Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

urbanhawk17 said:Karamarko was never Prime Minister.

Besides, the Bridge Party basically turned Karamarko into a political ghost. If it hadn't been for the Bridge Party, he might have actually become Prime Minister. He probably still would be today, too.

That’s just wrong. His downfall was caused by playing too close to Russ.

This is hands down the most dangerous administration this country has seen since we gained independence. Honestly, even as a conservative, I’d sign off on bringing back Zack or even some total losers like Marcus or Jacob just to get these guys out of office.

As for Bere, let's be real—not too long ago he was the life of the party at AJ's ragers, especially after he's had a few drinks.

Mark is nothing but a media hype job (for reasons you can actually point to). To him, Boris Lalovac is basically high-def TV and easily the best MF we've seen in years.

Mad respect to the Bridge Party crew, especially Grmoja.

Dangerous in what way? I guess the current administration was just as problematic, if you think about it. It all feels like a bit of a circus, really—it’s basically whoever plays the game better. I actually voted for the Bridge Party, and their ministers seemed like decent people who would do a solid job during their term. But they tried to play politics, and now they're out of the picture. I don't think we should turn nothing into some big myth. The Bridge Party is just one party with its own members and representatives, all following their own goals and ambitions. If someone wants to actually change society, I suppose they need to hold positions where they can make an impact. Politics in democratic societies is a bit of a double-edged sword: on one hand, it's this endless battle full of low blows, but on the other, it's supposed to be a fair game where the people choose what they want (assuming there isn't any rigging, though it seems like things have been pretty straight since those first few elections). In the US, they spent months attacking Trump, but he ended up winning anyway. The campaign was almost a joke, and the debates weren't much better. Out of 300 million people, you end up with two deeply disliked figures left in the race. Is it really true that out of all the top talent in America across every field, only those two are competing for the throne? That's just how politics works, I guess. Anyone wanting to succeed in the political arena probably has to be ready for dirty tactics and compromises. In high-level politics, it's not necessarily the most moral person or the one with the purest ideals who wins. Maybe it's just whoever gets the most votes. As for where the Bridge Party stands now, and where they'll go next, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see at the next election.

Yeah, but everyone’s constantly riding the Bridge Party because they didn't accomplish some miracle in their first six to twelve months, completely ignoring the fact that they didn't even hold a majority (not even close). Like, what exactly were they supposed to pull off overnight?
If you ask me, they squeezed out everything they could. These thugs wouldn't give them any meaningful authority or key positions to begin with, which honestly, is already way more than anyone actually expected from them.

And damn it, people just straight-up spit on them—it's like a bunch of bros being unfair—because they didn't perform impossible feats, and then everyone immediately runs right back to the old options like the Democrats or the Republican Party, acting like those guys aren't total failures too 🤣. It's the same idiots who dragged us into this mess. We've dealt with twenty-five years of corruption and crime, but no, nobody cares about that; instead, everyone's pissed at the new party that was somehow expected to fix everything in three measly months 🙏

Peter Thompson4 said:Yeah, but everyone’s constantly riding the Bridge Party because they didn't accomplish some miracle in their first six to twelve months, completely ignoring the fact that they didn't even hold a majority (not even close). Like, what exactly were they supposed to pull off overnight?
If you ask me, they squeezed out everything they could. These thugs wouldn't give them any meaningful authority or key positions to begin with, which honestly, is already way more than anyone actually expected from them.

And damn it, people just straight-up spit on them—it's like a bunch of bros being unfair—because they didn't perform impossible feats, and then everyone immediately runs right back to the old options like the Democrats or the Republican Party, acting like those guys aren't total failures too 🤣. It's the same idiots who dragged us into this mess. We've dealt with twenty-five years of corruption and crime, but no, nobody cares about that; instead, everyone's pissed at the new party that was somehow expected to fix everything in three measly months 🙏

How can you say they haven't done anything?
They helped the Republican Party take power. Twice.
And they'll do it a third time if given the chance.
Aside from that, you have a point. They didn't achieve much, but my issue is actually with what they *did* manage to do.

