VolareVia 1 point ago +1 / -0

You can say faggot here, it's not a banned word.

VolareVia 3 points ago +4 / -1

I legitimately believe the only solution to the problem of mass immigration at this point is colonialism.

Not this bullshit fake colonialism where we try and install some kind of bottom-feeding rent-seeking government and pray they become democratic without us having to go back in and fuck em up when they turn into dictators.

Actual colonialism.

Invade, conquer, civilise.

People who live under criminal dictators don't need democracy to avoid fleeing their country. They just need better dictators.

Something needs to be done abroad to stop the flow. Root causes of illegal immigration need to be addressed. The political will for domestic solutions just isn't there.

VolareVia 3 points ago +3 / -0

Paco the Aztec: Would you like some peanut butter on that Jose?

Jose the Aztec: On what?

Paco: I was talking to the Sun God. On You. Time to die.

VolareVia 1 point ago +1 / -0

She was just being white in Baltimore.

We chalk this one up to "death by being white in Baltimore".

It's a very common cause of death.

VolareVia 2 points ago +2 / -0

Can I bury this thread in a landslide?

VolareVia 5 points ago +5 / -0







And guess what? 2024 will be his year too. And every year that follows.

VolareVia 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm sorry Philly pedes out there.

I cannot read "Philadelphia" anymore.

My friggin' Doomer brain just defaults to "Pedophilia" whenever I see it.

VolareVia 1 point ago +1 / -0

The pattern across basically all prodigies is either:

A) Homeschooling, targetted towards a certain craft or skillset.

B) Adolescent obsession over one craft or skillset carrying forward into adulthood.

Virtually all prodigies are either A or B.

VolareVia -1 points ago +1 / -2

There are precisely four very specific and narrow domains of psychology which I'd actually trust:

  • IQ

  • The Big Five personality model

  • Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

  • The Dark Triad

I have very little faith in anything not related to those three things. I find the notion of 'emotional intelligence' to be pretty much bullshit. People bragging about being empathetic is a huge ironic self-own.

Women have a unique way of thinking that should not be looked down upon.

Don't agree. That way of thinking DOES have great merits. But do not tell me it's never frustrating. Absolutely it should (sometimes) be looked down upon. Not in a sneering way, just in a frustrated way.

The rest of the entire field of psychology is:

  1. Philosophy

  2. Politics

  3. Bullshit

VolareVia 1 point ago +1 / -0

The reason I firmly believe that California is not completely rigged, but rather legitimately retarded, is that a fair number of House seats DO still actually go to Republicans. There are 3 seats, I think, that almost always go Republican in southern California.

Now we can go back and forth all day about 'Uniparty', but the actual extent of the collusion between some or all Dems and some or all Rs is, at the end of the day, almost completely unknown.

Upsets like George Santos winning in New York serve as at least limited evidence that New York might not be completely corrupted.

I don't honestly believe we're giving California or New York Republicans a hard time. When we shit on Cali or NY, we usually also shit on Gavin Newsome or Andrew Cuomo or whoever else.

California and New York Republicans ARE voting though.

There's also a fair amount of what I call "the politics of ballots". Complaining about ballot harvesting at this point, is basically sour grapes. If New York Dems have an effective ballot harvesting operation going, and Rs don't, guess what? Rs will lose every time. No fraud needed. It's like a gladiator match, but the Republican gladiator decided "ah well, I don't need a shield. Just the sword should do" when the Dem took both.

There's nothing morally wrong with making it easier for certain people to vote. That will result in more votes in the end, even without any fraud, because you remove the barrier of inconvenience that prevents some from voting. It's even debatable whether it's legal to make it harder for enemy voters to vote. If voter suppression is something punishable, the punishments don't seem to happen often. I don't think anti-voting nuissances are morally wrong, unless there's no option to 'crawl over broken glass' and the limitations result in a hard cap, like with deliberate printer failure on election day. That's clearly BS.

VolareVia 1 point ago +2 / -1


Not if you know how the cheating happened.

All of the instances of fraud thus far have relied on large numbers of real votes still being counted. The fraud is just meant to tip the scales to one side. The same side, every time.

Dem voters are not 100% culpable, insofar as the elections are won via cheating, but everyone who votes Dem makes the cheating possible, and is complicit in all of this idiocy.

VolareVia 1 point ago +1 / -0

As someone who eats razor wire everyday for breakfast, without any milk, I agree.

Child's play.

Not even sharp.

VolareVia 1 point ago +1 / -0

Remember guys, don't think for one second that there's an IQ difference between races, or that black people shouldn't be hired.

There's no difference in IQ guys! That's why they banned IQ testing as a condition of employment!

Wait a minute.

VolareVia 1 point ago +2 / -1

There is no difference.

Outlook is deterministic.

People who partake in defeatism spread it constantly.

I don't hate the people that do it, because usually they don't know any better.

But I do hate the behavior, that's for sure.

VolareVia 2 points ago +2 / -0

Apparantly Trump actually opted for that.

If true, I can only assume it's because he didn't believe any jury would spare him, with it being New York.

VolareVia 1 point ago +1 / -0

This would require him to have sold the properties though.

You don't pay capital gains tax until you reap the actual gains, as I understand it.

This case is about the properties Trump currently owns, not ones he's sold, as far as I'm aware.

The only thing I can think of is that if he falsely overvalued them, when sold for a real amount, he could try to write off capital losses that were never actually real and get huge payments from the government. Essentially money for nothing.

Again though, that would require him actually selling the properties.

I need to look into the actual case a bit more. The claims are that what he did wrong has been going on for decades, so maybe sales were included in that.

VolareVia 1 point ago +1 / -0

And if states ditching the ERIC system is as consequential as it appears, shadowy groups will no longer have free access to voter rolls, which would cost as much as $12,500 for private individuals to access.

VolareVia 1 point ago +1 / -0

Considering that a massive amount of the black vote comes from Dem controlled counties where the fraud is most pervasive, I don't think any amount of the REAL black vote will make a difference.

It'll have to be votes from OUTSIDE those corrupted counties that make the difference.

VolareVia 3 points ago +3 / -0

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not the process?

Goes to NY court of appeals

If that fails, escalates to a federal circuit court

If that fails, escalates to the Supreme Court of the US

VolareVia 2 points ago +2 / -0

He may very well win on appeal.

I suspect however that until that happens, the payments will be very real.

The number being thrown around is $250M in total, possibly more.

VolareVia 2 points ago +2 / -0


How exactly does one get accused of evading taxes by OVERstating property value, which is what they accuse?

Would he not just be paying MORE property tax than he needs to if the real value was lower?

The fact that the AG brought this and not the banks he allegedly defrauded is very telling.

Same shit different day.

VolareVia 1 point ago +3 / -2

Sorry for linking MSNBC. It's the first source I found.

EDIT: This is some serious bullsthit.

VolareVia 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't know about you guys, but here in Canada, they fully realize it would be impractical to try and actually review your tax documents before sending your tax return.

Instead, they just trust you, send the money, and then do check afterwards looking for red flags when they're not under a strict deadline. No red flags, nothing happens. If they think you wrongfully obtained more money, they claw it back. I know of people who've had that done to them. If the discrepency was too high, they charge you with tax fraud.

If there's any discretion at all in this process, doing something like this would be a huge red flag.

Actually following the advice from this post seems like a great way to get audited.

VolareVia 1 point ago +1 / -0

Polls are still bullshit.

How quickly we forget.

Are they really less bullshit now that they agree with us?

view more: Next ›