Did you know that democrats are trying to get Trump BLOCKED from taking office of the presidency on January 20 cause there's no Speaker of the House?

[sage2021]

https://youtu.be/hrVgTVxZd_g?si=SRJViI3ynfv_a_Em

[Surely]

I had heard a few months ago. That the Democrats had something up their sleeve to prevent Trump from going to the White House! Just didn’t know what it was.

[exitseven]

they will try anything but the only way Trump can be stopped is if they have him killed.

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[blueonblack22]

They won’t be successful.

One thing the mass media, globalists and all other far leftists could never get through their thick skulls about Trump is that all the negative energy they incessantly threw at him only made him stronger. He LOVES being in the fight and the democrats erroneously believed that if they attacked him they could win. In reality it did just the opposite.

If the mass media and leftists were smart (and they’re not) they would have laughed off and completely ignored Trump back in 2015. In the past Trump’s worse enemy was himself. He would tweet stupid things and make stupid remarks. But instead they panicked and went ballistic which in turn only gave Trump more visibility and directly contributed to his rise in power.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Trump won the Presidential election, the popular vote, and Republicans won the House and Senate. Socialism lost, and leftists need to get over themselves.

[Friendlybro79]

@NYCQuestions1976 I agree with everything but the last sentence and I'm a registered Democrat.

We're not socialists it's so annoying lol. We have nothing to get over because we accept he won but don't have to like it. That's being human. We don't have to get over it lol. We can talk, discuss and debate. Please remember the past 4 years of Republicans not even capable of saying Trump lost in 2020 lol. They never got over it lied and cried all 4 years and tried to prevent him from taking office. Did you all forget this?

Here's the thing. I think Trump sucks but I hope I'm wrong, and I'll give him credit if he does anything positive for avg Americans. I don't like the way he approaches anything, I don't like the way he speaks, and I think he's acts like a narcissist.

So again, most people here do like to just irritate the other side of their political views but that's just silly. I can agree again if anyone doesn't believe Trump won they're disillusioned. It's 4 years. We will survive and everyone can get over themselves not understanding other people are going to always complain, disagree, and debate stuff like this.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Friendlybro79 Well then you're sort of agreeing with me, because I don't believe that the moderate Democrats are the ones that are doing the vast majority of the crying over Trump right now. It's the far-left liberals, socialists, progressives, and the woke in this country, along with the left-leaning mainstream media, that have derailed the Democrat party. They're the ones that are the sore losers and are all bent out of shape over Trump being elected again. They just happen to be a very loud minority of Democrats. Also remember that it was Clinton and Pelosi who were the original election deniers in 2016 and 2017.

[Friendlybro79]

I get your point. I'm not being a jerk just talking here when I say this isn't only a left thing. This happens on all political sides.

I am a progressive democrat and I can't explain enough how that isn't socialism. I can't speak for crazy people left or right but progressives are absolutely not socialists and I think it's time republican voters start understanding that right wing media is redefining what progressive means to scare people.

Progressive Democrats are not socialists. They believe in using government to help improve peoples lives, like making healthcare affordable and funding education. Socialists want the government to control everything, like businesses and all the money. Progressives still believe in capitalism they just want to make it fairer so everyone has a shot at success, not just the rich.

If we can get this straight then people can start actually talking to each other. Can't have a conversation with folks (not you just in general) when they tell you who you are, and define what you stand for incorrectly.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Friendlybro79 Progressive policies, like DEI (Didn't Earn It) are a direct path to socialism. The government isn't anyone's friend, and the tinier the government is, the better it is for everyone. We're properly and rightfully guaranteed equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Trying to guarantee equal outcome (equity), which is a progressive policy, at the expense of our individuality and meritocracy, is socialism.

