Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the they-had-a-dream dept.

The Pirate Party looks set for a successful outing in the coming weekend's Icelandic elections.

A poll by local newspaper Morgunblaðið and the Icelandic Social Science Research Institute of the University of Iceland reports support for the Pirate Party is running at about 22.6 per cent, a point-and-a-half ahead of the ruling Independence Party and four points clear of the Left-Greens. That's impressive support, although the party's support has fallen a couple of points since March 2015.

Iceland uses s proportional representation system so the party's current level of support will likely translate into about 15 seats in the 63-member Althingi.

That won't be not enough for Píratar, the party's Icelandic name, to take government. It's also ruled out a coalition with the Independence Party.

But earlier this year Independence split and the recently-formed splinter group Viðreisn (tr. "Regeneration") is polling at 8.8 per cent and has ruled out joining a government with any of the current coalition parties. If the Pirates can align with Viðreisn and other like-minded parties it may therefore become part of a governing coalition and win some ministries.

Four years for a party founded by geeks to take over the government is not bad.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @08:58AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @08:58AM (#419330)

    The stupidity and 'rah rah' team mentality of Americans in regards to their party politics.

    For a very honest example of what it is like, go watch the series 'Braindead'. It pretty succinctly and comedically explains the level of partisan and blind hatred shown by Democrats and Republicans against their opponents to such a degree they will go 'LALALALALALA NOT LISTENING!!!' to anything the other person says, even if it was agreeing with part of their position.

    American politics have no room for moderates in this day and age, and honestly anything short of the next World War seems unlikely to shake Americans from their institutionalized hubris. I just hope the politicians are first on the firing line or interned in horrible conditions so they might finally understand what they had been doing wrong all these years while claiming it was for the good of the people.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=2, Informative=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:19AM

    by art guerrilla (3082) on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:19AM (#419354)

    okay, so we know a 'solution' to the two-party duopoly (actually two hydra-heads of the same Korporate Money Party) is twofold:
    1. ensure transparent and trustworthy elections
    2. enact instant runoff/ranked choice voting methods

    these two steps *might* give us a fighting chance to (re?)establish a functioning small-dee democracy...
    oh, EXACTLY why that will NOT happen under Empire...

    there are a lot more things to be done: free media for candidates (oops, there goes 90% of the reason for raising obscene amounts of money for campaigns), reversal of fictitious legal entities known as korporations from having SUPERIOR rights to mere flesh-and-blood people in determining their gummint, etc, etc, etc...

    NONE of this will happen under Empire as presently constituted; no one is going to the barricades for ranked-choice voting...
    their bread and circuses run out, *then* the peasants will be revolting...

    • (Score: 2) by Sarasani on Thursday October 27 2016, @12:26PM

      by Sarasani (3283) on Thursday October 27 2016, @12:26PM (#419367)

      establish a functioning small-dee democracy

      Did you mean to say small-fee democracy?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @03:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @03:57PM (#419446)

      Your ideas are interesting and insightful, and I would like to learn more.

      1. ensure transparent and trustworthy elections

      How are current elections (not primaries, but the actual elections) not transparent enough? Do you have any examples you want to point to? About the only thing I can think of are electronic voting systems or mail-in voting, which I would be mostly agreed to abolishing.

      2. enact instant runoff/ranked choice voting methods

      How would you run this? Electronic voting (with their known potential for being disrupted or hacked)? Paper ballots, in which case what army of people would you employ counting ballots and ensuring nobody was engaging in fraud. Counting first-past-the-post is difficult, but a known process and easy to audit. Instant run-off is literally exponentially more difficult.

      free media for candidates (oops, there goes 90% of the reason for raising obscene amounts of money for campaigns)

      Great idea! Who pays for it? Are you going to require all TV, news, and magazines offer 100% free access (that sounds very much like nationalizing private industry... and anti-free speech)? What do you do when the Democrats ask for 100% of the TV time, and the Republicans also ask for 100% of the TV time? How do you distinguish between the Libertarians who also ask for 100% of the TV time, and Joe Blogger Political Party (who his 3 members, so you know it's a real thing) who asks for 100% of the TV time?

      reversal of fictitious legal entities known as korporations from having SUPERIOR rights to mere flesh-and-blood people in determining their gummint

      In what way does a corporation have superior rights? They have superior money, and as a result superior access to labor and resources... but as far as rights? Last I heard, they have fewer rights (e.g. they can't take the 5th amendment in the face of police inquiry). However, they probably do have more power, but only because one corporation can represent a unified front of thousands of people.

