Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

Oh yeah, that genius Bujanec actually went looking for a retraction from the news outlet 🙏 🤣

And he got it

Yeah, GDP growth 🤣 🤣

A 0.3% increase is just stagnation. If you want a solid start, you really need to see something in the 3% to 4% range annually.

The US technically "exited" the recession simply because there were zero oil imports for an entire quarter. Is that actually a foundation for future growth? You could easily call this GDP engineering, because the economy is still essentially flatlining or shrinking. How can you claim we've moved past a recession when consumer spending is down 0.6%, state spending has dropped 0.5%, investments have plummeted by 3.7%, and employment numbers fluctuate wildly depending on the season? It’s hard to call that a recovery. It looks more like a way to mislead the public and the voters.

What did you expect? That we’d flip from negative to a 3% or 4% gain overnight? Just like our Dr. Smith didn't fix us in a single night, we aren't jumping from the red to perfection instantly. We finally hit the black, and now the goal is steady growth.

"Sir, yesterday the scans showed a tumor covering your entire lung, but we ran them again today and it's completely gone." Sorry, but that’s not how reality works.

Jeffrey Edwards76 said:But seriously, who actually gives a damn? It’s completely irrelevant. Everyone has their nationalists and their cosmopolitans—conservatives vs. liberals, Republicans vs. Democrats. In this country, the elites still love nothing more than splitting the population based on political wars that started decades ago, then layering current issues on top like marriage equality stuff, all just to keep the two-party system alive. The only actual divide that matters here is between the people actually funding the treasury and the ones sucking it dry. That horde of parasites on both sides has become unbearable—we're talking millions of them harassing the rest of the country. People try to frame tax debt in a negative light during these debates, but man, tax debt should basically be the metric for how "patriotic" these people are. Every American who actually cares about keeping this country afloat should probably be looking for ways to pay as little as possible—because nobody wants to end up in federal prison, right? Like, if you're heading to Vegas, just fill up your tank without thinking too hard. Those vultures won't stop until they've bled everything dry and shut down every single productive business in the States. To be clear, I’m not talking about the police, firefighters, doctors, teachers, etc.—I know who I'm talking about. Unfortunately, the rest of the country is mostly just clueless and easily manipulated by these divisions the parasite class uses. They just pick a side, and in the end, nothing ever changes. We yell at the top guys in D.C., but they’re really just the most prominent faces of a massive machine of cronies. So, yeah... let's see how fast the bankruptcy and reset happen. 👍

If only it were that simple.
We had a massive reset back in the nineties, and look where that left us.

A "reset" only serves to give those with deep pockets and political connections an even better head start.

There’s no saving us. At this rate, at least ten more generations of Americans will be living in poverty—assuming we don't descend into total chaos first.

This Democratic administration is easily the most incompetent one the US has ever seen, period...

Man, listen, they basically ship us all out to some godforsaken wasteland in the middle of nowhere—just endless, empty plains and nothing but dirt—and then expect us to build something from scratch.

Robin Fox2 said:Regardless of all this nonsense, if Karamarko had ties to the old intelligence agencies, he needs to be purged from the GOP and stripped of any authority immediately, just like anyone else who ever worked for them...

We should have followed Poland's lead a long time ago and just cleared them all out once and for all. ☕

There is no "if." The only real question is: WAS HE NOT INVOLVED?
Especially given how things work here in our melting pot of a country. If people actually knew what deals were being struck during the war, they’d all want to check out of life right then and there.

By the way,
speaking of Karamarko, I recently stumbled upon an article—I can't remember where—that explicitly explained how Karamarko, as the head of the GOP, has a "special contact for Washington." 🤣 And apparently, this guy used to be some high-ranking official in a regional militia back in the day.
Of course, everything is framed through patriotism and protecting minority interests, but behind the scenes, it's actually massive, multi-million dollar criminal activity involving the old guard.

Here is my observation: I think the previous coalition had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to completely wipe out the GOP and send them into the dustbin of history. But they were so unprepared for their massive victory and takeover that when they eventually fall, the collapse will be so painful it'll feel like every bone in their bodies is breaking.

The absolute peak of this absurdity will be if the convicted criminal organization that is the GOP manages to claw its way back into power after that whole media circus with Sanders and the trial of the century.
Looking at it objectively, we aren't any better. In fact, we are just as clueless, voting for criminal circles as if someone is intentionally screwing us over and delivering Karamarko straight to our doorstep. 🤣 Personally, looking at him and hearing him speak, I wouldn't even trust him to stamp papers in a local municipal office.

Yes, Karamarko 🤣🙏

Olivia Taylor2 said:They aren't going to distance themselves from anyone, I'm pretty sure of it. He’ll just stop being relevant once the election is over, just like they won't distance themselves from Mamić. Honestly, they'll probably lean into it even more.

