Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

brightpilot6 said: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.

Honestly, saying that running a country is like running a business is like saying mixing apples and oranges—or even better, tossing a bunch of random fruit into a blender—it just doesn't make sense at all. There isn't some specific Ivy League degree or a PhD program you can enroll in that's specifically designed to teach you how to be the President of the United States, because it's just not built like that. You can study economics or political science all day long, but none of those academic credentials actually prepare you for the sheer weight of the office. At the end of the day, managing the entire nation is a million times more complex and layered than managing any corporation or big-time business you could imagine.
Look, let's be real for a second—anyone who ever ends up sitting in the Oval Office is just someone who happens to have a slightly better or worse set of predispositions for the job than the next person, because honestly, nobody actually possesses everything required to pull it off perfectly.

Look, we’re starting from the simple fact that Trump made these big promises about bringing jobs back, and if you really sit down and look at the math, I honestly think he’s got way more of what it takes to actually make things happen compared to Hillary. He just seems to have that instinct for it, you know? Like, he understands the mechanics of growth better than most. The real question you have to ask yourself is whether Hillary even has the slightest clue how to actually go out there and create a single job.

Adam King6 said:Ronald, Donald... even their names sound pretty much the same.

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.

If I left Sid to handle the troll market entirely on his own, the poor guy would probably starve to death. So, from time to time, I find it necessary to provide him with this kind of assistance—what one might call a little bit of social support for the sake of a good laugh.

Jessica Gonzalez said: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.

Trump has been branding himself for decades, moving from reality TV to everything else. In the US, before the election even started, there was practically nobody who hadn't heard of him.

He's basically the star of a lifelong reality show, and honestly, that kind of stuff sells incredibly well to the masses...

I’m not saying Clinton was a better choice, just that there wasn't really a real choice to begin with. How can you call a country the "most democratic" in the world when we only have two parties? 🤣 It's a place where politicians are essentially run by massive corporations, lobbyists, and various special interest groups. It feels more like an oligarchy than a true democracy...

The tax burden is becoming a massive issue, especially over here in the States, and honestly, I feel like we crossed the line a long time ago regarding how much you can squeeze an individual worker, a small business owner, or anyone actually out there creating wealth.
Look, I totally get that the government needs to be socially conscious—they should definitely provide for those in need, offer healthcare to everyone, and look after kids with special needs, all that good stuff—BUT... there has to be a limit, because the resources used to fund these things aren't infinite. You can't just keep reaching deeper and deeper into people's pockets indefinitely without risking a total collapse, and right now, it feels like the whole country is teetering right on that edge.

For instance, setting aside any specific political drama, let’s just look at this logically: does income tax really need to go up just because the government is short on cash—specifically because they have dozens of "independent" media outlets that would go belly up without state subsidies? Are those seventy different news organizations really more important than the extra grocery money a regular guy could use to buy fruit for his family if his taxes were just a tiny bit lower? I won't even dive into the rabbit hole of how there's probably some ten-member committee getting huge monthly salaries just to decide which specific seventy outlets get to stay afloat.

I know, I know, I'm just throwing out the income tax and media example because it was mentioned earlier, but there are just way too many these kinds of burdens being placed on taxpayers that aren't even necessary anymore. We should have drawn the line ages ago, and frankly, it's high time we started cutting back on all this bloat that's being tacked onto the public purse.

And then you listen to most of our politicians, and you genuinely walk away with the impression that they don't even grasp where the money in the federal budget actually comes from, like they think some alien civilization is sending spaceships full of cash that they just get to distribute. That's honestly how some of our leaders come across to me. This recent take from Maras is pretty much in that same category.

brightpilot6 said:If I left Sid to handle the troll market entirely on his own, the poor guy would probably starve to death. So, from time to time, I find it necessary to provide him with this kind of assistance—what one might call a little bit of social support for the sake of a good laugh.

🤣🤣🤣

I mean, seriously, when does a total facepalm become just too much to swallow? ☕

restlesssurfer97 said:The tax burden is becoming a massive issue, especially over here in the States, and honestly, I feel like we crossed the line a long time ago regarding how much you can squeeze an individual worker, a small business owner, or anyone actually out there creating wealth.
Look, I totally get that the government needs to be socially conscious—they should definitely provide for those in need, offer healthcare to everyone, and look after kids with special needs, all that good stuff—BUT... there has to be a limit, because the resources used to fund these things aren't infinite. You can't just keep reaching deeper and deeper into people's pockets indefinitely without risking a total collapse, and right now, it feels like the whole country is teetering right on that edge.

