In this July 7, 2016, file photo, FBI director James Comey testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington before the House Oversight Committee to explain his agency's recommendation to not prosecute Hillary Clinton. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

When the presidential campaign began last year, the FBI was not expected to be a key player. Hillary Clinton had many problems—from her mixed record on issues like criminal justice and free trade to a generalized anger against the Political Establishment she represented to her vote for the Iraq War. But a criminal investigation was presumably low on the long list of things she had to worry about.

Then a probe into Clinton's use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state became one of the central stories of the 2016 campaign. The FBI apparently closed the case before making vague allusions to possible charges just days before the election—and then said that actually they were right the first time about not wanting to charge Clinton with anything. Even after all the overblown scandals that have enveloped the Clintons over the years (from Whitewater to B-E-N-G-H-A-Z-I), who could have predicted that this long-simmering email story would turn out to be pivotal? And who is around to tell us what it all means? This is a story with few lessons—except, perhaps, that this election has made everyone from Clinton to FBI director James Comey to rank-and-file FBI agents look terrible.

Way back in March 2015—that feels like a decade ago, right?—the New York Times first reported that Clinton had used a private email server as secretary of state, potentially in violation of federal government rules. The news fed a (long-standing) campaign by conservative politicians and commentators to make the former first lady out as a Nixonian crook who could not be trusted with the power of the American presidency.

But after the feds spent well over a year looking into whether classified information had been compromised by Clinton or her staff while they used that private server, Comey determined she was no criminal. Sure, Clinton had been "extremely careless" with classified material, as Comey said at a July press conference—an unusually public way for the secretive FBI to announce a decision—but "no reasonable prosecutor" would press charges against her.

That seemed to mark the end of this Clinton saga—even if probes into the Clinton Foundation and other alleged shadiness were reportedly ongoing, and even if Donald Trump repeatedly cried foul that the feds were rigging the system in favor of his opponent.

Then Anthony "Carlos Danger" Weiner enters our story, and it goes to shit.

Weiner—the former New York congressman and mayoral candidate most famous for his aggressively seedy internet activities—has been under federal investigation for allegedly sexting an underage girl. The feds recently turned up a laptop he shared with his estranged wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, which was apparently full of emails involving Clinton. That led to Comey's announcement a couple of days before Halloween that there were new emails to look into—or maybe they weren't new, he wasn't sure yet. In any case, it was time for America to go down this rabbit hole all over again.

Possibly in response to this news—which dominated cable and the internet—Clinton's poll numbers took a hit, as did Democrats' chance of capturing the Senate. The director of the FBI was publicly teasing possible criminal charges against a major-party presidential nominee just days before voters went to the polls in most states (and after early voting was well underway). This was major, even if it wasn't clear to many what Clinton was even accused of doing. Reports circulated that the FBI was a hotbed of pro-Trump sentiment; many Democrats were suspicious that Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor turned Trump hype man, seemed to have an inside line into the investigation. Conflicting leaks about what was in the emails and how close to indicting Clinton the FBI was cropped up in different outlets, muddying the waters and making a mockery of the bureau's general rules about not commenting on active investigations.

"I've never seen leaks like this happen before in the FBI," says David Gomez, a former FBI counterterrorism executive who now works in cyber security (and has written for VICE). "And I kind of have my doubt as to whether it's actually agents leaking to the press, or agents leaking to retired guys like me, who are then talking to the press."

Then came Comey's announcement this Sunday that agents had sifted through the new emails—and found nothing nothing to change his earlier conclusion that no charges were warranted. Trump—who had briefly taken to praising Comey for his bravery on the campaign trail—once again decried the "rigged" system. In the right's more conspiracy-minded corners, the question became, how did the FBI read the emails so fast?

There is past precedent for the bureau wading into presidential politics—former FBI Director L. Patrick Gray, a Nixon fan, burned files relevant to the Watergate investigation in his own fireplace in the 1970s. But the system has changed since then. "People seem to forget that's the kind of involvement of the FBI that you want to avoid," Gomez said of Gray, citing the fact that directors are now appointed to ten-year terms that span multiple presidencies.

Comey, a former registered Republican appointed by Barack Obama in 2013, has been both a player in this election and a punching bag. Democrats can't stand him for first delivering that anti-Clinton statement at the July press conference, then issuing a vaguely worded letter about Weiner's laptop that reignited the controversy, even though (apparently) no new relevant evidence was in said laptop. Republicans likewise despise him for not indicting Clinton for anything.

We will likely never know what drove Comey to make each of the decisions he made during the course of this campaign. He may have been striving for transparency in the most high-profile case of his career. He may have been reacting to intra-FBI pressures the public will never understand. What we do know is that Comey—who was spotted sipping a hefty margarita at a Mexican restaurant outside Washington, DC, Sunday—had a rough week.

Follow Matt Taylor on Twitter.

Jill Stein prepares to appear on the Young Turks in October. Photo by Gabriel Olsen/Getty Images

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is not about to be elected president of the United States. She's the nominee of the fourth biggest political party in the US, and she's on the ballot in 44 states and DC in a year when people, especially young people, are looking for a non-Trump, non-Clinton option. But all that is only good for 2 or 3 percent in the most recent polls, a distant fourth behind Libertarian Gary Johnson.

It's almost as if—and I know this sounds crazy—Democrats and Republicans are the the only viable political parties in the US. But according to a poll from last year, 58 percent of Americans want to see a viable third party, so the Greens' poor showing might not be entirely the two-party systems' fault. Instead, it could be that Stein—like Johnson—is just kinda a lousy candidate. And that's not me talking. Important figures in international Green politics—a multifaceted leftist environmentalist movement—see a future for the American Green Party, but only if it ditches the likes of Stein.

"Some of the points that Jill Stein makes are delusional, I have to say," Balthasar Glättli, a Green Party member of the Swiss National Council, told me. If he were in the US, he said, "personally, I wouldn't vote Stein. I would vote Hillary."

Adam Capay. Photo via Allison Jane Capay

Adam Capay sat in segregation in the Thunder Bay jail, 23 hours a day, for four years.

While there are many opportunities for teenagers to attain all measures of easy fame (even if it's just Instagram celebrity or, at the very least, internet memedom), there are still some ventures that require a lot more time, effort, and talent before anyone takes notice. Like making feature-length movies. But French high school student Nathan Ambrosioni has already carved out an impressive IMDB page writing and directing two wide-release horror films—2014's Hostile and the recently released to VOD thriller Therapy—all by the time he was 16. (He also made another experimental full-length film when he was 13, but who's counting?)

Documentary filmmaker Morgan Spurlock, of Super Size Me infamy, is back in the doc world with a horrifying and edifying look at the disgusting world of rats. Our vermin brethren who run amok in our sewers and garbage like hairy shadows get the full Spurlock treatment in the "horror documentary." They're reviled, revered, and ultimately redeemed, especially since, as the doc makes so clear, they're not going away anytime soon. In fact, my takeaway from the cringe-inducing film was that the rats will most definitely outlive us all. I chatted with Spurlock and his producing partner Jeremy Chilnick about the doc and why rats are so gross.

It's Election Day eve, and America is worried.

The part of America I live in—big-city, liberal, too many brunch places—is worried about Donald Trump. These are the people who obsessively check the FiveThirtyEight forecasts, who are talking only half-jokingly about leaving the US if the Republican wins, who have been calling Trump a fascist since last year. Every presidential election is always the most consequential election in history until the next one, but in 2016, the fear is not solely over Republicans taking control of the government, but of the end of democracy itself.

