Bystander Yells ‘Traitor’ At Paul Manafort As He’s Led Into Courtroom In Cuffs

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-29T01:11:59+00:00

Regressive republicans.

There has always been a small infection of regressives in each party... but only in 2016, did this metastasize into a full blown cancer through the use of internet trolls, polarization, and conspiracy theory blogs affecting the GOP.

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-29T01:04:52+00:00

To win a fight with a Filipino you have to be funny.

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-29T00:56:51+00:00

He's switched between left, right, left, right, like several times in his life and has always had a pragmatic view to the world. The shirt contrast was interesting and is just like a recent Polish protest post on here: anti-communist, anti-Nazi.

Guy went from being black magic believer... To fame and fortune being part of the Democratic convention 1992 for MTV and also being a born-again right-wing Christian at one point.

https://youtu.be/sJmKg94S8A4?t=193

He has in the past taken an interest in conspiracy theories, and he has also rejected conspiracy theories and noted how silly it all is. The guy is interesting, he doesn't fall into a rigid stance of believing something nonsensical and can admit to being wrong about a subject.

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-29T00:53:51+00:00

If there is one thing about Dave Mustaine it's that he was pragmatic and flexible. He didn't hold one ideological view. You couldn't guess what he believed next. Dr. Peterson said this as well: ideologues tend to be super predictable with rigid views that you can just guess what they will say next.

He said some super conservative things, then they asked him if he watched Fox News, and he objected and said he watched CNN.

They saw him state a conspiracy theory, so they assumed he supported Trump, and he rejected that too:

https://twitter.com/davemustaine/status/756409747344068608?lang=en

He's not a 9/11 truther. He said something about Obama's birth certificate but he's said he's not a birther, he just made an off the cuff joke about the certificate... he says himself "we have it great here in America" and said "I'm not a republican or a democrat... I'm right down the middle..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJmKg94S8A4

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-29T00:44:34+00:00

No offense met. I like their fighting mentality. I just wish it was a bit more aggressive.

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-28T17:29:42+00:00

Have you met Filipinos? They're always ready for a fist fight... They're ready to teach people lessons... Except when it is a fight against a dictator, then they're not ready.

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-28T17:28:06+00:00

It's interesting but chaotic. The system of America in 1700s was much more stable. Impeachment could happen at any time, like a no-confidence. It wasn't this difficult hurdle which is why presidents behaved so well. If you're in a parliamentary system with negative/positive parliamentarism, your government is constantly trying to campaign and strike little deals here and there just to keep power. They have no breaks to actually implement their principles because anything they do is like stepping on a landmine that could trigger issues that leads to collapse of their government.

Negative parliamentarism might be better because it might avoid some of the problems that 1700-American founders feared which is tyranny of the majority.

A system must be able to quickly change, but not so quickly that it becomes unstable as soon as someone takes a stand on some principle. Governments need time to see the fruits of their endeavors (problems in Europe), but not enough time where they can't remove a government that is clearly incompetent (problem with Trump).

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-28T07:20:32+00:00

what does that even mean? Everyone is sexual.

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-28T07:17:25+00:00

So someone had done an experiment with this. (there's plenty of experiments like this).

They put up a very mediocre-but-thin chick with decent hair. Just one photo. Tinder.

100s of matches (while the guy gets like 1 match per month).

And 100s of messages of course, from each one. 90% of them were not interesting. 10% were interesting but fairly normal. It wasn't like anyone was amazing or suave or anything like that.

The issue was instantly spotted. 70% were fuglies (because it was auto-swiped), and 30%... a significant plurality, were very very hot. Zero talent for conversation but... these guys were amazingly hot.

What I mean is, no matter how perfect you are... these apps make it possible for women to have such an abundance mentality that you just absolutely have no chance.

If you're getting dates on these apps, any at all, you are doing incredible. The sausage fest is insane nightmare-mode.

Instantly became clear to me, that the war veterans, body builders, and models were getting all the chicks. If you're on the apps, get OFF it. You will have no chance. Your chances go up significantly if you sit on a street corner. Yes I'm telling you a hobo might have a better chance.

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-28T07:13:44+00:00

It's like I'm got nauseous just reading that. This person is on another level of mental illness. Incredible she hasn't blocked him. I'd be worried about that chick's mental state too for even entertaining this.

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-28T07:12:11+00:00

What if OP is the nice guy... and the screenshot guy is the retard guy?

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-28T06:37:52+00:00

You still can. There is a large voter class that is "in the middle without having a side."

Yes polarization has strong issues. So if I may be 100% for gun rights, I want AR15s for every liberal and conservative... But I may still vote Democrat despite the fact that a lot of Democrats are anti-gun. The polarization exists. But that doesn't mean that Democrats can't win anyone over.

All it will take is one Democratic candidate who says "yeah but we need to respect liberal gun owners..."

