something_else

These are tiny numbers. Is your argument really that 35 non-citizen ballots in all of Iowa and 42 non-citizen ballots in all of Tennessee are part of a nationwide voter-fraud conspiracy by the democrats? Many of those are also only potential non-citizen cases, not even the number of confirmed cases. Even the worst case here of 2,724 out of 18 million in Texas is pretty inconsequential. Texas often has voter margins in the order of 1.5 million votes. 2.7k isn’t putting a dent in that. They lawyered up because the DOJ was asking for vast quantities of completely unredacted voter rolls containing sensitive and personal information about citizens of those states. Many states understandably argued this would be a huge privacy violation. You’re conflating stale registrations with fraudulent votes here. Identifying the people who moved away or failed to vote through several elections does not correlate with fraudulent or illegal voting in any way. If I move to Thailand tomorrow I’ll still be registered to vote here in the UK for a while, probably years. Does that mean that while I’m gone my vote is going to be stolen by an illegal immigrant to boost up our left wing party’s vote count? No, of course not. Yea, Oregon should probably have managed its voter role better, but them fucking that up isn’t evidence of a nationwide democrat conspiracy, it’s evidence of mild incompetence in the face of a very challenging administrative task

You’re claiming a nationwide conspiracy but the only evidence you’ve offered is an unsupported assertion that “blue states refuse to validate voter information” and a video about legal ballot collection (“harvesting”) in California. Neither demonstrates widespread fraudulent votes. If you’re alleging millions of illegal votes, you need evidence of millions of illegal votes, not speculation about what could have happened.

The burden of proof is on you. You are claiming there is a massive nation-wide conspiracy. This is something you need to prove. “Everybody knows it” is not remotely enough evidence to support that claim.

Do I think making a deal is an easy task? No, of course not. So don’t start a totally unnecessary war in the first place. He’s been flip flopping between announcing final peace deals and total annihilation of Iran for 6 months, yet neither of these things ever seem to materialise. It’s all empty promises and hollow threats, that are also conveniently posted at just the right time for stock market manipulation. My actual point, which I think you failed to address, is that Trump is erratic, and eroding the world’s trust in America as a stable country. Most of America’s allies are trying to figure out how to distance ourselves from the US because we are seeing the US as an increasingly unstable and unreliable trading (and military) partner. This will bring the US to ruin in the long run. Trump does not care about this, he does not care about the US, he cares only about enriching himself, his family and his friends. To address one of your other claims, Iran doesn’t want nuclear weapons to bring about end times. They want nuclear weapons for the same reason the other countries that have them wanted them; deterrent. Iran has a long history of Western interference, this war is the next iteration of that. In their mind if they have nukes the US (and Israel for that matter) will finally leave them alone.

Depends what you mean by hard drugs. Don't go anywhere near things like heroin, fentanyl, or meth. MDMA isn't really a hard drug, it's a combination of a stimulant and a psychedelic. It's not especially addictive, though it is definitely harmful if taken regularly. When taken at most once every 2-3 months the risk is very low, and it can offer quite good insight into things, bring you closer to people, help you work through trauma. It's a very fun substance. Even cocaine, which is classified as a hard drug, isn't that bad. You're not going to get addicted to it or die from taking it a few times. I wouldn't recommend it though, not necessarily because it is particularly high risk, but because the risk to reward ratio is terrible. It doesn't do a whole lot despite its reputation. You feel slightly more talkative and less tired for like 20 minutes and the risk just isn't worth it for that shitty experience.

Most people aren't opposed to it because yea, it's probably a good idea to be relatively secure with voting in the long run. SAVE act is probably too extreme, though. In person voter fraud is basically non-existent as a form of election fraud, it's almost entirely inconsequential. It just doesn't scale well because it's incredibly hard for somebody to coordinate millions of people to commit in-person fraud on a large scale. So if it isn't really an issue, ask yourself why is it that republicans want it so badly right now? The reason is because it will disproportionately impact the democrats by reducing the number of minorities and young people who can vote, not because it will prevent the democrats from orchestrating a nation-wide voter conspiracy. What do you think is going on? There are two types of voting fraud the SAVE act will reduce: In-person voter fraud e.g. lying about who you are (estimated to happen 1 time out of every 20-40 million votes) Non-citizens voting (estimated to affect 1 vote out of every 1 to 2 million votes) Both are incredibly rare. To the point where it's basically a non-issue. So I have no idea what you think is going on here to be honest. The stats suggest absolutely nothing.

I thought the deal with Iran was made already? Or was that last week after the previous deal turned out to be fake? Ohhhh wait, you're talking about the deal he made the week before that. Oh no? That wasn't real either? Ahh, the one he just announced this morning right before the stock market opened, that's the one you're talking about. Do you think it will be real this time, or will that be fake like the last 12 times as well?

There are definitely exceptions to this, but I actually find that shared goals can ruin friendships for me. I don’t want to be thinking about long term future stuff all the time with friends, I want to chill, relax, live in the moment, and do fun stuff. Shared hobbies are good, but getting competitive or serious over goals surrounding them can ruin friendships, deep friendships come from spending enough time just vibing in each other’s presence for no purpose other than enjoying each other’s company There’s a concept of a doorbell friend which is somebody that you would be genuinely excited to see if they just randomly rang your doorbell without them telling you they were coming. That’s a good metric for deep friendships

From what I have heard about your pickup journey and the way you're talking here (which I relate to a lot) I think you're probably quite high on the avoidant scale. That can cause you to avoid friendships or other close/deep connections. I still struggle with this to a degree as well, though in the past year or two I've built some much deeper friendships (which I certainly hope will be lifelong) and it's one of the best things I've ever done. There is no single number, but I feel like a solid group of 3-5 close friends that you enjoy spending time with for no specific purpose other than vibes and fun is one of the best things you can have. It isn't transactional, you don't need to constantly worry about providing or exchanging value, you can just vibe. It's great for your mental health to have people who like you for you, and not what you can provide them.

"I was only joking!" excuse when called out for poor behaviour Classic

You don’t have to be attractive to get your foot in the door with women enough to show off personality and conversation skills, you just have to not be unattractive, or repulsive. Most men can achieve that with basic grooming and style unless they’re very very unlucky genetically.

Oh almighty stage Yellow overlord, please hand me down thy pearls of wisdom so that I may one day have an ego as large and bulbous as thee

Exactly

I'm sorry, but I can't help but feel intense cringe when reading this. Whenever somebody talks about 'being yellow' like this it almost certainly means they aren't, because somebody who was actually stage yellow would not phrase something like this.

@Joshe This has generally been my experience as well. I have always found that the more I tried to think about game or pickup frameworks and apply concepts from them, the worse I was actually perceived by women. I've always done better by not overthinking it, focusing on improving my social skills, making friends, going to social places with lots of girls.