Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

Robin Fox2 said:Then why does it only bother them when one side is involved? If you're perfectly fine with them forming a coalition exclusively with the Democratic Party, then just go ahead and vote for them now; the same logic applies to the other side.

It makes no difference to me; I cast my vote for them, not for whoever they intended or eventually decide to partner with... Let them do whatever they deem best.

I think both sides were an issue, but this whole mess just ended up triggering a massive backlash from voters who feel totally let down. If they had negotiated with everyone and then picked a side, I doubt there’d be this much noise. This just looks unprofessional and amateurish. Petrov really dug his own grave here, especially since he finally had a chance to carve out a "third" way.

It’s actually pretty ironic how the Bridge ended up sabotaging themselves by winning so many seats. If they had just held onto a handful of mandates, they could have played the role of a constructive opposition. That would have allowed them to stay relevant until the next election without constantly being caught in the crossfire between the left-wing and right-wing media outlets and various political pundits. Instead, they landed themselves in this total lose-lose situation during coalition negotiations; every single choice they make regarding the administration ends up discrediting them in the eyes of at least a small slice of the public and their own voter base. Because they're stuck in this bind, I truly believe the only way to judge their performance is by watching what they actually do once they finish forming a government. How they choose to act within the administration and their impact on the country will be the ultimate litmus test. And that is exactly how I intend to hold them accountable!

The Bridge basically screwed over America by letting both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party clear the electoral threshold.

Spot on! 😁

Michelle Palmer6 said:Oh, absolutely! We totally expected that kind of behavior from Petrov and Kovačić, considering they've been at loggerheads with the GOP on a local level for years. Especially Kovačić.
Right you are—and hey, I'm not saying anything bad about them!

Technically speaking, Jambo isn't part of the Republican Party, he's HSS. Kovačić is from a different area and Petrin is from somewhere else entirely, so none of what you're saying really connects...

Well, everyone knows which parts of America vote for which party; it’s practically a constant. You just know which regions and which people lean toward certain options...

If someone actually invented the Bridge, I have to hand it to them for being so clever...

We'll see how things play out now, but personally, I'd take Republican+Bridge or Democratic+Bridge over just one or the other. At least then there might be some theoretical balance. With the Bridge, though, Lovrinović and his ideas actually worry me the most...

Michelle Palmer6 said:It’s actually pretty ironic how the Bridge ended up sabotaging themselves by winning so many seats. If they had just held onto a handful of mandates, they could have played the role of a constructive opposition. That would have allowed them to stay relevant until the next election without constantly being caught in the crossfire between the left-wing and right-wing media outlets and various political pundits. Instead, they landed themselves in this total lose-lose situation during coalition negotiations; every single choice they make regarding the administration ends up discrediting them in the eyes of at least a small slice of the public and their own voter base. Because they're stuck in this bind, I truly believe the only way to judge their performance is by watching what they actually do once they finish forming a government. How they choose to act within the administration and their impact on the country will be the ultimate litmus test. And that is exactly how I intend to hold them accountable!

They can go back to preaching to the choir now—I'm sure nobody will push back then.

By the way, regarding that clown from Petrin—based on what that Bridge defender (who clearly supports him) was posting on political forums, it looks like everything was already a done deal with the Republican Party anyway. It was all just theater.

As for Bridge and Petrov—from what we've seen so far, it's obvious they aren't the "change" people are looking for. We're basically stuck waiting for someone decent to show up in the next election. If someone comes along with an actual, clear reform plan—and more importantly, a way to actually implement it—without making a massive media circus out of it, they'll easily grab 30 seats. Meanwhile, this crowd with nothing but a wish list barely scraped together 20.

James Anderson5 said:Technically speaking, Jambo isn't part of the Republican Party, he's HSS. Kovačić is from a different area and Petrin is from somewhere else entirely, so none of what you're saying really connects...

Well, everyone knows which parts of America vote for which party; it’s practically a constant. You just know which regions and which people lean toward certain options...

