Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

ruggedjackal46 said:It’s not even about political leanings; it’s just that the establishment would much rather see Milanovich win a runoff than Skor. If Milanovich pulls through, all those Skor supporters will likely pivot toward the establishment candidate, but it doesn't work the other way around, does it?

Honestly, this tactic is cooking in both the Democratic and Republican kitchens. I haven't the slightest clue which side lit the stove first, and frankly, I'm too lazy to go Googling who started the fire before it actually caught. At the end of the day, both sides end up using the exact same playbook. It’s a perfectly legitimate political maneuver, but it’s also why it isn't surprising that everyone ends up circling back to talking about the fall of the Berlin Wall or some other historical grudge match. That was always the whole point.

It particularly rubs me the wrong way when the liberals use it, because they love to act all high and mighty while mocking the very people who pull the same stunts. In Washington, anything goes. If I were the kind of person who actually took moral offense at these games, I’d never be able to vote for a candidate whose campaign staff relies on such dirty tricks. It’s all just one big circle of hypocrisy.

Noah Perez2 said:The collapse of the United States certainly wasn't triggered by a lack of lyrical freedom. The fractures occurred much deeper within the structural integrity of our economy and, ultimately, within the supposed "unity" that proved to be nothing more than a fragile facade.

As for the pop stars and their concerts, I find the musical quality irrelevant compared to the greater cultural embarrassment: the fact that these low-brow tracks consistently draw massive crowds and dominate the airwaves in every car passing on the highway.

Once the economy goes to hell, ideological concepts become irrelevant. Suddenly, being patriotic, believing in democracy, or holding onto national pride doesn't mean much when people can't put food on the table. I mean, look at the last election—the Republicans barely scraped together a single vote from Ireland.

ironpanther5 said:Honestly, this tactic is cooking in both the Democratic and Republican kitchens. I haven't the slightest clue which side lit the stove first, and frankly, I'm too lazy to go Googling who started the fire before it actually caught. At the end of the day, both sides end up using the exact same playbook. It’s a perfectly legitimate political maneuver, but it’s also why it isn't surprising that everyone ends up circling back to talking about the fall of the Berlin Wall or some other historical grudge match. That was always the whole point.

It particularly rubs me the wrong way when the liberals use it, because they love to act all high and mighty while mocking the very people who pull the same stunts. In Washington, anything goes. If I were the kind of person who actually took moral offense at these games, I’d never be able to vote for a candidate whose campaign staff relies on such dirty tricks. It’s all just one big circle of hypocrisy.

Again, the bigger issue is that citizens actually swallow this stuff. For me, the real headache is how someone like Scott could be a long-time Republican insider and collaborator, only to have them pivot and act like he's their sworn enemy now—yet most people don't care about his politics, they're too busy obsessing over the fact that his wife is from a different ethnic background.

ruggedjackal46 said:It basically acts as a massive distraction from any actual conversation or solution regarding the real issues we face now. Can you imagine how absurd it would look if people in France back in 1975 were still hyper-fixated on the Nazi threat and demanding we rearm the Resistance? It's just nonsensical.

I wonder if it’s considered absurd that they have nuclear aircraft carriers and have been part of NATO against Russia since 1945? What has Russia actually done to them since then to justify such a massive military? I guess one has to wonder what they're afraid of.

Compared to global standards, things here are incredibly peaceful. Since the wars in the States and surrounding regions ended, there hasn't been a single terrorist attack or major escalation of violence; maybe the biggest issue is just some occasional sports hooliganism or someone waving a flag during a protest. I think an American living here once noted how most households don't own any weapons and actually stay away from them—people even voluntarily handed rifles over to the police just a few years after the conflict. There's no mandatory service here. We don't even really have organized crime anymore; most of the small number of homicides seem to be domestic issues. The fact that performers from former rival nations can play in major US cities and fill arenas probably shows how much people just want peace. I guess the only myth we tell ourselves is being overly polite to those who criticize us. It was the aggression from certain factions that started all the conflicts in this region. It wasn't the others; it was always those specific groups who initiated everything and committed the worst atrocities. People don't visit memorial sites every year because of myths, but because they saw what happened with their own eyes. Most Americans here just don't feel a sense of kinship with those old aggressors, and I suppose that's a pretty natural consequence of the destruction that took place.

Jessica Gonzalez said:I wonder if it’s considered absurd that they have nuclear aircraft carriers and have been part of NATO against Russia since 1945? What has Russia actually done to them since then to justify such a massive military? I guess one has to wonder what they're afraid of.

