SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
And the Soylent Delegates go to....
| 21% | 70 votes |
| 1% | 4 votes |
| 1% | 5 votes |
| 44% | 144 votes |
| 2% | 7 votes |
| 6% | 20 votes |
| 15% | 51 votes |
| 7% | 26 votes |
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
- Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
- Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
- This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
And the Soylent Delegates go to....
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 97 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Moon, n.:
1. A celestial object whose phase is very important to hackers. See
PHASE OF THE MOON. 2. Dave Moon (MOON@MC).
(Score: 3, Funny) by jmorris on Sunday May 01 2016, @03:22AM
I'd root for Cruz if I thought for a minute the Republican Party would allow him to win, but they have made it clear they veto that option. Ok, they can't apparently veto Trump so let the doom be upon them.
If I see two things from my vote for Trump it is a fair trade. If a wall is built and the Republican Party is destroyed, it is all good in that anything bad he does can be recovered from since there will still be a country left to have the fight in and two of the three biggest menaces will be neutralized, leaving it possible to fight the third. The final battle, Americans vs Progressives... in a steel cage... on pay per view.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 01 2016, @05:27AM
What per view? There are still idiots who pay to view stuff? I guess there must be, because I still see Comcast everywhere, but I just don't think of the fools who pay for it as, you know, people.
Oops, off topic. Trump. No way in hell. But you go ahead and vote for Trump. I don't fucking give a shit what you do, because you're not me, and therefore you're irrelevant.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Sunday May 01 2016, @05:48AM
It was a bit of a joke. The most profitable live PPV events tend to be professional wrestling. Trump was a 'heel' in the WWE, in the hall of fame and everything. I understand the objections to Trump, in a normal world he would not be on many people's short list for President of the United States. But we are in bizarro world, Spock has a beard here, nothing is normal and a WWE star can be the best remaining option.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @01:14AM
Some things are more important than politics. It's been over half a century since American presidential elections have seen somebody as corrupt as Hillary Clinton. Maybe you disagree with Trump. Maybe Hillary speaks to your dreams. Whatever... it's just politics. Corruption is more important.
When leaders are obviously corrupt and unpunished, that sets the tone for society. People feel justified in trying to get their own share of ill-gotten gains via corruption. The culture changes. When corruption claims a society, that society becomes 3rd-world. Let's not do that, hmmm?
So forget politics. It means nothing when one of the choices is corrupt to the core.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Friday May 13 2016, @06:44PM
You think Bill was any less corrupt than his wife, or that Jr Bush, Feat. Dick Cheney was somehow less criminal than an admittedly vile Hillary Clinton ?
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @08:57PM
I think the other AC has a point. They are all corrupt, Hillary is just more visibly corrupt.
Secretly corrupt politicians just syphon off varying amounts of money, something that society has always dealt with.
Visibly corrupt politicians tend to degrade the whole structure of society by promoting corruption at all levels.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Friday May 13 2016, @10:47PM
I'd rather have the crook I know than a fanatic or altruist who is doing things for my benefit. At least with the known crook you can watch for what you know they will do. With the fanatic or true altruist there is no telling what they will do or how far they will go for the benefit of others because they 'know' better what is good for you than you do. I guess it is better the evil you know than the true unknown.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @11:36PM
you're not me, and therefore you're irrelevant.
Spoken like a true liberal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 01 2016, @09:11PM
Cruz is easily the most intelligent of the bunch, but he is also borderline autistic and comes across as odd on television.
For those who don't know, Ted Cruz has an audiographic memory, where he can recall every single sentence he has ever heard. This lead him to be a national champion in debate at Princeton (where he was able to rephrase debates based on mis-calculated words used by his rivals), where he would warm up for debate with a word for word recitation of the entire US Constitution. It also makes him come across as an ass in his strict, literal interpretation of the Constitution. All time, he is 4-4-1 in his arguments as a lawyer in front of the US Supreme Court, and honestly, this is where he belongs.
Elsewhere, I've heard people comment that he is too mechanical in his movements, too rigid in his delivery and too calculated in his humor. His closest comparison might be Richard Nixon in those regards. Hillary has this problem as well (the un-likability element), but gets a pass in the media because she's their darling.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 01 2016, @10:52PM
Cruz is easily the most intelligent of the bunch
A good memory alone does not mean that someone is intelligent. Oh, you said "most intelligent of the bunch", which is a dubious honor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:26PM
Yes. Apparently memory is inversely correlated with problem solving ability (which is how I would define intelligence).
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Lester on Saturday May 07 2016, @11:28AM
No, it is not. "Apparently" is the word.
