Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

Paul Sanders5 said:Look, brightpilot6, I get it, but some things just aren't about politics. The government shouldn't be cutting checks—not even a single cent—to any media outlet, period.

And honestly, Robin Fox2 hit the nail on the head regarding Trump. America isn't just California, Texas, and New York.

If we followed that logic here in the States, we wouldn't have a single news outlet left standing. It's pretty straightforward when you think about it.

ruggedjackal46 said:If we followed that logic here in the States, we wouldn't have a single news outlet left standing. It's pretty straightforward when you think about it.

Exactly. We’ll end up with zero media coverage, simple as that. If they can’t pull their own weight financially, then let 'em go bust.

I've seen plenty of magazines fold over the years. They just weren't making enough money to stay afloat, so boom—game over. Key's turned in the lock. I'm betting a few more will follow that exact same path soon enough. 😁

Honestly, that’s the only way this works. Anything else is just a dead end. I remember reading the Washington Post back in the day—it went from being a legit, respected paper to basically becoming whatever mouthpiece the current administration needed it to be. Total sellout move.

Paul Sanders5 said:Exactly. We’ll end up with zero media coverage, simple as that. If they can’t pull their own weight financially, then let 'em go bust.

I've seen plenty of magazines fold over the years. They just weren't making enough money to stay afloat, so boom—game over. Key's turned in the lock. I'm betting a few more will follow that exact same path soon enough. 😁

Honestly, that’s the only way this works. Anything else is just a dead end. I remember reading the Washington Post back in the day—it went from being a legit, respected paper to basically becoming whatever mouthpiece the current administration needed it to be. Total sellout move.

In America, no major news outlet can survive entirely on its own. Not even the big players like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. You can't just leave everything to the free market in a country where the niche markets are this specific—I mean, this isn't some massive, infinite landscape where every tiny idea finds a buyer. Well, you *could* try that approach here, but then we'd probably end up with nothing left but local bakeries and newsstands.

Paul Sanders5 said:Exactly. We’ll end up with zero media coverage, simple as that. If they can’t pull their own weight financially, then let 'em go bust.

I've seen plenty of magazines fold over the years. They just weren't making enough money to stay afloat, so boom—game over. Key's turned in the lock. I'm betting a few more will follow that exact same path soon enough. 😁

Honestly, that’s the only way this works. Anything else is just a dead end. I remember reading the Washington Post back in the day—it went from being a legit, respected paper to basically becoming whatever mouthpiece the current administration needed it to be. Total sellout move.

I find this whole "just let the market decide" approach somewhat distasteful. On a purely theoretical level, sure, it sounds charming when you’re young, healthy, well-educated, or born into wealth—or when you possess a specific skillset that happens to make you successful in this particular moment in history (even though two hundred years ago, that same skill might have left you quite destitute). But what happens when you, or perhaps your children, find yourselves in a position where the market offers no mercy? Regardless of how much effort you put in, if the market turns its back, it turns its back. Would you still be so incredibly forgiving toward the market then? Is achieving market dominance truly such an ultimate goal and a definitive metric for worth? And if it is, who exactly decided we should all follow that standard?

When applied to media or culture, this mindset becomes even harder to wrap my head around, especially given the current landscape. If we "leave everything to the market," isn't it any wonder that news outlets have devolved into nothing more than glorified marketing playgrounds? You find yourself squinting through endless commercials for Walmart or Kroger, or wading through sensationalized reports designed solely for clickbait engagement. It’s why movies have become mere shallow eye candy—because the teenage demographic demands a very specific, low-effort type of entertainment—and why music sounds the way it does, catering to whatever trend keeps people dancing in a club. Even sports have been transformed into this sterile, commercialized spectacle where the primary objective is simply to ensure a family spends a hundred bucks on concessions at the stadium, all while barely knowing which players are actually on the field.

But sure, by all means, let's leave everything to the market.

Jessica Gonzalez said:I suppose Trump really just tapped into the frustration of a huge chunk of the population, and he did it through economic messaging rather than pure ideology. The ideology is probably just the icing on the cake, but he won them over on the economy. Elections are essentially just a competition, and if the opposition doesn't offer enough to the people, they lose. You just have to convince enough people from different walks of life to check a box on a piece of paper. The underlying reason almost doesn't matter as long as you sell a story they want to believe. In that regard, Trump sold a very compelling story to voters in the Rust Belt. Those folks were left behind during the industrial shift, and there are quite a lot of them.