      Put another way, I'd guess if you got 5000 people to march on your state legislator you would have more impact than if you had a corporation of 5000 people making "shady dealings" with the same legislator. It's just easier and more common for that corporation to act so people notice it more.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @04:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @04:26PM (#419462)

        I'll tackle the last two.

        Free Media: Easy fix, government run video service. Political messages and advertisements are ONLY allowed on the gov site or their own personal sites. No paying for ads elsewhere. Such a service would not cost that much overall, and the infrastructure could also support other gov activities as well.

        Korporations: Reverse their legal status as persons. It is beyond ridiculous to consider them as persons and it is about the least democratic thing we have going. The corps don't represent their employees in the slightest, they are heavy hitters representing the interests of the CEOs and board members. I'm sure those interests will often benefit employees with higher chances of remaining employed instead of the company going bankrupt, but that's about it.

        • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Thursday October 27 2016, @10:11PM

          by art guerrilla (3082) on Thursday October 27 2016, @10:11PM (#419591)

          thanks to those pitching in to answer, and i will add one more factor here:
          the so-called PUBLIC AIRWAVES (and similar 'monopolies' on using right-of-ways to run cable/FIOS/etc) were LEASED to the various broadcast korporations with a REAL expectation that they ALSO PROVIDE A PUBLIC SERVICE...
          that is part of the reason why we have 'public svc announcements', c-spam, etc; THAT is *part* of the pitiful end of the deal we get for letting them make zillions off of OUR AIRWAVES...
          i don't think it is asking too much to have a certain amount/blocks of free airtime for candidates every 2-4 years, do you ? ? ?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:08PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:08PM (#419508)

        2. enact instant runoff/ranked choice voting methods

        How would you run this? Electronic voting (with their known potential for being disrupted or hacked)? Paper ballots, in which case what army of people would you employ counting ballots and ensuring nobody was engaging in fraud. Counting first-past-the-post is difficult, but a known process and easy to audit. Instant run-off is literally exponentially more difficult.

        If you want you can count by hand: from Instant-runoff_voting#Counting_logistics [wikipedia.org]:

        Most IRV elections historically have been tallied by hand, including in elections to Australia's House of Representatives and most state governments. In the modern era, voting equipment can be used to administer the count either partially or fully.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:41PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:41PM (#419624) Journal

        I don't know what Florida is doing for election this year, but I do remember some hanging chad. Apparently, an extremely poor method of voting helped to lead to a very narrow race, and both parties wanted to take advantage of any doubt. The R candidate won that election because he did and end run on the Supreme Court, as I recall.

        As for transparency - well - there is no paper trail. Whoever manages to tamper with one state or more, without getting caught in the act, wins. No paper trail. No accountability, ultimately. All that can be said for certain, in the event of a recount situation, is that x number of votes were cast from this machine, and the machine recorded y as R votes, and z as D votes, with aa number of third party votes. That is ALL the "transparency" possible without a physical paper trail of ballots cast.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2016, @12:55AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2016, @12:55AM (#419667)

          an extremely poor method of voting helped to lead to a very narrow race [in Florida]

          A major element that you didn't mention was the confusing "butterfly ballot".
          The Blues -could- have objected to that and a bunch of lawyers whom I have heard on the subject say the Blues would have prevailed in court.
          The dumb bastards didn't bother to.

          The R candidate won that election because he did and end run on the Supreme Court

          "The President Select".
          It was an unconstitutional coup d'etat.
          The Constitution specifies how the process is supposed to go and that isn't any part of it.

          ...and I especially like how Gore conceded on election night then took back his concession.
          Caspar Milquetoast.
          Even better than that was when he pissed and moaned about Nader "stealing" his votes--when Gore didn't even carry his own state of Tennessee.

          without a physical paper trail

          Yup. That sucks.
          This guy is a fanatic on the subject: Brad Friedman [google.com]
          ...and you're both correct.

          hanging chad

          Yup. Even the hole-punching gadgets are absolutely unnecessary.
          Canada gives folks a paper ballot and a marker.
          They count them by hand and it all Just Works(tm).