Intelligent people have a great memory. To relate things to solve problems you must be able to recall things.
Oppenheimer, for instance, learned Sanskrit and memorized great parts of Bhagavad-gītā. Einstein was known as the classic absent of mind wise man, nevertheless, for what he wanted he had an excellent memory. Someone asked his old manuscript notes for found rising (one of those days NGO), but he had lost them and he faked them rewriting them from scratch. Latter they found them and they weren't many differences.
Many memory masters are people that use most of their scarce mind resources to store irrelevant data. We memorize a lot of things they don't. We may not recall a birthday date, but we memorize a thousand details about a person (what he thinks, was dressed properly that day?, was his chat interesting? what were the topics he as interested in?) We store a few data, but a lot, big lot of metadata.
Intelligent, and normal people, use memory in an more intelligent way than human recording machines. Nevertheless, we get puzzled by the amount of irrelevant data they store. And media like such stories.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 08 2016, @08:21PM
Intelligent people have a great memory.
Prove it. First you would need to have a deep understanding of what intelligence even is, which continues to stump us to this day. We don't actually have a good way of measuring intelligence; IQ certainly isn't one, despite the popular misconception that it is. Cherrypicking a few examples (which may or may not be true) doesn't prove that to be highly intelligent, you need to have a great memory.
Unless you simply meant that some intelligence people had/have great memorization abilities, but if that's the case, it doesn't prove your statement.
To relate things to solve problems you must be able to recall things.
Yes, of course. But merely being able to recall things doesn't mean you have a great memory. There's a difference.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 09 2016, @05:10AM
So, maybe someone could explain to me why AC was moderated "flamebait"? Memory may or may not correlate to intelligence, but I've never seen anything that dictates that an intelligent person must have a good memory.
Who is the more intelligent? The conformist student, who memorizes names and dates etc in history class, and recites them on demand - or the student who understands WHY Napoleon finally lost it all? HINT: Napoleon's defeat was decided long before Waterloo. Napoleon lost his wars for ECONOMIC reasons, rather than military reasons. I refer you to 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers' by Paul Kennedy,
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Great-Powers-ebook/dp/B004774792/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462770424&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Rise+and+Fall+of+the+Great+Powers+Paul+Kennedy%2C [amazon.com]
When the history books are printed in future centuries, will we remember WHY the USSR finally fell, or are we simply going to expect students to remember that Reagan beat the Soviet?
I hold that intelligence and memory are probably related, but one is probably not overly dependent on the other.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Wednesday May 11 2016, @09:07AM
Ditto on your moderation query.
I would have fixed it for you had I any modpoints.
A disk drive has a tremendous memory, but no intelligence. As a kid, I knew the RCA vacuum tube manual, the leatherbound Sylvania technical manual, and the old TI TTL databook about as good as a lot of preachers know the Bible. ( I guess I could call it the old techament and the new techament ).
It certainly did not mean I was intelligent enough to design a DSP with it. However, if I was trying to fix something, I could see the tube and know what to expect on each pin.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday May 10 2016, @01:41PM
No. Intelligent people have better algorithms to reconstruct the missing bits in memory. If you lack intelligence, the only way to reproduce something is to memorise it. Intelligent people need only to memorise enough facts that they can reconstruct the rest on the fly.
That of course doesn't exclude the possibility that someone is both intelligent and has a good memory. And certainly a good memory is helpful in solving tasks, including tasks that also require intelligence. But you don't need an exceptional memory to have an exceptional intelligence. Anecdotes of some people who were both very intelligent and had a very good memory don't change that.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @02:09PM
But it's a good start. You would want someone who has a broad foundation and ability to remember things over some bumbling idiot who is "creative" but can't remember what he said from one day to the next.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 08 2016, @09:04PM
If the only difference between the two is that one can memorize lots of information and the other can't, then I wouldn't want either.
(Score: 4, Informative) by meustrus on Monday May 02 2016, @04:18PM
Too bad he hitched his ticket to Fiorina, the idiot who nearly sank HP.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday May 03 2016, @03:34PM
Sorry buddy, it wasn't "the party" that vetoed him. It was regular old idiot voters in that party.
There's no establishment bias that gives us our shitty, shitty candidates. Hillary too. It's us. We did it to ourselves. The sad thing is, when this election goes to shit, and the partisan divide gets worse and the government gets even more dysfunctional, we're gonna blame it on "the establishment" again. Though this is obviously my own bias talking, we're not gonna get out of this until the republican party as we know it: the unholy union of evangelicals, racists, and free marketeers, dies.