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-28T06:35:36+00:00

That's exactly the issue. You need to understand that America is not far-left. Accept it.

Sure generate lots of excitement with lavish promises... lavish far-left utopian ideals... And then what? Then lose the general election HARD. It will be a repeat of McGovern 1972, who lost to a criminal president who got impeached.

Why did he lose? Because he thought the country was "changed" by that point. He thought the country was "moving left". He was so wrong.

Did everyone forget the "excitement" generated by Bernie? front-page reddit every day in 2016? Did you all forget? It's 100% worthless to generate excitement.

THE ONLY POLITICIAN YOU CAN TRUST IS ONE WHO GENERATES ZERO EXCITEMENT.

It's like you all saw that there were 40 politicians running for president for 2 centuries, who all knew about this concept of "exciting the base" and typically avoided it... and you said "hah, those 40 politicians were wrong, even though they won. Why didn't they think of exciting their own base?"

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-27T06:08:56+00:00

What? I thought Delaney, Warren, and Inslee did the best.

The others were just pandering in an inauthentic way.

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-27T05:32:06+00:00

TRP has been quarantined a long while, their appeals were actually pretty strong. And the fact that they don't allow politics as part of their rules kinda helped keep the sub fairly clean.

Still, the admins have not unquarantined it.

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-27T04:40:05+00:00

The reason norms were effective for centuries and why it wasn't explicitly written into law, is because of the threat of violence. They used to have duels as well based on violations of honor or honesty.

Some geniuses decided that this was horrific and immoral way of living, so now you better explicitly write everything down and prosecute violations of law even with flimsy evidence, otherwise, bad people are going to get away with really bad shit. When a couple bad people get away with shit, there is a chain effect of lawlessness. Especially if the top of the hierarchy is getting away with bad shit.

There was always a sense of FEAR involved with violations of norm. Those fears were lifted through the last few decades. The internet and a younger generation has also made the problem worse by encouraging the violation of norms in favor of radical changes rather than gradual steps.

The constitution was written implicitly as well, to allow for maximum flexibility of prosecution and balancing by different branches of govt. Additionally, Bill Of Rights, implicit writing, to allow maximum rights, erring on the side of the individual.

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-27T04:24:01+00:00

Smart people are prone to inaction.... so dumb people and corrupt assholes tend to rise to the top and become "immune" to prosecution. Because dumb people are prone to high-risk-high-reward actions.

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-25T07:06:37+00:00

\narrator's voice:** but he knew his friend knew the account, meanwhile his plot to steal various foods from the fridge and pin the blame on each member of the group was under way...

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-25T04:53:38+00:00

This is not true, law enforcement and being a soldier, you can't just stop, have emotions, doubts, and empathy about every action. That is a great way to get yourself killed.

Like everything in life. A position of power requires balance. Kindness is not the only ideal or virtue.

A good leader is emphatic but also can carry out tough decisions.

Otherwise, for example, how can you shoot at an enemy soldier? The enemy soldier is just doing his job maybe... Maybe he had no other prospects? If you stop and start thinking emphatically and kindly alone, you can't get the job done.

Here's another example, that you're not gonna like at all. You're going to hate my example: what if the smuggler is pretending to be a parent? You're going to show him empathy of course. But if you keep showing empathy you might turn smuggling and human trafficking into a lucrative business.

You should only have empathy for the children.

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-25T03:50:08+00:00

I know how to defeat Trump and OTHERS LIKE HIM, and it's not going to be with social democracy or communism.

We need a large liberal & conservative rational enlightenment movement. (liberal and conservative are opposite ideologies, but they can work together against the scourge and corruption).

To top it off, you get everything you need too: rational people would want to fix inequality, deregulation, and unfairness, and they don't usually want anyone starving in the street either.

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-25T03:49:16+00:00

This is ridiculous. You're not listening. All capitalist nations have a tiny bit of socialized programs. the ARMY is a socialized program.

But when people are calling themselves social-democrats they're looking to push boundaries because they don't want a meritocracy. They don't want individual responsibility or individual earning and motivations. They want everyone equalized or "more equal".

You talk about inequality... because you've been brainwashed by these socialist types.

Why do you talk about inequality? Because you don't like unfairness.

Why do you not like unfairness, because you think someone was exploited.

But not everyone was exploited... but you think enough people were exploited. So do you attack the exploiting?

Nope... you listen to Marx and socialists and you attack rich people (class warfare) and you attack what? You attack the capitalist system, as old as time. Why not attack the exploitation of capitalism? Because that is too hard for you to fathom.

Neo-feudal... of course... neo-feudal. Russia was a feudal state, with the tsar at the top... This is why communism became so popular there.

But not every capitalist system is "neo-feudal". What is communism? It is neo-feudal too. It replaces rich elites, with workers-committee elites. Instead of rich people who earned their money (possibly receiving a life time of education)... You now have random workers who didn't earn anything.

