if you bring chairs to your kids t-ball game you're a puss

Social media is a nonstop slideshow of cataclysmic events that you have zero control over, yet we’re apparently expected to emotionally invest in and somehow solve them all from behind our keyboards (and then we wonder why we’re anxious). But God created us as finite people with limited abilities and limited spheres of influence. You don’t have to care about everything equally. You can’t. You shouldn’t. You don’t have to solve every problem in the world. In fact, it’s healthy to remind ourselves that in most corners of the world absolutely nothing at all is happening. So go outside. Look at the sunset. It’ll all be okay.

"we have a duty to care for them" A huge part of modern politics is women leveraging the state to satisfy their desire to nurture a baby but without the risk or commitment. This is the fundamental problem with democracy and universal suffrage. Any group can leverage the state against any other. Boomers can leverage government against their own children. Poor people can leverage it against the rich. In this case, it's women. Sometimes it's childless women but often it's women who simply didn't have enough children or grandchildren. Childless women will use the state to give them a replacement baby. Thus, universal suffrage cannot survive low-birth rates. Women want to "care" for things. Democratic government lets them do so with your money and at your risk. More so, they simultaneously leverage the state to "provide" for them, which they've done via endless social programs and NGOs (funded via government). Lots of voters abuse the institution of democracy. Ethnic groups favor each other. Poor people rob from the rich and even the middle. Corporations leverage the state against their competitors. All of this is recognized as wrong, but we seemingly ignore the political abuse of women using the state to satisfy their nurturing impulse while neglecting their own obligations. Women benefit from the sacrifices of their ancestors and the labor of their countrymen, just as men do. As such, they have duties to contribute, and the primary way to do so is having children. Yet few things are as radioactive as the word "duty" next to the phrase "have kids." One can argue that our society isn't doing enough for women (fine, argue away) but here's hard reality: 1. Women can say "give me more and I'll have children." 2. But they can't say "I refuse to have children" and still benefit from the culture. I'm not suggesting we force women to have children. I'm suggesting that NOT having children is, akin, to men not paying taxes. Women not paying taxes is NOT the same thing because it's less valuable than them having children. What does this mean? It means that women aren't doing their part. I have suggested ideas, such as limiting voting to people who fight in the military, women who have kids, and men who pay a certain amount of taxes. Perhaps we need to be more aggressive and consider the benefits of being a citizen. So here's an idea: 1. Instead of just limiting voting as I described, we restrict citizenship entirely. 2. Only citizens can own land, vote, go into public parks, use public transportation, get access to social programs, use the library, and so on. The point is to make clear what we are uncomfortable saying: women have duties just as men do. To question whether or not men are doing their duty is entirely reasonable. Maybe men aren't, but women definitely aren't and that's needs to be acknowledged. The concept of falling birth rates isn't independent of biological sex. We have to stop ignoring that this is a problem of and with women. Democracy will not survive universal suffrage, and Western civilization will not survive women without duty.

This looks like a Disney movie where a 12 year old becomes president

I am not entitled to his money. Accumulating more wealth than you can ever spend in a single lifetime (which he has done millions of times over) is bad for society. Money that could be moving through the economy and local communities to help improve lives is now removed.

You’re literally defending agriculture which destroys the environment infinitely more than urban development

I didn’t say that. But I hate the idea someone with a net worth of 8 grand could do a short term trade of SpaceX- profiting 2 thousand, and owe about the same % of taxes as Elon, when he sells his shares in 20 years for hundreds of billions.

Health Insurance (self employed) is such a joke. We pay around $3500 a month for 4 people Son went to the ER after a bike crash, no major tests or scans, basic blood work and exam. There an hour. They billed $2800 ON TOP on a $500 co-pay and our insurance covered $568 It's so easy to see how medical bills bankrupt people. I am $9,000 OUT OF POCKET PLUS $3500 a month SO FAR in 2026 - maddening

Right, let's play who's is the most gorgeous redhead... I'll Start: Amy Adams.

People get so angry to defend the defective because they have never had one in their family and only see the cute slice of life moments. And if they have had one they are struggling with some sort of "survivors guilt" for being normal.

Experience > Level