[Friendlybro79]

DEI and progressive policies aren't socialism. DEI focuses on creating fair opportunities by addressing barriers, not guaranteeing outcomes. Progressives don’t want to control businesses or replace capitalism, they aim to improve fairness within it. Equity isn’t about everyone ending up the same; it’s about removing barriers so everyone has a fair shot at success. Policies like affordable healthcare or education don’t eliminate merit. They just level the playing field

[Friendlybro79]

Your examples are right wing talking points that aren't true depictions of progressivism. It's frustrating to me because if it were how you describe i wouldn't be ok with that. When you're constantly told this is who you are it's very frustrating

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Friendlybro79 You're describing equality (equal opportunity), which already exists without DEI policies. Equity is about equal outcome. That is a path to socialism.

[Friendlybro79]

That's not what DEI is and it is private companies that decide if they want to subscribe to it. Equity in DEI is not about equal outcome.

Addressing barriers and systemic inequities so everyone has a fair chance to succeed. This doesn’t mean everyone gets the same resources, but rather the resources they need to thrive.

No progressive expects everyone to make the same or be mandated to make the same as someone that has say highly desirable skills over another. If it were as you describe i would not agree to that either.

[Friendlybro79]

Some DEI efforts align with existing laws, such as anti-discrimination statutes that is again not socialist. these laws focus on preventing discrimination, not mandating DEI programs by the government. Do you agree that no one should be discriminated in the work force?

[Friendlybro79]

It sounds like you do agree about the laws. I missed that in your reply my apologies. My point is though your definition of Equity in the sense of what DEI stands for is inaccurate. If it were as you say I'd understand your frustration.

[Friendlybro79]

I appreciate the conversation and I'm glad to clear up what progressives actually stand for because they're not expecting equal outcomes. This is just one progressive idea you dislike under false understanding that it will lead to socialism because of the inaccurate way you define equity in DEI. We don't have to go back and forth on that if you decline to believe that.

What other progressive policies are you not a fan of that will lead to socialism? Also how do they lead to socialism if you could explain because Medicare and social security for example are funded by us and never led to socialism nor should it.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Friendlybro79 The E in DEI stands for "equity", not "equality". As citizens of the United States, we're all guaranteed the right to equal opportunity as individuals under the Constitution. Equity and equality aren't the same thing. Equity is about guaranteeing equal outcome, not guaranteeing equal opportunity. That's a problem, and I don't support policies that are meant to circumvent achievement based on merit.

[Friendlybro79]

Ok you're stuck on this and you're redefining the word equity. Where does the definition of the word call out equal outcome. It's saying everyone has a fair chance so that people that a circumstance like being poor doesn't prevent you the opportunity at a job because people are not equal in circumstances at all. For ex of a job said we will treat all interns equally by paying them zero over the summer and expect them to cover the costs of meals, commute , etc. That would mean that not all folks can apply for that job even if they're qualified. Say this free internship can lead to a really well paying job. This levels the playing field to make it triplet equal opportunity. Not that everyone gets paid the same or it has to be even split of races and genders. It just means tou need to mindful and hold the term equal opportunity truly accountable. Also, again it isn't the law. It's a practice companies can choose to use to be fair and impartial. That's all. It isn't forced by government and doesn't lead to socialism. You're hanging on to an incorrect viewpoint.

[Friendlybro79]

From the dictionary
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
noun
noun: equity; singular proper noun: Equity; noun: Equity
1.
the quality of being fair and impartial.
"equity of treatment"
Similar: (none of these words define as expected equal outcome, i checked every one.)
fairness
fair-mindedness
justness
justice
equitableness
fair play
impartiality
even-handedness
egalitarianism
honesty
integrity
rightness
rightfulness
rectitude
uprightness
righteousness
properness
decency
goodness
honorableness
scrupulousness
conscientiousness
reasonableness
sensibleness
disinterest
disinterestedness
neutrality
objectivity
balance
open-mindedness
Opposite:
inequity
imbalance
Law
a branch of law that developed alongside common law in order to remedy some of its defects in fairness and justice, formerly administered in special courts.
"if there is any conflict between the principles of common law and equity, equity prevails"
2.
the value of the shares issued by a company.
"he owns 62% of the group's equity"
Similar:
value
worth
valuation
ownership
rights
proprietorship
right of possession
stocks and shares that carry no fixed interest.
plural noun: equities
"trading in equities is governed by market rules"
3.
the value of a mortgaged property after deduction of charges against it.
"people who have built up a significant amount of equity in their homes"
4.
(in the US, UK, and several other countries) a trade union to which most professional actors belong.
"an Equity card"

