Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

Robin Fox2, what an absolute disaster that was...

Keith Miller30 said:Of course ideology isn't an illusion; I'm not quite sure where you're getting that idea from. You cannot simply dictate to another person what should matter to them and what shouldn't, can you? Everyone in this forum is championing some form of ideology, including yourself, if we are being honest.

As for the second point you made, I won't even bother quoting it, as I don't believe it even deserves a response.

Let’s be clear: I wouldn't have any issue setting aside my ideological leanings and casting a vote for the Democrats if I didn't feel they were undermining the country. Or perhaps I'd find myself supporting a sensible leader like Cory Booker.

Of course it's an illusion. Maybe you had rigid ideologies and actual ideological divides fifty years ago, but today? That stuff is basically just folklore. People have become way too "complex" to be shoved into a single little box—plus, political parties actually adapt to the era they live in, where things aren't just black and white anymore.

Just look at a recent example—that Mayor in Hamburg who served three terms while being a member of the Republican Party, despite being gay. Fifty years ago, that would’ve been unthinkable, but that's just reality now.

Politics evolves with the world it lives in; it doesn't survive on the past. People care about their own survival, their quality of life, and what kind of future they're leaving for their kids—so that's where the political battles are actually fought.

Honestly, it's weird seeing you fall for such shallow, populist nonsense... especially since based on your other posts, I thought you actually had the capacity to think for yourself.

brightpilot6 said:Is "us versus them" really a blunder? Is your version of party-line "us versus them" somehow different from Karamarko's Red Devils?

Is claiming at Jasenovac that the Nationalists weren't part of the national military considered a "blunder"?

Are those your idea of "slips"?

You claimed the Democratic Party polarizes the nation. Well, I’ve given you more than just a few idiotic, ideological nonsense snippets coming from the Right—and that's just a fraction of it. Yet you still cling to Zoran Milanović's "us versus them" rhetoric. It is a notorious fact that in America, it's either the Democrats or the Republicans. One side is the GOP, and the other is a collection of Red Devils and Nationalists.

I am challenging you again—please, list for me where exactly the Democrats have "constantly" and "non-stop" stoked the flames of the Nationalists snake, in the same way Karamarko and his crowd did with their incessant nonsense about bringing back Communism or having an "un-American" government. Even if there is some symbolic resurgence of Nationalists sentiment here and there in America, at least Communism isn't likely to make a comeback in 2015.

Please, send me the links. For every single "Leftist" instance you cite (Democrats, media, whatever) aimed at the Nationalists, I will provide five from the "Right" that obsess over communists or "un-American" administrations.

And don't even get me started on how crude those messages are.

The worst government ever. An un-American administration. They never actually wanted America. They polarize the people. They disrespect our veterans and the war for independence. The worst government ever. An un-American administration. They never actually wanted America. They polarize the people. They disrespect our veterans and the war for independence.

It almost kills me more than the weak turnout at the elections to see how many people are falling for these Karamarko mantras today.

And mind you, that is essentially the entire opposition platform right now—a convicted criminal organization. But for the "true Americans," apparently, it's more than enough.

I wouldn't call it just a "slip-up"—it's straight-up twisting the facts...

If they weren't the American army, whose were they? Bulgarian or Canadian?

It’s like if Angela Merkel walked into Dachau, bowed to the victims, and claimed the SS were never actually the German military. 🤣

And honestly, it’s just one more sign of how incapable we are as a nation to face our own history—no matter how ugly it gets...

Larry Fox5 Asks:
Of course, it’s nothing more than an illusion. Perhaps fifty years ago, people held onto rigid ideologies and lived within clearly defined ideological trenches, but those deep divides have largely evaporated, leaving behind little more than a sense of cultural folklore. Isn't it true that individuals themselves have become far too complex and layered to be easily shoved into a single, convenient box? At the same time, political parties are constantly evolving to suit the era they inhabit—an era where most significant questions and answers no longer fall into simple black-and-white categories.

Here is just a small glimpse into how much things have changed. Consider the Mayor of Hamburg, who served three separate terms representing the Republican Party despite being gay. It is almost impossible to imagine such a thing happening fifty years ago, yet today, it is simply our reality.