Compared to global standards, things here are incredibly peaceful. Since the wars in the States and surrounding regions ended, there hasn't been a single terrorist attack or major escalation of violence; maybe the biggest issue is just some occasional sports hooliganism or someone waving a flag during a protest. I think an American living here once noted how most households don't own any weapons and actually stay away from them—people even voluntarily handed rifles over to the police just a few years after the conflict. There's no mandatory service here. We don't even really have organized crime anymore; most of the small number of homicides seem to be domestic issues. The fact that performers from former rival nations can play in major US cities and fill arenas probably shows how much people just want peace. I guess the only myth we tell ourselves is being overly polite to those who criticize us. It was the aggression from certain factions that started all the conflicts in this region. It wasn't the others; it was always those specific groups who initiated everything and committed the worst atrocities. People don't visit memorial sites every year because of myths, but because they saw what happened with their own eyes. Most Americans here just don't feel a sense of kinship with those old aggressors, and I suppose that's a pretty natural consequence of the destruction that took place.

Look, France isn't exactly the gold standard for pacifism—they’ve had their fair share of messes both at home and back in their old territories—but my point remains. They didn't just get stuck in a loop, obsessing over World War II and using it as a convenient excuse for decades on end. Here in the States, it’s been thirty years since the conflict ended. Honestly, I think that’s more than enough time to stop blaming economic stagnation, corruption, or general intolerance on "war trauma." It's a tired argument at this point. Take a place like Detroit; it's struggling today, sure, but let's be real: it's primarily because the city doesn't offer any actual future for the younger generation. Can we finally stop using history as a shield for modern failures?

Look, when you step back and look at the big picture, things around here are incredibly peaceful compared to the rest of the world. Ever since the conflicts in the Midwest and the South wound down, we haven't seen a single terrorist attack or any major escalation of violence. Honestly? Our biggest headache these days is just some rowdy sports fans getting into a scuffle or someone making a scene with a protest sign at a rally. It’s almost boring. It’s actually pretty interesting—I was reading something by an expat living here who pointed out how most American households don't own any weapons at all. There’s this general aversion to them. In fact, just a few years after the heavy fighting ended, people were practically lining up to hand their rifles over to local law enforcement. Why isn't that the norm everywhere else?

Exactly. America is in an incredibly peaceful period right now, and honestly, it’s about time we stopped using past conflicts as a convenient scapegoat for our current mess. We can't just keep using war as an alibi for political aimlessness or as a way to dodge the massive economic hurdles facing the country today. It's a tired tactic. Why is it that during every presidential election cycle, the entire conversation devolves into where every single candidate was standing back in the early '90s? Why does every political debate feel like it has to pivot back to those old battlegrounds just to find a point of reference? Is it because we lack a vision for the future, or are we just too comfortable living in the rearview mirror?

Noah Perez2 said:The collapse of the United States certainly wasn't triggered by a lack of lyrical freedom. The fractures occurred much deeper within the structural integrity of our economy and, ultimately, within the supposed "unity" that proved to be nothing more than a fragile facade.

As for the pop stars and their concerts, I find the musical quality irrelevant compared to the greater cultural embarrassment: the fact that these low-brow tracks consistently draw massive crowds and dominate the airwaves in every car passing on the highway.

I was reading that declassified CIA report from the 70s about America that someone shared on the forum last week. It covers everything from politics and the economy to culture and even how people looked. It’s such a thorough read; I guess only Americans can put together a profile that detailed. 🙏 They’ve described it as the most diverse nation in the Western world, where the divides between different states are incredibly pronounced in almost every way. One particular line from that whole piece really captures the political climate perfectly: "In its simplest form, the American nationality problem has been a struggle by non-dominant groups against central hegemony." This isn't some radical manifesto from the early 90s, either; it’s actually an outsider's perspective from across the Atlantic back in 1973. It was a different era entirely. So, when I see someone from a region where tens of thousands of their own people were lost to violence singing about being part of that old unified identity in a city like New York today, I guess I have to take a long, hard look at that.

Does anyone want to check this out? Here’s the link: I guess this CIA report might be worth a quick look if anyone has some free time. It seems like an interesting read, maybe.