[Friendlybro79]

If you would like to start a company and not buy into that DEI is a way to ensure equal opportunity then by all means don't adopt the principal. I'm more curious to get into a different topic since this is a really small progressive viewpoint and I'm more interested on you expanding on your thought of the government isn't anyone's friend. What role should the government play differently than how you think a progressive would want it. I will say again an answer that has a shift of capitalism to socialism or communism in it isn't a progressive standpoint.

[Friendlybro79]

Some social policies like social security and Medicare (although not perfect) are extremely popular amongst the majority of republican voters. Especially the Republicans receiving the benefit today.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Friendlybro79 Equity has no place in government and/or in business. Equity has no place in a meritocracy. What I've been describing is exactly how the government and businesses have been implementing DEI policies. They circumvent achievement based solely on merit to check irrelevant boxes. Luckily DEI programs and policies are finally going away in businesses and in government, because they've been huge embarrassing failures that've been destroying morale and productivity.

From Google:

Equity and equality are different concepts that can lead to different outcomes:

EQUITY:

Provides specific resources to people based on their needs to be successful. Equity recognizes that people have different circumstances and allocates resources to HELP THEM REACH AN EQUAL OUTCOME.

EQUALITY:

Treats everyone the same, regardless of differences or needs. Equality assumes that everyone starts at the same point and will face the same challenges.

Here are some examples of equity and equality:

Time off at work:

Equality might be encouraging all employees to take time off during the last two weeks of December. Equity might be encouraging employees to take time off based on their individual cultural and religious events.

Watching a baseball game:

Equality might be giving everyone the same opportunity to stand on a box to get a better view. Equity might be providing a taller ladder for someone who needs it to see over the fence.

As citizens of the United States, we're all guaranteed the right to equal OPPORTUNITY as individuals under the Constitution, not equitable opportunity, which guarantees OUTCOME. Guaranteeing equal outcome via equity instead of equal opportunity is unconstitutional and a direct path to socialism.

[Friendlybro79]

What outcomes are you scared are going to be equal? Paint me a picture of how providing a ladder for someone to see the game next they're not tall enough for the few people that need it lead to socialism? It's allowing everyone to have resources they need to succeed. That equity gives this person the opportunity to be at the game. This is not guarantee equal outcomes in totality. It's just saying equal opportunity isn't actually an equal opportunity for everyone if the playing field is not leveled. Also again private business can do this and it is not illegal to want a diverse, equitable, and inclusive workforce. This is not saying you still can't hire the best candidate for the business. Again no one is forcing the government to get involved here.

Are you saying the government, who's not our friend, should intervene and tell private companies they can't hire people like this? Should they be told if a person doesn't have the resources on their own to succeed, even if you see potential in them, you must not give the equitable resources (fair and just) so they can thrive in life, even if they're a for profit capitalist company?

What other things should the bad government intervene on? Also giving a ladder to a few people because we can and should does not mean socialism. It's ridiculous

[Friendlybro79]

I have been trying to engage back and forth with the one topic of DEI as your example of progressives wanting socialism which it isn't. You are hooked on the word equity and all I wish is we used a different word or way to describe my point because some words clearly have different meanings. Coming from the progressive here I know what I want out of progressive policy's and it isn't a shift out of capitalism and into socialism. I'll give it another chance to shift to a different topic because we're just going to argue what equity means. I argue we don't really need DEI as much as we did during the civil rights movement anyway. I think companies have done a better job on their own for the most part but I needed to contend with your definition of equity and what outcome you think it's going to lead to socialism somehow.