As for the election, a Republican win looks pretty likely. Granted, over the last month, things have started shifting slightly toward the Democrats (GDP growth, veteran issues...), but the GOP is playing the cheap populism card, and it's working for them so far. Though, since voting is preferential, a lot of the awkward voters might get confused and lose their say. It's hard to see much changing before the end unless some big-shot party members get arrested, which doesn't look likely. Karamarko isn't going to go toe-to-toe with anyone; he knows if he plays that game, he'll end up losing to maminho (that guy on the forum), and he'll do whatever it takes to avoid that.

Overall, there are a few fronts where the left could try to make a move to keep things uncertain, but they aren't doing it right now. The situation is pretty clear-cut.

When it comes to how the Republicans and Democrats view that specific billionaire donor, don't be naive; there really isn't a meaningful difference between them. Both sides support him; the only distinction is that the Republicans will parade him around while the Democrats will pretend to draw a line. It’s nothing more than a political pageant for the public. When it comes down to taking actual, concrete action against him, they are identical—truly identical. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans actually touch him. One individual had a genuine intention to deal with the donor and was subsequently ousted from his position, which was justified, only to be replaced by a newcomer who simply doesn't care about these types of figures. Who can honestly criticize the Democrats for failing to act against this man? Just please, let's avoid the old argument that the donor is "too powerful," because suggesting that a small-town crook is more powerful than the federal government is simply absurd. I say this because every election cycle, people start shouting, "Don't vote Republican because they support the donor." In terms of handling this individual, the Democrats and Republicans are effectively the same.

Morgan Williams said:Obviously he wants the public broadcaster. No sane person would choose a niche cable news host. If I were in his shoes, there is no universe where I'd go there. Why would I let a radical extremist—who used cocaine to fund his lifestyle and founded local party chapters in Ohio—host me when I'm trying to take down the Republican establishment? It makes no sense to walk into the lion's den hosted by someone openly biased toward my opponent.

I'd pick the national network and a legitimate journalist every single time.

EDIT: Plus, the ratings would be much higher on a major network.

If they go on the public broadcaster, it’s already clear whose side the hosts will take. Look, I completely disagree with you on this. Sure, the host's controversial past in that small town might be used as an excuse to avoid a debate, but if the Democratic leader truly believes he can outmaneuver the GOP head, then that host's history shouldn't be a reason to decline. The fact that this guy has a scandalous past is one thing, but participating in a debate is something else entirely. I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that the Democratic leader might finally show his true colors and accept the challenge.

Robin Fox2 said:This Democratic administration is easily the most incompetent one the US has ever seen, period...

Signed.

Keith Miller30 said:When it comes to how the Republicans and Democrats view that specific billionaire donor, don't be naive; there really isn't a meaningful difference between them. Both sides support him; the only distinction is that the Republicans will parade him around while the Democrats will pretend to draw a line. It’s nothing more than a political pageant for the public. When it comes down to taking actual, concrete action against him, they are identical—truly identical. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans actually touch him. One individual had a genuine intention to deal with the donor and was subsequently ousted from his position, which was justified, only to be replaced by a newcomer who simply doesn't care about these types of figures. Who can honestly criticize the Democrats for failing to act against this man? Just please, let's avoid the old argument that the donor is "too powerful," because suggesting that a small-town crook is more powerful than the federal government is simply absurd. I say this because every election cycle, people start shouting, "Don't vote Republican because they support the donor." In terms of handling this individual, the Democrats and Republicans are effectively the same.

If they go on the public broadcaster, it’s already clear whose side the hosts will take. Look, I completely disagree with you on this. Sure, the host's controversial past in that small town might be used as an excuse to avoid a debate, but if the Democratic leader truly believes he can outmaneuver the GOP head, then that host's history shouldn't be a reason to decline. The fact that this guy has a scandalous past is one thing, but participating in a debate is something else entirely. I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that the Democratic leader might finally show his true colors and accept the challenge.

Signed.

Exactly. Plus, considering he founded the youth wing involved in this whole mess—and clearly favors them—along with all that extremist nonsense, it’s actually perfect for him to be the moderator in this showdown for the Prime Minister's seat. He’s acting like he's untouchable, demanding retractions from CNN. My bad, you're right—why didn't the stupid FIFA decide to have an American referee for the USA-Italy match? That would have made sense. Fine, Bujanec isn't officiating here, but the logic holds up just as much.

Robin Fox2 said:This Democratic administration is easily the most incompetent one the US has ever seen, period...

Compared to the regime responsible for the massive sell-offs in the early '90s? Not even in the same ballpark.