Jessica Gonzalez said:Dangerous in what way? I guess the current administration was just as problematic, if you think about it. It all feels like a bit of a circus, really—it’s basically whoever plays the game better. I actually voted for the Bridge Party, and their ministers seemed like decent people who would do a solid job during their term. But they tried to play politics, and now they're out of the picture. I don't think we should turn nothing into some big myth. The Bridge Party is just one party with its own members and representatives, all following their own goals and ambitions. If someone wants to actually change society, I suppose they need to hold positions where they can make an impact. Politics in democratic societies is a bit of a double-edged sword: on one hand, it's this endless battle full of low blows, but on the other, it's supposed to be a fair game where the people choose what they want (assuming there isn't any rigging, though it seems like things have been pretty straight since those first few elections). In the US, they spent months attacking Trump, but he ended up winning anyway. The campaign was almost a joke, and the debates weren't much better. Out of 300 million people, you end up with two deeply disliked figures left in the race. Is it really true that out of all the top talent in America across every field, only those two are competing for the throne? That's just how politics works, I guess. Anyone wanting to succeed in the political arena probably has to be ready for dirty tactics and compromises. In high-level politics, it's not necessarily the most moral person or the one with the purest ideals who wins. Maybe it's just whoever gets the most votes. As for where the Bridge Party stands now, and where they'll go next, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see at the next election.

Let’s be honest here, during their first term, the Republican Party used shady tactics to privatize a massive amount of state-owned companies. I don't feel like digging up exact stats right now, but based on some expert articles I've read, they moved over 1,000 companies in the 90s, and then maybe 30 or 40 during the Račan era...

During their second term, the corruption ramped up again through highway construction projects, finishing off those old privatizations, and piling huge debts onto the country...

Now, in their third term, they basically let the bankruptcy protections slide, which cost us our legal standing against major corporations. They're using every resource to protect big players from paying what they owe or facing criminal charges—especially when it comes to using their own cash. We could argue whether it's the party's fault or just a broken justice system, but even someone who isn't paying attention can see that the courts seem totally compromised when it comes to the big fish (think Horvatinčić, Sanders, Todoric, FIMI media, etc.). It’s the same story with the FBI. So, why is this third term so dangerous for America? Have you seen how much money is owed to suppliers and banks? It's a scary scenario where countless small businesses could lose everything because the big conglomerates were handed hundreds of millions in credit they clearly can't repay...

The Republican Party is a real problem for the US. Their only priority seems to be keeping their voter base happy through government handouts and protecting the profits of various tycoons, regardless of how it affects everyone else...

And the only alternative still feels like the Democrats, who are just a slightly lesser evil. That's why I really respect the Bridge Party; they're showing there might actually be a little light at the end of the tunnel...

As for the fact that the USA is in a similar spot regarding its democracy, that doesn't offer much comfort either...

Matthew Young35 said:How can you say they haven't done anything?
They helped the Republican Party take power. Twice.
And they'll do it a third time if given the chance.
Aside from that, you have a point. They didn't achieve much, but my issue is actually with what they *did* manage to do.

The people chose the Republican Party, plain and simple. They won the majority, and while the political landscape looks a little different nowadays, those were the guys who were "supposed" to be in charge.

Peter Thompson4 said:The people chose the Republican Party, plain and simple. They won the majority, and while the political landscape looks a little different nowadays, those were the guys who were "supposed" to be in charge.

No, absolutely not.
The majority was held by the Republican Party and the Bridge Party, but let’s be clear: those who voted for the Bridge Party did so specifically because they couldn't stand the thought of the Republicans running the show.

Matthew Young35 said:No, absolutely not.
The majority was held by the Republican Party and the Bridge Party, but let’s be clear: those who voted for the Bridge Party did so specifically because they couldn't stand the thought of the Republicans running the show.

Well, yes and no. Sure, the Republican Party had a majority, but it wasn't enough to actually run things in politics. And look, even though I personally hated seeing them join forces, damn it, that's just how politics works—it was either the Republicans or the Democrats.

The Republican Party didn't secure an absolute majority, and in Congress, that’s the only number that actually matters.
Calling a relative majority anything else is just nonsense.

People say they want the Republicans, but only if they’re honest and don't have any old-school Democrats hiding in their ranks. But let's be real... you can't really be both... Back in the early 90s, most of the old guard just jumped ship to the GOP, while everyone else headed over to the Democrats

And that's why we've basically had the same crowd running things for decades, just under different labels

Whatever, most people actually voted for this... we basically got exactly what we asked for.

Matthew Young35 said:How can you say they haven't done anything?
They helped the Republican Party take power. Twice.
And they'll do it a third time if given the chance.
Aside from that, you have a point. They didn't achieve much, but my issue is actually with what they *did* manage to do.