Change the topic lol. I would love to know what other progressive policies equals zero capitalism and right to socialism? I don't know a progressive policy that means we will turn socialist. How do you think the government should spend money?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Friendlybro79 All progressive policies are an eventual path to socialism, because they need high taxes to pay for those policies and bloated intrusive albatross government to force those policies onto the taxpayers. Progressive policies undermine individual personal freedoms and meritocracy. The government should spend as little money as possible. The government should be as tiny as possible. It's a form of "polite racism" any time anyone believes that any "non-Caucasians" can't live, survive, and thrive in this country on their own individual unique personal abilities, and without government intervention. It's a form of "polite sexism" any time anyone believes that any "non-males" can't live, survive, and thrive in this country on their own individual unique personal abilities, and without government intervention. Far-left liberalism, socialism, progressivism, and wokeism are all financial grifts and a power grab by the government as excuses for crippling taxes, larger-than-necessary government, and limiting individual personal freedoms. The government isn't your friend.

[Friendlybro79]

I had to reply to this from my laptop lol. I'm breaking this down one by one. If it's not apparent, I do appreciate the conversation.

First, progressive policies aren’t a path to socialism, and saying they are is just fear-mongering. Socialism is about the government owning and controlling everything businesses, resources, the whole economy. Progressive policies aren’t about that. They’re about making capitalism work better for everyone, not just the wealthiest.

Taxes and Government Spending

Yeah, some progressive policies require higher taxes but mostly on the rich and corporations that benefit from loopholes while the rest of us foot the bill. The idea isn’t to “bloat” the government; it’s to reinvest in things that make life better, like infrastructure, healthcare, and education. For example:

Affordable Healthcare: Medicare for All doesn’t mean the government takes over your doctor’s office. It means simplifying a system where we already pay insane amounts for healthcare through premiums and deductibles. Countries that do this actually spend less on healthcare overall.

Education Investment: Fixing crumbling schools and making college more affordable isn’t socialism it’s common sense. Better education helps people earn more and pay more into the system. That’s called long-term investment, not government overreach

[Friendlybro79]

If you’re worried about taxes, why aren’t we talking about the trillions of taxpayer dollars wasted on corporate subsidies, unnecessary military spending, and tax breaks for billionaires? That’s where your “bloated albatross” government lives.

Personal Freedom and Meritocracy

Saying progressive policies undermine meritocracy ignores reality. How is it a fair competition when people start at completely different places?

Equity isn’t about pity or assuming people can’t survive on their own. It’s about recognizing that systemic barriers—like underfunded schools, pay gaps, or discriminatory hiring practices—make it harder for some people to even get a chance to compete.

And don’t forget: A lot of government policies already help people thrive. Public schools, roads, Social Security—are those socialism? No, they’re the basic tools people need to succeed. You wouldn’t call a highway socialism just because it lets everyone drive, right?

The “Polite Racism/Sexism” Argument

Calling equity “polite racism” or “polite sexism” is just a way to ignore the real problems people face. Here’s the truth:

No one’s saying non-white or non-male people can’t thrive. What progressives are saying is that systemic barriers like racial wage gaps or lack of affordable childcare—are holding them back unnecessarily. Addressing those barriers is about fairness, not handouts.

Let’s flip this: If you benefit from government policies like tax breaks, public infrastructure, or small business loans, does that mean you’re “too weak” to survive on your own? No—it means the system is supposed to give everyone a fair shot, not just a privileged few.

Far Left, Socialism, Wokeism, and Grifting

Throwing buzzwords like “wokeism” and “socialism” together doesn’t make them true.

[Friendlybro79]

Progressivism isn’t a power grab it’s a response to systems that don’t work for most people. Things like skyrocketing medical bills, unaffordable housing, and underpaid teachers aren’t about ideology. They’re everyday problems that need fixing.

And the idea that the government is some evil monster? It’s ironic. Conservatives are fine with “big government” when it comes to massive defense budgets or corporate subsidies, but suddenly it’s a problem when it’s about helping working families? That’s hypocrisy, plain and simple.

