there are way too many veterans on the registry, and they probably should have organized some things differently instead of just handing out pensions and all that—I guess that part is fair.
I don't buy the idea that history belongs solely to the right wing. If the left keeps pushing the old resistance fighters as the only reason America exists today, while basically sidelining veterans... if the younger Democratic Party crowd celebrates elections by singing songs about defunct regimes or celebrating outdated holidays... there’s plenty of reason why people won't touch the Democratic Party with a ten-foot pole. It’s not even that they don't realize the Republican Party is corrupt and stealing—though, honestly, it’s pretty much the same story over at the Democrats too. Not to mention how they bring up things like religious education in schools or issues with the diaspora during election cycles. Those aren't even real policy debates; it's just certain people within the Democratic Party pushing their own ideology because they clearly look down on those topics. None of that actually helps the country move forward.

Where did you get the idea that people choose the Republican Party over the Democratic Party? That’s just not accurate. If you take away the votes from the border states, then the Democratic Party and the Republican Party actually ended up with pretty much equal numbers within the US itself.
And regarding the veterans—with some exceptions—those who are truly honorable and haven't exploited their status are actually more likely to lean toward the Democratic Party or other parties rather than the Republican Party.

I honestly can't stand people who don't support the Republican Party 😍

Steven Ruiz13 said:Where did you get the idea that people choose the Republican Party over the Democratic Party? That’s just not accurate. If you take away the votes from the border states, then the Democratic Party and the Republican Party actually ended up with pretty much equal numbers within the US itself.
And regarding the veterans—with some exceptions—those who are truly honorable and haven't exploited their status are actually more likely to lean toward the Democratic Party or other parties rather than the Republican Party.

That’s about the gist of it... though you really need to view it through this lens: if the Republican Party hadn't secured those extra five votes from the overseas diaspora, there's no telling which way the unnamed party or the minority groups would have swung. The unnamed party—specifically their inner circle—has already proven their colors by joining a coalition with the Republican Party, solely because they were looking for cabinet seats.

fadedangler said:It looks to me like the country is just sinking further into trouble. The Republican Party seems to be getting more corrupt by the day, and honestly, Sanders can't seem to get anything right. It feels like you aren't even allowed to speak your mind if you disagree with the administration. Sanders acts like he owns the place—he could probably pull off a full dictatorship if he really wanted to, since he can basically arrest whoever he feels like. The only thing stopping him is that we don't have Gulags here yet.
So, I have to ask you guys:
Why are you still sticking by Sanders? I mean, has he completely brainwashed everyone, or is there something else going on here?

Are you really sure about that?

unnamed:

That guy is completely incompetent at everything—you can't even express an opinion against the administration without facing pushback. He acts like he owns the place, almost like he's stepping toward a dictatorship, arresting whoever he wants (if only he could set up his own private prison camp)...

A dictatorship? Arresting anyone he pleases? A "prison camp"? And we're supposed to believe all this comes from some clueless guy from Venice?

unnamed:

So, I have to ask you all: Why are you still sticking by him? Has he completely emptied your heads, or what exactly is going on here???

It isn't that—it's more like your brain has been totally scrubbed clean, or maybe just permanently wiped... though you actually gave us the answer in your own post when you were quoting your friends and family.

steelpuma13 said:The Republican Party has very little actual support. Maybe a few thousand people at most.

Once the mass layoffs in government positions start, and once those paychecks dry up because the state goes bankrupt from sheer incompetence, even those few thousand will abandon the Republican Party...

Are you even making sense? Honestly, just keep going if you want...

Richard Palmer45 said:Welcome to the real world... I guess this is just how we Americans are... like people say, we basically handed over our souls to whoever is leading us; you could do just about anything to us and we’d just stay quiet... take cigarette prices, for example—they're some of the highest in the Western world right now...

That’s why all our bright minds head overseas... and not just to join a diaspora, but to actually move away for good... and you only ever hear about them when they make it big...
The rest of them, whether it’s your buddy, your neighbor, or whoever else... it always boils down to shouting "down with the Democrats"... even though half of those same people probably bought their houses or apartments back in the day using loans from the old regime that they paid off for next to nothing... maybe just a few thousand bucks...

And it wasn't just that—that's also exactly why America was artificially kept afloat only to eventually collapse.

Emily Taylor3 said:Maybe it’s because they think the Democratic Party is even worse.

Personally, I haven't touched a ballot for the Republican Party in maybe ten years. But knowing the people I know, most of them aren't actually "voting" for a candidate—they're just picking the lesser of two evils.

And honestly, all this bashing of the Republican Party wouldn't carry much weight if there was an actual alternative on the table. Like, okay, fine, the Republican Party sucks, but who's better? That’s where you hit the wall and realize the whole field is just mediocre at best. 👎

Well, they don't even have to think it—they can be 100% sure about that.

Quincey:

For what it's worth, I haven't voted for the Republican Party in about ten years. But knowing the people who actually cast votes, most of them are basically just choosing the lesser of two evils.

It won't really work out that way, but hey, if that makes you feel better, go for it...

Quincey:

All this criticism leveled at the Republican Party would be way more effective if there were an actual alternative being offered right away. Sure, the Republican Party isn't great, but then who is? That’s where we hit the real issue—realizing that the average options are just pretty miserable. 👎

Criticism would definitely be more effective if an alternative was presented immediately—but imagine how much more effective it would be if people actually provided some solid arguments or proof, instead of just endless liberal media rambling...

Nicole Brooks5 said:The craziest part about all this is how the Republican Party keeps winning in the most economically depressed parts of the USA. And honestly, what’s even wilder is that those areas have never really seen anyone else win an election, unless you count during some period of foreign occupation. Their whole playbook is basically just "it's all the fault of the radical left," and you're hearing it straight from former officials who still act like they own the justice system. Just look at what happened down by the waterfront in Miami... even after that massive disaster, the Republican Party still pulls ahead. It makes me wonder if there's some kind of virus infecting people's brains—maybe we all need to go see Dr. Dabić for a checkup... If you look at places like Boone, Boone, Boone, Boone, or St. Louis, who do you think always wins the vote? These towns have nothing; it’s honestly heartbreaking, but whatever, the Republican Party gets their way regardless. It's like they're the only ones who ever stood up for America or liberated those places in the first place.

Well, it wasn't just them—the Democratic Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the other Democrats were all out there defending America too, with the occasional veteran from the Republican Party popping up here and there. That's probably why they're being so loud right now about publishing the Department of Veterans Affairs records—they don't have much standing, neither in terms of rights nor lies (not that there's anything in the Registry anyway, but fine, let them have it... they've suffered enough since the South was gone). And you should probably mention that they're still "defending" the country today in a way—because thanks to that defense, we aren't in the European Union yet, and we won't be anytime soon, assuming that's even the goal of this nation. Instead, thanks to them—those highly educated, overly "Europeanized" types—we're stuck deep in the North America...