Everyone from Glenn Beck to documentarian Ken Burns has compared Trump to a Hitler-esque dictator. "America is a breeding ground for tyranny," declared Andrew Sullivan in New York in May. "An American dictatorship is now a realistic possibility," wrote Mario Loyola in the right-wing but anti-Trump National Review back in February. "Donald Trump undermines the legitimacy of our democracy," was the headline for an October Boston Globe op-ed by Michael A. Cohen. "Donald Trump's success reveals a frightening weakness in American democracy," warned Ezra Klein in Vox on Monday. "This reads like hyperbole. But is it?" asks Klein.

Since he asked: Yes, it is. But it's matched with hyperbole from the parts of America wholly unlike the America around me—rural, gun-owning, conservative, almost a total lack of brunch places. These Americans are worried about Hillary Clinton as much as the people around me are worried about Trump.

"This is the last chance to save America from ruin," a right-wing militia member told Reuters in between drills preparing for post-election chaos. Trump supporters canvassed by the New York Times last month were talking about a rigged election, a revolution,"bloodshed" if Clinton comes for their guns. "On November 8th, I'm voting for Trump. On November 9th, if Trump loses, I'm grabbing my musket," right-wing former congressman Joe Walsh wrote in a widely shared (and mocked) tweet.

Walsh isn't actually going to grab his musket if Clinton wins for the same reason that all those celebrities threatening to ditch a Trump'd America for Canada aren't going to follow through: Starting a revolution or uprooting your life is a lot more work than talking tough in the days before an election. Voters are scared, they are angry, but very, very few, if any, are prepared to do anything more than issue 5,000-word Facebook rants. And though you may think Trump or Clinton may be a bad president, that's all either of them will be—a president, with all the restrictions and encumbrances that that office comes with. Here is how those restrictions would stop either one from transforming America into something unrecognizable.

If Hillary Clinton Wins

Starting with the more likely Election Day outcome first, a Hillary Clinton presidency would be hobbled from the start. Whoever wins the Oval Office, the House of Representatives is going to stay Republican, and that means it would be viciously hostile to Clinton, investigating her for every uncrossed "t" and stray "pls print" email and blocking every piece of Democrat-helmed legislation. Even with a slim majority in the Senate, Clinton would be basically restrained to advancing her agenda through the executive branch—and that would be hard when it comes to major issues like gun control and immigration reform.

On guns, "there's essentially nothing Clinton could do that would be legal that Obama hasn't done," said John Hudak, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Governance Studies program when I called him up. "The law is fairly clear about there being pretty stark limitations on what can be done around guns through the executive branch. It really requires Congress."

Immigration reform would similarly require congressional approval. The most Clinton could do, Hudak told me, is re-implement some Obama-era policies that were blocked by the courts in the hopes that a Supreme Court would uphold them this time around—if Clinton wins, she'll be able to fill the vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia's death, changing the high court's composition.

That ability to nominate justices will probably be Clinton's most important power. In that department, Hudak doesn't think obstructionist Republicans will be able to stop her, as some more moderate Senate Republicans, like Susan Collins of Maine most likely won't take part in an "all-out assault" on Clinton's judicial appointments.

The area where a president Clinton (or a president Trump) would be least restrained by Congress is foreign policy. That could mean that the US military becomes more involved in Syria, and it will definitely involve a continued campaign against ISIS. But though many doves and anti-interventionists on both the right and left worry about Clinton's documented hawkishness, no one thinks that increased presidential power when it comes to foreign policy (a decades-long trend) signals the end of democracy or anything like that.

If Donald Trump Wins

Trump would come into the White House with a far friendlier Congress than Clinton would, and the effects of his presidency shouldn't be minimized. He could withdraw America from the Paris Agreement on climate change. He could work with Republican legislators to repeal Obamacare, potentially depriving millions of Americans of insurance they have thanks to the Affordable Care Act. He could deport even more undocumented immigrants than Obama did. Trump's foreign policy is largely incoherent, but he would have the same powers to enact it that any president would.

"The wall is going to be an extraordinarily expensive consideration. Mexico is not going to pay for it, and the United States Congress isn't going to either."
–John Hudak

But let's not forget that eight years ago, Barack Obama took office with majorities in the House and Senate but faced incredible obstacles on the way to passing Obamacare. Trump is going to have similar problems when it comes to his signature policy of that big, beautiful border wall.

"The wall is going to be an extraordinarily expensive consideration. Mexico is not going to pay for it, and the United States Congress isn't going to either," Hudak said. Democrats will oppose the wall, and so will the Republicans who are in favor of comprehensive immigration reform or opposed to a massive expenditure.

"A lot of Trump's ideas that he has put out there are not just unpopular with Democrats, but they would be unpopular with a sufficient number of Republicans to give him a tough time," Hudak said.

Trump's other signature policy, the restriction of Muslim immigration, would be more doable, because as Hudak told me, "Presidents do have quite a bit of an ability to affect the rules regarding alien entry into the United States and the issuance of visas." Though a full-on ban on all Muslims entering the US might be unconstitutional, Trump's administration could likely find some less drastic option that wouldn't necessarily be struck down by the courts.

Trump would actually have an easier time then Clinton unilaterally enacting his immigration plans. "It is easier for a president to block people from entry than to change the rules around allowing people to enter," Hudak said.

Repealing Obamacare sounds easy, but gets harder when you have to tell voters what that means.

But achieving many of Trump's other goals is going to be tricky. Trump would appoint conservative Supreme Court justices, but justices tend to get more liberal with age—Republican appointees recently cast deciding votes in decisions upholding Obamacare and striking down the ban on gay marriage. A US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement would devastate international efforts to fight climate change, but it might also turn America into a "diplomatic pariah," according to the AFP. And repealing Obamacare sounds easy, but gets harder when you have to tell voters what that means.

"Republicans don't fully appreciate what the political fallout of repealing Obamacare will be," said Hudak. "People will be thrilled that Obamacare is repealed, and then furious that their 25-year-old kid is now off their insurance," among other broadly popular parts of the law that would disappear.

"When you do public opinion polling on this, everyone hates Obamacare, but they love a lot of the elements of it," Hudak added.

As Obama learned, having a Senate majority is only good for so much if you don't have the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. It's true that Republicans could enact a rule change with a simple majority that would wipe out the filibuster—Jonathan Chait of New York and other people think this will happen very soon, whoever wins on Tuesday.

That move—the "nuclear option," as it's known—would create a new level of hostility in the Senate, however, and the opposition party would have other tools to obstruct legislation. "Democrats could still slow things to a halt in the Senate if the filibuster were killed as much of Senate business proceeds with Unanimous Consent Agreements," said Hudak. "The party that killed the filibuster would come to regret it."

The final, worst-case scenario is that Trump would advance some unconstitutional policy conceived of during a late-night Twitter session (banning Muslims from owning guns, say), be blocked by courts, but refuse to abide by their ruling.

"Frankly, he's a man who throws a temper tantrum when he doesn't get his way," Hudak said. "We've had presidents like that before—Andrew Jackson was a president like that. He defied court orders. This is something that happens from time to time."

"The system works as well as it does because there are checks on powers, and there is an ability to deal with situations in which power is abused."
–Hudak

It'd be up to Congress to rein in a rogue president Trump. It could do that through censure, through denying funding to the unconstitutional program, or through impeachment. If everything breaks just exactly wrong, Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan may hold the future of the republic in his Crossfit-conditioned hands. But even if that future comes about and the three branches were engaged in open conflict, it wouldn't mean the end of democracy.