Jessica Gonzalez said:I was reading that declassified CIA report from the 70s about America that someone shared on the forum last week. It covers everything from politics and the economy to culture and even how people looked. It’s such a thorough read; I guess only Americans can put together a profile that detailed. 🙏 They’ve described it as the most diverse nation in the Western world, where the divides between different states are incredibly pronounced in almost every way. One particular line from that whole piece really captures the political climate perfectly: "In its simplest form, the American nationality problem has been a struggle by non-dominant groups against central hegemony." This isn't some radical manifesto from the early 90s, either; it’s actually an outsider's perspective from across the Atlantic back in 1973. It was a different era entirely. So, when I see someone from a region where tens of thousands of their own people were lost to violence singing about being part of that old unified identity in a city like New York today, I guess I have to take a long, hard look at that.

Does anyone want to check this out? Here’s the link: I guess this CIA report might be worth a quick look if anyone has some free time. It seems like an interesting read, maybe.

Thanks, this actually sounds pretty interesting.

It’s hardly surprising you feel that way, given you seem to be viewing everything through a binary lens of ones and zeros, when in reality, the world is far more layered and complex than that.

Take this report here, for instance; you’ve managed to boil down seventy-three pages of data into a single sentence, as if that one line somehow explains everything perfectly, even twenty years after the fact.

ruggedjackal46 said:Look, France isn't exactly the gold standard for pacifism—they’ve had their fair share of messes both at home and back in their old territories—but my point remains. They didn't just get stuck in a loop, obsessing over World War II and using it as a convenient excuse for decades on end. Here in the States, it’s been thirty years since the conflict ended. Honestly, I think that’s more than enough time to stop blaming economic stagnation, corruption, or general intolerance on "war trauma." It's a tired argument at this point. Take a place like Detroit; it's struggling today, sure, but let's be real: it's primarily because the city doesn't offer any actual future for the younger generation. Can we finally stop using history as a shield for modern failures?

Look, when you step back and look at the big picture, things around here are incredibly peaceful compared to the rest of the world. Ever since the conflicts in the Midwest and the South wound down, we haven't seen a single terrorist attack or any major escalation of violence. Honestly? Our biggest headache these days is just some rowdy sports fans getting into a scuffle or someone making a scene with a protest sign at a rally. It’s almost boring. It’s actually pretty interesting—I was reading something by an expat living here who pointed out how most American households don't own any weapons at all. There’s this general aversion to them. In fact, just a few years after the heavy fighting ended, people were practically lining up to hand their rifles over to local law enforcement. Why isn't that the norm everywhere else?

Exactly. America is in an incredibly peaceful period right now, and honestly, it’s about time we stopped using past conflicts as a convenient scapegoat for our current mess. We can't just keep using war as an alibi for political aimlessness or as a way to dodge the massive economic hurdles facing the country today. It's a tired tactic. Why is it that during every presidential election cycle, the entire conversation devolves into where every single candidate was standing back in the early '90s? Why does every political debate feel like it has to pivot back to those old battlegrounds just to find a point of reference? Is it because we lack a vision for the future, or are we just too comfortable living in the rearview mirror?

I suppose the economic and social hurdles in this part of the country have been around since the end of WWII, though there were different ways of trying to fix them through centralized systems back then. It feels like certain rural areas aren't declining just because of one specific political party, but rather because those in power haven't quite figured out how to stop a decline that's been happening for half a century. These regions have arguably been struggling for generations. My father grew up in extreme poverty, so I know it's a deep-seated issue. The bureaucracy, the decay of small towns, and the mindset that the government should solve everything are all very old patterns. Maybe a true culture of entrepreneurship and industry just hasn't taken root here yet, and it isn't something that changes overnight. There might even be some internal resistance to that kind of shift. While major national conflicts remain close to people's hearts and serve as a sort of cultural glue, those topics eventually fade from the headlines. It seems like economic issues are taking center stage now, which I guess is probably for the best.

Jessica Gonzalez said:I suppose the economic and social hurdles in this part of the country have been around since the end of WWII, though there were different ways of trying to fix them through centralized systems back then. It feels like certain rural areas aren't declining just because of one specific political party, but rather because those in power haven't quite figured out how to stop a decline that's been happening for half a century. These regions have arguably been struggling for generations. My father grew up in extreme poverty, so I know it's a deep-seated issue. The bureaucracy, the decay of small towns, and the mindset that the government should solve everything are all very old patterns. Maybe a true culture of entrepreneurship and industry just hasn't taken root here yet, and it isn't something that changes overnight. There might even be some internal resistance to that kind of shift. While major national conflicts remain close to people's hearts and serve as a sort of cultural glue, those topics eventually fade from the headlines. It seems like economic issues are taking center stage now, which I guess is probably for the best.