Politics should adapt to the era and the world we actually inhabit, rather than clinging desperately to the ghosts of the past. At the end of the day, what truly matters to people are their existential concerns, their general quality of life, and the vision they hope to leave behind for their children—isn't that where the real political battles are fought?

I can't really offer much of a rebuttal here because what you're describing is purely your own subjective experience. I have no idea how much time you actually spend living here in the States, nor am I certain if you truly grasp the underlying social dynamics of how people function within this culture. Take that marriage referendum we had, for instance; the fallout from that played out in a very specific way for many people—even if they won't admit it openly today. It essentially boiled down to a binary divide where those who voted "yes" were branded as mindless zealots, while anyone who voted "no" was dismissed as some sort of weak-willed, easily manipulated fool who simply let others dictate their views. You see these kinds of polarizing, black-and-white divisions whenever any controversial issue arises in this society, don't you?

Larry Fox5 Asks:
It honestly strikes me as quite peculiar that you find yourself falling for such shallow, populist rhetoric, especially since everything you’ve written on this forum thus far suggests you actually possess the rare gift of thinking for yourself.

No, nobody is actually falling for those populist gimmicks. People tend to form their own opinions based on their own principles and values. There are certain issues where I find myself agreeing with Zoran Milanović, while on others, I lean toward Tomislav Karamarko; there are moments when I align with the views expressed by Keith Miller30, and other times when I simply don't. You’re essentially doing the same thing as @ZZ—suggesting that if someone happens to agree with Karamarko on, say, two out of ten points, they must be peddling populist rhetoric, which is just fundamentally incorrect, isn't it?

I suspect you might not spend enough time here in the States to realize just how deeply divided this country is ideologically. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with someone holding a firm ideology; in fact, one could argue it’s a positive thing in the end. Of course, we have to draw the line at the extremes—like the kind of rhetoric mellowscout24 uses when suggesting we should essentially wipe out entire groups of people. That kind of talk borders on pure hatred and extremism, which is obviously unacceptable. However, if you view an ideology simply as a collection of philosophical, moral, religious, or economic ideas, why should that be viewed through a negative lens?

Larry Fox5 said:Of course it's an illusion. Maybe you had rigid ideologies and actual ideological divides fifty years ago, but today? That stuff is basically just folklore. People have become way too "complex" to be shoved into a single little box—plus, political parties actually adapt to the era they live in, where things aren't just black and white anymore.

Just look at a recent example—that Mayor in Hamburg who served three terms while being a member of the Republican Party, despite being gay. Fifty years ago, that would’ve been unthinkable, but that's just reality now.

Politics evolves with the world it lives in; it doesn't survive on the past. People care about their own survival, their quality of life, and what kind of future they're leaving for their kids—so that's where the political battles are actually fought.

Honestly, it's weird seeing you fall for such shallow, populist nonsense... especially since based on your other posts, I thought you actually had the capacity to think for yourself.

So, what you're saying is people were shallow for 10,000 years and parties were rigid, but suddenly in the last 50 years, everyone became "nuanced" and perfectly in sync with the times?

Keith Miller30 said:

Larry Fox5 Asks:
Of course, it’s nothing more than an illusion. Perhaps fifty years ago, people held onto rigid ideologies and lived within clearly defined ideological trenches, but those deep divides have largely evaporated, leaving behind little more than a sense of cultural folklore. Isn't it true that individuals themselves have become far too complex and layered to be easily shoved into a single, convenient box? At the same time, political parties are constantly evolving to suit the era they inhabit—an era where most significant questions and answers no longer fall into simple black-and-white categories.

Here is just a small glimpse into how much things have changed. Consider the Mayor of Hamburg, who served three separate terms representing the Republican Party despite being gay. It is almost impossible to imagine such a thing happening fifty years ago, yet today, it is simply our reality.

Politics should adapt to the era and the world we actually inhabit, rather than clinging desperately to the ghosts of the past. At the end of the day, what truly matters to people are their existential concerns, their general quality of life, and the vision they hope to leave behind for their children—isn't that where the real political battles are fought?

