Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

We really lucked out that the last guy was in charge, because he showed us exactly how incompetent things could get—thankfully, this current one hasn't quite managed to mess it up yet. I’d say comparing them is like looking at a standard 20-year-old Ciggy in his sophomore year versus some kid in the same class who’s clearly struggling a bit more... In the runoff, I'm betting Blondie pulls it off with maybe a 5-10% lead on those ridiculous positions. Personally, I'm about ready to throw my betting slip in the trash.

I actually posted this exact same question over in the politics sub earlier. What is the actual point of spoiling your ballot during a presidential runoff?

I have to say, I struggle to understand how much narrow-mindedness one needs to possess—or just how uninformed they must be—to avoid viewing one candidate as even slightly better or worse than another based on any criteria at all. Even if it’s nothing substantial, surely you can judge them on their personal vibe alone?

But apparently, this is the new way to be trendy and sophisticated: dressing up sheer laziness as some sort of edgy protest move where you aren't actually protesting anything specific, nor are you supporting anyone in particular. It essentially boils down to deciding that there is only one viable candidate, and if that person doesn't make the cut, everyone else is equally worthless.

The most ironic part of the whole thing is that the crowd making this "spoiled ballot" statement is usually the same group that complains about low voter turnout and the apathy of people who stay home, which is really just another level of laziness sitting right above throwing away your vote.

If D'Caprio and Baker had actually made it to the runoff, I would have cast my vote for one of them.

A two-headed vampire snake has been systematically rigging elections for idiots and their cronies for thirty years straight. They’ll keep at it until everyone’s eyes fall right out of their sockets, and now they expect us to show up at the polls just to lend a shred of legitimacy to this unified, satanic, destructive force and the whole circus. As if.

Even if one option turned out to be slightly less terrible than the other, I have no intention of wasting a single second of my life on a "lesser of two evils" scenario.
It’s only the third time in my life where I've even considered the possibility, specifically when the right-wing ☕

Here we go again—now they’ll start complaining about low voter turnout, only to act genuinely shocked in a few months when nobody shows up at the polls.

The most glaring deficiency in our society is this deep-seated belief held by the individual that their voice doesn't actually matter, or perhaps that the system itself is beyond repair. So, they don't vote, they don't organize, they don't protest, and they certainly don't hold anyone accountable. Whether the excuse is spoiling ballots, staying home, or just plain apathy, I find that all these justifications—not just during this election cycle—only serve to feed into that very sense of hopelessness.

And yet, people actually seem to take pride in it. 🤦

I’m not exactly proud of how I handle this, but since you asked, here is why these elections don't even register on my radar.

I'll cast a vote when there’s actually something new on the table. As for these recycled faces and their carbon-copy platforms? Never.

Three hours until I have to drag myself out of bed, wash my face, and pretend to function. Instead, I’m just staring at the ceiling—insomnia is a real trip.☕

As long as you people keep circling one of those two options just to give them legitimacy, hiding behind the "lesser of two evils" excuse... you won't realize what happens when someone wins with 40% of the vote. People will start spoiling their ballots once they see they don't actually have to pick a side—once they realize things can truly change or that parties are forced to put up candidates with actual substance.

I’m showing up to vote, I’m just leaving my ballot blank. I’m not giving any candidate legitimacy, and nobody gets to tell me "Well, you voted for him, so deal with it."

What exactly am I gaining by circling one of those two? The satisfaction of knowing I helped hand them the win with my own hands?

Look at the Bridge party... they refused to play nice with anyone, told everyone to shove it, and pushed for new elections. I’m convinced they could have done it, but also convinced those other elections would have been a total wash. You just have to show people there's a different way, and then maybe some decent candidates will actually bother showing up to the race.

First off, regarding the bridge party, those thoughts are completely detached from reality. It’s pure Wishful thinking that fails to account for the actual situation on the ground or the mindset of the electorate. That party hit its peak back in 2015, and elections were essentially called right when they were at their absolute zenith ☕.

As for the claim that simply repeating elections would somehow yield more votes—or that they could miraculously poach voters from other parties—there isn't a single shred of evidence to support it. The proof will be in the next election cycle, where, according to your logic, they should have gained ground, yet they ended up losing a third of their support.