If someone actually invented the Bridge, I have to hand it to them for being so clever...

We'll see how things play out now, but personally, I'd take Republican+Bridge or Democratic+Bridge over just one or the other. At least then there might be some theoretical balance. With the Bridge, though, Lovrinović and his ideas actually worry me the most...

Mrkva, carrots... They’re always such a tight-knit group over there!
Who else could it be? I just don't see any other viable candidates on the Most ticket that would earn the support of those voters from the Midwest, the Gulf Coast, or the deep South!

James Anderson5 said:Technically speaking, Jambo isn't part of the Republican Party, he's HSS. Kovačić is from a different area and Petrin is from somewhere else entirely, so none of what you're saying really connects...

Well, everyone knows which parts of America vote for which party; it’s practically a constant. You just know which regions and which people lean toward certain options...

If someone actually invented the Bridge, I have to hand it to them for being so clever...

We'll see how things play out now, but personally, I'd take Republican+Bridge or Democratic+Bridge over just one or the other. At least then there might be some theoretical balance. With the Bridge, though, Lovrinović and his ideas actually worry me the most...

"It's common knowledge" is such a lazy argument. Honestly, if you look at how the Republican Party base mobilized down in the rural heartland, where everyone "knows" what's what, it's highly unlikely that the Most party actually holds much weight. Most of those votes were clearly just people trying to force the Republican Party back into power.

James Anderson5 said:Technically speaking, Jambo isn't part of the Republican Party, he's HSS. Kovačić is from a different area and Petrin is from somewhere else entirely, so none of what you're saying really connects...

Well, everyone knows which parts of America vote for which party; it’s practically a constant. You just know which regions and which people lean toward certain options...

If someone actually invented the Bridge, I have to hand it to them for being so clever...

We'll see how things play out now, but personally, I'd take Republican+Bridge or Democratic+Bridge over just one or the other. At least then there might be some theoretical balance. With the Bridge, though, Lovrinović and his ideas actually worry me the most...

I couldn't agree more! We are totally on the same page here.

Anthony Jackson2 said:They can go back to preaching to the choir now—I'm sure nobody will push back then.

By the way, regarding that clown from Petrin—based on what that Bridge defender (who clearly supports him) was posting on political forums, it looks like everything was already a done deal with the Republican Party anyway. It was all just theater.

As for Bridge and Petrov—from what we've seen so far, it's obvious they aren't the "change" people are looking for. We're basically stuck waiting for someone decent to show up in the next election. If someone comes along with an actual, clear reform plan—and more importantly, a way to actually implement it—without making a massive media circus out of it, they'll easily grab 30 seats. Meanwhile, this crowd with nothing but a wish list barely scraped together 20.

Honestly, this is all just fairy tales for kids. I actually had a professor from the Republican Party list tell me, right in the middle of the negotiations, how absolutely livid they were because the Bridge folks were forcing them into a coalition with the Democratic Party. He was basically saying it was driving him insane! If everything had been pre-arranged, they could have handled this much more smoothly without Bridge losing so much credibility with a huge chunk of the public. Of course, for the side that wanted the Democrats at any cost, they would have lost regardless.
And as for Petrin, it was proven incredibly quickly that Kovačić was right about him selling out to the Democrats. I honestly don't know how much credibility he has left at this point.

Based on what we've observed up to this point, I don't think we can jump to that conclusion yet, even if he might ultimately be right. Unless, of course, you're just being biased or rooting for the other side.
Though, I will admit: if I thought they actually stood a chance of getting into Congress, I would have voted for Smart Party. They had the most concrete program, and I truly hope they can hold onto it until at least the next elections—whether those are scheduled or snap 😁

Michelle Palmer6 said:Mrkva, carrots... They’re always such a tight-knit group over there!
Who else could it be? I just don't see any other viable candidates on the Most ticket that would earn the support of those voters from the Midwest, the Gulf Coast, or the deep South!