I can't really offer much of a rebuttal here because what you're describing is purely your own subjective experience. I have no idea how much time you actually spend living here in the States, nor am I certain if you truly grasp the underlying social dynamics of how people function within this culture. Take that marriage referendum we had, for instance; the fallout from that played out in a very specific way for many people—even if they won't admit it openly today. It essentially boiled down to a binary divide where those who voted "yes" were branded as mindless zealots, while anyone who voted "no" was dismissed as some sort of weak-willed, easily manipulated fool who simply let others dictate their views. You see these kinds of polarizing, black-and-white divisions whenever any controversial issue arises in this society, don't you?

Larry Fox5 Asks:
It honestly strikes me as quite peculiar that you find yourself falling for such shallow, populist rhetoric, especially since everything you’ve written on this forum thus far suggests you actually possess the rare gift of thinking for yourself.

No, nobody is actually falling for those populist gimmicks. People tend to form their own opinions based on their own principles and values. There are certain issues where I find myself agreeing with Zoran Milanović, while on others, I lean toward Tomislav Karamarko; there are moments when I align with the views expressed by Keith Miller30, and other times when I simply don't. You’re essentially doing the same thing as @ZZ—suggesting that if someone happens to agree with Karamarko on, say, two out of ten points, they must be peddling populist rhetoric, which is just fundamentally incorrect, isn't it?

I suspect you might not spend enough time here in the States to realize just how deeply divided this country is ideologically. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with someone holding a firm ideology; in fact, one could argue it’s a positive thing in the end. Of course, we have to draw the line at the extremes—like the kind of rhetoric mellowscout24 uses when suggesting we should essentially wipe out entire groups of people. That kind of talk borders on pure hatred and extremism, which is obviously unacceptable. However, if you view an ideology simply as a collection of philosophical, moral, religious, or economic ideas, why should that be viewed through a negative lens?

🤣
against extremism, just go extreme

you see how you people operate, twisting everything and leaning on lies. when you read something written like this, it feels like 😁 you guys are acting like we're bleeding from our eyes, but whether it's us or them, you twist the words into something else entirely even though I think everyone knows damn well what the point actually was.

we need to uproot the seed, and the sooner the better, because crime has no place in a functioning democratic society.

now try understanding what I'm actually saying.😁

ruggedjackal46 said:So, what you're saying is people were shallow for 10,000 years and parties were rigid, but suddenly in the last 50 years, everyone became "nuanced" and perfectly in sync with the times?

For the first 8,000 years, it was all about basic survival—social awareness evolved at a snail's pace—and for the next 1,950 years, literacy was reserved for a tiny elite, and not even because they were smart, just because they had the cash.
Now, in this digital age, people actually have diverse interests because information is everywhere, which obviously speeds up how fast our collective consciousness evolves.

Just look at American football... or soccer, whatever. Fifty years ago, you were lucky if you could catch a game on some grainy radio broadcast where the whole vibe depended on some guy like Blazick. Today? You’re watching with 50 different camera angles, picking your own audio, and rewatching clips whenever you want... it's a totally different world.

Keith Miller30 said:

Larry Fox5 Asks:
Of course, it’s nothing more than an illusion. Perhaps fifty years ago, people held onto rigid ideologies and lived within clearly defined ideological trenches, but those deep divides have largely evaporated, leaving behind little more than a sense of cultural folklore. Isn't it true that individuals themselves have become far too complex and layered to be easily shoved into a single, convenient box? At the same time, political parties are constantly evolving to suit the era they inhabit—an era where most significant questions and answers no longer fall into simple black-and-white categories.

Here is just a small glimpse into how much things have changed. Consider the Mayor of Hamburg, who served three separate terms representing the Republican Party despite being gay. It is almost impossible to imagine such a thing happening fifty years ago, yet today, it is simply our reality.

Politics should adapt to the era and the world we actually inhabit, rather than clinging desperately to the ghosts of the past. At the end of the day, what truly matters to people are their existential concerns, their general quality of life, and the vision they hope to leave behind for their children—isn't that where the real political battles are fought?

I can't really offer much of a rebuttal here because what you're describing is purely your own subjective experience. I have no idea how much time you actually spend living here in the States, nor am I certain if you truly grasp the underlying social dynamics of how people function within this culture. Take that marriage referendum we had, for instance; the fallout from that played out in a very specific way for many people—even if they won't admit it openly today. It essentially boiled down to a binary divide where those who voted "yes" were branded as mindless zealots, while anyone who voted "no" was dismissed as some sort of weak-willed, easily manipulated fool who simply let others dictate their views. You see these kinds of polarizing, black-and-white divisions whenever any controversial issue arises in this society, don't you?