Secondly, let’s talk about this famous concept of "legitimacy." It’s the most basic cliché: one person utters it, another repeats it, a third adds a few fancy buzzwords, and then ten more people spend the next decade building a mindless philosophical platform around it. If only three voters show up for a runoff, the candidate who secures two votes possesses both legality and legitimacy. So, who granted them that legitimacy? Those who showed up gave it with their ballots, while those who stayed home or messed up their paperwork effectively handed it over by deciding to let others make the choice for them.

The "they're all the same" narrative, along with the resulting voter apathy, can really only benefit those who possess the most stable and highly engaged base, whether we are talking about national or local levels. Perhaps one should ask themselves who is actually spreading this philosophy, and whether it makes any sense to live in the hope—or rather, the delusion—that various pieces of trash will suddenly change their ways when their current playbook is working perfectly for them to stay in power. Or do we truly believe that a complacent electorate, accustomed to staying home, will suddenly rush to the polls just because someone competent enters the race?

And of course, all of this applies to the runoff. In the first round, I advocated for voting *for* someone rather than merely voting *against* them,
meaning I was in favor of supporting smaller options instead of immediately gravitating toward the second or third least-worst option.

I believe more evil has been done in this world by people claiming they are merely "choosing the lesser of two evils" than by those who set out with the conscious intent to cause harm.

In this second round of elections for a position that has zero impact on the actual lives of citizens, some people see a choice. I don't see one at all. Both candidates represent a political elite that has proven they care exclusively about their own interests and those of their party members. This classic struggle between the two most opportunistic organizations in the country isn't a choice of who will better serve the nation or its people; it's a competition to see which one gets the position necessary to pursue their own agendas. I refuse to participate in such an election. To me, this isn't a choice, nor do I care about the redistribution of power among people who have already spent multiple terms proving they won't lift a finger to change or improve this country.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is a conscious decision to embrace evil, and if one evil is simply less significant than the other, it doesn't make it good, nor will it ever be... When faced with a choice between two evils, my choice is to choose nothing at all.

Honestly, I struggle to see how anyone in America could find an equal match for the Republican Party in terms of sheer dysfunction, especially this particular iteration that operates at the federal level and in Washington, D.C., alongside a frantic thief like Ed Koch.

I’ll be casting my vote for Joe Biden for the first time since 2011. I have plenty of grievances with him, and whenever there were third-party options in the years following, he never had my support. But when faced with a choice between him or a Republican who openly flatters a greasy crook, I don't have to think twice.

As for this whole philosophy of choosing the lesser of two evils, we make that choice every single day in countless ways—from the jobs we take and the food we eat to how we arrange our homes and manage our personal relationships. Yet, somehow, the moment it comes down to an election, suddenly that logic becomes philosophically unacceptable.

There is absolutely zero chance I’m stepping foot in a voting booth to cast a ballot for the most incompetent Prime Minister in American history, especially when Nancy Pelosi is even in the running. And don't get me started on Mitt Romney—he’s totally bland, basically just a slightly better version of Barack Obama.

I'm gonna go hit the slopes.

Come on, Rambo, walk me through it—in what specific way are Donald Trump and Rod Blagojevich actually more successful premiers than Joe Biden?

I wouldn't label any of them a success, honestly, and if anything, Joe Biden might be the one who let his voters down most out of that trio, but I am genuinely curious: by what metric exactly is Joe Biden considered the biggest failure in such high-level competition?

Look, Mitt Romney is playing this hand specifically because she expects to be elected, yet you all refuse to give her any actual legitimacy.
Poor thing—without that mandate, she’ll just be sweating bullets while trying to embrace a bunch of con artists.

No matter how you slice it, we’re just picking some random nobody who won't actually change anything about our lives. It’s no wonder people can’t find the motivation to even show up at the polls...
The only ones actually getting fired up are the die-hard ideologues—mostly because they're stuck in their ways rather than actually thinking for themselves. At least a third of the country feels that way, according to unknown.

Congressional elections are a different beast entirely, but let's be real—there isn't even a critical mass of people left to actually shift the needle anyway.

I’m truly heartbroken that the spokesperson for that arrogant neo-Nazi wasn't selected.
Pathetic.

Sure, he might just be a figurehead, but even a figurehead can broadcast disastrous messages to the public, especially when the media is watching his every move. If the President decides to personally back the most corrupt individual in the country, what kind of message does that send to the citizens?