          We disagree so often that it's refreshing when we totally agree.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday October 28 2016, @04:48AM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday October 28 2016, @04:48AM (#419727) Journal

            I have a weird feeling he may have had a partial change of heart over the last couple of months. Unlike some of the real no-hopers (Kyuubey, you still here, ya weaselly little bastid?) he never struck me as completely unreasonable. Whatever's going on I hope it continues.

            *stands by waiting for the basket of deplorables to swoop in and make this all about them*

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2016, @07:36AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2016, @07:36AM (#419762)

              I don't think that's it.
              We just happened to hit a subject where the logic is blindingly obvious.

              When you go to a sporting event, you want the match to show who is the better contestant on that day--starting with the old level playing field.
              ...and elections are more important than any ball game.

              -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:48PM

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:48PM (#419631)

        I'll tackle number 2:

        Counting first-past-the-post is difficult, but a known process and easy to audit. Instant run-off is literally exponentially more difficult.

        Why not just do what Australia does? They've had preferential voting since 1918 and it seems to work OK.

        • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday October 28 2016, @12:58AM

          by dry (223) on Friday October 28 2016, @12:58AM (#419670) Journal

          Australian elections, along with most of the world, have much simpler elections. In an election you vote for 1 or possibly 2 representatives. I assume that Australia is like Canada, where there is a Federal election and a separate Provincial/State election and also separate municipal elections.
          One of the weird things about the American election procedure is that they vote for everything at once, so you get huge ballots with everything from President down to dogcatcher on the same ballot. This also encourages voting along party lines.
          In Canada, often the Provincial parties don't even exist at the Federal level as well as the opposite. As well many municipalities don't even have parties. Not sure about Australia but it is probably similar.
          Anyways, when I vote in most Canadian elections (not municipal), there is only one question, who my representative will be. Government is formed by whoever has control of Parliament and if needed, there is another election.

          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday October 28 2016, @01:24AM

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Friday October 28 2016, @01:24AM (#419681)

            I have just voted in my Local body Elections, which is a combination of First-past-the-post, single transferable and mixed member voting. I voted for (something like) 30 candidates in about 8 different races.
            Counting was completed over the weekend.

            The US could easily change their electoral system, but why would the incumbents get rid of their major advantage?

          • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday October 28 2016, @03:07AM

            by Mykl (1112) on Friday October 28 2016, @03:07AM (#419703)

            Australian elections, along with most of the world, have much simpler elections. In an election you vote for 1 or possibly 2 representatives. I assume that Australia is like Canada, where there is a Federal election and a separate Provincial/State election and also separate municipal elections.
            ...
            In Canada, often the Provincial parties don't even exist at the Federal level as well as the opposite. As well many municipalities don't even have parties. Not sure about Australia but it is probably similar.

            Mostly correct. I'm Australian:

            • We have separate elections (at different times) for Federal, State and Local, so it is simpler to vote on any given day
            • All voting is paper-ballot based
            • It's very important to note that voting in Australia is mandatory. This massively reduces the influence of interest groups such as the gun lobby, conservative religious groups etc and produces politics that are aimed at the 'average Australian' (which I am prepared to concede could be seen as negative by some, particularly when relating to our shameful rollback of a carbon tax a few years ago)
            • When voting Federal or State, you are placing votes for the House of Representatives (one winner per electorate/region, usually 4-8 candidates, preferential voting) and the Senate (multiple winners per wider area e.g. per state in Federal elections, preferential voting though you can also place a single 'party line' vote above the line and have the party select your preferences)
            • In the case of the Federal Senate, there are usually dozens of candidates across about 20 parties (the majors and various micro-parties) on the ballot. From memory, the last ballot had about 80 candidates on it. That can take a few weeks to work out the final candidates at the end, though most candidates can be confirmed within a couple of days
            • For the House of Representatives, virtually all candidates are confirmed on the night of the election. Particularly close races may take an extra few days
            • Our Federal and State parliaments (legislatures) are overwhelmingly represented by the two major parties in Australia, however both parties need to carefully moderate their policies etc to avoid minor parties gaining too much traction. The Greens here have successfully forced environmental agenda items into both major parties over the years through the threat of 'taking seats away'. So while they don't hold a large number of seats, they are very influential
            • The senate is even tricker, as there are a larger proportion of independent and minor party members there. This means that legislation needs to be carefully negotiated with these groups to ensure success. Usually the government of the day will obtain agreement in principle from these groups to pass most legislation, and make deals to support government causes in return for their own legislation getting up. This has been both good and bad for Australians in the past
            • Overall, I feel that the system works quite well - I'd be terrified if we had a 'first past the post' system
            • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday October 28 2016, @04:36AM

              by dry (223) on Friday October 28 2016, @04:36AM (#419723) Journal

              Thanks for clarifying. I obviously made a few assumptions which were wrong.
              Here in Canada, the present government has promised to get rid of the current first past the post system. With what remains to be seen. My Province had a referendum on changing the voting but it failed with like 59% in favour