"In fact, it suggests that American democracy is working," said Hudak. "It's not a system that is without the ability for power to be abused. But the system works as well as it does because there are checks on powers, and there is an ability to deal with situations in which power is abused."

It's easy to get lost in the angry rhetoric this election has stirred up. But America has always been worried. Our politics has always been dirty. You may feel a chill when someone tells you that Clinton will take your gun, or when someone else tells you Trump will get us into nuclear war, but back in 1800, papers warned that if Thomas Jefferson were elected, "We would see our wives and daughters the victims of legal prostitution." Things are always darkest before Election Day.

"We look at the partisanship in our politics right now and the polarization between our parties, and we see a scenario where it almost seems like no Congress is going to push back hard against a president of the same party," Hudak said. "But in moments like those, where a president is very seriously disrupting the constitutional order, I think you'd be surprised at how quickly Congress stops being red and blue and starts being protectors of the republic."

Follow Harry Cheadle on Twitter.

Photo via Ville de Montréal

In 2014, sources in the Montreal police force brought journalist Patrick Lagacé one hell of a story: Mayor Denis Coderre, before being elected, had racked up a $444 ticket for not having his Jeep Cherokee's plates up to date. Upon entering Montreal city hall as its top elected official, he deep-sixed the ticket, the source claimed.

That story never made it to print, as Lagacé's sources couldn't come to a consensus over whether the ticket was paid. Coderre's office, meanwhile, insisted it was all paid up. But on Monday the episode emerged as the latest twist in a brewing controversy over the surveillance of journalists in Quebec—and the mayor of Montreal's possible role in part of it.

Lagacé himself detailed the ticket story in La Presse on Monday, offering it as an alternative explanation for why officers with the Montreal police had been keeping tabs on his incoming and outgoing calls and texts, and tracking his physical location. Up until now, the cops claimed they were monitoring Lagacé's contact with a police officer who was under investigation for a host of corruption-related offences.

In response, Coderre took to the airwaves later that morning, admitting in an interview with radio host Paul Arcand that he knew Lagacé had been poking around about his parking ticket, and that he had asked then police chief Marc Parent to look into how the information became public.

"It was not a request for an investigation," Coderre said. "This was for citizen Coderre. I asked Parent: is this legal?

"There is an distinction between political interference, saying: check into Lagacé, and saying, as a citizen, they're digging into my records," Coderre said. "It's Denis Coderre who was the victim in this affair," Coderre concluded.

Coderre's paranoia wasn't totally misplaced. The leaked ticket was just one of many unflattering stories that stemmed from the Montreal police in 2014. Coderre noted that, that same year, a source provided Le Journal de Montréal records which showed that Coderre's office requested officers escort him to a photo op with singer Corey Hart, which led to condemnation and ridicule from his opponents in city hall.

It's not just about Lagacé, though. At least seven journalists in Quebec have have been the subject of secret court-authorized surveillance by police. Six of those had been targeted by the provincial police force, the Sûreté du Québec, a spokesman confirmed last week.

Alain Gravel, one of Quebec's most distinguished investigative journalists, told Radio-Canada he felt "sick" over the whole affair. The province will be holding a public inquiry on how police deal with journalists.

Coderre, for his part, has resisted a city-wide inquiry, and opted for an internal investigation. He says he won't have a "public lynching" of Philippe Pichet, the current chief of police.

But Coderre was forced to defend his involvement after Lagacé, writing in La Presse on Monday, chronicled the whole history of the disappearing ticket.

When police sources came to Lagacé with copies of the ticket and screencaps of the police database—with a designation of "inexistant," or non-existent, next to the mayor's ticket number—he began to investigate.

Why did they talk to me? Because they didn't have confidence in the processes in place, at the SPVM. They believed that the leadership was too closed to political power, especially since Denis Coderre had become mayor," Lagacé wrote in La Presse. "They believed it was impossible that the SPVM could investigate itself on a matter that implicated the mayor. True, false? It was the perception."

Lagacé said that "inexistant" could mean a lot of things. The mayor might have ordered the ticket deleted, the unpaid ticket may have been proactively purged by a politically-savvy police force, or he may have paid it in full and the the antiquated computer system may have just returned an error.

Lagacé writes that "Denis Coderre cancelled one of his own traffic tickets, once elected." would be a pretty good story. But, he concludes: "Good stories, often, aren't."

Follow Justin Ling on Twitter.

Photo via HBO

WARNING: Did you read the headline? These might be serious spoilers, so tread lightly.

For many years, asshole readers of George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire could freely spoil the plot of Game of Thrones. But last season, the TV show surpassed the books they were adapted from, and suddenly TV fans could flip the table and spoil the—still somehow unwritten!—sixth book. Nowadays, you don't even have to bother reading gigantic fantasy tomes or watching hours of violent prestige TV to spoil Game of Thrones. You can just go to Reddit.

Last month, Reddit user awayforthelads posted a bunch of detailed plot leaks to the Game of Thrones speculation forum /r/FreeFolk. While HBO would never confirm whether they were true or false, several subsequent leaks—such as photos showing Jon Snow and the Mother of Dragons chilling out at Dragonstone—have confirmed at least some of the original spoilers. Plus, a lot of them track with my own speculations from earlier this year, so I'm going to say they must be true!

You can read the full list of spoilers on Reddit right now if you want, but here are some of the highlights:

—Jon Snow captures an undead wight and brings it to King's Landing to prove the existence of the White Walkers!

—Daenerys chills at Dragonstone most of the season, and eventually falls in love with Jon and bones him in the last episode as the Wall collapses!

—The Night King kills one of the dragons and turns it into an undead zombie dragon!

—Sansa finally gets sick of Littlefinger and her super assassin sister Arya kills him!

—Jorah gets cured of greyscale at Oldtown!

—Euron kills Yara's fleet, and Theon finally peaces out from all the crusty evil Viking Ironborn and reunites with Jon!

—Sam figures out that Jon is the rightful king (although Jon doesn't learn yet)!

There are lots of other tidbits too (Bran makes it back to Winterfell to reunite with his sisters, Cersei is pregnant, etc., etc.), and all of them seem pretty believable. Are they true? We'll have to wait until next year or for the next photo leak to know for sure.

Follow Lincoln Michel on Twitter.

Photo via flikr user nrkbeta

Admit it, you've downloaded something illegally.

We all have—downloading something illegally is almost a rite of passage in this day and age (at least until you discover a decent streaming site). From those of us old enough to remember Napster and Limewire to those little pirates riding the BitTorrent waves, we've all gotten our hands on some free content through the dark magic of the interweb.

It's not cool—pay for your music kids—but we've all done it.

READ MORE: I Hate How Much I Love 'Game of Thrones'

So, in order to try and stop the little hordes of pirates, the Canadian government brought in the Copyright Modernization Act several years ago. The act attempts to bring Canadian copyright law into the YouPorn era.

It all seems reasonable right? Well, Michael Geist, an author and founder of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, explains that within the act is something called the Notice and Notice Regime which came into force in early 2015.

"The basic idea behind can settle and make the case go away, many people feel pressured in that way to do just that," said Geist.

Under the Notice and Notice Regime the Internet Service Provider (ISP) is forced to send these notifications, which includes the strongly worded settlement offer. Meanwhile, the company sending the settlements don't even pay for the delivery of these notices since the ISP has to deliver them. ISPs have said they send out thousands of these notices daily.