The government isn’t perfect, and no one’s saying it is. But progressives don’t want to make the government your “friend” they want it to do its job: protect people, create opportunities, and ensure fairness. That’s not socialism that’s democracy doing what it’s supposed to do.

If you think government should be “as tiny as possible,” ask yourself this: Are you okay with crumbling roads, failing schools, and skyrocketing medical bills? Because that’s what happens when we gut everything in the name of “small government.” A good government invests in its people that’s not overreach; it’s common sense.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Friendlybro79 You're going way overboard with trying to defend the bloated government.

Taxing people into oblivion isn't investing in them. All that does is unnecessarily grow the government, make it more intrusive, impedes individual personal freedoms and rights, and makes politicians and government employees loaded off our earned money for doing nothing. The best way to invest in citizens is to invest as little money as possible into the government. Tiny government is more than big enough to deal with infrastructure and other everyday necessities. Our capitalism-driven Constitutional Republic that we have is an extremely fair system for the citizens of the United States. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it's by far the best system that's ever been created on this planet. We're entitled to equality and the "pursuit of happiness". We're not entitled to equity and the "guarantee of happiness". Equity is equality minus the effort, and it's not the government's responsibility to hand out satisfaction.

If you personally want big fat stupid bloated albatross intrusive anti-freedom grim reaper progressive government, then when you do your personal taxes every year, you can choose to send the government as much of YOUR money above and beyond your required annual financial obligation. Keep your hands out of my pockets.

[Friendlybro79]

"The best way to invest in citizens is to invest as little money as possible into the government. Tiny government is more than big enough to deal with infrastructure and other everyday necessities. Our capitalism-driven Constitutional Republic that we have is an extremely fair system for the citizens of the United States. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it's by far the best system that's ever been created on this planet. We're entitled to equality and the "pursuit of happiness". We're not entitled to equity and the "guarantee of happiness". Equity is equality minus the effort, and it's not the government's responsibility to hand out satisfaction."

Responding to the above.

You're right that the government should be efficient, but let’s not pretend 'tiny government' works for modern society. Infrastructure, healthcare, and education aren’t cheap, and neglecting them hurts everyone especially working-class citizens. The private sector doesn’t build roads, fix bridges, or ensure clean water out of goodwill; that’s government investment.

Also, the 'capitalism-driven' system you’re praising isn’t as fair as you think. Massive tax breaks and subsidies for corporations don’t scream 'tiny government,' yet Republicans support them. They redistribute wealth upwards while cutting programs that help regular people. That’s not fairness; that’s picking winners.

As for equity, it’s not about handing out happiness it’s about ensuring people have the tools to compete. A kid in a crumbling school can’t 'pursue happiness' the same way a kid in a wealthy district can. Ignoring that isn’t promoting fairness, it’s maintaining inequality. Progressives aren’t trying to guarantee outcomes they’re working to level the playing field. Big difference

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Friendlybro79 People on the left rail against companies and praise government, but it's companies that create jobs and careers, while government (particularly government run by far-left liberals, socialists, progressives, and the woke) only creates misery by punishing achievement, creativity, and success. All the things you're complaining about can easily be accomplished with tiny government. The solution for inefficient government isn't higher taxes and bigger government. The solution is streamlined tiny efficient government, run with as little taxpayer dollars as possible.

[Friendlybro79]

I think you’re oversimplifying things here. Sure, companies create jobs, but they rely on government investments to do that like public infrastructure, schools, and laws that keep markets fair. Without those things, businesses wouldn’t function nearly as well. If “tiny government” is the solution, who’s going to fund roads, bridges, or public services? Are you saying companies will step in and pay for these out of the kindness of their hearts? History says they won’t.

You talk about “streamlined tiny government,” but let’s be real. Small government policies usually just mean cutting programs that help regular people while throwing billions at corporations through subsidies and tax breaks. How is that efficient or fair? Why is it okay for the government to spend money on big businesses but not invest in education, healthcare, or infrastructure for citizens?

And you say progressive policies punish success, but how? By asking the super rich to pay their fair share? By making sure workers get fair wages? That doesn’t stifle achievement—it helps build a stronger middle class, which is what actually drives the economy.