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @01:26AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 29 2016, @01:26AM (#420009)

              That's not exactly true.
              Aussies are required to show up at the polls and sign in.
              At that point, am Aussie can deface his ballot with scribbles or rip his ballot into little bits and hand it back.
              Actual voting is not required.

              ...and the fine for not showing up is like $25.

              -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday October 27 2016, @10:24PM

    by linkdude64 (5482) on Thursday October 27 2016, @10:24PM (#419594)

    The funny thing is that Trump's bad record includes calling fat women fat, and making money off of idiots. Hillary's record includes knowingly funding ISIS and 100% absolutely cheating her better opponent (Sanders) out of the election, and laughing about her successful defense of a child rapist, etc.

    One person's ill deeds clearly overshadows the other's on any reasonable moral scale. Yet you believe that both suffer from the same cognitive dissonance.

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday October 28 2016, @04:54AM

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday October 28 2016, @04:54AM (#419730) Journal

      You're rather missing the point here...just because ol' pumpkin-head hasn't YET done any of those things is no guarantee he won't. Furthermore, given the 35+ years we've had to observe him in public, smart money is on him being far worse. In the words of today's kids, "he has no chill." Can you seriously imagine him in charge of foreign policy? Or nuclear weapons?

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:53AM

        by linkdude64 (5482) on Saturday October 29 2016, @04:53AM (#420044)

        "just because ol' pumpkin-head hasn't YET done any of those things is no guarantee he won't."

        This is the absolutely worst non-argument I see posted around online. I am almost certain that because you post on this website you believe that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty when it comes to privacy, surveillance, etc.

        Yet when other personal ideologies are at stake, you believe someone who is PROVABLY GUILTY is more innocent than somebody who has done absolutely nothing wrong.

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday October 30 2016, @04:20AM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday October 30 2016, @04:20AM (#420430) Journal

          You're missing the point here; I would not shed a tear if someone dropped Hillary Clinton into an active volcano. The point here is that in the almost four decades of public exposure we've had to Drumpf, we've had ample time to figure out what he is. He's a narcissist, and an incompetent to boot. This isn't good vs. evil here, this is evil but sane vs evil and utterly insane. We're hosed either way; it's just that with Clinton in office I may juuuuuuust be able to survive long enough to get the hell out of Dodge and maybe set up a chicken farm somewhere, whereas Tribble-head there, if he continues to act the way he does now, will likely start World War Fuck You within six months of taking office.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Monday October 31 2016, @03:02AM

            by linkdude64 (5482) on Monday October 31 2016, @03:02AM (#420753)

            "evil but sane vs evil and utterly insane."

            Citation absolutely needed.
            Hillary: Colluding with the Saudi Government to protect ISIS is sane, because the Saudi's give me money.
            Trump: We can work with the Saudi Government, but they would have to pay us as a country for those protection services.

            Wow, what an absolute mad man.

            Hillary: Russia is conspiring against ME so WE as a country (meaning, your sons and daughters) need to stand strongly against them to protect ME!
            Trump: We need to work with, and get along with Russia. No more wars as "favors" for foreign donors.

            Absolutely insane!

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday October 31 2016, @06:46AM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday October 31 2016, @06:46AM (#420802) Journal

              Cover your ears; the point is cruising over your head at a bone-rattling Mach 3.4 as we speak.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday November 01 2016, @03:04AM

                by linkdude64 (5482) on Tuesday November 01 2016, @03:04AM (#421110)

                Your point is that Trump COULD be the next Hitler. I cannot contest that, because it is not a logical argument.

                In the same way that faith-based beliefs cannot be challenged because they do not rely on evidence, I cannot disagree with you that Trump might be "literally the next Hitler."

                "He's a narcissist, and an incompetent to boot."

