Let's talk criteria...

Picking up where we left off:

...so, this is where we left off:

Dorian Gray (No input provided to rewrite.)
Look, crimsonjackal63, stop trying to split hairs here—it’s not working. The Republican Party was hit with a ruling regarding criminal organization, and we saw an entire string of top-tier party officials head to prison for white-collar crime, including their former leader. Sure, okay, the verdict got tossed on a technicality and they’re headed for a retrial, but give me a break—there is a massive difference between someone pointing out the facts that a court actually handed down and you posting this kind of nonsense.

Look, I’m not trying to force anything here—really. I am simply looking for an actual, reasoned debate regarding the criteria.
Shutting down the conversation by closing the thread isn't exactly an argument—it's just pure force. Don't get mad at me, I'm just pointing out that this isn't a debate anymore; it's just someone pulling rank to silence the discussion.

Look, I respect hierarchy—I really do—and all I’m ever trying to do is offer some actual culture and a reasoned debate. So, honestly? It baffles me why the people in charge constantly run away from that kind of dialogue—just shutting down the conversation mid-sentence without giving anyone a chance to actually respond.
I honestly think so—disrespecting someone just because you disagree with them is totally out of line.

Let’s stick to the facts:

Judge Ivana Calic—if you're wondering who she is, she’s the one who previously handed down that non-binding ruling against the Republican Party. Here’s a look at how she actually laid out the reasoning regarding the GOP in her decision:

When explaining that non-final ruling in the Media Matters case, Judge Ivana Čalić made it pretty clear—she pointed out that the Republican Party was holding the reins during the period in question. Her point? When an entity like that breaks the law, it’s not just a minor slip-up; it strikes at the very foundation of our society.

"The message here goes out to every other political party: everyone is going to be held accountable, and they’ll have to pay back what they stole," Čalić stated. She went on to point out that politicians need to actually start acting like they follow the rules—instead of this current nonsense where they act like they're somehow untouchable. In her reasoning for the verdict, the judge was blunt: corruption is a cancer.

She went out of her way to emphasize that this ruling doesn't apply to the current party leadership—or even the rank-and-file members, for that matter.

The latest report from the newsroom suggests that we might actually have to face some accountability—something that’s been missing for far too long around here. It looks like there's a push for people to finally return what they took, though whether anyone actually follows through remains to be seen. Honestly, given how things usually go in this country, I wouldn't hold my breath—but hey, it's nice to see someone finally pointing the finger at the mess we're in.

It’s pretty obvious—that ruling was never about the current party leadership or the membership, and it still isn't.
None of those people with convictions that haven't been finalized yet—and I mean more than just a handful—are actually members of the Republican Party.
Look, labeling the current leadership, the rank-and-file, and the voters of the Republican Party as members of some criminal organization—it just doesn't hold water. There isn't even a non-final court ruling to back up such a massive accusation.

In the meantime—get this—even that non-final judgment against the Republican Party has been overturned.
It’s funny how people act like everyone involved in those legal mess-ups is still part of the Republican Party—but honestly, most of those folks who were convicted (even without final judgments) or had their sentences overturned haven't been party members for six or seven years now.

So, what do we actually have to show for all these high-ranking Republican Party officials and those final court rulings? Honestly, not much. You’ve got Polancec getting flagged over some lighting equipment issues, Cobankovic basically just spinning his wheels, and then there's whatever other nonsense is floating around. That's about it.
They spent ten years unfairly persecuting Roncevica—ten long years of nothing but pure harassment—only to finally admit the guy wasn't guilty of anything at all.
It’s not exactly a coincidence, is it? — I mean, come on...
It’s less about them—it's more like what you see with all the other parties.

That’s all I’ve got for now—I'm gonna take a breather—but just so we're clear, I definitely have more to say on this later.
Look, I laid out some solid arguments—the kind that any objective, level-headed person would actually find reasonable.
Just accept them—as far as I’m concerned, this whole debate is over.

Look, you can choose to ignore my points if you want—just please, give me a reasoned argument for why—but if you do, I’m asking nicely: don't shut this thread down. I’ve got plenty more relevant arguments to throw into the ring regarding all of this.
Thanks in advance.

There’s a slight issue here, mainly because this thread differs from your first one in one pretty significant way: you aren't citing your own previous posts anymore to justify shifting the goalposts...
It’s honestly pointless—and nobody is going to buy it—to start an argument based on two accusations that aren't even remotely comparable. Right now, there isn't a single shred of evidence to support the claim that the Republican Party is a criminal organization, but then again, you wouldn't find any proof for the Democratic Party either; people are generally allowed a little vent regarding politicians given the state of things in America, but only to a certain extent. And you’ve definitely crossed that line in your posts.

The party of persecutors, prisoners, and murderers—that’s exactly what was written there. Let me be clear: persecutors, prisoners, and murderers. How many individuals within the leadership of the Democratic Party are facing past trials, ongoing proceedings, or indictments—whether they have reached a final verdict or are still pending? Are there people who, just six or seven years ago, held significant positions within the party's top brass, who now face valid or even overturned convictions for persecution, oppression, or murder? And we aren't talking about minor infractions here; we are discussing much more severe classifications.