Also, if “tiny government” is so great, why do countries with higher taxes and more government involvement (like Sweden or Norway) rank higher in healthcare, education, and overall quality of life than the U. S? And if the private sector is so perfect, why do we still have issues like unaffordable healthcare and wage stagnation?

You’re pointing out problems, but your only solution is “shrink the government.” That doesn’t address things like crumbling infrastructure, income inequality, or healthcare costs. So here’s my question: What’s your actual plan to fix these problems without any government involvement? And how would that even work in a country of 330 million people

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Friendlybro79 Companies create careers. Government creates chaos.

The government is gigantic right now and spending hundreds of billions of our tax dollars into oblivion, and the problems you're complaining about still exist. So you solution is more taxes and more government? Ridiculous, nonsensical, and unacceptable. The correct answer is less taxes and tiny government.

You need to do some research. The reason Norway, Sweden, and other such countries have such a high quality of life ranking is because their solution for dealing with depressed people and others with ongoing mental health issues is allowing legalized suicide, instead of encouraging actual treatment. It's really easy for a country to rank high in happiness when a vast majority of their depressed population are killing themselves.

[Friendlybro79]

The research needs to be on your end. I have family in Norway so you can bs me here.

I'm saying we fix the government and make them work for us. First would be to make super PACs and corporate donations illegal.

And in our country our solution to kids getting plowed to death by assault rifles in schools is more guns because it's a cost of our second amendment. I'm not opposed to gun ownership fyi but am ok with reform to prevent our ridiculous gun violence no other country contends with.

I'd like to break down each of your arguments again but this is my last text. I don't think you are acting in good faith with this last message about how Norway deals with depression and suicide. But I would like to break down each of your points out to easily dismantle them.

[Friendlybro79]

This claim you made is wildly inaccurate and completely misrepresents Scandinavian countries and their happiness rankings.

1. Happiness rankings are based on things like GDP per capita, social support, life expectancy, and freedom—not suicide rates. These countries rank high because they invest in healthcare, education, and work-life balance, not because of some imagined "suicide policy."

2. Norway and Sweden have some of the best mental health care systems in the world, with free or affordable access to therapy and treatment. They focus on prevention and care, not abandoning people.

3. Assisted dying laws (where they exist) are strictly for terminal illnesses and physical suffering, not general mental health. Even in countries like Belgium or the Netherlands, it’s rare and highly regulated—not a free pass for suicide.

4. Their suicide rates are actually comparable to or lower than the U. S., so your claim that they rank high because "depressed people are killing themselves" doesn’t hold up.

5. The real reason these countries rank high is because they invest in their people—universal healthcare, affordable childcare, paid leave, and strong social safety nets. That’s what creates happiness, not the false narrative you’re pushing.

Instead of spreading this misinformation, maybe we should focus on adopting some of their policies to improve mental health and quality of life here.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Friendlybro79 Suicide is legal in Norway, Sweden, and in other European countries. That skews satisfaction surveys. Suicide victims can't answer questions. Stop denying reality.

California has state sponsored health care, and because of that (along with other backwards progressive policies), their taxes are stupendously high and they're massively in debt. California was once a beautiful state. Now it's a far-left liberal, socialist, progressive, woke shithole.

Quality of life in the United States is good, and will be getting even better. You apparently just want endless free shit from the government, paid for with other people's hard-earned tax dollars. I don't go to work every day to pay for people to stay home, play video games, and polish their couches with their asses.

The only way to properly invest in citizens in this country is to drastically reduce the size of the government and reduce taxes. Luckily for all of us citizens that believe in this Constitutional Republic that's excellently driven by capitalism, the United States will NEVER be a socialist or progressive country.

[Friendlybro79]

I appreciate the discussion, but it seems we're at an impasse. As a progressive, I don't advocate for socialism. Redirecting taxpayer dollars to improve education and healthcare could enhance millions of lives. While this might slightly increase taxes, it would eliminate existing expenses in these areas, potentially benefiting us all.