                1) Who fucking cares. What does being a narcissist have to do with being an excellent president? JFK was a narcissist. Does Hillary Clinton not also think she is above the peasantry?
                2) A multi-billionaire is an incompetent person, where a kniving lawyer who sold out YOUR government for personal wealth is a competent one?

                If you want to be taken seriously, you have to operationalize your definitions, and yours are objectively inadequate and your worldviews are unsubstantiated by evidence.

                In fact: There is evidence directly contrary to your worldviews. Hillary Clinton has already overthrown foreign governments at the behest of her maniacal masters (Saudi Arabia) and has shown she is willing to let Americans die (then lie about it) to acheive those ends (Benghazi).

                Your POINT is that "Disregarding all evidence, Trump MIGHT literally be Hitler and Hillary is DEFINITELY the safe bet." That is an undebateable point because you are not basing your arguments on reason, evidence, or common sense.

                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 01 2016, @05:20AM

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday November 01 2016, @05:20AM (#421139) Journal
                  What is it going to take to get this through to you?! I'm saying Drumpf is so completely fucking unhinged that he is physically not capable of doing the job. Do you get it now?

                  Your assumption that him being a multibillionaire somehow makes him competent would be laughable were it not so tragic. Nations are not run the same way as businesses...and furthermore, I wouldn't trust a business, either, to a guy who underperformed the hedge fund indices and lost money running a fucking casino. If that does not set off alarm bells in your head I don't know what will.

                  I am not sure Kennedy was a narcissist at all, let alone the same way this asshole is, and there was less "unitary executive" bullshit during his term than now. Clinton is also not a narcissist, though she is straight-up evil in other ways that make me just as nervous. What point are you trying to make here, other than an overgeneralization of the idea that past events don't influence future ones? That's only true for independent trials; human nature does not work that way. Unlike a roulette wheel, we have memories, habits, biases.
                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday November 01 2016, @02:48PM

                    by linkdude64 (5482) on Tuesday November 01 2016, @02:48PM (#421261)

                    "Drumpf is so completely fucking unhinged that he is physically not capable of doing the job. Do you get it now?"

                    If you knew half of what Hillary Clinton has done you would be incapable of choosing her over him. Your ignorance is just apparent. Have you not read the Wikileaks? Are you unaware of the regimes that she has supported? The ones that she currently supports?

                    "Your assumption that him being a multibillionaire somehow makes him competent would be laughable were it not so tragic."

                    Your assumption that he somehow tripped, fell, and multiplied his million dollar fortune over 1,000x would be laughable were it not so tragic. If you think "Shit, I could've done that too!" You have probably thought the same about master-work paintings, sculptures, etc.

                    "lost money running a fucking casino."

                    You get most of your other news from the Huffington Post, don't you?
                    He sold that casino to an investor (making money on the sale), charged him royalties to keep his name up on the building, and made out like a fucking bandit with that failing casino! Trump is operating so many levels above your awareness that it's making me physically chuckle.

                    I'll take another moment to put things in perspective:
                    You think Trump lost millions of dollars. Billions of dollars. Let's say he lost 1 TRILLION dollars.
                    Now, do you want to know how many millions of dollars Hillary Clinton has sent to head-chopping, woman-circumsizing, child-raping barbarians to keep her campaign donors happy? How many millions of dollars do you think? 10 million ? 20? Try hundreds of millions.

                    Hundreds of millions of YOUR MONEY Your schools, your roads, your healthcare, your issues. All to give weapons to some of the most violent people alive. And for what? What? Campaign donations. To keep herself in power. WHO IS THE UNHINGED ONE???

                    "I am not sure Kennedy was a narcissist at all"

                    Then you have absolutely no idea who Kennedy was. Nixon was too, but he was more of a narcissist like Clinton is - willing to go to any length, lie any lie, kill any number of people to keep his image up. Hillary has killed thousands and thousands.

                    "Unlike a roulette wheel, we have memories, habits, biases."

                    And Hillary Clinton's is following a very clear trajectory. She is losing her fucking mind to corruption and if all of her past abominable actions - not just "losing money" lol "called women fat" - I mean global-scale abominable actions (Of which Trump has fucking ZERO) are rewarded with MORE power, she will take this country down a path so insane that it will be unrecognizeable in another decade.