Because two of those groups depend entirely on blaming everyone different from them for all the world's problems. And as long as that is a unifying factor in one party, it's gonna poison dialogue.
Anyways, back to the point: voters made this mess. That's what went wrong. No powerful people in smoke-filled rooms.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @05:40PM
I want Trump to win because he doesn't pander to Beaners. And if you see the way those Beaners are behaving around Trump rallies, and the way they will behave when Trump inevitably wins, he will be as vindicated as Anders Brevik was about the Islamic invasion of Europe. Funny that, because I always thought the American race war was going to be about Blacks rather than Mexicans.
Everybody panders to Beaners because Republicans like cheap labor and Democrats like both cheap labor (ask Zuckerburg) and votes. And don't even get me started on those damn Jews. Trump's popularity is also a reaction to Jew bullshit (their attacks on free speech and working for the best interests of Israel rather than the United States, to name a few), but people are more afraid to speak out about the Jews a lot more than they are about the Beaners. Cuz MUH HOLOCAUST and MUH CHOSEN PEOPLE.
-- Ethanol-fueled
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:06AM
In Hillary's case, I think it's relevant to note that in polls just before the Iowa caucuses, approximately 1/4 of Democratic primary voters had no opinion about any other candidate running for the Democratic nomination. Which tells me that something was going on that prevented a lot of people from being the informed voters that (in theory at least) make the best decisions in a democracy. And I don't consider it a coincidence that that demographics that made up that 1/4 of Democratic primary voters were the ones most likely to rely on TV broadcasts, since broadcast TV news barely acknowledged the existence of those other candidates, while one of those other candidates gained the overwhelming support among voters most likely to rely on the Internet to get information about candidates, effectively routing around the gatekeepers that control TV news broadcasts.
So no, I don't think we completely did this to ourselves, and what will solve a lot of this problem is increasing Internet access among poorer populations.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 01 2016, @07:57AM
There are a small number of eligible write ins possible. Johnson seems to lead the pack, but there are others. Do yourself a favor and back the writeins. I don't care if you're a Green party fan, a Libertarian, a Black Panther, a Communist - whatever blows your skirt up, go with it.
The goal here, is not to create one, or even two, powerful parties that can "take over". The goal is to steal power from the existing two powerful parties. The two parties in office now wrote the rules for voting, gerrymandering, campaign funding - everything. The D's and the R's are in collusion to exclude any voices that do not conform to their platforms and agendas. The goal is to get an additional party or six into the arena. Why is it that the Greens don't have any voice in Washington? It's always a D or an R, never an L or a G, that gets "credit" for everything. Only when there is blame to apportion, does anyone look for anything other than a D or an R.
Millions of us are effectively disenfranchised, because our political views aren't even considered. Write someone in. Let's put forth multiple candidates who get that magic 5% of the vote, so that our favored parties can get that matching federal funds for their campaigns. That "two party system" we learned in school isn't exactly codified into law. Perhaps a two party system can be a good thing, but in our case, it is a broken system. The D's and the R's share power with each other, knowing that they can exclude any third or fourth party from ever assuming any meaningful measure of power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Campaign_Act [wikipedia.org]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/06/libertarian-candidate-gary-johnson-announces-2016-presidential-bid.html [foxnews.com]
http://www.gp.org/the_green_party_recognizes_five_candidates_for_the_green_presidential_nomination [gp.org]
http://cpusa.org/tactics-and-the-2016-elections/ [cpusa.org]
This last link may be of particular interest - Green, Transhumanist, Independent, American Freedom, America's Third, and Constitution party are all represented, as well as severaul Independents. http://www.dailydot.com/politics/presidential-election-2016-independent-candidates/ [dailydot.com]
Write them in, people. Let's take our government back from the D's and R's. With that task accomplished, then we can squabble among ourselves about the "best" way to run the government.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by WalksOnDirt on Sunday May 01 2016, @10:51AM
Bernie Sanders is neither a Democrat nor a Republican. He sounds perfect for you.
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Monday May 02 2016, @10:12PM
Do you think Sanders looks like a good choice and Trump is the antichrist? Congrats, you are the opposite of the "this guy is so insane I like him" coin that is behind the Trump popularity. Personally I think Sanders is the right kind of nutjob to get into office and be frustrated by Congress. I'd like a president who can point us in a direction, say the things that need to be said, and start persuading the population to improve the status quo. I'd like a moderated Sanders - he doesn't need to get everything he wants but he needs to be saying it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:51PM
I self-identify as libertarian (small L), but I'll be voting for Bernie as a Fuck You to the two party system.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JNCF on Monday May 09 2016, @06:35PM
Eh, he's running as a Democrat. He may have a really appealing and seemingly independant voting/arrest record, but he's running as a Democrat, so I'd definitely call him a Democrat. Having been tricked by Democrats before, I'll believe in Bernie Sanders when he radically changes the federal government or gets himself assassinated trying.
tl;dr Bernie Sanders is a Democrat.