Meanwhile, Republican policies like massive corporate tax cuts and subsidies don’t fix healthcare or education and only widen income inequality. For example, the 2017 tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy and added trillions to the national debt, while middle-class families saw little long term relief. Those policies aren’t the answer either.

[Friendlybro79]

And my last point. There isn’t a clear modern example where a small government, in the sense of minimal intervention and low spending, has bettered the lives of the majority of its citizens, especially in complex, diverse societies. Countries often cited for "small government" principles, like Somalia or libertarian experiments, struggle with poor infrastructure, limited public services, and high inequality.

By contrast, nations with robust governments—like those in Scandinavia consistently rank high in happiness, education, healthcare, and overall quality of life because they balance market-driven economies with significant public investments. Even the U. S. relies heavily on government for public schools, Medicare, Social Security, and infrastructure all of which improve quality of life for the majority. I just want to expand on this. That doesn't make me a socialist. I am not advocating for the government to own everything. It's our money not theirs. As humans we need to be responsible for ourselves and each other at the same time.

Small government might sound appealing in theory, but in practice, it often leads to underfunded services, growing inequality, and a lack of safety nets for ordinary people. Complex societies require functioning, adequately funded governments to ensure fairness and opportunity for all.

Thanks for the chat. You can have the final word if needed. It's not worth conversing if you're not going to represent my beliefs correctly, and as they are defined for you to justify yours. That said, I respect your willingness to chat. Goodbye.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Friendlybro79 The government is already bloated off of our tax dollars, and the issues you're complaining about still exist. The correct answer isn't more government bureaucracy and more crippling taxes. The correct answer is less taxes and tiny streamlined government. Also, advocating for "safety nets" is one thing. They are 100% necessary. Unfortunately what you're describing that you want from the government are endless carnival rides, and that's unacceptable. Actual safety nets are meant to be used temporarily and/or sparingly, and only when absolutely necessary. With very few exceptions, no person should be living off the government from cradle to grave for anything. That's insane.

[Anonymous]

Lock them up. This is an insurrection or a coup

[Screenwriter]

He was legally voted in. I've heard nothing about this. But it's stupid. And I didn't vote for him. Peaceful transfer of power. I'm behind it.

[Friendlybro79]

@Screenwriter same here and agreed. The right is always looking to find a new conspiracy and demonize the left whenever possible. It's so irritating.

[Screenwriter]

@Friendlybro79 IT's only a minority of people who say this crap. I' ignore foolishness.

[Friendlybro79]

Very true

[FunkyMonkee]

Yes, I just heard about it a few hours ago. I wonder how they'd like it if we did that to Joe?

[Avicenna]

Democrats are Bolsheviks and hate actual democracy and free markets.

[Dongie]

In reference to the chuckle going at it anonymously, heh, he believes everything the MSM say about PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP!

[ThatGuyToaster]

"We're going to get abortion rights thrown the hell out so those dirty lesbians can't keep have... abortions!"

https://www.youtube.com/embed/_DSqemVL5ug

[Dargil]

Trump's team likely anticipated this and have lawyers preparing for it.

[missindiana93]

We have a speaker of the house. Unfortunately Mike Johnson.

[MarjorieJ]

And he's as worthless as McCarthy.

[IamRight]

I have heard it. Don’t know how true it is, but I would not put it past them.

[Anonymous]

well thankfully that can't happen. he's the president elect. people need to get over it lol

[RedInnocent69]

Um, that’s kind of a problem of the Republicans’ own doing, sinc3 they already control the House, isn’t it?

[Filthy_Immigrant]

not gonna happen. and if they try they will just make it worst for themselves

[Anonymous]

What else is new with the Democrats. They are sound like a bunch of spoiled little babies. Which they probably are. If it doesn't go their way they throw a fit and pout.

[Yabbut]

How's that for protecting democracy?

[MarjorieJ]

They don't care about democracy.

[MarjorieJ]

The national divorce needs to happen.