At times it gets ridiculous. Recently, the CBC has reported, a company threatened a 86-year-old grandmother with the possibility of being sued for $5,000 after someone downloaded a video game from her unsecured internet.

A lot of the time people worried about being sued call the companies and settle up. The owner of CANIPRE, one of these companies, told the CBC that he gets hundreds of calls or emails a day with "most of them" settling.

The thing is though, the companies writing these settlement offers don't know who you are since the ISP does not release private information, they just know the IP address. Their business is based on people who don't really understand the situation getting frightened by the notice and settling.

Geist fully admits that the whole situation is messed up.

"I think that it's highly unethical to essentially scare someone into settling when you know full well that you don't know who they are and it is unlikely that you are going to follow through with a certain claim," he said.

He's hoping when the Copyright Modernization Act is reviewed in 2017, the government will change the wording in the act which could close the loophole that allows the companies to piggyback their settlement offer onto the notifications.

So, in the meantime, what do you do when the copyright boogeymen come knocking at your door?

Well, they don't know who you are, the government has stated you are under no obligation to settle and they are not likely to bring the case to court. So it's simple, you just straight up ignore them.

But to avoid this headache in the future you could, you know, just pay for your shit.

Follow Mack on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on VICE Romania.

Last week, about 5,000 people gathered on the streets of Bucharest to mourn the 64 people who lost their lives in the devastating fire in nightclub Colectiv one year ago.

On the night of October 30, 2015, the band Goodbye to Gravity decided to enhance its performance at Colectiv with pyrotechnics that were set off close to the stage. The flammable foam used to soundproof the venue caught fire, which quickly spread through the club, which at that moment housed about 400 people. The crowd fled to the only fire exit, trampling one another in their panic. At the same time, Romanian hospitals were unprepared to deal with the great number of patients coming in with complicated wounds.

Even though the club's owners were held responsible for the lack of safety measures, many Romanians see corruption within local authorities as the underlying cause of the fire—Colectiv and other venues like it were allowed to be open in dangerous circumstances. In the days after the fire, thousands of Romanians protested against corruption, which led to the resignation—and in some cases prosecution—of a few local and national politicians.

A year after the tragedy, I spoke to some victims of the Colectiv club fire to see how they are doing.

Alex Plingu, 27, Architecture Student

"I suffered second and third degree burns and was in hospital for two months. I was lucky enough to meet some really lovely staff members—the nurses would kiss me on the forehead when they took me into surgery and told me it would be OK. They slept about an hour every night.

Colectiv was one of the coolest places in downtown Bucharest. But in Romania, we're money hungry. In Colectiv, there wasn't room to properly flick a cigarette butt to the floor, because the owners wanted to sell drinks at a large bar. When you build a club, how hard is it to install a sprinkler installation on the ceiling? How expensive could that be? Especially when you think about how much they're asking for an overpriced beer and the entrance fee.

I made a video about my experience from the fire, and I got comments like, "You stepped over dead bodies just to get yourself out." Actually, I was at the bottom of the pile of people. When I got out, I tried pull an 18-year old boy out. We were both crying and burned raw. But I couldn't do it. I couldn't get him out. He died. Don't tell me I stepped over dead bodies."

Oprea Mariana (Tedy), 29, Architect

"I have second and third degree burns on 45 percent of my body. They transferred me to Vienna, where I woke up from my coma a month and a half later. Only people dressed from head to toe in slippers, masks, and smocks were allowed in my hospital room.

I had sepsis, lung issues, and my blood had to be drained. At some point, my kidneys gave in, but luckily I responded well to the cocktail of antibiotics they gave me. I can't tell you where I got the infections from. I could have gotten them in hospital in Romania, or they could've come from the floor of the club—I crawled around on the floor with my burnt arms. In Vienna, they told me I couldn't leave my room because my infections could've killed patients with a weakened immune system.

Before the fire, I wasted a lot of time worrying over things. This thing made me stand on my own two feet; it helped me move forward. When I enter a club now, I immediately check how many people are in there, where the emergency exits are, the stairs, the fire extinguishers. I was aware of those things before, but I never imagined something of this scale could happen.

I'm mostly pissed off by the hypocrisy of certain influential people, who believe that what happened was a sign from God—that we deserved it. I'd like people to understand that we're all guilty—the people who owned the venue and risked our lives, but also the people going to these venues and supporting them."

Alex Teodorescu, 23, Engineer and Musician

"Whenever I see photos from Colectiv, I feel sick. When you see someone who's burned, it's tough to know you were in there, next to them, but that you came out unscathed. We pushed and shoved one another to get out—it's a burden to know that some people got burned because of you.

When it was over, I felt totally empty. I didn't have the energy to do much. I could've died and have let someone else live instead. Perhaps they could have done more with their life. I felt I didn't want to be self-indulgent and have therapy—I pretended I was just fine. I didn't go out for about a month after the fire but that feeling slowly faded. I went back to the same kind of life I had before Colectiv. I go to the same clubs I went to before, because that's where they play the music I like. They have fire extinguishers now, and they don't let as many people in as they used to. The problem isn't the clubs—it's Romania itself. Everyone knows you can't make it here by opening a legal business."

Corina Gabriela Ioniță, 31, Civil Servant

"I have second and third degree burns on 40 percent of my body—my hands, arms, back, and left calf. In hospital in Bucharest, they changed my bed sheets and cleaned my wounds and bandages, but their care was lacking in some respects. My hair was blackened from the smoke, but they only washed it after a week. By that time, bits of my hair had broke off and stuck to the wounds on my back.

After more than a week in Elias hospital in Bucharest, I was transferred to a hospital in the UK. My lungs collapsed about a month after the fire, and I was put in a coma for a while. When they sent me home, they gave me a letter for the doctors at Elias to keep me under observation and start rehabilitation treatment. But the doctors at Elias told me there was no recovery department at their hospital—even though there is one—and that I had to look for a recovery clinic myself. They wished me luck, took a look at the wounds, and told me I was fine. The government said there was a plan to support the victims, but none of the hospitals knew what to do. I didn't even get medical leave from work for the time I was abroad.

I spent months going from one institution to the next trying to get what I deserved. I went to the National Health Insurance Agency countless times to file all sorts of requests. To get there, I'd ride on cabs with open wounds on my back."

Ionut Constantin, 21, Economics Student

"That night, while I was lying in a pile of people near the exit, I thought to myself, Wait, I'm 20, what's happening? I'm going to die, and I haven't really done anything with my life yet. I had a fractured rib and lesions in my back. But I was given a second chance. So in the months since I recovered, I've started to hit the gym properly—I used to weigh about 235 pounds—now I'm at like 190.

I don't think the club owners are to blame and the hospitals did all they could do in the circumstances. After the fire, everyone was careful for a while, but now we're back to acting just like before. Last month, I was banned from the Facebook page of a student club because I sent them some pictures proving that people were smoking in their venue—which is illegal.

People told me I should try to get some of the money the NGOs have raised. I haven't asked for or taken any compensation, and I don't want to, either. Other people have told me that I shouldn't speak up because I didn't actually get burned. I've tried to ignore them."

Cătălina Marin, 35, Finance Inspector

"I had third degree burns and grafts on my shoulder, back, and on my left hand. At the hospital, I wasn't admitted to the intensive care unit, but they covered me in a wool blanket. The cleaning lady there wiped the dust from our heads, and she used the same mop in the hallways as in our rooms. I was washed by my mother and the mother of the girl I shared the room with.