You asked for an argued debate, so I ask that any potential responses be kept brief, lucid, and focused.

lonebadger6 said:The little issue here is that this thread is actually different from your first one in one major way—you aren't constantly citing your own previous posts or playing the "you didn't catch me last time" card to justify inconsistent standards.
It’s totally pointless (and nobody is going to buy it) to start an argument based on two accusations that aren't even comparable. Right now, there's no red card being handed out for saying "the Republican Party is a criminal organization"—but then again, they wouldn't be getting one for saying "the Democratic Party is a criminal organization" either. To a certain extent, people are allowed to vent their frustrations at politicians because of the general state of affairs in the country. But there are limits. In your posts, you've crossed them.

You literally just said that moderators allow anyone to call any party a "criminal organization."
So, I guess we can say the Democratic Party is a "criminal organization" without getting banned too, since no one has been deleted or sanctioned for applying that same label to the Republican Party yet.
Progress!
A standard has been set, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

I really must insist on an answer from you, especially after the feast you laid out in your initial post. This whole thing kicked off because you were claiming you were being unfairly punished for suggesting a political party is composed of persecutors, prisoners, and murderers. That specific grievance—along with your comparison to a criminal enterprise—was inherently senseless, distasteful, and improper. Consequently, the matter was considered closed. Then, you went ahead and reopened a locked thread, which typically warrants a ban—one you managed to dodge—all while demanding an "argued debate." Well, please, provide me with a reasoned response before we finally put this matter to rest once and for all.

I just want to point out—while everyone is debating this from all angles—that only final, legally binding court rulings actually matter as a reference.

By the way, don't play around with this. Without a final ruling, you're essentially just spreading slander—it’s all just hearsay at that point. It's a slippery slope, really... you might want to look into how that works 😉

William Bennett53 said:It explicitly stated it was a party of persecutors, prisoners, and murderers. Let me repeat that—persecutors, prisoners, and murderers. How many people in the top leadership of the Democratic Party have faced past trials, ongoing trials, or convictions—whether they’ve been finalized or are still pending? Are there any individuals who were in the inner circle of that party just six or seven years ago who carry a valid or overturned sentence for persecution, oppression, or murder? And we're talking about much heavier charges here.

You asked for an argued debate, so please, let's keep the answers short, clear, and focused.

You didn't address the three points (01, 02, 03) I made regarding the Republican Party in my opening post—points I consider to have been accepted.
So, does that mean statements like "The Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, the Bridge party, etc., are criminal organizations" fall strictly under the category of personal opinion?
I already mentioned this earlier; if that's the single standard we're using, then fine, I'll accept it.
I don't like it, but I'll take it.

No one in the core leadership of the Republican Party, nor anyone in the tightest circles of the Democratic Party, has past trials, ongoing litigation, or finalized/pending convictions.
True, there are signs of indictments being filed against certain individuals within the Republican Party, but you could say the exact same thing about people in the Democratic Party or their coalition partners.
It's a long road from a mere hint of an indictment to a final verdict—especially in polarized societies like America.

You bring up the timeline.
Even back in the late '80s, individuals were being tried, imprisoned, and killed simply for expressing dissent against the ruling SKH party—the very entity that the Democratic Party claims as its successor today.
Basically, from 1945 through the end of the '80s, under the banner of the SKH (which the Democratic Party follows today), people were persecuted, jailed, and killed.
That is a fact.

That is part of the Democratic Party's history. So when someone calls it a "party of persecutors, prisoners, and murderers," they are referencing that era—just as calling the Republican Party a "criminal organization" references recent times, even though Ivo Sanader and the others involved are no longer members of the party.

Someone might argue, "Well, the stuff involving the Republican Party happened 6 or 7 years ago, but the stuff regarding the Democratic Party (formerly the SKH) happened a whole lot longer ago."
That isn't really an argument, especially since for events from 6 or 7 years ago, indictments were filed, trials were held, non-finalized verdicts were reached, and retrials are happening... but for the atrocities committed by the SKH—the precursor to today's Democratic Party—there are no indictments, no trials, no verdicts, and not even a hint of them.
That's a much bigger injustice we need to be pointing out, isn't it?

We can agree that the lack of legal action against crimes committed in the name of the SKH (the predecessor to the Democratic Party) isn't an argument for innocence. To suggest otherwise would be uncivilized, given that the US Congress passed the "Declaration of condemnation of crimes committed during the totalitarian communist regime in America from 1945 to 1990."
Here is the link to the declaration:

As I wrote before (and in that other thread that got closed), I'm not a fan of labeling parties as "criminal," "gangster-like," or "a party of persecutors, prisoners, and murderers," but I do want a clear, reasoned criterion for what we can and cannot say.
The moderator, lonebadger6, laid it out clearly above, so if you agree with that, then as far as I'm concerned, we can lock this thread.

Well, I got exactly what I anticipated. Thanks for nothing.
So, you’re telling me I shouldn't refer to the Republican Party as a "criminal organization," even though a whole circle of its top leadership has been convicted and sentenced for white-collar crime? And yet, you choose to compare that current reality to something that happened over twenty-five years ago involving an entirely different party and a completely different set of leaders—not this party, and certainly not these specific individuals whom you are defending for much more serious offenses. To sum this up: Cuca was right to shut you down, and my intuition was correct in deciding that the previous thread needed to be locked.