This thread is the sadder counterpart of Today's Good News.

There might be a correlation between anesthesia and reduced language abilities.

Today we have elections for electing a new President of the Republic for the next five years, here in Portugal.

Course I will not vote. I never vote. For a simple reason, I will vote when voting bulletins have an option at the last row for a "None of the above" option.That option must be counted as any other option and if it wins, elections must be repeated but with a major difference, the candidates can't run again, it has to be new ones.

Why such option never exists? because it's the only way that would change the actual system and that's not admissible.
People are forced to chose amongst what is given to them to chose, not what they want.
This is not democracy.

Besides, I'm monarchist, I don't elect presidents.   

People are forced to chose amongst what is given to them to chose, not what they want.
This is not democracy.

Besides, I'm monarchist, I don't elect presidents.   

As a monarchist and a proponent of democracy, you would rather elect kings, right?

As a monarchist and a proponent of democracy, you would rather elect kings, right?

Let me see.. Estonian humour?

Glad you ask that because many people don't understand the reason why to defend a non elected state role in a Democracy.

One of the many functions a king goes beyond any president is because people aren't artificial political constructs, people are real and people organise themselves, at most human societies, in families.
To have a human being organisation at the the top of the state is the right way to prevent the arrival of Brave New Worlds or autocratic regimens that try to dehumanise human beings and turn them into obeying-non thinking robots.
Et voilá.

One of the many functions a king goes beyond any president is because people aren't artificial political constructs, people are real and people organise themselves, at most human societies, in families.
To have a human being organisation at the the top of the state is the right way to prevent the arrival of Brave New Worlds or autocratic regimens that try to dehumanise human beings and turn them into obeying-non thinking robots.
Et voilá.

This all sounds very nice as long as your king is enlightened and ruling with the approval and respect of the people such as Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, who intervened to resolve the crises during his reign to a good effect.

But how about when your king is a total moron such as the current Vajiralongkorn of Thailand, whose wasteful loitering in Germany is an international scandal? He only intervenes to punish the people who rightfully consider him a shame to the nation.

A good monarchy is good.
Well, a good whatever is good.

But how about when your king is a total moron [...]

Enlightened monarchies do have the internal mechanisms to solve those issues.

I don't defend the equivalent in monarchies to a presidential regimen, like the American regimen for example, where the president governs the country at his will.
I'm in favour of the type of parliamentary regime where an elected government governs the country and the president/king has only supervising powers (but also others) not the effective government of the Nation.

To the King what belongs to the king, to the people what belongs to the people.

Pity you lost yours a long time back to nutters. My monarch smils at me from above the living room fireplace

BitCoin is down to $59.7 k after reaching a high of $60 last night.

Isn't this pretty stable?

By the way, when prices go down, it's actually good news, because you can get more for less.

BitCoin is down to $59.7 k after reaching a high of $60 last night. 

Sell it and invest everything in just one number at a Casino's roulette, surrounded by beautiful women.
That's what real Man do. 

Isn't this pretty stable?

By the way, when prices go down, it's actually good news, because you can get more for less.

Quite true of course. I have a couple of thousand invested in BTC. Looking for it to move past $100k by next March.

I was one step away from buying $25 in bitcoins in 2011, some technical snaggle stopped me. If I had done so and kept it, a very big if indeed, it would be worth somewhere between 100k and 1.3 million euro (I don't remember the date or the exchange rate). But I immediately lost interest, and never regained it, as a currency that variable is useless. A verdict I still stand by.

Far worse than useless, because in the manic phases Bitcoin "mining" rewards damaging behaviour.

Isn't this pretty stable?

By the way, when prices go down, it's actually good news, because you can get more for less.

Don't forget: The demand for a free good is infinite; and price = market value, not real...
Bel got it right, again!?
(Why, one wonders, do so many get-rich-quick schemes leave so many poor in their wake? When it's Sink or Swim, paddle your surfboard around a while; look out for sharks...