If one of my wounds would fester on a Saturday or Sunday, they couldn't do anything about it because the storage room was locked on those days. They had no supplies—no bandages, no creams. The response from people in Romania was wonderful, though. They gave us so much stuff during those first few days that we didn't know where to put it. They also brought us food, warm lunches for everyone. When I left the hospital near the end of November, I didn't know what to do—the wound on my back was still open, it was raw flesh. It closed in January.

Since the fire, I feel uncomfortable in crowded places, which is unfortunate since I work with 20 people in one room, in a building that looks like it could collapse at any point."

Source: NBC

Unless you're among the 12 percent of Brits who say they would vote for Donald Trump if we were allowed to participate in the US election, you're probably quite concerned that America might be about to turn into a pseudo-fascist state run by a billionaire demagogue. If you're a British Muslim, you might also be quite worried that you potentially won't be able to visit the US anytime soon.

These high stakes mean more Brits than usual will be staying up late and watching the American presidential election results come in on Tuesday night. If you're one of them, here's a few key things you should know.

HOW LATE WILL YOU HAVE TO STAY UP?

Unlike in British elections, Americans are happy to declare who has won states and even who will be president before all the votes have actually been counted. As the ballots are tallied the public are updated in real time as to how each candidate is doing, and it's the news networks that "call" a state for a certain candidate (they also sometimes get this wrong, as in the 2000 election). Sometimes you also have weird moments where Fox News has called a state for one candidate but CNN says it could still go either way.

In the last two elections, viewers in the UK have been relatively lucky. In 2008, Obama was declared president at 4AM UK time, but even by 2AM it seemed like McCain didn't have a clear path to the White House. In 2012, it was basically all over by 4AM, when Obama won Ohio, although there was some weird stuff where Republican strategist Karl Rove was on Fox News basically denying the result, and so that held things up a bit until 6AM, when Romney conceded the election.

This year, we might not be so lucky. Firstly, depending on which poll aggregation site you trust, this election looks like it could be closer than the last few. According to opinion poll analysis site FiveThirtyEight, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina are basically toss-ups, meaning they will have to count more votes before the states are declared, and may even have to recount votes if the result is very close. FiveThirtyEight reckon there's a nine percent chance that at least one state will have to recount votes.

The other thing is that while the networks can declare a winner whenever they feel they have enough information, the election isn't really over until the losing candidate concedes and the winning candidate gives a victory speech – and, as we know, Donald Trump may well call into question the whole bloody thing:

Networks will still be declaring states from midnight, so if it seems like it's going to be close it may be better to set your alarms for an early start rather than staying up all night.

WHERE CAN YOU WATCH IT?

Absolutely do not watch election night on the BBC. Their coverage is sober, considered and cautious – precisely the opposite of what you want from this. Instead, flick over to CNN, where they treat the whole thing like Minority Report and the Superbowl mixed together, with hysterical screaming graphics and a sense of panic among the hosts.

Just look at this nonsense:

If you know your way around a VPN it might also be worth checking out Showtime, where Stephen Colbert hosts a live election broadcast. VICELAND will have VICE News updates throughout the day, and we'll be live-blogging the whole thing on VICE.com.

LISTEN: How Has Britain Been Affected By The Rise Of Donald Trump?

THE "MATH"

There only two viable candidates for President, but unlike, say, the Brexit vote, the US election isn't just a headcount of how many people voted for each candidate. It's not a straightforward popularity contest.

Instead, they use the "electoral college" system, in which each state is appointed a number of votes (equal to the number of seats in Congress they have, plus two). So while California has 55 electoral votes, Montana has just three. There are 538 electoral votes overall, and so each candidate needs 270 to win. It's not proportional, though; if Trump wins Florida 51 percent to 49 percent, he gets all of Florida's votes. (There are a couple of states that have more complex systems, but don't worry about that right now – this is a quick how-to, not Year 9 Citizenship.)

Just as there are "safe seats" in UK elections, there are certain states where it's pretty much already certain who will win. Oklahoma, for example, has voted Republican for the last ten elections. So candidates are only really concerned about swing states, where the vote could go either way, meaning – on election night – you just want to look out for which way the swing states go.

You'll hear a lot of chat about "the path to 270", but that's just the different combinations of states that a candidate needs to win the election. So, for example, one of Clinton's paths to 270 involves her winning Florida as well as all the states she's predicted to win easily. But there's another path where she loses Florida but still wins Nevada, North Carolina, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

SWING STATES

There are a lot of different theories about which states are a "must win" for the different candidates, as there are lots of different routes to the White House. Most people agree that Florida, with its 29 electoral votes, is a must win for Trump. Others to look out for include Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina and Virginia, volatile states where there are a decent number of electoral votes. Some states, like Arizona and Texas, are expected to go for Trump, but there is a small chance that Hillary might win in each of those if there's a big Hispanic turnout. If that happens, the Republicans are really screwed.

WHAT ELSE IS GOING ON?

There are also races for the House (think the House of Commons), which the Republicans are very likely to keep control of, and the Senate (think the House of Lords, but way more powerful), which is too close to call. If Trump wins the election and the Republicans keep control of the Senate, it's a real end-of-days situation because they can basically rubber stamp all of Trump's Supreme Court nominations and it will be even easier for him to do whatever he wants. But let's worry about that on Wednesday.

@samwolfson

More on VICE:

Women Will Be the Ones to Save America from Trump

How Has Britain Been Affected By the Rise of Donald Trump?

The US Election Isn't 'Rigged,' but It's Going to Be Messy as Hell

Tracey Winbush, vice chair of the Mahoning County Republican Party. Photo by the author

Once again, Ohio is the center of the political universe. The perpetual swing state that decided the 2004 election could also serve an outsize role in 2016—it's a must win for Donald Trump, and a potential ingredient in a Hillary Clinton landslide. Most polls have Trump ahead, but it's close, and both candidates have been hitting the state hard and using A-list surrogates; as the campaign winds down, Clinton was in Cleveland with none other than LeBron James.

Just driving around gives you the sense that you're in the middle of a political battlefield. Campaign signs are posted in front of homes in affluent suburbs and working-class neighborhoods, inside empty lots, next to abandoned homes, and on street corners in crime-ridden areas.

Along with the ordinary name-calling and mud-slinging that comes with any election, this campaign has produced plenty of dark accusations, as well as actual violence. Trump has repeatedly called the election "rigged." A Republican field office in North Carolina was firebombed last month. Days later, a Democratic headquarters near Cincinnati had a giant pile of manure dumped outside of it by a self-described "hardcore" Republican. A Clinton rally featuring Jay-Z and Beyoncé last week was disrupted by a bomb threat.

But in northeast Ohio, the blue-collar and left-leaning section of the state that includes Cleveland, many voters believe the talk of intimidation and violence is just that: talk.

"Nationwide, I feel concerned about some violence from some Trump supporters... maybe a few fights here and there, but I don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Alfred Porter, president of Black on Black Crime Inc., a local community organization that focuses on social justice and anti-violence initiatives in the Cleveland area.

"Look, elections are emotional for people because they want the candidate they support to win," Porter added. "Cleveland has had some contentious times with the 137 shots and Tamir Rice cases. We even had the Republican convention here, and it was peaceful. I think any revolt or revolution will happen at the polls when people vote."

Other voters in Cuyahoga County who I spoke to were similarly unconcerned about potential violent clashes at the polls. But they did say that the negative tone of the campaign was taking a toll, and worried about some aspects of the process.

"I wasn't asked for my identification one time [while voting early]... and that bothers me," said Les Carrender, 47, of Olmstead Township. "I'm not saying there is a bunch of fraud out there going on, but I do think it is important for people to monitor the process."