What kind of "economic message" are we talking about here? Some billionaire's version of "I'm loaded, so I'll make sure you're loaded too"?

How much naivety does one need to possess to believe that a capitalist—and I mean a heavy hitter of the highest order—actually intends to improve the lives of the working class? It’s almost absurd, isn't it? It would be like a steer choosing the butcher to decide its ultimate fate.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that Clinton was any better (though I certainly agree with Dennis Evans6 that I would much rather endure a polished sociopath than a crude, unrefined one), but I am pointing to the specific type of populism that Trump skillfully peddled to the American heartland.

brightpilot6 said:I find this whole "just let the market decide" approach somewhat distasteful. On a purely theoretical level, sure, it sounds charming when you’re young, healthy, well-educated, or born into wealth—or when you possess a specific skillset that happens to make you successful in this particular moment in history (even though two hundred years ago, that same skill might have left you quite destitute). But what happens when you, or perhaps your children, find yourselves in a position where the market offers no mercy? Regardless of how much effort you put in, if the market turns its back, it turns its back. Would you still be so incredibly forgiving toward the market then? Is achieving market dominance truly such an ultimate goal and a definitive metric for worth? And if it is, who exactly decided we should all follow that standard?

When applied to media or culture, this mindset becomes even harder to wrap my head around, especially given the current landscape. If we "leave everything to the market," isn't it any wonder that news outlets have devolved into nothing more than glorified marketing playgrounds? You find yourself squinting through endless commercials for Walmart or Kroger, or wading through sensationalized reports designed solely for clickbait engagement. It’s why movies have become mere shallow eye candy—because the teenage demographic demands a very specific, low-effort type of entertainment—and why music sounds the way it does, catering to whatever trend keeps people dancing in a club. Even sports have been transformed into this sterile, commercialized spectacle where the primary objective is simply to ensure a family spends a hundred bucks on concessions at the stadium, all while barely knowing which players are actually on the field.

But sure, by all means, let's leave everything to the market.

Not to mention the market isn't built on a level playing field. How are you supposed to compete with massive media conglomerates that have political connections or pre-arranged deals with government agencies to buy up thousands of copies of their papers?

Or take private newspapers that try to report critically on a major tycoon, only to realize that same tycoon owns the biggest distribution network in the country and can squeeze them out whenever they want. It's the same story with the big corporate advertisers, too.

Honestly, you don't even have to be a total moron to see right through Trump’s claims about magically creating jobs out of thin air.
It’s getting pretty ridiculous how much people are actually falling for this crowd of career politicians who haven't spent a single day working in the real world, because when you listen to them drone on about the economy, it becomes painfully obvious they don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about.
Take someone like Chase, for instance—he’d probably argue that the "real" wealthy Americans are just the ones collecting paychecks from $5000, which is basically his way of saying he’d just slap a massive 48% tax on everyone and call it a day, so that’s essentially his entire tax reform plan right there.
We've been hearing these exact same kinds of empty promises coming from the top of the political ladder for years now.

Jobs will supposedly "materialize" if capital finds a way to be more efficient within the market. And efficiency might actually improve if the government stays out of the way—smaller taxes, lower healthcare costs, and reduced social spending. In that scenario, a worker might (perhaps) finally secure a "job," though they’ll likely spend those eight hours staring blankly at a television screen while praying to God they don't fall ill. Meanwhile, the system will go to great lengths to convince them they're thriving, simply because they have a "position."

I have absolutely no doubt that Trump is capable of putting any unemployed person to work. But truly believing that someone like him intends to actually improve the lives of the working class? That remains a profound mystery to me.

When you look at the choice between Trump and Hillary, there really isn't even a debate about who actually knows how to generate real jobs and who doesn't.

I mean, when you start talking about cutting government bloat, slashing taxes, and all that other stuff, you have to realize that the people who truly get it are the ones who have actually done it in the real world and succeeded, not just some bureaucrats looking at spreadsheets and treating everything like numbers on a page.
Though, honestly, this whole conversation feels more like it applies to a smaller economy than the massive scale of the US, because if you were trying to fix things elsewhere, you'd focus on bringing manufacturing back home and protecting your own domestic market, which basically does half the heavy lifting for you right there. I don't want anyone getting the wrong idea and thinking I'm saying this is easy or simple, I just mean that the playbook for fixing an economic crisis here in America has to be fundamentally different from the solutions needed in other places.

Alex Brown50 said:Man, Trump’s gonna be preaching peace to the whole world—honestly. You guys will realize pretty fast that things might actually get way messier than they were under previous administrations, but hey—enjoy the "people's victory" while it lasts.