                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 01 2016, @04:34PM

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday November 01 2016, @04:34PM (#421300) Journal

                      A decade? You're being optimistic. I just hope it lasts another couple of years so I can finalize plans with a couple of friends and get a small chicken-and-vegetables farm going out there somewhere. I've resigned myself to an early and likely violent death, but fuck me if I just sit here and let it happen.

                      We're in agreement about Clinton. I hate her fucking guts, and I don't think I'll ever feel so filthy about any single vote as the one she's getting from me in a week or so. God, what a mess. This country is finished; we're in the middle stages of a failure mode here, just like and for just the same reasons as the former USSR.

                      Most of the rest of your post is noise, especially your idiotic brain-squitter about "hurr hurr did Drumpf just trip over his fortune then?" No, man, he didn't; he *is* the elite, and he used the same complete lack of accountability and "creative accounting" they all do to throw actual laws and rules of logic and finance to the wind.

                      Look, I GET it, we're fucked. I've known this would happen ever since that fateful day in high school when, within close enough distance to see the smoke, those two planes crashed into the Twin Towers. I was just hoping it wouldn't be so soon...

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                      • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday November 03 2016, @02:35AM

                        by linkdude64 (5482) on Thursday November 03 2016, @02:35AM (#421910)

                        Nothing in the first two sections of your post I disagree with.

                        " No, man, he didn't; he *is* the elite"

                        Bull, fucking, shit
                        All of the other "elites" and all of the other spineless people who care nothing for America or what it stood or stands for (that includes you), are fleeing the country in record numbers. Ditching US Investments by selling them to China, moving money into offshore accounts, etc. Clinton herself moved 16 million into a bank in Yemen recently through JP Morgan Chase. Nobody knows why.

                        So, kindly notice that Trump is the only member of the "elite" who is doubling down on his belief in America, shelling out millions of his own dollars, enduring CONSTANT ridicule, slander, and utter HATRED from idiots like you for WHAT?!

                        Profit? He's losing money! (Which you, even now, grudgingly admit he is better-than-average at getting)
                        Popularity? He just had his Walk of Fame star smashed.
                        Peace and quiet? Look into how he's had his entire life slandered.

                        Why? To Make America Great Again because he LOVES this fucking country!

                        YOU are no better than the elite who say, "I'm going to take what I can, while I can, set fire to what's behind me, and get out." You are in no better mindset than those "Elite" who you claim to despise.

                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday November 03 2016, @03:44AM

                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday November 03 2016, @03:44AM (#421923) Journal

                          Are you done throwing your little temper tantrum yet? Drumpf's doubling down because he doesn't know any other course of action; it's a mark of the pathological narcissist. Nothing of external reality ever enters this man's head. The fact that you're lionizing him like this is making me question your sanity.

                          --
                          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                          • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday November 03 2016, @03:44PM

                            by linkdude64 (5482) on Thursday November 03 2016, @03:44PM (#422083)

                            "Little temper tantrum"

                            You are what you do, independent of current events. You are abandoning the country and its principles that enabled you to be.

                            "he doesn't know any other course of action; it's a mark of the pathological narcissist."

                            "Billionaire is rich, famous, owns a jet, and can do quite literally anything he wants...his ONLY OPTION, at 70 years old, is to sacrifice ALL of that and get millions of people to HATE him by touting unpopular opinions while running for President of the United States."

                            To be completely fair, I have read Bigfoot stories that are more logically sequenced than that.

                            You have absolutely no evidence behind any one of your Anti-Trump claims, and you are willfully voting for somebody who has endangered - quite literally - the entire world with her 2nd Cold-War starting, ISIS-funding/Refugee-crisis creating actions. You are voting for a person who has proven herself to be a truly deplorable human being (not just a greedy one) who is capable and very willing to threaten any victim - be they abused woman or violated child - again and again and AGAIN to save face, LIE about it when caught, and, in the face of undeniable evidence, you still choose to believe that she is not the greater narcissist. There clearly exists no evidence of any kind that can be shown to you to dissuade you from your opinion, and that is the definition of a religious belief. Pray to your Youtube Saint John Oliver, and pray hard, because Hillary Clinton is simply more evil than you are willing to comprehend.

                            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:28PM

                              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:28PM (#422105) Journal

                              Is it NaNoWriMo already...?