"It's common knowledge" is such a lazy argument. Honestly, if you look at how the Republican Party base mobilized down in the rural heartland, where everyone "knows" what's what, it's highly unlikely that the Most party actually holds much weight. Most of those votes were clearly just people trying to force the Republican Party back into power.

I couldn't agree more! We are totally on the same page here.

The whole concept of forming Bridge as a political platform actually came from the group that used to be in Oak, specifically from Petrov and Grmoja. It seems like they hold the most sway here, and both of them are much closer to the Republican Party on a global scale.

Bridge was basically the perfect fit for the average voter in Kentucky, Mobile, or Phoenix—people who were fed up with the old Republican leadership under George W. Bush but couldn't stomach having a hardcore atheist from the Democratic Party leading the country.

Clearly, Bridge pulled half its voters from that specific crowd and the other half from people unhappy with the left...

brightpilot6 said:Was it really Most that walked away from the GOP out of thin air, or did the GOP simply decide to retreat on their own? If we look at the actual sequence of events, what could Most have possibly been blamed for in that situation?

I think I’ll say it once more, because it bears repeating: people aren't actually that revolted by the choice itself, but rather by the way it was handled.

Exactly.
The situation is that the Republican Party refuses to meet certain terms and pulls out on their own. Everything is basically settled with the Democratic Party, yet Bridge hasn't even signed yet because they're asking for a few more days to iron out the fine print.
Then yesterday, they fabricated that nonsense about recruitment, and suddenly, as soon as you mention it, everything is supposedly finalized with the Republican Party and the signatures are handed over—all while Kokošinda struggles to hide a smirk.
To be clear, it would be just as repulsive if they had chosen the Democratic Party in this same manner.

stormyharbor13 said:Exactly.
The situation is that the Republican Party refuses to meet certain terms and pulls out on their own. Everything is basically settled with the Democratic Party, yet Bridge hasn't even signed yet because they're asking for a few more days to iron out the fine print.
Then yesterday, they fabricated that nonsense about recruitment, and suddenly, as soon as you mention it, everything is supposedly finalized with the Republican Party and the signatures are handed over—all while Kokošinda struggles to hide a smirk.
To be clear, it would be just as repulsive if they had chosen the Democratic Party in this same manner.

I couldn't agree more.

The Bridge was leaning toward the Republican Party from day one. This whole talk about a three-party coalition? It's just a smokescreen. If you can't see that right now, you're clueless.

Anthony Jackson2 said:They can go back to preaching to the choir now—I'm sure nobody will push back then.

By the way, regarding that clown from Petrin—based on what that Bridge defender (who clearly supports him) was posting on political forums, it looks like everything was already a done deal with the Republican Party anyway. It was all just theater.

As for Bridge and Petrov—from what we've seen so far, it's obvious they aren't the "change" people are looking for. We're basically stuck waiting for someone decent to show up in the next election. If someone comes along with an actual, clear reform plan—and more importantly, a way to actually implement it—without making a massive media circus out of it, they'll easily grab 30 seats. Meanwhile, this crowd with nothing but a wish list barely scraped together 20.

But let's be real—the next election is way too soon for that kind of shift.

I guess I have to ask, when the Democratic Party first recruited Prgomet, why didn't Most react this aggressively? Why didn't they just go ahead and form a coalition with the Republican Party right then and there?

Did they suddenly develop all these principles out of nowhere? Maybe they just didn't have them back then.

Jesse Sullivan5 said:But let's be real—the next election is way too soon for that kind of shift.

Seriously though, if the Bridge party doesn't actually manage to push through some real reforms, they aren't gonna get squat as a third option in the next election. They'll be totally screwed.

Walter Grant5 said:The Bridge was leaning toward the Republican Party from day one. This whole talk about a three-party coalition? It's just a smokescreen. If you can't see that right now, you're clueless.

True, but the real question is why they didn't just pick the Republican Party a few days ago. They had a perfect opening after the President went on the attack against them. Instead, they reached back out to the Democratic Party just to keep this circus running. What's the point? Just to stage another political drama like we saw yesterday?