And what was their alternative—offer some brilliant explanation?

Sit in Congress like the Libertarians, making minor tweaks just like you and I do here on this forum?
I don't doubt the Libertarians have good intentions, but there is no real change without holding office. If they are smart, they will run on a joint ticket and sweep the losses.

Peter Thompson4 said:Whatever, most people actually voted for this... we basically got exactly what we asked for.

And that’s really the heart of the debate. In almost any election, about 40% of people don't even bother to show up, and at least 20% are just seniors or folks from rural towns who haven't a clue whose economic platform is which or even who they're voting for. Then you've got another 10-20% who vote purely based on their own interests or family ties.

Take those local politicians lately who hand out government contracts to certain groups—who do you think their families end up voting for?

A large part of the population doesn't truly know what they want, and if you have enough money and media influence, it's incredibly easy to manipulate them...

Rachel Cooper3 said:And what was their alternative—offer some brilliant explanation?

Sit in Congress like the Libertarians, making minor tweaks just like you and I do here on this forum?
I don't doubt the Libertarians have good intentions, but there is no real change without holding office. If they are smart, they will run on a joint ticket and sweep the losses.

They should join a coalition with the Democrats.
Honestly, I'd side with anyone just to keep the Republicans out of office.
☕

James Anderson5 said:And that’s really the heart of the debate. In almost any election, about 40% of people don't even bother to show up, and at least 20% are just seniors or folks from rural towns who haven't a clue whose economic platform is which or even who they're voting for. Then you've got another 10-20% who vote purely based on their own interests or family ties.

Take those local politicians lately who hand out government contracts to certain groups—who do you think their families end up voting for?

A large part of the population doesn't truly know what they want, and if you have enough money and media influence, it's incredibly easy to manipulate them...

Look, I get where you're coming from and I totally agree, but at the end of the day, that's just democracy for you—that's the system we live in.

Everyone has the right to say what they want, and just because some people choose not to use that right while others exploit it, you can't really blame the ones who are actually playing the game.

Matthew Young35 said:They should join a coalition with the Democrats.
Honestly, I'd side with anyone just to keep the Republicans out of office.
☕

And what the hell did you actually achieve by doing that? Look, I get why it sounds like a better move on paper, but seriously, what's the actual payoff? Nothing. It's the exact same crap, just wrapped up in different packaging.

Peter Thompson4 said:And what the hell did you actually achieve by doing that? Look, I get why it sounds like a better move on paper, but seriously, what's the actual payoff? Nothing. It's the exact same crap, just wrapped up in different packaging.

What did I gain?
You answered that yourself:
"it sounds like a better solution to me too."

The Republicans have proven themselves to be an absolutely disastrous option. We've seen it play out in practice. Repeatedly.

No, it isn't just the same nonsense in a different wrapper. Nothing compares to the GOP. Except, perhaps, a biblical plague of locusts.

Matthew Young35 said:What did I gain?
You answered that yourself:
"it sounds like a better solution to me too."

The Republicans have proven themselves to be an absolutely disastrous option. We've seen it play out in practice. Repeatedly.

No, it isn't just the same nonsense in a different wrapper. Nothing compares to the GOP. Except, perhaps, a biblical plague of locusts.

It’s all exactly the same bullshit in the end, and honestly, I don't even know if it matters whether I say it like that or if it sounds any better to you, because frankly, who gives a damn?

Look, I already made my point clear—we desperately need some fresh faces in politics instead of just shuffling the same old tired players around like it's some broken record!

Peter Thompson4 said:It’s all exactly the same bullshit in the end, and honestly, I don't even know if it matters whether I say it like that or if it sounds any better to you, because frankly, who gives a damn?

Look, I already made my point clear—we desperately need some fresh faces in politics instead of just shuffling the same old tired players around like it's some broken record!

I disagree. It isn't all the same.
Whether a local politician blows $1,000 $0.00 on fancy dinners at a steakhouse or some official decides to drop $50,000 on a luxury bathroom for their office? That is one thing. But is it really the same as someone spending $50 million to repaint a highway tunnel, taking a $5 million bribe to sell off ExxonMobil, and causing $1 billion in systemic damage? Don't even get me started on the massive conglomerates or the era of predatory privatizations.
If we actually sat down to tally the cost, would it even surprise us if the Republican Party hasn't cost this country at least $20 billion?