For instance, setting aside any specific political drama, let’s just look at this logically: does income tax really need to go up just because the government is short on cash—specifically because they have dozens of "independent" media outlets that would go belly up without state subsidies? Are those seventy different news organizations really more important than the extra grocery money a regular guy could use to buy fruit for his family if his taxes were just a tiny bit lower? I won't even dive into the rabbit hole of how there's probably some ten-member committee getting huge monthly salaries just to decide which specific seventy outlets get to stay afloat.

I know, I know, I'm just throwing out the income tax and media example because it was mentioned earlier, but there are just way too many these kinds of burdens being placed on taxpayers that aren't even necessary anymore. We should have drawn the line ages ago, and frankly, it's high time we started cutting back on all this bloat that's being tacked onto the public purse.

And then you listen to most of our politicians, and you genuinely walk away with the impression that they don't even grasp where the money in the federal budget actually comes from, like they think some alien civilization is sending spaceships full of cash that they just get to distribute. That's honestly how some of our leaders come across to me. This recent take from Maras is pretty much in that same category.

This is the best post on this topic. And saying they don't realize where the budget money comes from isn't just an impression. It's a reality. They honestly don't have a clue.

It’s honestly wild how many people have such a shallow, childish view of things—especially those who act like they’re these gritty realists who "get" real life and aren't fooled by the news. They fall for this whole fairy tale about a corrupt elite vs. the free market, or some fantasy about being non-ideological and outside the system, plus all that isolationist nonsense... It's the exact same crowd that thought certain fringe populist movements were the answer back home.

If political correctness is supposedly so toxic and government interference is such a disaster, then why do the most decent, livable countries in the world actually lean into social sensitivity and market regulation?

And look, let's say we're living in an era more like the early days of industrial capitalism (instead of our super messy, globalized reality) and maybe the idea that Trump will use his business savvy to create jobs isn't totally crazy. You don't need to be a political genius or have deep social insight—just a basic grasp of recent history tells you what aggressive industrialization (plus militarization) and slashing regulations at the expense of social safety nets actually does. And we're talking about 2016 here, not the 1930s or the colonial era.

Even if he manages to spark some economic growth, that kind of policy is just destructive in the long run, both at home and abroad. Let's not forget, the guy basically promised a massive military budget hike alongside cuts to healthcare. God forbid we deal with this "entrepreneurial engineer" mindset where the whole world is viewed through nothing but spreadsheets and economic indicators. Honestly, a single lying, bottom-tier member of the hated political establishment is less dangerous than someone like him.

Alex Brown50 said:It’s honestly wild how many people have such a shallow, childish view of things—especially those who act like they’re these gritty realists who "get" real life and aren't fooled by the news. They fall for this whole fairy tale about a corrupt elite vs. the free market, or some fantasy about being non-ideological and outside the system, plus all that isolationist nonsense... It's the exact same crowd that thought certain fringe populist movements were the answer back home.

If political correctness is supposedly so toxic and government interference is such a disaster, then why do the most decent, livable countries in the world actually lean into social sensitivity and market regulation?

And look, let's say we're living in an era more like the early days of industrial capitalism (instead of our super messy, globalized reality) and maybe the idea that Trump will use his business savvy to create jobs isn't totally crazy. You don't need to be a political genius or have deep social insight—just a basic grasp of recent history tells you what aggressive industrialization (plus militarization) and slashing regulations at the expense of social safety nets actually does. And we're talking about 2016 here, not the 1930s or the colonial era.

Even if he manages to spark some economic growth, that kind of policy is just destructive in the long run, both at home and abroad. Let's not forget, the guy basically promised a massive military budget hike alongside cuts to healthcare. God forbid we deal with this "entrepreneurial engineer" mindset where the whole world is viewed through nothing but spreadsheets and economic indicators. Honestly, a single lying, bottom-tier member of the hated political establishment is less dangerous than someone like him.

Maybe it's just because those countries have enough money to afford those kinds of luxuries and social programs.

urbanhawk17 said:This is the best post on this topic. And saying they don't realize where the budget money comes from isn't just an impression. It's a reality. They honestly don't have a clue.