Larry Fox5 Asks:
It honestly strikes me as quite peculiar that you find yourself falling for such shallow, populist rhetoric, especially since everything you’ve written on this forum thus far suggests you actually possess the rare gift of thinking for yourself.

No, nobody is actually falling for those populist gimmicks. People tend to form their own opinions based on their own principles and values. There are certain issues where I find myself agreeing with Zoran Milanović, while on others, I lean toward Tomislav Karamarko; there are moments when I align with the views expressed by Keith Miller30, and other times when I simply don't. You’re essentially doing the same thing as @ZZ—suggesting that if someone happens to agree with Karamarko on, say, two out of ten points, they must be peddling populist rhetoric, which is just fundamentally incorrect, isn't it?

I suspect you might not spend enough time here in the States to realize just how deeply divided this country is ideologically. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with someone holding a firm ideology; in fact, one could argue it’s a positive thing in the end. Of course, we have to draw the line at the extremes—like the kind of rhetoric mellowscout24 uses when suggesting we should essentially wipe out entire groups of people. That kind of talk borders on pure hatred and extremism, which is obviously unacceptable. However, if you view an ideology simply as a collection of philosophical, moral, religious, or economic ideas, why should that be viewed through a negative lens?

These aren't actual ideological splits between two opposing political camps—they're just manufactured patterns of behavior designed to manipulate voters.

Larry Fox5 said:For the first 8,000 years, it was all about basic survival—social awareness evolved at a snail's pace—and for the next 1,950 years, literacy was reserved for a tiny elite, and not even because they were smart, just because they had the cash.
Now, in this digital age, people actually have diverse interests because information is everywhere, which obviously speeds up how fast our collective consciousness evolves.

Just look at American football... or soccer, whatever. Fifty years ago, you were lucky if you could catch a game on some grainy radio broadcast where the whole vibe depended on some guy like Blazick. Today? You’re watching with 50 different camera angles, picking your own audio, and rewatching clips whenever you want... it's a totally different world.

Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, Sumer, ancient Asia... Pure existence? Really?

And for the next 1,950 years, literacy was reserved for a select few—not based on talent, mind you, but strictly on who had the money.

Wait, did Gutenberg invent the printing press in 1950?

In today's digital age, people have such diverse interests and instant access to information, which surely accelerates the evolution of consciousness.

The digital era definitely impacts consciousness, though maybe not just in terms of "advancement." Besides, the "digital age" is largely limited to the wealthy part of the world. In America, for instance, you still have huge swaths of the population that aren't regularly online.

Just look at our sports. Fifty years ago, if you were lucky, you might catch a game over some grainy radio broadcast where a commentator's voice was doing all the heavy lifting. Today, you watch with fifty different camera angles, pick your own audio, and replay it whenever you want.

That’s true. But even so, can we honestly say that today's top coaches are miles ahead of legends like Rinus Michels or Tomislav Ivić?

Walter Grant5 said:Raymond Harris4 says it's about forcing a foreign script on us. Honestly, the Republican Party voted for bilingualism in Congress and the El Paso Council, then turned around and played both sides by supporting protests right when the Democrats were running things. It’s pure schizophrenia.

Actually, the Democratic council members voted against it—we all know who was on board. But we’ve already seen how little they care about looking at the facts objectively. Look, if the leftists/communists/reds were in charge, they'd be forcing this script on us right now. Thank God they weren't in power during the last term; they would have robbed us blind and dragged us into an even deeper recession.

@Keith Miller30

I honestly don't see where you're getting this optimism from, or why you'd have any hope that they'll actually get things done. Does Karamarko look like anyone qualified to lead this country to you? Based on these interviews and everything we've seen so far, do you really think he's the guy who can pull us out of this crisis?

ruggedjackal46 said:Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, Sumer, ancient Asia... Pure existence? Really?

And for the next 1,950 years, literacy was reserved for a select few—not based on talent, mind you, but strictly on who had the money.

Wait, did Gutenberg invent the printing press in 1950?

In today's digital age, people have such diverse interests and instant access to information, which surely accelerates the evolution of consciousness.