On top of that, this supposed figurehead still oversees the intelligence agencies. For God's sake. It’s a much larger amount of power than most people actually realize they're handing over.

To hell with the elections.

I've been preoccupied with something far more significant.

Is it correctly written as "jab" or should it be "ja b"?

Considering the kind of average citizen you expect, you’re looking at a choice between Reaganism/Thatcherism on one hand and Kennedy/Obama on the other. 🍿

You’ve got two pretty solid candidates here—highly educated, former diplomats, top-tier students, people who actually speak languages used for completely useless functions. The Republican Party still has Donald Trump, while the Democratic Party doesn't have anyone better than Zelenskyy.

Things are pretty straightforward; if you’re a die-hard Republican or a loyal Democrat, you probably won't even think the selection is bad.

As for me, I’m either staying home or just marking my ballot blank, but strictly because I don't belong to either camp; I refuse to play the "lesser of two evils" game (though, let's be honest, the Democrats are slightly less evil, and Zelenskyy is intellectually a step above).

I have zero desire to grant legitimacy to a party that counts Tim Geithner, Elizabeth Warren, Congress, Rod Blagojevich, and Antonio Villaraigosa among its ranks. Nor do I want to support those who produced Ed Koch, or heaven forbid, the people he coalitions with in the Cabinet.

I simply don't want to vote for people who offer absolutely nothing new—those who serve as a guaranteed guarantee for ballooning public spending and blatant cronyism.

I'm tired of people who don't have the guts to tell the dim-witted citizens of this country, "Look, we're working on Sundays to boost the economy because everyone shops on Sundays; if you hate it, boycott it so nobody works at a loss," instead of spinning these pathetic tales about empty cash registers and struggling families, when we all know neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will ever actually fix the underlying issues.

At the end of the day, these elections are just an exercise for politically burdened conservatives and liberals to flex their muscles and debate whether America is "conservative" or "socialist." I refuse to participate in that little playground game. What I actually want is real change—someone who will cut spending, slash red tape for businesses, and actually clean up the judicial system.

The Republican Party and the Democratic Party aren't offering any of that in their parliamentary platforms, let alone in the race for this particular office that carries no actual power.

I would sooner cast my vote for the Libertarian Party than deal with Ed Koch, the Republican Party, or the Democratic Party (listed in order of how much they nauseate me).

Watched Amazon's Wind River on Blu-ray last Saturday... I guess the Wind River valley setting was pretty well organized in the film.

Jesse Wells8 said:Watched Amazon's Wind River on Blu-ray last Saturday... I guess the Wind River valley setting was pretty well organized in the film.

Absolute masterpiece.

brightpilot6 said:Come on, Rambo, walk me through it—in what specific way are Donald Trump and Rod Blagojevich actually more successful premiers than Joe Biden?

I wouldn't label any of them a success, honestly, and if anything, Joe Biden might be the one who let his voters down most out of that trio, but I am genuinely curious: by what metric exactly is Joe Biden considered the biggest failure in such high-level competition?

Look, I mean, sure, Donald Trump might be pulling better numbers on the economic front, but let’s be real—unlike Joe Biden, he actually has the circumstances working in his favor for once.

Not one single person in that lot had the guts to actually tackle structural reforms. It’s honestly pretty pathetic when you look at Zelenskyy, because he actually had some level of public backing to pull it off, especially considering he inherited such a complete mess of a country—though, granted, you’d need nerves of absolute steel to even attempt something like that. He didn't bother doing it for the sake of the country, either; for those guys, party approval ratings will always matter way more than the actual state of the economy they’re supposed to be running.

Take the way the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have been co-financing housing projects—it’s basically a masterclass in how to absolutely wreck an entire real estate market, driving up rents and making everything else skyrocket right along with them.
The whole "funding homes for young families" slogan carries way more weight than the actual fallout, which most people fail to realize is a direct consequence of those very decisions. And honestly? That kind of messaging is exactly what wins votes.

On the other hand, Donald Trump is sitting on a much stronger economic hand right now, but he just keeps clinging to the status quo because he’s absolutely terrified of losing his majority in Congress. So, honestly, I don't really have any strong arguments in his favor at the moment.