It feels like there are all these strange games being played behind closed doors, and honestly, we’ll probably never know what the real story is. It reminds me of how my old boss used to shuffle things around just to keep everyone guessing. Even now, Republican voters claim the Bridge party is just a way for the Democratic Party to steal their votes, while Democratic voters swear the Bridge party is actually working for the Republicans. We've just been spinning in circles for two months now.

Michelle Palmer6 Asks:
It’s pretty obvious you aren't grasping the pragmatic side of things here. I mean, at the end of the day, shouldn't you eventually have to agree with someone else's perspective?

So, what else am I supposed to say? Look, I get the pragmatic side of things—you eventually have to pick one of the two major parties to actually form a coalition and get anything done. But if that’s the move, wouldn't it be more honest to just admit that's the logic? Instead of playing these endless games of political math and negotiating with the opposition while simultaneously claiming you're staying true to your core platform and those much-vaunted "reforms." It feels a bit disingenuous, doesn't it?

Issuing a formal statement immediately after getting a single "yes" from some minor party would be even more idiotic than this whole mess. It would just be a total farce. I don't know, maybe I’m the outlier here, but I certainly wasn't expecting them to steamroll through their entire agenda. If they did, they'd end up having to swallow whatever nonsense one of the two major parties throws at them. And then, in the eyes of those malicious critics—or the blissfully unaware idealists—they’d look like they betrayed everything they promised during the campaign. In reality, when you don't hold a mandate as one of the two dominant parties, you have to engage in some incredibly heavy political math just to squeeze any actual value out of what you were elected to do. Is it really that hard to see the difference between a betrayal and basic survival?

I mean, I wasn't exactly expecting them to push through everything they initially laid out, but looking at how these negotiations are wrapping up, I’m starting to wonder if there was even a plan to begin with. Did they actually outline a roadmap, or did they just stumble into a corner where they're forced to figure out who’s in charge on the fly? It feels less like strategic maneuvering and more like they just realized they had to pick a winner because they hadn't planned for anything else.

It isn't that insurance companies are somehow more "leftist" than the right-wing players; it’s just that the insurance itself serves as a guarantee. It ensures that if you decide to ignore the decisions made by this coalition government, you’re practically being kicked out of the room. Is it perfect? Not even close. Is it honest? Hardly. Am I thrilled about it? Definitely not. But at the end of the day, it’s a legitimate way to keep things functioning.

It’s technically legitimate, sure, but it’s also pretty damn stupid. If you're splitting positions between three different parties, then kicking one out doesn't just change the lineup—it shifts an entire third of the government and completely rewrites the balance of power. Makes sense, right? Or does it?

Michelle Doyle61 said:True, but the real question is why they didn't just pick the Republican Party a few days ago. They had a perfect opening after the President went on the attack against them. Instead, they reached back out to the Democratic Party just to keep this circus running. What's the point? Just to stage another political drama like we saw yesterday?

It feels like there are all these strange games being played behind closed doors, and honestly, we’ll probably never know what the real story is. It reminds me of how my old boss used to shuffle things around just to keep everyone guessing. Even now, Republican voters claim the Bridge party is just a way for the Democratic Party to steal their votes, while Democratic voters swear the Bridge party is actually working for the Republicans. We've just been spinning in circles for two months now.

People always use that excuse to deny anything. "If that's true, then why didn't..." It's the classic alibi. Total relativism used to dodge accountability.

Look at this case—they managed to flip 15 signatures in favor of the party that was supposedly out of the running. In an instant.

Yeah, how's it going.

urbanhawk17 said:I guess I have to ask, when the Democratic Party first recruited Prgomet, why didn't Most react this aggressively? Why didn't they just go ahead and form a coalition with the Republican Party right then and there?

Did they suddenly develop all these principles out of nowhere? Maybe they just didn't have them back then.

Just Petrin and a few other tough nuts who actually know their stuff.

Word on the street is this might be one of the first big shifts after the change in administration...