My folks grew up in absolute poverty, wearing rags, yet they ended up being the first in their families to actually graduate from college. They managed it because that old centralized system provided a pathway for poor kids from the sticks to move to the city, get an education, find a career, and secure housing. Look, the socio-economic issues are ancient history, sure, but back then there was a system attempting to address them, even if it was flawed. Now? You have a modern America that isn't even trying to tackle the root causes. And don't get me wrong—I'm not sitting here nostalgic for the old days or longing for some bygone era of dictators; I couldn't care less about those personalities. What frustrates me is seeing a modern, democratic, free nation in 2019 unable to offer any viable model to solve obvious problems, when that messy, outdated, heterogeneous union sixty years ago actually could.

And honestly, it's a bit rich to claim there was no "entrepreneurial spirit" or industrial drive when that previous regime basically built an industrial powerhouse out of thin air. We went from a predominantly rural, largely illiterate nation after WWII to an industrial state in roughly fifteen years. How does that happen with a population that supposedly lacks the "mentality" for it?

The war acts as a social glue because the people in charge *want* it to act as glue. Isn't it much easier to keep everyone talking about 1945 than to deal with the reality of 2021?

brightpilot6 said:It’s hardly surprising you feel that way, given you seem to be viewing everything through a binary lens of ones and zeros, when in reality, the world is far more layered and complex than that.

Take this report here, for instance; you’ve managed to boil down seventy-three pages of data into a single sentence, as if that one line somehow explains everything perfectly, even twenty years after the fact.

I guess you could say that every nation is somewhat of an artificial construct; most major European powers really only took shape during the 18th and 19th centuries, mostly by using wars or finding common enemies to help unify different groups. However, I don't think that same logic applies to the 20th century, since those massive projects to build new nations largely failed in places like the Soviet Union. Looking back at the former America, it seems like a passing historical period that didn't quite solve the issues it set out to fix. It never truly forged a unified identity the way nations like Italy or Germany did, nor did it manage to bridge economic gaps to reach Western levels of prosperity or resolve ethnic tensions. Ultimately, it ended in conflict, which makes the whole idea feel like a failed experiment. All those symbols and slogans regarding brotherhood and unity were perhaps just a brief moment in history that didn't reach its goal. Beyond sharing a language and being neighbors, there wasn't much political or economic glue holding everyone together. There was also the ambition to expand certain borders, which, from a historical perspective, might just be a typical national ambition similar to others we've seen. I don't believe any specific group is inherently bad or violent, but maybe the political elites sold them a narrative of superiority that didn't hold up in reality, especially since the methods used weren't exactly peaceful.

Since that old federation hasn't existed for thirty years now, I guess it feels a bit strange to see an adult woman—who seems perfectly sane and comes from that background—singing about being part of a country that isn't there anymore. I realize it’s probably just show business, but maybe there's a limit to what's considered good taste.

Hahahaha, screw all this political nonsense.
You people act like such hardcore patriots by dragging up stuff that doesn't even matter anymore, though I guess there aren't many folks over 50 hanging out on this sub or the main forum anyway.
Everyone’s here acting all high and mighty, claiming they can't deal with the emotions of some celebrity singing in some random city. Honestly, screw the old grudges, the wars, and all those hateful divisions from decades ago. That's exactly why we never get anywhere—because it's never about how we're being systematically screwed over by our own people; it's always just about someone belonging to some specific group.🤦

Look, we don't need to be best friends with anyone, but man, it's been thirty years since the war ended, and I really think it's time to turn the page, even if everyone is still obsessing over stuff from seventy-five years ago or back when WWII started.

Like ZZ said, politicians are just using the cheapest, most pathetic tricks in the book, and I honestly thought we, the younger generation, would be too smart to fall for that crap.

ruggedjackal46 said:My folks grew up in absolute poverty, wearing rags, yet they ended up being the first in their families to actually graduate from college. They managed it because that old centralized system provided a pathway for poor kids from the sticks to move to the city, get an education, find a career, and secure housing. Look, the socio-economic issues are ancient history, sure, but back then there was a system attempting to address them, even if it was flawed. Now? You have a modern America that isn't even trying to tackle the root causes. And don't get me wrong—I'm not sitting here nostalgic for the old days or longing for some bygone era of dictators; I couldn't care less about those personalities. What frustrates me is seeing a modern, democratic, free nation in 2019 unable to offer any viable model to solve obvious problems, when that messy, outdated, heterogeneous union sixty years ago actually could.