(Score: 1) by WalksOnDirt on Thursday May 12 2016, @10:37PM
So, you support a third party candidate, but only one with no chance to win.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday May 12 2016, @10:56PM
Maybe. I'm not going to be idealistic when deciding whether or not to vote but pragmatic when deciding who to vote for. If I feel idealistic on election day I'll vote third party or write in a dead revolutionary. If I feel pragmatic, I'll stay home. A split decision seems highly unlikely.
(Score: 4, Informative) by requerdanos on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:55PM
Johnson isn't going to be a write-in.
No matter what you've heard about there being "only two parties", Johnson will be on the ballot as a libertarian in all 50 states.
A write-in is, by definition, someone who *isn't* a major candidate who's already on the ballot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @06:10PM
Trump lies too much.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday May 11 2016, @01:54PM
Indeed, the LP has been on the ballot in all fifty states for the last several elections at least. If I were a Republican who couldn't bring myself to vote Trump, I'd vote Johnson. The Green Party will be on most if not all ballots, if I was a Democrat who hated Hillary I'd vote for Jill Stein.
I'm an independent. I voted for Sanders because I agree with everything he's said, Hillary is acceptable, there's no way in hell I'd vote for the bullying homophobic racist braggart the idiotic Republicans are running. I live in Illinois and KNOW haw badly a Republican billionaire running things really screws everything up. Rauner is even worse than the incompetent before him and the two crooks before that one. Illinois is in a world of shit, just look at Illinois and its Governor to see how America would look under a Trump presidency.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12 2016, @01:15AM
You're confusing Trump with Cruz, and you're ignoring what Hillary has said about gay marriage.
One of the things many republicans hate about Trump is that he's too accepting of sinful perverts. He even lets them use the restroom of their choice in the Trump tower.
Hillary has said that she believes marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Her email shows that she opposed it while working at the state department. It's only for this 2016 campaign that she has changed her tune. Does that seem sincere to you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12 2016, @02:53AM
Trump is opposing the trade agreements, just like Sanders. Trump is willing to fight the banks, just like Sanders. Trump has even decided that the rich need to pay a bit more, which is a less-extreme version of what Sanders wants to do.
Hillary will have none of that.
Also like Sanders, Trump is far less corrupt than Hillary. OK, that one was too easy, seeing as she takes it to a level we haven't seen in half a century.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 06 2016, @04:06PM
It's actually best to be slightly more sophisticated in your voting strategy. How you should vote depends very heavily on where you live.
- If you're in a state that overwhelmingly favors the candidate you see as a lesser evil, then vote for the candidate you actually want regardless of whether that candidate can win, without fear that the greater evil will get your state's electoral votes.
- If you're in a state that overwhelmingly favors the candidate you see as the greater evil, then vote for the candidate you actually want regardless of whether that candidate can win, because you won't cost your lesser-evil candidate any electoral votes by doing so.
- If you're in a swing state, though, vote for the lesser evil, because you actually are among the privileged minority making the decision between greater-evil and lesser-evil, and lesser-evil will presumably do less damage than greater-evil.
Following that strategy allows other parties to gain in electoral strength without adding to the risk that a really dangerous idiot gets into office. After all, many Americans have already had to live through one of those in charge and would just as soon like to avoid another one.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday May 09 2016, @07:17PM
How close do the polls have to be for you to consider a state to be a swing state for the purposes of your voting strategy? Does there actually have to be a reasonable chance of your single vote changing the state?
If yes on question 2, do you have any examples of states that have met this standard in previous elections or is it just a hypothetical?
If no on question 2, why does the closeness of a state change how you would vote if your vote isn't going to tip the state anyway?
I used to advocate exactly what you've articulated, but don't find it reasonable anymore.
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Wednesday May 11 2016, @01:28PM
I'm in Ohio, which is seen as a swing state. However, if the general election is Clinton v. Trump I intend to vote for Trump as the greater evil.