Pat Thompson, 69, of Cleveland, is a Clinton supporter who went to vote early because she didn't want to wait in long lines on Tuesday. She's confident there won't be any violence, and definitely not from her side.

"I don't think it will happen," Thompson said. "We have some serious issues in this country, but I don't think we're going back to the days of Jim Crow. If anything were to happen, even if the Democrats lose, I think it will be isolated and come from Trump's people."

Ronnie Dunn, a professor of urban studies at Cleveland State University, said some of Trump's language at stump speeches has been divisive, and basically agrees with Thompson. "I don't think widespread violence will be manifested," Dunn told me. "We may have some overaggressive supporters, and I think they will come from the Trump side."

Tom McCabe is the deputy director for the Mahoning County Board of Elections, an area 70 miles southeast of Cuyahoga that usually goes Democrat but may switch over to Trump this time. Since the primary, the number of registered Republican voters has jumped from 19,000 to more than 36,000, with roughly 6,000 voters changing their party affiliation from Democrat to Republican, according to McCabe. He said though the political rhetoric has been toxic, things at the board of elections have been relatively peaceful.

Rick Suarez, 59, of Struthers, a town in Mahoning, has been a poll worker for five elections. He said Trump and Clinton supporters have been on their best behavior. "There hasn't been any talk of violence," Suarez told me. "No issues have come up at all, and everyone has been very cooperative."

Just as Clinton supporters worry about violence from the Trump camp, many Trump backers believe the stories about post-election violence are ginned up by the media to help Clinton get elected.

"People will be mad because they lost, but most people interested in this race are too old to fight," said Tracey Winbush, vice chair of the Mahoning County Republican Party. Winbush, who is African American, is a Trump supporter.

"The sensationalism of what some people would like to see and what is are two different things," Winbush said. "No one from our campaign is trying to go to jail or get hurt. That is just media hype."

As for the high-profile events with Jay Z and Beyoncé, Winbush dismissed them as a stunt that masked Clinton's problems. "This is a sign that she is struggling to get votes from minorities and millennials," Winbush said. "She is doing this to get out the black vote. African Americans will come to your house, eat your chicken, and even drink up all your beer, but that doesn't mean that we will vote for you.

"I know a lot of African Americans who say they will not vote for her. This is a sign that she is desperate and is losing in this state."

Protesters march against the CETA trade deal in Warsaw, Poland, on Saturday the 15th of October. (Photo: Alik Keplicz AP / Press Association Images)

The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement – or CETA, as it is commonly known – is a trade deal between Canada and the European Union. Britain will be subject to this until Brexit happens – which, of course, could be a long time yet.

Either way, CETA's been making some headlines recently; on the 14th of October, the massive trans-Atlantic deal was blocked by quite a small parliament – that of Wallonia, a region in Belgium. EU bureaucrats went nuts. They'd spent over seven years negotiating this thing and they weren't going to let a pissy little bit of regional democracy hold them back.

Günther Oettinger, the EU's commissioner for the digital economy, said that Wallonia was a "micro-region run by communists, which is stopping all of Europe. It's not acceptable." Oettinger has said worse recently: he was caught on camera calling Chinese people "slit eyes", making jokes about gay marriage and criticising Germany's welfare system for being too generous. Nice guy.

The European Commission's president, Jean-Claude Juncker, had to be told to "calm down" after he furiously chided Belgium, which he said "has to do some thinking about how it functions at an international level... We made an exception to this once because it's normally up to the regions to reach an accord first." Bad Belgium. You get a pass this one time, but if you don't do what Jean-Claude says, no one will talk to you at the ambassador's reception.

It seems that, childish as it was, Juncker's threat was heard. Last week, Wallonia caved and CETA was signed, meaning that it comes into force on a temporary basis. It has yet to be permanently ratified.

But what does this labyrinthine deal mean for those of us who aren't running international companies and don't spend our lives shouting at each other in Brussels?

The most controversial thing about CETA is probably its Investment Court System. This is a re-working of a mechanism called the investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS), which is pretty much what it sounds like: a way for businesses and governments to settle disagreements. The mechanism is included in a number of free trade deals. It's controversial because it has been used by companies like tobacco giant Philip Morris to sue governments that bring in legislation they don't agree with (as in Australia, where plain cigarette packaging was said by Philip Morris to harm its sales). So governments can be sued if their laws could cost big business big bucks.

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement – between Canada, the USA and Mexico – Canada has been sued 37 times, losing or settling eight claims.

CETA would increase the risk to the EU and its member states of challenges by Canadian investors in the mining and oil and gas extraction sectors. The deal also opens up the possibility of dirty tar sands crude oil being exported to Europe.

Activists who oppose CETA have done well drawing attention to its corporate, secretive nature. Canadian Prime Minster and heartthrob Justin Trudeau is savvy enough to realise this, and says things like "inclusive" and "progressive" when talking about CETA, saying the deal will create more opportunities for European and Canadian workers. He paid lip service to rising wealth inequality, insisting that CETA would work for everyone, not just the few. Moreover, he has said that CETA will not lower regulatory standards.

But while the deal will give European consumers the chance to buy cheap Canadian imports – and vice versa – it is unlikely to be good for our working lives.

READ – Nigel Farage to Britain's Youth: Fight the Power Like the French Communists of May '68

For a while, Romania looked like it might be the fly in CETA's ointment. The country was lobbying hard to get freedom of movement between the EU and Canada included in CETA. Hats off for trying, lads. But the Romanian dream of moving to the suburbs of Toronto to work in a maple syrup factory raises an important point: in these deals, capital always trumps labour. Your job can be moved to wherever the cheapest workers can be found, but that doesn't mean you can move to where the work is.

If you're an EU worker, you can't move to Canada without meeting the same old criteria, but cheap Canadian imports can threaten the company you work for or the industry you work in, to the point where you lose your job. You could work in the NHS and find that what you do is going to be outsourced to a Canadian service provider. For ordinary people, all that lovely free trade often amounts to nothing more than the freedom to have your job outsourced to some other part of the world.

This is something that Donald Trump has honed in on. NAFTA and the devastation it has wrought on the lives of working Americans is a drum Trump has banged ever since he got his nightmarish show on the road last year. A favourite video of his shows an executive from Carrier, a company that makes air conditioners, telling a factory of American workers that their jobs are being moved to Mexico.

It has taken over seven years for the EU and Canada to get to a point where their territories are on the point of becoming one single marketplace, a zone through which capital can move freely without being taxed (and here is another point: what will replace that tax?).

The length of negotiation hardly bodes well for Brexit fans who want to get out of the EU, particularly with recent developments in the British High Court. Moreover, Europe's top officials have shown how hostile they are to anywhere like Wallonia that dares defy the free market status quo. If CETA creates jobs, they're unlikely to be the jobs you want. It might give you the chance to buy some cheap products – fine. But if it gives companies the power to do things that are not in the public good, if it gives those same companies the chance to move jobs away to where the work is cheapest, well then that's a problem.

@oscarrickettnow

Everything you need to know about the world this morning, curated by VICE.