And honestly, it's a bit rich to claim there was no "entrepreneurial spirit" or industrial drive when that previous regime basically built an industrial powerhouse out of thin air. We went from a predominantly rural, largely illiterate nation after WWII to an industrial state in roughly fifteen years. How does that happen with a population that supposedly lacks the "mentality" for it?

The war acts as a social glue because the people in charge *want* it to act as glue. Isn't it much easier to keep everyone talking about 1945 than to deal with the reality of 2021?

Exactly, and the same applies to what was said above.
Because the world isn't black and white. That old regime did all sorts of shady crap, but sure, it had its advantages too.
They killed people here, there was zero freedom of speech, property was seized left and right—it was a state that probably shouldn't have existed and definitely couldn't last—but still, somehow, things actually got built. If you aren't allowed to mention a single positive thing without being labeled a traitor, then fine, welcome to North Korea.

ruggedjackal46 said:My folks grew up in absolute poverty, wearing rags, yet they ended up being the first in their families to actually graduate from college. They managed it because that old centralized system provided a pathway for poor kids from the sticks to move to the city, get an education, find a career, and secure housing. Look, the socio-economic issues are ancient history, sure, but back then there was a system attempting to address them, even if it was flawed. Now? You have a modern America that isn't even trying to tackle the root causes. And don't get me wrong—I'm not sitting here nostalgic for the old days or longing for some bygone era of dictators; I couldn't care less about those personalities. What frustrates me is seeing a modern, democratic, free nation in 2019 unable to offer any viable model to solve obvious problems, when that messy, outdated, heterogeneous union sixty years ago actually could.

And honestly, it's a bit rich to claim there was no "entrepreneurial spirit" or industrial drive when that previous regime basically built an industrial powerhouse out of thin air. We went from a predominantly rural, largely illiterate nation after WWII to an industrial state in roughly fifteen years. How does that happen with a population that supposedly lacks the "mentality" for it?

The war acts as a social glue because the people in charge *want* it to act as glue. Isn't it much easier to keep everyone talking about 1945 than to deal with the reality of 2021?

Industry for what, though? Which major company from that era actually competes on the global stage today? Did any of them produce innovative products that could actually go toe-to-toe with Western giants? Or truly survive market competition? The fact that my parents, and many others, were pulled into the big cities just suggests that the rural areas were already being neglected forty years ago. In fact, many former socialist countries struggle with massive rural depopulation and some of the lowest birth rates in the world—think places like Canada, Bulgaria, Romania, Mexico, Russia, Ukraine, or the Baltic states. This brings me back to my earlier thought: what did that old union actually achieve in terms of raising the standard of living to Western levels? I guess statistically, not much. They didn't even close the gap between regions; even decades later, the economic divide between somewhere like Canada and Mexico is wider than almost any two regions in Italy or Germany. That old system relied on bureaucracy and the military rather than actual prosperity. I suppose it's hard to build prosperity if all the regions are struggling and industrially behind. If we set aside someone like Nikola Tesla, who was a scientist, has anyone else from that area ever really stood out as a major industrialist or businessman? It seems like people only ever talk about politicians or athletes.

An HR?
What has she actually achieved? She’s managed to shrink the population through migration more effectively than any war ever did in this country.

She’s absolutely gutted what little we had left—massively looted everything, sold off what remained, dumbed down the entire population, turned our school system into one GIANT ZERO, ruined people's lives, and handed total control over to some bottom-feeding bureaucrats who, for God knows what reason, think they can treat an entire nation like a bunch of toddlers.

Good grief.

He’s checking every single box on the checklist. The argument is that war should be the ultimate glue, that nothing worked during the old era, that they did absolutely nothing to bring our standard of living up to par with the rest of the West (🙏), that we have a natural grievance against our neighbors, and that they are solely responsible for every misfortune while we remain nothing but infinitely polite to everyone else.

You really fell for the whole package, man, but then again, who wouldn't succumb to that kind of rhetoric? 😂

Peter Thompson4 said:Exactly, and the same applies to what was said above.
Because the world isn't black and white. That old regime did all sorts of shady crap, but sure, it had its advantages too.
They killed people here, there was zero freedom of speech, property was seized left and right—it was a state that probably shouldn't have existed and definitely couldn't last—but still, somehow, things actually got built. If you aren't allowed to mention a single positive thing without being labeled a traitor, then fine, welcome to North Korea.