The digital era definitely impacts consciousness, though maybe not just in terms of "advancement." Besides, the "digital age" is largely limited to the wealthy part of the world. In America, for instance, you still have huge swaths of the population that aren't regularly online.

Just look at our sports. Fifty years ago, if you were lucky, you might catch a game over some grainy radio broadcast where a commentator's voice was doing all the heavy lifting. Today, you watch with fifty different camera angles, pick your own audio, and replay it whenever you want.

That’s true. But even so, can we honestly say that today's top coaches are miles ahead of legends like Rinus Michels or Tomislav Ivić?

The real question is what percentage of the population actually has access to information. A hundred years ago, you’d have some priest in a tiny rural town who was basically the only person capable of reading... and you're sitting here obsessing over specific years just to try and force an argument—even though you know damn well that easy access to info is exactly what triggered this whole different level of progress...

ruggedjackal46 said:Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, Sumer, ancient Asia... Pure existence? Really?

And for the next 1,950 years, literacy was reserved for a select few—not based on talent, mind you, but strictly on who had the money.

Wait, did Gutenberg invent the printing press in 1950?

In today's digital age, people have such diverse interests and instant access to information, which surely accelerates the evolution of consciousness.

The digital era definitely impacts consciousness, though maybe not just in terms of "advancement." Besides, the "digital age" is largely limited to the wealthy part of the world. In America, for instance, you still have huge swaths of the population that aren't regularly online.

Just look at our sports. Fifty years ago, if you were lucky, you might catch a game over some grainy radio broadcast where a commentator's voice was doing all the heavy lifting. Today, you watch with fifty different camera angles, pick your own audio, and replay it whenever you want.

That’s true. But even so, can we honestly say that today's top coaches are miles ahead of legends like Rinus Michels or Tomislav Ivić?

Yeah, kids at +6 and those older folks hitting +50. It’d be pretty interesting to see what the percentage looks like for the +15 to +40 crowd... Honestly, the whole "wealthy part of the world" thing only matters if you look at it globally—but even then, it's kind of a moot point because there are still so many hungry people on this planet today, so how can you even expect them to have internet access?

ruggedjackal46 said:Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, Sumer, ancient Asia... Pure existence? Really?

And for the next 1,950 years, literacy was reserved for a select few—not based on talent, mind you, but strictly on who had the money.

Wait, did Gutenberg invent the printing press in 1950?

In today's digital age, people have such diverse interests and instant access to information, which surely accelerates the evolution of consciousness.

The digital era definitely impacts consciousness, though maybe not just in terms of "advancement." Besides, the "digital age" is largely limited to the wealthy part of the world. In America, for instance, you still have huge swaths of the population that aren't regularly online.

Just look at our sports. Fifty years ago, if you were lucky, you might catch a game over some grainy radio broadcast where a commentator's voice was doing all the heavy lifting. Today, you watch with fifty different camera angles, pick your own audio, and replay it whenever you want.

That’s true. But even so, can we honestly say that today's top coaches are miles ahead of legends like Rinus Michels or Tomislav Ivić?

Nah, we can't do that—but honestly, it doesn't even mean human consciousness evolves in a straight line just because geniuses pop up every now and then...

Patrick Martin said:Tax digitalization and the IRS?
Man, everyone knows how that famous little partnership between Linice and Zoran ended up playing out.
We all know how they basically gave a free pass to all those tax "specialists."

You can't have a Prime Minister in the middle of a national crisis acting all phlegmatic and indifferent, saying stuff like:
"Hey folks, please pay your taxes, this is your country." There’s no room for that kind of "please and thank you" begging or letting people choose whether or not they feel like paying.
It’s their job to step in, enforce the rules, and collect that money consistently because that’s how the country stays afloat.
But what are we seeing today? They’re still acting like they couldn't care less,
even though they hold every single lever and tool needed to make it happen.
Basically, whenever there’s an opening or a moment where they really need to crack down (which is literally their primary job), they just pull their punches.

They let the private guys who cruise around on yachts in the Hamptons pretend they can't afford to keep their businesses running.

They just need to get significantly better at doing the most basic, fundamental part of their actual job.

Why does Germany work?