Photo via TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/Getty Images

US News

Clinton Holds Poll Lead as Voting Begins
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has a 70 percent chance of winning the election and becoming president, according to the latest models by forecasters at FiveThirtyEight. (The latest New York Times forecast pegged her chances at 84 percent.) Several of the final national polls give Clinton a small but steady lead over Donald Trump, including a Fox News poll that shows her leading 48 to 44 percent.—FiveThirtyEight

NYPD Heightens Security for Election Day
The New York Police Department is putting around 5,000 officers on the streets today, way more than usual for Election Day. Security has been ramped up in part because both candidates are expected to spend election night in New York City, which is unusual. Officials said there were no credible or specific threats from ISIS.—ABC News

Group Honoring FBI Director Has Board Members Tied to Trump
FBI director James Comey was feted with a lifetime achievement award from the Federal Drug Agents Foundation on Monday, a group with board members that have personal connections to Donald Trump. The award was issued after Comey became a national punching bag for his role in the Clinton email saga.—AP

CIA Identifies Psychologists Behind Torture Program
The CIA has revealed the names of two Air Force psychologists credited as the architects of its post-9/11 torture program. Dr. Bruce Jessen and Dr. James Mitchell were identified in a 2005 report examining the death of Afghan militant Gul Rahman, according to documents obtained by VICE News in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.—VICE News

International News

Russia Bans US Election Monitors
The Russian Foreign Ministry has informed US authorities that diplomats from Washington won't be permitted to monitor Russian elections in the future. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the decision was a reaction to interference with Russian efforts to monitor the US presidential election.—Reuters

More Than 7,000 Killed in Yemeni Civil War, Says WHO
At least 7,070 people have been killed and 36,818 wounded in Yemen's civil war since it began almost two years ago, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Concerned about a "critical shortage" of doctors, the WHO also warned that more than half of medical facilities in Yemen were only partially functioning or had shut down entirely.—Al Jazeera

Samsung Offices Raided in Corruption Investigation
South Korean prosecutors investigating the political scandal engulfing President Park Geun-hye raided the offices of technology giant Samsung. Investigators were said to be examining allegations that Samsung helped fund equestrian training for the daughter of Choi Soon-sil, Park's confidante. —BBC News

British Banker Found Guilty of Hong Kong Murders
A Hong Kong jury has found British banker Rurik Jutting guilty of murdering two Indonesian women. The bodies of Sumarti Ningsih, 23, and Seneng Mujiasih, 26, were found mutilated in his apartment in November 2014. Jutting faces multiple mandatory life sentences (to be served concurrently) in Hong Kong.—CNN

Everything Else

Chance the Rapper Takes Fans to Polls
After finishing his show in Grant Park in Chicago on Monday night, Chance the Rapper marched with hundreds of people to the polls for early voting. The "Parade to the Polls" event was aimed at millennial voters, though Illinois is virtually certain to go for Hillary Clinton.—ABC News

US Astronaut Votes in Space
Astronaut Shane Kimbrough has cast his ballot from the International Space Station, 250 miles above Earth. According to NASA, Kimbrough voted via a "secure electronic ballot," a procedure established for astronauts back in 1997.—New York Magazine

Live Snake Terrorizes Passengers Aboard an AeroMexico Flight
Passengers on an AeroMexico flight lost their cool when a snake was spotted hanging from an overhead luggage compartment this weekend. The plane was given priority landing in Mexico City before animal control workers took the serpent away.—The Guardian

Online Gamblers Go All In on Clinton Win
More bets were placed in favor of a Hillary Clinton victory in the past 24 hours than in all of October at the British betting site Sporting Index. "Almost no one has been backing Trump in the last 24 hours," said a company spokesman.—Motherboard

Foreign Greens Think US Greens Should Ditch Jill Stein
International Green politicians think the US Green Party could have more success with a different leader. Balthasar Glättli, a Green Party member of the Swiss National Council, said some of presidential candidate Jill Stein's views are "delusional."—VICE

Real-Time Turnout Results Available Throughout Election Day
VICE News is providing live updates on which voter groups are turning out, and how things stand in the key swing states, thanks to a partnership with data firm VoteCastr and Slate. "We are the guys doing the play by play," said VoteCastr's Ken Strasma.—VICE News

Watch: VICE News' Live Election Coverage

All photos by author

A few days ago, after anguishing over my most recent credit card statement, I began to think about the ways I could better handle my money. Aside from deciding to Uber less, and pledging to buy groceries instead of ordering takeout, I also made a folder for receipts and paycheques—which I labelled "TAXES AND SHIT"—so that, when it comes time, I can hopefully file my own tax returns and get some solid money back.

I know I'm not the only financially dysfunctional student out here—almost all of my friends, whether they're 18 or 28, have no fucking clue how to manage their money. After all, tax returns and RRSPs aren't taught in Canadian high schools—which is why a new petition from a member of the City of Toronto's Youth Cabinet pushing for that very thing to happen is so appealing. Who doesn't wish they learned about some of life's toughest bureaucratic bullshit before they had to deal with said bureaucratic bullshit?

But how misinformed are today's students? Being that November is financial literacy month in Canada, I figured I would spend a day going around Toronto's Ryerson University to find out. Here's the results (they're not pretty).

Syed Ali
18
Graphic Communications

VICE: Do you know how to file a tax return?
Ali: No idea. I've thought about it, but I don't have enough knowledge myself, so I usually get help from my parents.

Do you keep any of your receipts?
I do.

For everything, or just some stuff?
Definitely bank receipts, or things that have to do with work, like paycheques. Those are important things so I hold onto them in case I might need them, but something like going to a store? I wouldn't hold onto it.

Are you aware of RRSPs?
No, I've heard about it, but I don't know what it actually is.

OK. Do you have a retirement plan?
No, not at the moment.

Do you consider yourself financially smart?
No, because I know things like how my paycheque works and how I'm spending income, but I don't know what's coming out of my paycheque, or how taxes work, or how that's going to affect me in the future.

Does it frighten you that you're not very educated on financial plans and taxes?
Yeah, it does frighten me. A lot.

Danielle Roncato
23
Arts and Contemporary Studies

VICE: What's your job outside of school?
Roncato: I work as a server at Jack Astors.

How do you budget your money?
I rely on my money as a server to both go to school and live. I try to only live on my tips, and bank my wages. That's the only way I can actually find a way of saving money.

Have you filed a tax return before?
I have not. My parents have helped me with my taxes, but I don't ever touch that.

Doesn't that kind of worry you?
Absolutely. It's terrible. I'm 23, I should know what's going on with my money. I should always know about what's going on.

What about retirement?
No, I have no idea.

An RRSP?
No, oh my god. Something to do with retirement? I have no idea.

Yeah, it is. Why do you feel like you don't know about these things?
It's terrifying. I feel like I should have been taught through school, but I also feel like I should take some responsibility and teach myself. I don't know. It's scary.

Matthew Davoodi,
21
Photography

VICE: Do you budget your money?
Davoodi: Yeah, I have to. I used to live alone, but now I have a roommate, so if I don't, I can't pay rent.

But are you good at it?
I think so! I basically just see what I need and don't need. If it's necessary, I take care of that, if it's not necessary, it definitely goes on the backburner, and then I just work from there.

Have you ever filed a tax return?
Yep, I have. Some of my work is contract, so I have to.

Really?
Well, I have a filing cabinet, so I just keep everything organized that way. I don't have too many things that go into it, so it's not too hard to manage.

Compared to most students, that sounds incredibly organized. Do you have plans for retirement already?
I've thought about it. I don't have a job that would be conducive to that yet, and there are savings, but they're for more immediate things. I don't an RRSP.

You sound financially smart.
No, I think I'm pretty stupid. I've made some risks that lost me some money, but now I'm just floating. I'm still learning. I've learned a lot from mistakes.