Voting for the lesser evil is what got us into this mess. Only when we hit rock bottom can we move forward, whether as one nation or several.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday May 11 2016, @02:01PM
We hit rock bottom with the president who took office during a boom and left office with the worst economy since the great depression, who turned a budget surplus into the biggest deficit in history, who took office during peacetime and left office with the US in two wars, who ignored warnings about al-queda, whose Iraqi prison started ISIS... We hadn't been in worse shape in 2008 than since WWII.
I, for one, don't want America to be like the 1930s again.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @05:16AM
actually said that before she died. 'You guys are about due for a new Great Depression because you're all too young to remember what the last one was like.'
My paternal grandfather and maternal great uncle said the same about World Wars.
If I knew less of history I would say we live in interesting times. But instead I will just say 'the technology may change, but the history repeats itself time and again.'
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 10 2016, @06:15PM
My write in choice: Edward Snowden
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday May 01 2016, @11:23AM
At THIS moment in pretend land, the Bern is leading by a whopping 54% (13 out of 24 votes so far)
Now if only he stays alive long enough in RL.....
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday May 01 2016, @12:09PM
It looks even better if you remove the joke options: As of this writing, 14 of 17 non-joke options are for Bernie Sanders. That's a whopping 82%.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 01 2016, @01:27PM
Sanders has lost a vote and Trump picked one up: it's now 13 for Sanders and 4 for Trump.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday May 01 2016, @01:46PM
Yeah, i didn't factor those out... very much my bad. Gotta blame last nights vodka vodka vodka vodka vodka
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday May 01 2016, @02:08PM
You say joke options but I would literally rather have exec the IRC bot as President than any of the actual candidates. He isn't coded to do anything presidential in nature, so:
There is no way in which exec is not a superior choice to every candidate still in the races.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday May 01 2016, @03:16PM
If they managed to get on his source, they could manipulate him to do whatever they want.
On the positive side, if he ever gets killed, he can simply be restarted.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Funny) by cmn32480 on Sunday May 01 2016, @03:32PM
I'm his op.... I haves all the control.... MUUWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
Excepty crutchy.. who wrote him...
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 01 2016, @06:00PM
Eh, I'd trust the two of you more than career politicians. At a minimum, you'd probably be somewhat honest and frank. And if you did get bought off it would be more obvious since you haven't been playing the game long.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Sunday May 01 2016, @09:20PM
That's my feeling, too. Which I guess might lead you to reevaluate your thinking... Anyway, I voted for exec.
And I very truly literally will not be casting a vote for anybody this November. I'd rather put my efforts toward teaching people that we are supposed to leave each other the hell alone, which is sort of the opposite of what a President does.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday May 09 2016, @11:02AM
So you'll be lumped in with the 42% of americans too lazy to vote.
Team up with the other 42%, put "None McOfEm" on the ballot, and vote for him.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday May 09 2016, @03:56PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday May 12 2016, @07:38AM
Preach... but good luck with it, Democracy is pretty much a holy word these days. I certainly have had no luck around here saying nasty things about it. On the other hand all of the U.S. Founding Fathers are in agreement with us, so we have the support of people long dead. Whee.
Are ya NRx? The sig hints at it, implying you prefer Exit over Voice.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday May 12 2016, @03:07PM
Yes, people don't like their idols challenged. lol at the dead guy support comment. :)
I don't know what NRx is. A Google search suggested it was some sort of white people secession thing? If so I am emphatically not that - I'm very multicultural and absolutely love the blending of cultures around me. I'm our church's bilingual song leader (sort of) and pro-Hispanic immigration. Apologies if I'm off base about what you are asking. I am in favor of people having the right to do what they want and not be made to do what they don't want, so that would allow for people who want to segregate themselves by culture or ethnicity or whatever, but I would probably not be a part of that.
If you google for some of Michael Rozeff's articles on panarchy, that's what I think. I believe in this [youtube.com], basically. I used to point people to LewRockwell.com to see basically what I advocate, but they are so anti-immigration today that I can't do that any more.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday May 02 2016, @11:35PM
Wait ... which ones are serious? I thought they were all joke options.
(Score: 1) by shanen on Tuesday May 03 2016, @05:21AM
Donated my Texas poll tax to Bernie. I figure he's the politician who cares the most about such silliness as voting.
My vote had been gerrymandered to meaninglessness long ago, and when it started to look too risky and like the votes might matter again, they just jiggered the district again. Why let voters pick politicians when the pols can pick them first, eh?
For what little it is worth, I have renounced my birthright Texian citizenship and now regard myself as a stateless American of the No-Vote-for-You Party. I think the biggest difference between the parties these days is that the so-called Republican pols want to repeal birthright citizenship and most Dems want to repeal Citizens United. (Of course the punchline is that most so-called Republican voters also hate Citizens United, but bipartisan agreement is the LAST refuge of the incompetent [pols].)