Gregory Chavez said:There is no "if." The only real question is: WAS HE NOT INVOLVED?
Especially given how things work here in our melting pot of a country. If people actually knew what deals were being struck during the war, they’d all want to check out of life right then and there.

By the way,
speaking of Karamarko, I recently stumbled upon an article—I can't remember where—that explicitly explained how Karamarko, as the head of the GOP, has a "special contact for Washington." 🤣 And apparently, this guy used to be some high-ranking official in a regional militia back in the day.
Of course, everything is framed through patriotism and protecting minority interests, but behind the scenes, it's actually massive, multi-million dollar criminal activity involving the old guard.

Here is my observation: I think the previous coalition had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to completely wipe out the GOP and send them into the dustbin of history. But they were so unprepared for their massive victory and takeover that when they eventually fall, the collapse will be so painful it'll feel like every bone in their bodies is breaking.

The absolute peak of this absurdity will be if the convicted criminal organization that is the GOP manages to claw its way back into power after that whole media circus with Sanders and the trial of the century.
Looking at it objectively, we aren't any better. In fact, we are just as clueless, voting for criminal circles as if someone is intentionally screwing us over and delivering Karamarko straight to our doorstep. 🤣 Personally, looking at him and hearing him speak, I wouldn't even trust him to stamp papers in a local municipal office.

Yes, Karamarko 🤣🙏

You see, this is where things get intense. After the Republican Party essentially collapsed—a collapse so severe that most organizations wouldn't have recovered, leaving them practically on their knees amidst scandals, corruption, lost support, and total fragmentation (they practically needed ☕ to pull through)—the Democrats stepped in to take control of the country. In a situation like that, wouldn't any rational leader attempt to cement their position so firmly that the opposition couldn't even dream of holding another election? Yet, here we are, facing a reality where the Republicans have swept the Democrats in nearly every election, including the recent presidential race, and are currently leading in all the polls (even though the latest data briefly favored the Democrats). If that isn't the ultimate proof of political incompetence, then what is? It isn't just that the leadership is ineffective; it's that they have surrounded themselves with people who lack expertise and experience, all while lacking basic political intuition. To my mind, the opposition leaders are light-years ahead of them.

Morgan Williams said:Exactly. Plus, considering he founded the youth wing involved in this whole mess—and clearly favors them—along with all that extremist nonsense, it’s actually perfect for him to be the moderator in this showdown for the Prime Minister's seat. He’s acting like he's untouchable, demanding retractions from CNN. My bad, you're right—why didn't the stupid FIFA decide to have an American referee for the USA-Italy match? That would have made sense. Fine, Bujanec isn't officiating here, but the logic holds up just as much.

Why on earth would a sitting President grant any kind of legitimacy through a guest appearance to a proven criminal, an addict, and a Nazi?

ruggedjackal46 said:Why on earth would a sitting President grant any kind of legitimacy through a guest appearance to a proven criminal, an addict, and a Nazi?

I agree. That was my first point, but I’m laying out all the other reasons why this whole confrontation is a total circus.

ruggedjackal46 said:Why on earth would a sitting President grant any kind of legitimacy through a guest appearance to a proven criminal, an addict, and a Nazi?

Wait, is this the same guy who hosted that extremist thug on one of his shows?

Morgan Williams said:Exactly. Plus, considering he founded the youth wing involved in this whole mess—and clearly favors them—along with all that extremist nonsense, it’s actually perfect for him to be the moderator in this showdown for the Prime Minister's seat. He’s acting like he's untouchable, demanding retractions from CNN. My bad, you're right—why didn't the stupid FIFA decide to have an American referee for the USA-Italy match? That would have made sense. Fine, Bujanec isn't officiating here, but the logic holds up just as much.

Morgan Williams, we are talking about a sixty to one hundred twenty minute showdown. Of course a commentator on Fox News will side with the Republican candidate, just as a host on CNN would naturally favor the Democrat. Wouldn't someone truly confident in their own position simply accept the invitation and skyrocket their own ratings by absolutely dismantling their opponent on away turf? In my view, the only thing that matters is that they have two separate debates—one hosted by a major network like NBC and another elsewhere—and it doesn't necessarily have to involve that specific media figure. A candidate's chances won't be sunk simply because of a moderator's controversial past.

But yes, if one wants to avoid an away game, bringing up a moderator's history could certainly serve a purpose.

Morgan Williams said:What I’m wondering is how the administration plans to spin this GDP growth and the job numbers. How much can they actually sell the idea that they pulled the country out of the gutter left by their opponent? It even feels like those protesters down on Pennsylvania Avenue are starting to swing in the government's favor. Throw in some scandal about the previous guy having ties to the FBI, or if a legal ruling finally hits one of the old leadership figures, and the momentum could shift fast. Their popularity seems to be climbing lately.