Check this out; here is another excerpt from a CIA report. This was from twenty years before the modern era of the Democratic and Republican parties or any of the usual political heavyweights:

"The conditions for high social mobility exist in theory and law in the former federation. In reality, connections remain important. Social mobility is greater for those who know the right people, join the party, and contrive to acquire a higher education. Although party membership is no longer the overwhelming criterion for success, it is still a passport to the top of society."

Looking at this today, I think you have to realize that much of what we see now is actually a byproduct of that old system. Its existence, our involvement in it, and its eventual collapse really shaped the framework of how American society operates today. Political figures don't just emerge from thin air; they are products of an environment that has existed for a long time. You could maybe apply that same logic to the U.S. in 2019. Everyone complains about how things were back then, but if that old system created these behaviors, I guess it's hard to say the previous era was any better.

Jessica Gonzalez said:Check this out; here is another excerpt from a CIA report. This was from twenty years before the modern era of the Democratic and Republican parties or any of the usual political heavyweights:

"The conditions for high social mobility exist in theory and law in the former federation. In reality, connections remain important. Social mobility is greater for those who know the right people, join the party, and contrive to acquire a higher education. Although party membership is no longer the overwhelming criterion for success, it is still a passport to the top of society."

Looking at this today, I think you have to realize that much of what we see now is actually a byproduct of that old system. Its existence, our involvement in it, and its eventual collapse really shaped the framework of how American society operates today. Political figures don't just emerge from thin air; they are products of an environment that has existed for a long time. You could maybe apply that same logic to the U.S. in 2019. Everyone complains about how things were back then, but if that old system created these behaviors, I guess it's hard to say the previous era was any better.

Well, even Americans use the phrase "no longer," don't they? That implies there was some actual progress made leading up to 1973, and one could reasonably assume that momentum continued for a while after. But looking at where we stand today, what kind of trends are we actually seeing?

It remains an absolute fact that reaching the upper echelons of society required a political connection back then. However, even someone coming from extreme poverty could climb into the middle class without needing to be a genius or have the right connections, which seems like a nearly impossible feat in today's reality.

It’s quite fascinating how people tend to pin all historical unrest on the era starting in 1945; everyone loves to blame communism for everything, yet they conveniently ignore the centuries of feudal oppression that were essentially upheld by many of the most prestigious institutions still standing today. No, apparently it's just the socialists' fault.

Jessica Gonzalez said:Check this out; here is another excerpt from a CIA report. This was from twenty years before the modern era of the Democratic and Republican parties or any of the usual political heavyweights:

"The conditions for high social mobility exist in theory and law in the former federation. In reality, connections remain important. Social mobility is greater for those who know the right people, join the party, and contrive to acquire a higher education. Although party membership is no longer the overwhelming criterion for success, it is still a passport to the top of society."

Looking at this today, I think you have to realize that much of what we see now is actually a byproduct of that old system. Its existence, our involvement in it, and its eventual collapse really shaped the framework of how American society operates today. Political figures don't just emerge from thin air; they are products of an environment that has existed for a long time. You could maybe apply that same logic to the U.S. in 2019. Everyone complains about how things were back then, but if that old system created these behaviors, I guess it's hard to say the previous era was any better.

First bold part, obviously. Let's be real, that kind of stuff happens everywhere, it's just more blatant and significant in certain places than others. Don't worry, I'm living on the West Coast right now. It's the exact same crap, except there's enough jobs and money that people don't get as exhausted by it. Plus, it doesn't seem quite as politically charged (or so it seems).

Second bold point—at the end of the day, America is our home, not some defunct foreign entity. It's much easier for me to swallow being screwed over by some outsider trying to systematically destroy us than it is to watch us tear ourselves apart. But the older generation always knew the drill: it's all about who you know, and whether your own people are looking out for you.

A pretty decent rotation, I suppose... if you're into that sort of thing.👍

So, apparently, the old regime is responsible for figures like him too. It’s a relief to know, really—it isn't our fault, it was just the failures of the previous administration and those systemic issues from back then.

It seems rather strange that he wasn't a product of that era, but rather emerged much later, though I suppose there's no sense in sweating the small stuff.