They honestly don't know anything at all. It feels like the kind of crew that would turn 4 dollars into 3, instead of figuring out how to make 5.

urbanhawk17 said:This is the best post on this topic. And saying they don't realize where the budget money comes from isn't just an impression. It's a reality. They honestly don't have a clue.

Yeah, spot on. The fact that the government scraps by giving basically nothing to the arts or independent media is the real issue here. It’s those political cronies living off taxpayer money who are actually bleeding us dry. Not the top 1% of "business moguls" turning billions—even with all those massive federal subsidies—they aren't the ones sucking us dry. No, it's the people claiming to "work hard and build value." You nailed it—you found the real problem.

Alex Brown50 said:It’s honestly wild how many people have such a shallow, childish view of things—especially those who act like they’re these gritty realists who "get" real life and aren't fooled by the news. They fall for this whole fairy tale about a corrupt elite vs. the free market, or some fantasy about being non-ideological and outside the system, plus all that isolationist nonsense... It's the exact same crowd that thought certain fringe populist movements were the answer back home.

If political correctness is supposedly so toxic and government interference is such a disaster, then why do the most decent, livable countries in the world actually lean into social sensitivity and market regulation?

And look, let's say we're living in an era more like the early days of industrial capitalism (instead of our super messy, globalized reality) and maybe the idea that Trump will use his business savvy to create jobs isn't totally crazy. You don't need to be a political genius or have deep social insight—just a basic grasp of recent history tells you what aggressive industrialization (plus militarization) and slashing regulations at the expense of social safety nets actually does. And we're talking about 2016 here, not the 1930s or the colonial era.

Even if he manages to spark some economic growth, that kind of policy is just destructive in the long run, both at home and abroad. Let's not forget, the guy basically promised a massive military budget hike alongside cuts to healthcare. God forbid we deal with this "entrepreneurial engineer" mindset where the whole world is viewed through nothing but spreadsheets and economic indicators. Honestly, a single lying, bottom-tier member of the hated political establishment is less dangerous than someone like him.

So, are you basically a voter for the Democratic and Republican Parties who would end up voting for Hillary in the USA?

Alex Brown50 said:Yeah, spot on. The fact that the government scraps by giving basically nothing to the arts or independent media is the real issue here. It’s those political cronies living off taxpayer money who are actually bleeding us dry. Not the top 1% of "business moguls" turning billions—even with all those massive federal subsidies—they aren't the ones sucking us dry. No, it's the people claiming to "work hard and build value." You nailed it—you found the real problem.

And where exactly does it say that government funding for the arts and independent media is the biggest issue here?

Jessica Gonzalez said:Maybe it's just because those countries have enough money to afford those kinds of luxuries and social programs.

Yeah, sure—because obviously the fix for everything today is just more industrialization, massive military spending, raw capitalism, and social Darwinism. That'll definitely help everyone prosper—the masses, the environment, yeah, everyone. Just keep building and drilling, right?

restlesssurfer97 said:And where exactly does it say that government funding for the arts and independent media is the biggest issue here?

Does anyone know if Google Translate has an option for amoeba? — just so I can actually understand what this guy is typing.

Alex Brown50 said:Yeah, sure—because obviously the fix for everything today is just more industrialization, massive military spending, raw capitalism, and social Darwinism. That'll definitely help everyone prosper—the masses, the environment, yeah, everyone. Just keep building and drilling, right?

I actually spent some time digging through your old posts trying to find an actual solution for our modern world, Alex. Honestly, I came up empty-handed; all I found was a mountain of criticism. I mean, if we started handing out all those critiques of yours to people facing actual hardships or struggling to get by, who knows how they’d manage, maybe your opinions would be enough to feed the hungry and the poor.

restlesssurfer97 said:The tax burden is becoming a massive issue, especially over here in the States, and honestly, I feel like we crossed the line a long time ago regarding how much you can squeeze an individual worker, a small business owner, or anyone actually out there creating wealth.
Look, I totally get that the government needs to be socially conscious—they should definitely provide for those in need, offer healthcare to everyone, and look after kids with special needs, all that good stuff—BUT... there has to be a limit, because the resources used to fund these things aren't infinite. You can't just keep reaching deeper and deeper into people's pockets indefinitely without risking a total collapse, and right now, it feels like the whole country is teetering right on that edge.