EDIT: Jeffrey Edwards76, I agree we need to break the two-party stranglehold, but give me one example of a legitimate left-wing option that isn't just the Democrats or some fringe group. To my eyes, there are plenty of right-wing alternatives out there.

Maybe we should just start a political party—why not? Most people here are either overeducated or heading that way anyway, so we've got the talent pool—we just need someone to actually pull the trigger. But that’s always been the issue in this country.

This country is missing a real student movement—something with actual teeth to drive change. But that potential was killed off long ago by free tuition and academic programs designed more for complacency than anything else.

Keith Miller30 said:When it comes to how the Republicans and Democrats view that specific billionaire donor, don't be naive; there really isn't a meaningful difference between them. Both sides support him; the only distinction is that the Republicans will parade him around while the Democrats will pretend to draw a line. It’s nothing more than a political pageant for the public. When it comes down to taking actual, concrete action against him, they are identical—truly identical. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans actually touch him. One individual had a genuine intention to deal with the donor and was subsequently ousted from his position, which was justified, only to be replaced by a newcomer who simply doesn't care about these types of figures. Who can honestly criticize the Democrats for failing to act against this man? Just please, let's avoid the old argument that the donor is "too powerful," because suggesting that a small-town crook is more powerful than the federal government is simply absurd. I say this because every election cycle, people start shouting, "Don't vote Republican because they support the donor." In terms of handling this individual, the Democrats and Republicans are effectively the same.

If they go on the public broadcaster, it’s already clear whose side the hosts will take. Look, I completely disagree with you on this. Sure, the host's controversial past in that small town might be used as an excuse to avoid a debate, but if the Democratic leader truly believes he can outmaneuver the GOP head, then that host's history shouldn't be a reason to decline. The fact that this guy has a scandalous past is one thing, but participating in a debate is something else entirely. I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that the Democratic leader might finally show his true colors and accept the challenge.

Signed.

Everyone keeps hyping up this confrontation at the local news station—it’s all noise. I don't get why a President would bother going toe-to-toe with some fringe host on a tiny regional network. It feels like the GOP is just so short on actual intellectuals that they've latched onto this fascist clown to act as their spokesperson.

Gregory Chavez said:Wait, is this the same guy who hosted that extremist thug on one of his shows?

That’s the one.

Keith Miller30 said:Morgan Williams, we are talking about a sixty to one hundred twenty minute showdown. Of course a commentator on Fox News will side with the Republican candidate, just as a host on CNN would naturally favor the Democrat. Wouldn't someone truly confident in their own position simply accept the invitation and skyrocket their own ratings by absolutely dismantling their opponent on away turf? In my view, the only thing that matters is that they have two separate debates—one hosted by a major network like NBC and another elsewhere—and it doesn't necessarily have to involve that specific media figure. A candidate's chances won't be sunk simply because of a moderator's controversial past.

But yes, if one wants to avoid an away game, bringing up a moderator's history could certainly serve a purpose.

The real issue with Bujanec isn't his bias; it's the fact that he's a criminal, a junkie, and a total Nazi who wouldn't know real journalism if it hit him in the face. Trying to host a debate on his turf is like trying to play a professional football game in the middle of a swamp.

Anthony Jackson2 said:Maybe we should just start a political party—why not? Most people here are either overeducated or heading that way anyway, so we've got the talent pool—we just need someone to actually pull the trigger. But that’s always been the issue in this country.

This country is missing a real student movement—something with actual teeth to drive change. But that potential was killed off long ago by free tuition and academic programs designed more for complacency than anything else.

Everyone keeps hyping up this confrontation at the local news station—it’s all noise. I don't get why a President would bother going toe-to-toe with some fringe host on a tiny regional network. It feels like the GOP is just so short on actual intellectuals that they've latched onto this fascist clown to act as their spokesperson.

😕 Look, we had a massive student movement back in 2009 regarding tuition costs. It didn't actually achieve its goal, so if you think things are "free" now, what exactly are you talking about?

ruggedjackal46 said:The real issue with Bujanec isn't his bias; it's the fact that he's a criminal, a junkie, and a total Nazi who wouldn't know real journalism if it hit him in the face. Trying to host a debate on his turf is like trying to play a professional football game in the middle of a swamp.

Fair enough, I also have concerns regarding his lack of objectivity, so I don't really see the point in having him on ABC News. 🤷

Perhaps they could find someone truly neutral, assuming such a person even exists in this day and age? Would someone like Anderson Cooper be more to your liking? I only ask because he was quite disrespectful toward Zuck in their last discussion, and it seems the little guy has let it go straight to his head.☕