#1 Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice{5} ≠ (Beer^4 | Speech) and your negative mods prove you are a narrow prick.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 09 2016, @05:20AM
That is one of the things that really pisses me off about politics. In my mind, voting districts shoudl coincide with county lines. Drawing imaginary boundaries to divide up the black vote into meaningless segments? If that isn't a form of disenfanchisement, I don't know what is. Or, drawing up another district for the sole purpose of "empowering" the black voter - same thing. We can expect at any time for the "progressives" to draw up yet another district for the purpose of "empowering" LGBT's.
(Score: 1) by shanen on Monday May 09 2016, @06:55AM
Not a matter of empowering, but rather a matter of concentrating "undesirable" votes to waste as many as possible.
There are two basic cases of abusive partisan gerrymandering, but the essential feature of both of them is that the party that controls the redistricting increases their control over the legislative bodies. In the case where they have an actual majority of the voters, they want to make all of the districts evenly balanced so that their majority will prevail in every district.
In cases where the party controlling the districts has an actual minority of the votes, they want to create as many safe districts as possible, perhaps with 55% of their party, and concentrating the "bad" votes as heavily as they can in a small number of sacrificial districts. This is actually the current status of the House of so-called Representatives, which is strongly controlled by the so-called Republicans even though they received fewer votes than the Democratic Party did.
There are two widely used countermeasures. One is nonpartisan redistricting, but its hard to safeguard the process. The other is reserving some seats for at-large representatives allocated on the basis of the total vote without regard to the districts.
#1 Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice{5} ≠ (Beer^4 | Speech) and your negative mods prove you are a narrow prick.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday May 02 2016, @04:46AM
Too bad a few options are missing, always a few missing in every poll of course.
Where is @smod2016? (If you aren't checking the Sweet Meteor of Death's Twitter activity you should. Somebody is putting some effort into keeping the gag going.)
Or Cthulhu? After all, why vote for the lesser evil?
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday May 07 2016, @05:11PM
> Or Cthulhu? After all, why vote for the lesser evil?
Does that explain your support of Trump?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday May 07 2016, @06:34PM
Nah, it is simpler with Trump. I expect two things from that vote, and the first only requires Trump live to election day. The destruction of the "Republican" half of The Party is proceeding exactly on schedule so that one looks likely to be fulfilled. The wall is the second, and after making it the basis of his campaign Trump has to know it will be the most important factor in any reelection effort. If it still can't be done, it probably can't be done by anyone else so then it is time to watch it burn. I'm more on team SMOD though instead of interdimensional monsters.
The invasion that started in 1965 has reached existential threat level. When the candidates were picking issues they, rightly, believed immigration enforcement was outside the Overton Window. Even after the visible evidence that Trump had moved the Window the support from other viable candidates was at best pro forma. Cruz may have been an exception but I understood he wasn't viable so long as the party elders were vetoing him. Trump is a deeply flawed candidate but he is the leader we have; sometimes the only ship in the sector is the misfits instead of the Enterprise. We survived two Bushes, Clinton and Obama so we will survive any side effects from Trump so long as the wall gets built and the Republicans are smashed.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Hartree on Monday May 02 2016, @05:49AM
You mean Jeffrey Dahmer?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @05:19PM
Trump 2016!
Because sometimes the best answer is to burn it all to the ground.
(Score: 2) by mmcmonster on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:16AM
I like my Earth fresh and moist, not a charred nuclear wasteland.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @02:24PM
I think we found the one vote for Cliton!
(Score: 3, Funny) by Bot on Friday May 06 2016, @04:55PM
Dr. Freud would like to have a word with you.
It's about your underwear.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2016, @01:00PM
The earth is not flat... BUT WE HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE IT SO!
(Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Monday May 02 2016, @06:49PM
with The Mighty Buzzard as his running mate . . . duh!
