Trump is also close to Russia. He's told numerous times he likes Putin very much. He's all smiles when he meets Putin. And, also, there news of a recent oil and gas deal between the USA and Russia: https://www.reuters.com/busine... . It's said the USA are paying for this oil and gas with missiles, for Russia to use against Ukraine. About China: how many wars do you see them getting into? Are they supplying arms to any country currently at war? Are they invading any countries right now? Are they making threats of economic sanctions against other countries? I guess not... all China is doing is producing everything from you clothing to your big screen TV, for really cheap. And you're buying all of it.

Maduro, although a bad guy, was elected by his people. Defending a democratically elected person's right to stay in power is not necessarily "being close" to someone. Presidents visiting each other's countries, talking about their nations' shared interests and taking pictures together is pretty much what a president does.

Jair Bolsonaro was imprisoned (house arrest) because he tried a coup d'état, among other very serious accusations.

Flavio Bolsonaro has a long list of crimes he's being investigated for. It's just a matter of time before he goes behind bars, where he deserves to be.

Social media needs regulation, or they will keep doing what they do best: fooling people and getting ever richer.

The supposedly crony attorney was refused by the Senate.

I don't think the voting extension needs any more explaining.

In sheer numbers, Flavio Bolsonaro had more votes in the second round than in the first. Pretty much all of Lula's extra votes in the second round came from people that didn't care to vote in the first round, or casted a blank/invalid vote.

Dude, where do you get all of these lies?

In another thread, I wrote you, erroneously, that the difference in votes during the extended time was around 5,000 (five thousand) when, in fact, it was around 35,000 (thirty five thousand) votes. Even then, the difference in the final results is of 2,139,645 (two million, one hundred and thirty nine thousand and six hundred and forty five) votes.

Please, tell me: how can 35,000 voters make a difference of over two million votes?

I bet this person would say "FOX News", hahahahaha!

A *federal judge* (also called a "Justice", in the USA) asked for the passport, because Flavio Bolsonaro is being investigated for several crimes, including money laundering. Oh, and this money laundering includes money sent to his brother in the USA! Who would have thought, huh? Oh, and then Flavio fled the country! Looks like a Hollywood movie plot, doesn't it?

If you look at the big picture: Flavio Bolsonaro ran for the election freely, had millions of votes. One of his brothers, Carlos, was elected senator in this very same election. His stepmother, Michelle, was also elected a senator too. His younger bother, Jair Renan, is a Deputy for the state of Santa Catarina. Bolsonaro's party, PL (Liberal Party) is the one with the mosts seats in the Chamber of Deputies. Looks like the so-called "dictator" is pretty lousy at imprisioning his opposers, huh?

Sadly, I have to justify my lack of will to debate with you with an ad-hominem because, based on you arguments, I guess you're either: (1) not brazilian; (2) willfully uninformed (not to say "ignorant"); or (3) just plain evil. And, in every one of these cases, I have absolutely no intent of spending my energy trying to explain things to you. Go Google it.

The number of votes in those 2 hours was around 5,000 (five thousand) in total. There's no surge and, obviously no dictator. And I know a dictatorship when I see one.

Now, companies cancelling flights to states where people mostly vote for Lula, cities cutting on public transport to keep people from voting... oh, that's nothing, right?

You have a bridge to sell and a pocket full of lies too. Good luck.

Isn't about time Slashdot fully supports Unicode? Version 1.0 was published in October 1991!

Yeah, Mr. Donnie Duck Dump, youâ(TM)re not calling my country a âoebackyardâ!

Finally, a sane comment! If only I had mod points!

I think you didn't understand what I meant. It was not about your wife agreeing to birthing person. It was about her agreeing to a being that cooks, keeps the house, gives birth to babies, feeds the family, obeys her husband, is a sex hole and so on. And, from what you say about her, she doesn't. And, in this case, I'm happy to feel that you are OK with it.

In my everyday life, I don't see feminism stating that all men are evil or that all men are rapists. This is reserved to the most radical factions inside feminism. What I hear the most is more like "even today, some (maybe most) men think they own their wives and can do whatever they want to/with them, no matter what the women think". This is what mosts feminists I had the chance to talk to are trying to fight against. They want these women to have a choice.

If a woman consciously agrees — not because of religion, culture or whatever — that she really wants to be a "baby birther", a "housewife" or whatever, feminism doesn't — and shouldn't — have nothing against it.

Unfortunately, the most radicals inside each movement or group are the most heard these days (always?). And they are usually the smallest part of their movement/group.

I believe 12 would be a better answer, in this particular case.

I didnâ(TM)t see all this rage when woman were called women, but the meaning was âoea being that cooks, keeps the house, gives birth to babies, feeds the family, obeys her husband, is a sex hole and so on.â

I feel you agree that it was a much better definition.

Well, as long as your wife agrees with that, I have no say in it.

ECK-ZACK-TLY!

No ONE, kid or not, should be on social media for that long.

IMNSHO, what people call social media these days shouldnâ(TM)t even exist.

So only the worst ones are!

I was going to comment something along these lines, but the part that bothers me is not the whole US economy being AI, but that it "is one big bet that that's going to happen".

What does he mean? That if the market bets high enough it will happen, just because? By his logic then, if I go to a casino and go all in, I canâ(TM)t lose?