It's pretty ironic that there's a massive thread full of people arguing back and forth about whether voting 3rd party is a wasted vote... while as of this posting the Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen is WINNING THE POLL.

I'd say this pretty much proves that if all the people who say "I'd vote 3rd party but they won't win." just voted 3rd party anyway, they WOULD win.

Except if a 3rd party gets 5% of the vote, they get ballot access and public funding. If they poll at 15%, they're included on the debate stage. These things are necessary for a 3rd party to be viable. So voting 3rd party even when they "won't win" actually IS the way. It gets rid of the roadblocks purposely set in place to keep 3rd parties out.

Note that the Libertarian party has gone from 500k votes in 2008, to 1.2 million votes in 2012, to 4.4 million votes in 2016. It would only take about 50% more votes to hit that 5% mark this election, and considering the trend; that increase would almost be disappointing.

Al Gore lost his own home state. If he'd won his home state of Tennessee he'd have been President, regardless of Florida. He also lost Clinton's home state. If he'd won Arkansas he'd have been President, regardless of Florida. The last major candidate to lose their own state was George McGovern. FFS even Walter Mondale who lost in the biggest landslide in US history at least took his home state of Minnesota. (plus DC, and literally nothing else)

Al Gore lost because he was a loser.

Except that you aren't free to do so, it literally costs thousands of dollars to legally cease being a US citizen.

While I also disagree with drug testing literally everyone who applies for welfare, (it should at least be random) the way they measure whether it "wastes money" is flawed. Opponents simply point out that there are a low number of drug tests coming back positive, and the denial of benefits for those folks is less than the cost of all the testing. Except of course the numbers are low, they're only catching the people stupid enough to be doing drugs and yet take the test anyway. Personally the fact the number of positives being low gives me a bit a faith in humanity. But what's not being accounted for (or even considered) is: How many people DIDN'T APPLY because they knew they wouldn't pass a drug test? Now that number isn't easily to establish, but people aren't even bothering to check whether application numbers changed at all as compared to years before drug testing was implemented.

While popcorn is technically whole grain, this does not make it highly nutritious. It isn't. It only means that it contains slightly more nutrients than de-germinated corn (such as hominy or grits) which probably is the most un-nutritious crap on the face of the planet.

I believe you are confusing missiles and rockets. Not the same thing at all.

I don't have a laptop you insensitive clod!

Of course if you're in the states and you want an E61 you'll have to reach for eBay, since Nokia only sold that model in Europe. For the US market they offered the wonderful E62 instead. It's just like the E61, minus only a few trivial features like WiFi and 3G.

This test involved electrical shocks on hermit crabs. As one of the first lines on the hermit crab Wikipedia page states: "They are not closely related to true crabs."

Also as others have already mentioned, electrical shocks are not the same as boiling water.

You actually expect slashdotters will do this?

Lying is not necessarily fraud. Nor would it be fraud in this case. Lying to the police can be a crime, in most jurisdictions this is called Obstruction of Justice. But the girl was not charged with that.

What baffles me the most about this case was the rigamarole everyone went through to determine that she had a phone. Why did it matter? If the teacher saw the phone, that's the end of it. Give the pupil the appropriate punishment. (detention, suspension, saturday school, etc) Why did it have to be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that she did in fact possess a phone? What if she had passed the phone off to a friend before the officer arrived? Would they have then had to let her go unpunished? The incident originally wasn't about her committing a legal crime, it was about breaking school rules. When you're talking about breaking school rules you don't need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to get a "conviction".

For years I've said that prior to being allowed to sit on the bench, a judge should have to spend a week in jail. How can one "fairly" give out punishment when they have no idea what said punishment is like?

GET TO DA CHOPPA!!!

Yes, because the government always gets it right the first time.