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Monday May 02 2016, @09:33PM
Does anyone want that witch to win her way to the White House? I'd rather have Trump than more of the system politics we've had for decades.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by legont on Monday May 02 2016, @11:57PM
Second that - anybody but the witch. I am so glad she does not get any vote from us.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheReaperD on Tuesday May 03 2016, @04:03AM
Now only if our votes actually counted... here or in the real world.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:53PM
She'll win by buying delegates. I wonder how many homeless vets could be taken care of with the money spent on presidential campaigns...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 09 2016, @05:28AM
The SUPER delegates are already bought and paid for. Or, did you actually believe that the "Clinton Foundation" had any other purpose? The Democrat's national convention is run by a rather attractive Jewess, who has been in bed with Hillary for the past 30 years. They are BFF's. If they were males, I would call them butt-buddies. All the favors have been paid off, all the money has changed hands, it's a done deal. And, that is why Bernie gets such shit media coverage, and Hillary is given a pass on every blunder. As with the GOP, the only holdouts are the voters. Those damned voters insist on voting for Sanders, instead of Shrillary, which increases the risk of exposure.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by shanen on Tuesday May 03 2016, @05:30AM
Not feeling that enthusiastic about her except for two items:
(1) ANY of the so-called Republican candidates is MUCH worse and the top two right now are INCREDIBLY worse.
(2) She has really good taste in enemies. I'm not saying enemy of my enemy is automatically my friend, but most of her noisiest enemies are truly miserable excuses for human beings.
Having said that, I still prefer Bernie because I think "idealist" is one of is top personal identities and we need an idealist now. I think Hillary's top ID might be "corporate lawyer", but I'm pretty sure "idealist" isn't in her top 10. I actually count it as in her favor that "politician" isn't the top, which is what I think of Bill Clinton and possibly President Obama, too. (However, I also think "stand-up comedian" is high on Obama's list). By way of comparison, I'm convinced Trump's top personal identity must be "con man" or "salesman", while Cruz is either "fanatic" or "skilled liar".
#1 Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice{5} ≠ (Beer^4 | Speech) and your negative mods prove you are a narrow prick.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 04 2016, @11:06PM
Nice man, lousy president.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mendax on Tuesday May 03 2016, @05:21PM
Oh, she may be a witch, she may be as crooked as Richard Nixon (although I seriously doubt that), she may have little credibility, but of the field of jokers in both parties, she's the only candidate who is the most rational. Furthermore, she's proven herself to be competent--mostly. I like what Bernie Sanders stands for, but this country is not ready for his brand of socialism. Things need to get worse before that can happen (without it getting bloody, both politically and physically).
So, with much regret, I must admit that there is a Hillary Clinton bumper sticker on my pickup. It must be said, however, that I live in a small, conservative town and the crowds have not yet come to lynch me. Perhaps many of them are like me, support her, but unlike me, are not willing to say it publicly.
So, I will vote for in November, with regret (but not in June because I am still affiliated with the Republicans). In the primary I will probably vote for The Man from Ohio, or write in Cthulhu since I really have trouble stomaching any of them!
Comparing Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton, Clinton is only a minor demon; Trump is the anti-Christ who makes Hitler look pretty tame. All he needs is the funny mustache, although he already has an odd, memorable if not slightly disturbing hair style. Hitler was evil to be sure, but he had all his hair!
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gman003 on Thursday May 05 2016, @04:27AM
I voted third-party in the last presidential election. If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, I'd prefer to vote third-party again... but Jesus H. Corpsefucking CHRIST, Donald Trump would be an absolutely horrible president. If we get to election day and he's gotten the nomination (seems inevitable now) and has even a 5% chance of winning, my vote will go to whoever has the best chance of beating him. Clinton, Johnson, Stein, Vermin Supreme, I don't care who as long as it isn't Trump.
I don't like Hillary, she has proven to make sub-optimal decisions, but Trump is practically an imbecile. He's a bigot and a narcissist and a braggart and a con. Hillary may be under investigation for breaching security protocols, but Trump's under investigation for petty fraud and false advertising. Given a choice between someone who was part of ACA, and someone whose only experience with healthcare is running a nutrition-pill pyramid scheme, I'm going with Clinton.
(Score: 2) by srobert on Friday May 06 2016, @05:21AM
I don't want Trump to be President. But, I will not vote for Hillary in November. I'll probably vote for Stein.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday May 06 2016, @04:04PM
I vote that Franken comes in before Stein...
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 08 2016, @12:15PM
Voting for the 'lesser' evil may feel good in the short-term, but it does absolutely nothing to fix the problem of evil candidates in the long-term. If the spoiler effect exists for you, then vote for a third party candidate that truly aligns with your interests and send a message that whatever party you want to improve will have to be more like the third party candidate to get your vote. Let terrible candidates know they won't win in the general election because a small-but-not-insignificant number of people will vote third party, and let voters know that if they vote for terrible candidates in the primaries, those candidates will end up losing. Use the perception of the spoiler effect to your advantage. Thinking only about the current election or even the next few elections is a huge mistake, and sadly a common one at that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @01:58AM
"He's a bigot and a narcissist and a braggart and a con."