Another straw man argument, I see. 🙄Who ever said Trump was aiming to be a great peacemaker? Where on earth did you get the idea that I would even vote for him in the first place?

Honestly, I’m just having a blast watching these professional "anti-fascist" hunters and their whole crew squeal like little piglets (and if they remind you of a certain political faction back in the States, well, that’s just a coincidence!). ☕ It’s pure entertainment seeing someone like Lady Gaga whine about moving to Canada. ☕

I truly find joy in watching those who claim to be champions of human rights suddenly turn on the very leader they idolize—seeing them act like a militant witch who thinks she’s entitled to the presidency—just because things didn't go their way. Isn't it wonderful when hypocrites finally get exposed? ☕

What has Donald Trump actually accomplished, aside from being born into a wealthy family?

Eh....

ruggedjackal46 said:In America, no major news outlet can survive entirely on its own. Not even the big players like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. You can't just leave everything to the free market in a country where the niche markets are this specific—I mean, this isn't some massive, infinite landscape where every tiny idea finds a buyer. Well, you *could* try that approach here, but then we'd probably end up with nothing left but local bakeries and newsstands.

Goodness, how will we ever survive if a major paper like the New York Times or the Washington Post goes under? 😢 Will the sun even bother rising tomorrow? 😢

Or what happens if someone who’s been getting handouts from the Department of Education for a blog that five people follow suddenly loses their funding? 😢 Imagine the horror—they might actually have to find a real job! 😢

One of these anti-Trump protesters actually stated that she’s out here because being present is just absolutely vital #davorsukerlikes👍

ruggedjackal46 said:What has Donald Trump actually accomplished, aside from being born into a wealthy family?

Well, he managed to become the President of the United States, even without traditional public backing. I guess there’s an economic principle that many people tend to overlook, which is why certain theories often miss the mark. It seems anyone can produce something—whether it's a whole country or just an individual—but knowing how to market it is where the real difference lies. Maybe Trump pulled off the biggest deal ever by essentially selling himself as the President, and perhaps that's why a lot of average Americans find themselves leaning his way.

restlesssurfer97 said:When you look at the choice between Trump and Hillary, there really isn't even a debate about who actually knows how to generate real jobs and who doesn't.

I mean, when you start talking about cutting government bloat, slashing taxes, and all that other stuff, you have to realize that the people who truly get it are the ones who have actually done it in the real world and succeeded, not just some bureaucrats looking at spreadsheets and treating everything like numbers on a page.
Though, honestly, this whole conversation feels more like it applies to a smaller economy than the massive scale of the US, because if you were trying to fix things elsewhere, you'd focus on bringing manufacturing back home and protecting your own domestic market, which basically does half the heavy lifting for you right there. I don't want anyone getting the wrong idea and thinking I'm saying this is easy or simple, I just mean that the playbook for fixing an economic crisis here in America has to be fundamentally different from the solutions needed in other places.

Once again—while Trump certainly has more hands-on experience navigating the market, this specific comparison feels like comparing apples to oranges to me.

As a capitalist, Trump didn't just conjure jobs out of thin air; rather, he deployed his capital to meet existing demand. He identified specific gaps in the marketplace and filled them through his business ventures, all without having to worry about which specific group of people might get screwed over by his moves.

A politician's role, however, isn't to hunt down pre-existing niches and exploit them ruthlessly; their job is to create opportunities through policy while ensuring they don't wreck the livelihoods of the diverse range of people both within and outside the United States. The roles might sound similar on paper, but they are worlds apart. Is it not like the difference between a world-class striker who can finish any shot, and a playmaker who knows how to set up a teammate or build cohesion within the squad? They are both soccer players, certainly, but their impact on the game is fundamentally different.

So, you're actually trying to tell me that Messi would be a better President of the United States than Ronaldo?

I was simply sitting back, waiting to see who would be the first one to take the bait.

ruggedjackal46 said:So, you're actually trying to tell me that Messi would be a better President of the United States than Ronaldo?

Haha, now that's a thought! ☕

ruggedjackal46 said:So, you're actually trying to tell me that Messi would be a better President of the United States than Ronaldo?

Ronald, Donald... even their names sound pretty much the same.

brightpilot6 said:I was simply sitting back, waiting to see who would be the first one to take the bait.

Sometimes I get the feeling you two actually coordinate your posts beforehand—deciding exactly who says what just so the other can jump in with a reply within two or three minutes flat. It’s almost too perfect.