For instance, setting aside any specific political drama, let’s just look at this logically: does income tax really need to go up just because the government is short on cash—specifically because they have dozens of "independent" media outlets that would go belly up without state subsidies? Are those seventy different news organizations really more important than the extra grocery money a regular guy could use to buy fruit for his family if his taxes were just a tiny bit lower? I won't even dive into the rabbit hole of how there's probably some ten-member committee getting huge monthly salaries just to decide which specific seventy outlets get to stay afloat.

I know, I know, I'm just throwing out the income tax and media example because it was mentioned earlier, but there are just way too many these kinds of burdens being placed on taxpayers that aren't even necessary anymore. We should have drawn the line ages ago, and frankly, it's high time we started cutting back on all this bloat that's being tacked onto the public purse.

And then you listen to most of our politicians, and you genuinely walk away with the impression that they don't even grasp where the money in the federal budget actually comes from, like they think some alien civilization is sending spaceships full of cash that they just get to distribute. That's honestly how some of our leaders come across to me. This recent take from Maras is pretty much in that same category.

Nonprofit media outlets receive about $450,000 in annual funding. That amounts to less than a dollar per citizen every year. The reason this funding hasn't been cut isn't because of any strain on the federal budget.

Which brings us right back to the issue you raised: the total lack of transparency regarding how our tax dollars are spent. If roughly 40% of my paycheck disappears into taxes and payroll deductions, I want to know exactly where that money is landing, rather than having to play a guessing game.

I feel like I made it pretty clear that I was just using non-profit media as a random example, nothing more than that.

But this second part of your post is straight-up about America, and honestly, you're spot on—around here, besides the actual tax rates themselves, the real headache is figuring out where all that cash actually ends up being spent.

restlesssurfer97 said:I feel like I made it pretty clear that I was just using non-profit media as a random example, nothing more than that.

But this second part of your post is straight-up about America, and honestly, you're spot on—around here, besides the actual tax rates themselves, the real headache is figuring out where all that cash actually ends up being spent.

Sure you did, but let's be honest—that wasn't exactly a random thought that just popped into your head, was it? 🙂 After all, they always justify cutting off funding by crying about cronyism and government waste—an argument that holds water sometimes, sure, but often feels like a convenient smokescreen.

Now that I'm seeing the same old tired stories about corruption and wasted tax dollars everywhere, I’m starting to wonder what’s actually happening behind the curtain. Is it genuine reform, or is it just a cover for something else entirely? Privatization, political vendettas, or maybe just rerouting the cash to different pockets?

Alex Brown50 said:It’s honestly wild how many people have such a shallow, childish view of things—especially those who act like they’re these gritty realists who "get" real life and aren't fooled by the news. They fall for this whole fairy tale about a corrupt elite vs. the free market, or some fantasy about being non-ideological and outside the system, plus all that isolationist nonsense... It's the exact same crowd that thought certain fringe populist movements were the answer back home.

If political correctness is supposedly so toxic and government interference is such a disaster, then why do the most decent, livable countries in the world actually lean into social sensitivity and market regulation?

And look, let's say we're living in an era more like the early days of industrial capitalism (instead of our super messy, globalized reality) and maybe the idea that Trump will use his business savvy to create jobs isn't totally crazy. You don't need to be a political genius or have deep social insight—just a basic grasp of recent history tells you what aggressive industrialization (plus militarization) and slashing regulations at the expense of social safety nets actually does. And we're talking about 2016 here, not the 1930s or the colonial era.

Even if he manages to spark some economic growth, that kind of policy is just destructive in the long run, both at home and abroad. Let's not forget, the guy basically promised a massive military budget hike alongside cuts to healthcare. God forbid we deal with this "entrepreneurial engineer" mindset where the whole world is viewed through nothing but spreadsheets and economic indicators. Honestly, a single lying, bottom-tier member of the hated political establishment is less dangerous than someone like him.

And why is it that those very same countries also happen to be among the most economically free? 🙂🙂🙂

We all love the idea of a Nordic country's prosperity, but nobody actually wants the system that funds all that nonsense, right? 🐔

You must be a typical voter for the GOP-Democrat Coalition! 😒

Economic freedom isn't the same thing as a deregulated market—not even close. A totally deregulated market is basically just a playground for corruption by default, but hey, maybe people will actually realize that one day... hopefully. And look, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat voter—I haven't even touched a ballot in God knows how many elections. That's why I'm pretty sure you're just one of those folks falling for that whole "anti-establishment" nonsense from groups like Live Wall and Bridge.