I was one step away from buying $25 in bitcoins in 2011, some technical snaggle stopped me. If I had done so and kept it, a very big if indeed, it would be worth somewhere between 100k and 1.3 million euro (I don't remember the date or the exchange rate). But I immediately lost interest, and never regained it, as a currency that variable is useless. A verdict I still stand by.

Far worse than useless, because in the manic phases Bitcoin "mining" rewards damaging behaviour.

A Scot at party I went to in Liverpool offered me 20 individual BTC for giving him cigarettes over the course of the party.

I scoffed at the "magic money" and thanked him but refused. 20 individual BTC would be $1.14 million today.

Eurovision song contest still exists.

Italian hard-rock won
Not everything was bad, English got zero points and were the last classified.

Not everything was bad, English got zero points and were the last classified.

UK song was bad and it was placed badly. UK should fight for its place in the finals, so we would not have to listen to their songs in the finals again.

Going by my Twitter timeline it can be summed up thus. England right now.  Scotland and Wales right now, 

Going by my Twitter timeline it can be summed up thus. England right now.  Scotland and Wales right now, 

Do you think England, Scotland and Wales should compete separately on Eurovision like they do in football?

Do you think England, Scotland and Wales should compete separately on Eurovision like they do in football?

I don't think there's enough interest for it outside of England if truth be told, for us to even bother trying to compete. I have no doubt that if we did, we could pick better acts and better songs though.

UK song was bad and it was placed badly. UK should fight for its place in the finals, so we would not have to listen to their songs in the finals again.

I was surprised how low the Dutch song scored. I thought it was one of the better ones.

I was surprised how low the Dutch song scored. I thought it was one of the better ones.

Seriously? I thought the music was nothing special in terms of style (as most of the songs) and it had a coarse message maybe for African or Caribbean freedom fighters, nothing for Europeans to relate to.

Anyway, betting companies predicted Estonia would drop out in semi-finals and Italy would win. These predictions were suspiciously accurate.

Seriously? I thought the music was nothing special in terms of style (as most of the songs) and it had a coarse message maybe for African or Caribbean freedom fighters, nothing for Europeans to relate to.

One of the better ones isn't the same thing as good, and if Europeans can't relate to people from European colonies... that sounds problematic.

...if Europeans can't relate to people from European colonies... that sounds problematic.

- The colonies we are talking about in this case are not Europe
- Western Europeans constantly forget Central Europe, most of which never had colonies, but rather was the colony

So sure, I can relate to the experience of colonies just fine. The issue is rather: That song was definitely more colonial rather than European. And it failed even at being colonial - it was too gay for a coherent colonial freedom-fighter tone. Whereas for current Europeans, it wasn't the stylish kind of gay, but more like queer or awkward. I prefer Stromae over that one any day.

I was surprised how low the Dutch song scored. I thought it was one of the better ones.

I was surprised as well, but apparently it was in line with expectations (much closer to the bottom than the top, with a clear favourite for the top and a clear favourite for the bottom). Mind you, I didn't watch more than 20 seconds of this or any other song, I was in it for the voting system. It is optimised for maximum tension, and works pretty well with that. 

When someone underperforms the post hoc assumption is that the entry was bad, or that the voters were, but the voting system matters as well. Being disliked is not a handicap, but being unliked is. 60%-62% of entries get no votes in each election, but being in that block for 2 ✕ 38 elections, like the British entry did, is still a feat.

I was surprised as well

The difference is that I thought Hooverphonic was pretty decent, but it didn't seem like the kind of thing that might do well. Oh well, clearly Eurovision's not really my thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbpxcUMtjwY

Incidentally, Finland's song sounds like a Limp Bizkit cover band, but the sign dancing's cool.
https://nos.nl/video/2381920-finland-middelvingers-omhoog-en-dus-ook-de-gebarentolk