Because everything gets paid instantly, and nobody gets special treatment. ☕



rotation

Personally, I think that’s a myth. In every nation, capital reigns supreme, and it sustains itself through its own unique mechanisms. More money inevitably leads to higher spending—much like a drug driving you further along. Today, we simply call that a "standard of living."

In America, success in market competition and the accumulation of massive capital means everything. Following that (sort of Protestant) mentality, they view themselves as the "chosen ones," possessing the privilege of a high-quality life, and they will do whatever it takes to stay on that throne. It’s them first—everyone else comes later. That’s why they often speak condescendingly about "First World problems"; these recent scandals aren't surprising at all. They do what they can because they have the power to do so.

Germany has a critical mass of people, but they also possess a similar spirit to Americans. However, they are more pragmatic; they learned during the industrial era exactly what it feels like to be exploited. A wealthy German would rather move to another country and register residency there for better tax rates than risk committing fraud in their own homeland. If they do decide to cheat their country, they likely have deep-seated connections ready to clear the path for their exit.

The situation in Greece was similar. When the crisis hit, the Greek elite moved their capital abroad just to ensure its survival. If anyone there actually paid taxes, they were paying the bare minimum or maneuvering around the law however they could. Ultimately, some individuals can blackmail their own nation in various ways—for instance, by closing ports and moving terminals to London or any other country offering better business terms.

Various places like Liechtenstein or Switzerland found their golden goose in the banking sector, and for many years, they were allowed to operate globally however they pleased. Regardless of morality, they dealt with everyone and anyone, which made it easy to transform their agrarian nations into some of the wealthiest in the world.

I won't say too much about the Russians. The interesting question would be what would even remain of Russia today if they hadn't distributed those massive resources among their political players during privatization.

Nowadays, our American elite collaborates with everyone when money is on the line, while ordinary or so-called "little people" won't even help each other out with the smallest thing. Some embed themselves in corruption and luxury yachts, while others abandon their homes just searching for a normal life.

There’s really only one fight that actually matters, and that’s the struggle between the haves and the have-nots. Everything else? Just fairy tales for kids.

@ Keith Miller30

If Tomislav Karamarko had offered the exact same thing—and I mean absolutely identical, save for those tired old slogans—but had actually managed to purge thieves like Ivan Kalmeta from the party, I certainly wouldn't be "accusing" his supporters of being pushovers. But he hasn't offered anything concrete, he continues to ride alongside the corrupt, and his political track record offers zero basis for any real conclusion regarding his ideological direction or actual program. We are left with nothing but those few repetitive mantras.

@ Hildea and ironpanther5

I find myself agreeing with you regarding these debates; nobody truly profits from them. However, I cannot bring myself to agree with the idea of simply ignoring the choice altogether. Basic survival logic suggests we should at least attempt to choose the lesser of two evils.

wiredfalcon2 said:There’s really only one fight that actually matters, and that’s the struggle between the haves and the have-nots. Everything else? Just fairy tales for kids.

So, how exactly do you define "rich" and "poor"?

I mean, seriously... how much money do you actually need to have before you start seeing everyone else through that lens?

Larry Fox5 said:For the first 8,000 years, it was all about basic survival—social awareness evolved at a snail's pace—and for the next 1,950 years, literacy was reserved for a tiny elite, and not even because they were smart, just because they had the cash.
Now, in this digital age, people actually have diverse interests because information is everywhere, which obviously speeds up how fast our collective consciousness evolves.

Just look at American football... or soccer, whatever. Fifty years ago, you were lucky if you could catch a game on some grainy radio broadcast where the whole vibe depended on some guy like Blazick. Today? You’re watching with 50 different camera angles, picking your own audio, and rewatching clips whenever you want... it's a totally different world.

Literacy 1950

ruggedjackal46 said:Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, Sumer, ancient Asia... Pure existence? Really?

And for the next 1,950 years, literacy was reserved for a select few—not based on talent, mind you, but strictly on who had the money.

Wait, did Gutenberg invent the printing press in 1950?

In today's digital age, people have such diverse interests and instant access to information, which surely accelerates the evolution of consciousness.

The digital era definitely impacts consciousness, though maybe not just in terms of "advancement." Besides, the "digital age" is largely limited to the wealthy part of the world. In America, for instance, you still have huge swaths of the population that aren't regularly online.