Funny, some of the best presidents also had those "qualities" as well.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 09 2016, @05:30AM
"she's proven herself to be competent"
At what? Heading up conspiracies?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday May 03 2016, @05:18PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:26AM
1% support HRC. How ironic.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Wednesday May 04 2016, @10:05PM
Especially since she doesn't do ironing! ;)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Thursday May 05 2016, @04:25AM
HRC knows she doesn't need to buy our poll. What's the chance that anybody at SN would influence the media at large?
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @09:39AM
why is this ironic? because the computers are made of iron, or what?
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Sunday May 08 2016, @02:48AM
In the poll, 1% of the votes have gone Ms. Clinton. The other poster may be implying that Ms. Clinton has the support of "the 1%," meaning the moneyed class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_the_99%25
(Score: 2) by CHK6 on Thursday May 05 2016, @03:02PM
At this point in what both parties have to offer I think a Magic 8 Ball is a better choice. Or better yet, have all legislation decisions comes down to a roll of a D20.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @09:37PM
*rolling* ... crap, 1. Critical Miss.
DM - Hang on, we've got to look this one up. *pulls out Constitution & Bill of Rights* Okay... critical strikes, critical votes, media critic... ahh, here it is. Critical Misses. Okay, it's an election year, your on your first attempt at pushing the bill through Congress... What? Really? "Consult limb loss table"?
Maybe we should switch to another game. "Call of Cthulhu" anyone? Can't be any worse than what we've got already, can it?
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday May 07 2016, @04:13AM
Nobody for President [nobodyforpresident.org]
None of the Above [wikipedia.org]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday May 07 2016, @05:58PM
We focus too much on individuals. The President of the US, no matter who that person is, doesn't have much more power than the most famous of otherwise ordinary citizens. W. couldn't simply order up a War of Choice, the neocons had to whip up hysteria with propaganda and lies, and abuse the still rather high regard the US had. As if the war wasn't enough to damage trust in our institutions, the housing bubble and Great Recession exposed Wall Street as infested with thieves and corruption. Alan Greenspan's reputation has never recovered.
And now, Capitalism itself is in doubt. Recently we've heard that Exxon suspected as long ago as the 1970s that release of massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere was going to cause problems. And what did they do about it? Nothing at first. As things got worse, they started running disinformation campaigns, denying there was a problem! Business has done a lot of criminally stupid, callous, irresponsible, harsh, and cruel things over the centuries, but to do that when nothing less than civilization rests in the balance takes the cake. What is the matter with these people? Are they so caught up in this business mindset of greed and profit at all costs that they can't spare a thought for just a little social responsibility? Perhaps it's the fault of the Capitalist system itself for creating a class of people, business leaders, who have been molded to behave so short-sightedly that they can't help themselves. Certainly our business leaders are not our best and brightest, no, many of them do not merit the positions and pay they have. I think one of the problems is that most business organizations operate essentially as monarchies, not democracies. Through our government, we handle issues too big for business, but business has behaved like a bunch of termites, chewing apart our systems, taking just a little piece here and little there. The rot is not yet so bad that things are hopeless, but Big Oil's anti-social efforts have set us back a long way. Business has got to come to understand that they can't do that, not if they want to stay in business for the long term. If they can't wrap their heads around that, then perhaps we should organize our society in other ways, which will of course require a revolution.
What are our biggest potential problems?
1. Nuclear War
2. Climate Change
3. Greed and corruption
4. Systemic failure
5. Overpopulation
6. Asteroid Strike
7. Supervolcano eruption
8. Other
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:03PM
3. Greed and corruption
3. answers the problems of 1., 2., maybe 8., and possibly some of the others. Kill the rich... or maybe just level the playing field so there is more equal power/money.
Or kill the rich.
Meh.
What evah... i'll do what i WANT! (No kitty... my pot pie!)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday May 09 2016, @08:51PM
0. Dyson Sphere [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by gawdonblue on Sunday May 08 2016, @10:18AM
Where's Boaty McBoatface?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 08 2016, @09:58PM
Perhaps BMcB refused nomination. Getting beaten by Sir David Attenborough is one thing, but Donald Trump? He'd never be able to show his boaty face in public.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday May 11 2016, @03:04PM
Swimming in the ocean doing research, of course!
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @08:26PM
Then I will be happy this election regardless of who wins. I want to see both parties go down in flames. Regardless if it is Bernie or Trump nothing will ever get done because the establishment will shut them down.
They both want:
Fair trade deals
Less meddling overseas
Not poking the bear (russia)
Seems to me to be Nixon vs Jennings.