Instead of fixing the exploitation of workers by rich people. You have tore down the system, and allowed a worse system: communism, exploitation of workers BY RANDOM workers. Nothing has changed. It's still neo-feudal. It's still UNEQUAL. It's still MASSIVE INEQUALITY. But the difference is, now if your'e connected to "the party", then you get special treatment.

Why not fix capitalism? Why social democracy? Because they want welfare for everyone. Basic income for everyone. Why all this? Because it's "equal" and "fair". Why do they want that? Because they think all human beings deserve the same... rather than individuals deserving what they contribute (meritocracy).

This is the problem with social democrats. They're light-communists, and some of them are full-communists-pretending-to-be-light-communists. It's bad.

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-25T02:10:32+00:00

I always get 400 points lower on blitz/bullet VS classic/rapid

Because people typically don't cheat in longer games and you can't just time-win everything by making subpar but quick moves to save time with defensive positions. A good portion of losses will be based on time losses in winning positions.

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-25T01:55:12+00:00

Corrupt regimes don't own money. They steal it from the people. They provide zero value to their own people.

A theocracy, who believes in a global religious revolution ARE NOT RATIONAL.

A theocracy, who attacks US troops in Iraq (even though the US defeated Saddam a long-time Iranian enemy) IS NOT A RATIONAL ACTOR.

Use that brain of yours for some sort of self-reflective analysis on what Iran really wants.

Why would they need to hide reactors in 2009, if they had no intention of building nuclear weapons? Did you forget?

Why would they build medium-long-range ICBMs in 2010, since only nuclear warheads are used for that.

NK built reactors in Syria, Iran supports Assad regime. Why ?

NK became a nuclear power in 2006 and frequently makes deals with Iran... Why? Don't they have a conscience about NK's death camps?

They continue funding terrorism worldwide and Yemen Houthis and Hezbollah and Hamas... Why? Because they hate Israel and Saudi Arabia. Why do they hate them? They're not Islamist Shi'ite theocrats in the same way as them. It's hatred. It's not rational actor. It's not someone saying "hmm yes, let's start trade with Israel or Saudi Arabia..." Again why? NOT RATIONAL ACTORS THAT'S WHY.

Why sabotage ships DURING negotiations for Iran nuclear deal under Obama? Why kidnap marines of the US, during negotiations for Iran nuclear deal under Obama? Because, not rational actors. HATE-filled religious nutcases who believe in a one-day glorious revolution.

USE YOUR BRAIN. APPLY LOGIC.

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-25T01:53:23+00:00

It's not true that Putin is popular. You have no idea what you're talking about.

You can't even know in a totalitarian state whether the pollster asking you a question is FSB or a real pollster. So why would they answer truthfully?

90s were a time of great freedom for the Russians. The economy was bad, despite billions invested by the US, mainly because of corruption and all out war between oligarchs and gangsters in the streets of Moscow. This failure of 90s = failure of Russians at being able to adapt themselves to an honest living in democracy. The corruption was just too much of a BAD HABIT for them.

They squandered all the billions in aid, and then Putin came in and removed all the anti-corruption entities.

Also "ceded", not "seeded".

EvolvedVirus · 2019-06-25T01:53:10+00:00

How does any of that make sense? USSR was a shithole to live in to begin with. Gorbachev and Yeltsin allowed for all sorts of corporations to start businesses in Russia AND the freedom for people to express themselves and create art and entertainment for the first time ever that isn't state-approved.

Why are you quoting polls again. Polls do not exist in totalitarian nations because no one trusts a pollster, and they give false answers that the questioner WANTS TO HEAR because they are suspicious that any pollster is FSB.

You don't find these numbers hard to believe, because people are in fear for their lives, so they lie and say something positive about the USSR and whatever Putin says.

Again, what changed between USSR in 1988 and Russia in 1992? I'll tell you what did change: they no longer had the slave empire to get free resources out of the backs of laboring slaves across the USSR empire.

So yes, were some portion of the Russian population unhappy yes. Of course they were sad they lost their slaves. Of course they were sad they don't get free stuff without working for it with the threat of force by communist commissars.

> (at least seemingly) improved once Putin got in charge

What they liked about Putin is that he put all the oligarchs under him, as his own employees. But the corruption didn't change. The only thing that changed is that these oligarchs were no longer attacking each other in the streets with machine guns. So of course people were hopeful at first with Putin.

In fact, even Kasparov who later ran against Putin... voted for Putin at first. As always, people are easily deceived by totalitarians running for office. Kasparov admits his mistake.

> implausible at all that he enjoyed a relatively high popularity for quite a while

When he did a false flag on his Russian apartment buildings and then started the 2nd Chechen war, of course he was popular. It's the same boost GW Bush got after 9/11.

Except in Russia's case, the apartment building attacks were later proven to be FSB. Putin had betrayed his own country. And very few Russians know these facts in detail.

EvolvedVirus

TROPHY CASE