Just look at our sports. Fifty years ago, if you were lucky, you might catch a game over some grainy radio broadcast where a commentator's voice was doing all the heavy lifting. Today, you watch with fifty different camera angles, pick your own audio, and replay it whenever you want.

That’s true. But even so, can we honestly say that today's top coaches are miles ahead of legends like Rinus Michels or Tomislav Ivić?

Gutenberg 1950

Noah Roberts46 said:@Keith Miller30

I honestly don't see where you're getting this optimism from, or why you'd have any hope that they'll actually get things done. Does Karamarko look like anyone qualified to lead this country to you? Based on these interviews and everything we've seen so far, do you really think he's the guy who can pull us out of this crisis?

It’s probably money, or maybe something else he got from the party. A friend of mine used to hand out flyers for Ivo Sanders, and yeah, it was for cash.

Larry Fox5 said:So, how exactly do you define "rich" and "poor"?

I mean, seriously... how much money do you actually need to have before you start seeing everyone else through that lens?

Rich and poor mean different things depending on where you are, even within the same country. Obviously, being broke in some swampy backwater where you're walking through water ten miles just to get anywhere isn't the same as being poor in America, where "poor" usually means someone who at least owns their own place (or at least the family owns it). But here's the real kicker. The rich exploit the poor and they'll do anything to make sure the little guy doesn't threaten their spot. They network, they lean on the government apparatus, they grab tax breaks, they control the media—all that jazz. It doesn't matter if they're pulling in $3.25 or 10 billion dollars, it's all the same game.

Look at what happened in America—you've got a Treasury Secretary threatening to "release names" of people who took illegal bank loans;

Can you believe the absurdity? There shouldn't be any "releasing names" or threats involved. Those people, along with the bank executives who approved those loans, should have been behind bars with their assets seized days ago. But they aren't. Because they're the rich ones. We're the poor ones, stuck playing by rules cooked up by those exact same elites (the well-connected power players).

Noah Roberts46 said:@Keith Miller30

I honestly don't see where you're getting this optimism from, or why you'd have any hope that they'll actually get things done. Does Karamarko look like anyone qualified to lead this country to you? Based on these interviews and everything we've seen so far, do you really think he's the guy who can pull us out of this crisis?

I mentioned earlier that I expect things to improve by maybe 10-15%, nothing more than that. I believe that's certainly within the realm of possibility, coupled with my conviction that the Democratic Party simply isn't capable of achieving anything meaningful at this stage.

brightpilot6 said:@ Keith Miller30

If Tomislav Karamarko had offered the exact same thing—and I mean absolutely identical, save for those tired old slogans—but had actually managed to purge thieves like Ivan Kalmeta from the party, I certainly wouldn't be "accusing" his supporters of being pushovers. But he hasn't offered anything concrete, he continues to ride alongside the corrupt, and his political track record offers zero basis for any real conclusion regarding his ideological direction or actual program. We are left with nothing but those few repetitive mantras.

@ Hildea and ironpanther5

I find myself agreeing with you regarding these debates; nobody truly profits from them. However, I cannot bring myself to agree with the idea of simply ignoring the choice altogether. Basic survival logic suggests we should at least attempt to choose the lesser of two evils.

Suppose he presents an economic program now; would it even matter? If I recall, we didn't even bring the Democratic Party to power because they offered us something unique; we brought them in because we were fed up with the corruption, wasn't that the case? In the same vein, the Republican Party will likely be brought into power simply because people are dissatisfied with the Democrats. Ultimately, it all boils down to promises like Plan21—whether they make a fool of you or not. While I agree that Kalmeta should be distanced from the party, I highly doubt it would mean much to the public. Let's not kid ourselves; ninety-five percent of voters already have their minds made up about who they are voting for.

I never said I was going to vote for the Republican Party; this is more of a theoretical discussion regarding what I would do if I were forced to choose strictly between the Republicans and the Democrats. In that specific scenario, I would currently lean toward the Republicans. Likewise, four years from now, I wouldn't hesitate to cast my vote for the Democratic Party if it turns out the Republicans are failing and if the party ends up being led by someone like Picula.

As for Ivan Sinčić, I was obviously joking; there is no way I'm voting for him. In truth, I find myself closest to that theory of abstaining altogether which Hildegard proposed.