Minds of E.

Doing a cursory examination of the Brazil presidential elections, the results make no sense. In the first round, Bolsonaro received 47.03% of the vote (56,104,503 votes) while Lula got 45.16% (53,879,538 votes). Other candidates in the first round included: Cury (centrist): 2.86% (3,448,569 votes) Santos (right wing): 2.24% (2,675,887 votes) Caiado (left wing): 2.18% (2,605,148 votes) Zema (right wing): 0.27% (326,488 votes) Martins (left wing): 0.1% (122,911 votes) The remaining candidates had negligible vote counts so they can be omitted. Total voter count for candidates finishing in positions 3-7 in the first round: 9,179,003. Assuming that the centrist candidate's votes would split half and half, and also assuming that voters from the other candidates would go into the second round voting along their ideological bent, that gives a nearly even split of voters that should gravitate to either Lula or Bolsonaro. So one would expect that each candidate would gain about 4.6 million voters. We also need to consider that the turnout was greater in the second round - about 4.7 million more valid votes were cast (124,082,273 to 119,300,788). One would assume that those would break something close to 50/50 as well. Overall then the expectation would be that each candidate would gain approximately 7 million votes, give or take a million. That makes second round results extremely surprising. Lula gained an astonishing 10,376,694 votes (64,256,232 to 53,879,538) while Bolsonaro picked up only 3,721,538 votes (59,826,041 to 56,104,503). Given that Bolsonaro didn't even gain the amount of votes that would be expected to flow from the first round candidates (close to 5 million), much less what should account for an increased turnout, I think the results of this election are in serious doubt. Like I said in the very beginning: they make no sense. Only three weeks separated the first round from the second and nothing spectacular has happened in the interval. This definitely raises suspicion.

The media claims that men are politically "radicalized" to the right, but all recent polls show that men are very near dead-center, politically, on aggregate. It's women who are in the extremist left position, which is a fairly recent phenomenon, particularly evident over the past decade. So, as usual, the media has it exactly backwards.

Women are wired to nurture children, and children are irrational, demanding, stubborn, ungrateful and often annoying creatures. Women have a wired tolerance to have empathy for such creatures in the way that men do not. This wiring works great for raising kids, but it does not work well at all for managing a society of adults. That's why no woman should be in a position of significant power or authority. Note how often female judges release dangerous thugs back on the streets, after they have committed serious crimes, because "oh you're a poor minority". It's the same wiring talking. On the other hand, they will happily throw a white man in prison because he said something they don't like. The protective instinct is not operating in this case. because they see white men as more powerful than them.

pokasz szie ladnasz

POKAKAZ

addnaa ladnda

tak dleg i cycki

"They Want to Jail Me For Saying This on TV" - French Woman Faces Prison... youtube.com/shorts/cEtNoQ3Qz… via @YouTube

I just watched Reacher season 3, which had a surprising shortage of white women. The only notable female characters were a Latina and what was probably either another Hispanic or a Middle Easterner. I had hopes that season 4 would be better in that regard, but it turns out the main female character is black and she's not even attractive. Why can't we have normal TV shows anymore? I guess I need to find something else to watch.

Let me shed some light on the bizarre developments around the Lindsay Clancy trial where thousands of women are voicing support for her. The idea behind this is not to exonerate Clancy, although that's the immediate goal, but this goal is just a step on the way to an end, which is that women should never be held accountable for anything. That's what all the protests and funding and cheering is about. Whenever a woman does something horrifically bad, we are supposed to blame something external. It's either society that is at fault, or the medical establishment, or drugs, or the husband... but never the woman herself. She must remain blameless irrespective of the circumstances. That's what this entire strange chain of events is about. We are supposed to affirm that women are never to blame. Not in any situation.

Grok 2.0 is generally shit.... if I can't generate a cute puppy, it's not going to work. Useless.

They are predictable results of illegals chimping out.

Q: What is the most popular book in Somalia? A: King Lear