                              Once more, Link: I am well aware of how fucking evil the Clinton dynasty is, and if someone assassinated the entire clan tomorrow, preferably with incendiary weaponry, I would not shed a single tear. We're fucked no matter what happens.

                              You've been taken in by the cult of personality, though: this race isn't about Clinton vs Trump so much as it is about the Senate and especially the Supreme Court. As much as I hate to do this, I am voting Clinton on the gamble that there are enough sane people on the D side that they can reign the worst of her excesses in.

                              A Trump presidency, on the other hand, would play out the same way it did the last time we had a certified retard (Dubya) in office: he's spend his presidency masturbating to his own reflection in the giant gilded mirrors he'd install in the Oval Office, as his handlers (think Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, that sort of people) take the reins from behind the scenes and complete their fascist takeover. Trump is a useful idiot, emphasis on idiot.

                              Do you get it now? Zoom out and look at the big picture.

                              --
                              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                              • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday November 04 2016, @02:49PM

                                by linkdude64 (5482) on Friday November 04 2016, @02:49PM (#422484)

                                Check it out: Julian Assange speaks today from London.

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ7lYRnF1F8 [youtube.com]

                                "We're fucked no matter what happens."

                                In one situation you go down fighting for your country, in the other, you run. As stated earlier, you are what you do, and you are choosing the latter. You do not care about America and never understood what it was created to be. If you did, your actions would prove it.

                                "the Senate and especially the Supreme Court."

                                Trump wants to pass a Constitutional Amendment to impose Congressional term limits. How on Earth you think that will be WORSE for the future of this country is beyond my wildest imagining. Not to mention anything about how salt-white-saintly he is in every aspect compared to Clinton in terms of corruption. There is no cult of personality, there is simply no contest (AGAIN, dealing EXCLUSIVELY with evidence and the real world, here) about who is the one that is less corrupt and more inclined to care about what happens to America.

                                "there are enough sane people on the D side that they can reign the worst of her excesses in."

                                Wow. You think that rewarding one of the most corrupt political figures in world history with the Presidency will destroy the ambitions of the corrupt in Congress? Or that it will do anything but Annihilate the hope that any deep-down honest Senators have left that the system is capable of changing? Why do you think she had the Superdelegate votes to kick Sanders out? You are - again, in the face of ALL evidence - supporting a known body of evil publicly, and hoping that same evil recuses itself.

                                "Trump is a useful idiot, emphasis on idiot."

                                Which is why he infuriated and stupefied every leading RNC shitbag during the debates for the candidacy, spit in their faces by talking shit about them publicly, cost them hundreds of millions of dollars, then made his hard-right constituency give a thundering round of applause for the sake of protecting the L-G-B-T-Q community at the RNC itself?

                                You seriously believe that the over 100 million dollars the RNC *wasted* backing Jeb Bush alone was all part of the plan? That Trump is not at the reigns? Zoom out and look at the big picture. Trump has gutted the RNC and has completely taken over. His supporters do NOT support the RNC establishment that tried to backstab him at every opportunity - they support *HIM* and not because of who he is, but because of what he has done.

                                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday November 04 2016, @05:04PM

                                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday November 04 2016, @05:04PM (#422533) Journal

                                  Okay, I give up. Paine was right; using reason with someone who has renounced its use is like giving medicine to a corpse. I love how you idiots think you'd actually survive the upheaval this would all cause. Temporarily-embarrassed elites, that's you, all right.

                                  --
                                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                                  • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday November 04 2016, @11:11PM

                                    by linkdude64 (5482) on Friday November 04 2016, @11:11PM (#422668)

                                    Yep. Hillary Clinton is the sane choice, and Donald Trump is a madman. Got it.

                                    https://archive.is/ehpoJ [archive.is]
                                    That's a link about an ongoing NYPD Investigation of emails seized directly from Huma Abedin's laptop, under a warrant, that show the Clintons visiting a pedophilic sex-slave island multiple times. This is not conspiracy. Again, this is that "evidence" thing that you hate so much. Let me guess, "B-but DRUMPF called Rosie O Donnell fat!!! He's the crazy one, not the objectively proven pedophilic ISIS-supporting murderers."

                                    Who would you rather watch your niece or nephew? A person you disagree with, or a pedophilic murderer?

                                    I may be an idiot, but you are a truly disgusting coward. I can understand why people would vote for Clinton, the people who don't know who Hillary actually is, but for you, there is absolutely no excuse.