Asha Bajracharya
21
Arts & Contemporary Studies

VICE: Do you work right now?
Bajracharya: I don't actually. I did during the summer, but once school started, I kinda wanted to focus on that. It's my last year so I wanted to commit.

How do you budget without income?
I'm not the greatest budgeter. My mom thankfully takes care of my rent and basic living expenses, so I'm very fortunate in that sense.

So have you ever filed a tax return?
I have, in the past, but not by myself. My mom is an accountant so she really guides me through a lot of things like that.

That's interesting to hear.What about retirement plans?
Not really. I have a (TFSA) that I've had since I was a kid, so that's been accumulating through the years, but for retirement? I haven't thought too much about that. I probably should.

How much has your mom been an influence on your financial knowledge?
She's kind of instilled in me from a young age to prioritize how I would spend my money and not spend my money on everything. I feel like there are a lot of things that I don't know about finance that I think I should—especially as a young person in Toronto.

Are you actually good at saving money?
No, not at all. As a student, it's hard! Like, do you go out, or do you buy food? It's a difficult playing field, because you want to enjoy your experience as a university student.

Travis Weninger
20
New Media, Formerly Business

VICE: So, you lost your wallet a few nights ago while drunk?
Weninger: Yeah, there was like $30, but everything was in there: debit cards, credit cards, student cards. Now I have to replace all of those.

Great place to start. Have you ever filed your taxes? Do you even think about it?
No. My parents usually take care of it for me.

Your parents give you a budget. Do you stick to it?
Kind of. My parents give me money every two weeks, because I'm not working right now since I'm trying to focus on school, but I just spread that out as much as I can.

Where do you usually fuck up?
Clothing, shopping, eating out. Stuff like that.

You don't think about retirement at all, do you?
I do, a little bit. I'm only 20.

Does that worry you at all—that you might be older and go, "Oh shit, I should have planned this earlier"?
Yeah, I think it's going to hit me when I have a . I mean, who wants to work until they're 70?

Do you feel like you're financially smart?
I think I have a pretty good understanding how taxes work, but it depends, sometimes impulse purchases—shoes, clothes—stuff that is really disposable.

Off that point, do you keep any of your receipts?
Not really.

You know you can use a lot of receipts for necessities and get tax returns on them at the end of the year, right?
Are you serious? I had no idea. told us about that.

Keaton Conn
21
Business Management

VICE: You've filed a tax return before?
Conn: Yep. It was tricky, I felt super unprepared, but my finance minor definitely helped me.

Do you feel like you were prepared to be an adult and do taxes before university?
No, and I don't think I would have without . A lot of the courses I take in business don't even prepare me.

Have you thought about retirement at all?
Absolutely. I have an RRSP, a TFSA, and I have investment in stocks, so I just want to keep on top of those and build my equity.

Jesus Christ. I bet you budget well.
Yeah, I have a line of credit I take out—it's $10,000 a year, and I try to stick below $150 a week. That's everything: transit, food expense—you know, I pack a lunch when I can. I was blessed enough to have my first two years paid for through the jobs that I worked and saved my money from.

It sounds like, more than anybody I've spoke to, you know how to save your money and you know how finances work. Do you feel like a lot of people are clueless when it comes to those things?
Absolutely. I know, in the business management program, there's only two courses that Unless you go that specific route, you're not gonna get that kind of knowledge.

I think, honestly, the best way to do it would to take finance majors from schools and have them teach kids in high school everything they need to know five years down the road: take out a loan, pay off a credit card, deal with student student, and, you know, do your taxes. Usually, they'll have to someone a couple thousand dollars to do these services for them, when really, they should know how to do it themselves.

Follow Jake Kivanc on Twitter.

"People keep saying there is virtually no voter fraud in America," a petite, dark-haired woman tells me over a soda at the Quickway Diner in Bloomingburg, New York. "Really?" she shrugs. "I guess they haven't been up here."

Like many who live in and around this tiny (population just over 400) rural village nestled in the Shawangunk Mountains north of New York City, the woman is reluctant to use her name when talking local politics. After all, those who speak out critically about what's going on here have a history of getting dragged into court. But the woman is far from alone in her anger and exasperation over an ugly battle pitting longtime residents against a developer some locals say has spent years plotting to refashion the place as a sort of private city.

The saga playing out in Bloomingburg shows how allegations of voter fraud—which are so often baseless and clearly designed to target minorities—can wreak havoc on a community. And when the playing field is a local one and the voting pool is tiny, even a few questionable votes are enough to shatter confidence in the system.

The ongoing furor over voting in Bloomingburg first erupted during the lead-up to a village election almost three years ago, when people some residents claimed had never been seen around town—let alone lived in it—began registering to vote. Established residents alleged that many of the places these new arrivals said they called home were in fact empty. Registration challenges were submitted to the Sullivan County Board of Elections, which investigated and deemed the challenges valid.

Almost all the new residents were Hasidim, members of a branch of Orthodox Judaism with adherents who follow a strict interpretation of Jewish law, speak Yiddish, and eschew engagement with the secular world. Since the late 1970s, facing an affordable housing crunch, Hasidim have been expanding from their Brooklyn base to settle villages in the counties north of New York City. They typically vote in a bloc, which has enabled them to wield outsized political influence in the state.

According to court testimony of a Sullivan County election commissioner, some new Hasidic voters in Bloomingburg didn't seem to know what street they lived on or what county they were in. And all of the newly registered voters claimed to inhabit buildings owned by a developer, Shalom Lamm, who had acquired property in the town of Mamakating, where Bloomingburg is located.

Back in 2006, according to a confidential retention agreement since revealed in court, the developer used a local as a frontman to persuade officials to annex his property into Bloomingburg. Lamm's agent publicly claimed the land would become a low-density, luxury weekend golf-course community. But in a confidential 2013 business proposal unsealed by a federal judge, Lamm discussed "secret" plans to remake it as a "complete Hassidic/Torah community with all of its support facilities." The developer also projected that, "With the initial occupancy of these homes, the owners... will effectively control the local government, its zoning and ordinances."

He estimated that the project would eventually come to comprise 5,000 to 7,000 units.

At the time, Lamm's spokesperson Michael Fragin said allegations of impropriety reeked of anti-Semitism and that the business proposal was little more than a sales pitch designed to appeal to Hasidic buyers. But documents that only came to light this year through discovery in a recently settled religious discrimination complaint make it clear electing village officials was a key part of the developer's strategy. (Lamm won a $2.9 million settlement in that suit, paid by the insurers of Mamakating and Bloomingburg.) In one email to his partner revealed in the same discovery process, Lamm wrote of having "GUARANTEED to election if he agrees to run, and agrees in advance to work for the annexations and zoning changes."

After that 2014 mayoral election, a citizen-funded complaint sought to have the votes of 148 challenged registrants sequestered until they could prove their residency. Lamm, who along with several family members claimed residency in Bloomingburg, alleged anti-Semitism and went to court. But after he and other challenged voters were subpoenaed to give proof of their residency, not one showed up. Lamm withdrew from the case in what he claimed were the "long-term interests" of Bloomingburg—a village, he said, "where I continue to reside and where I hope to continue to be a positive force for change."

A stunned judge called the registration effort "an attempt to stuff the ballot box," reproaching the developer's attorney, "If there's anything worse than anti-Semitism, it is the false accusation of anti-Semitism."

The challenged votes were left uncounted and Lamm's preferred mayoral candidate lost.

But that wasn't the end of Bloomingburg's electoral struggles. Tensions flared up again later that year in the wake of a referendum to dissolve the village and place it under the direct jurisdiction of Mamakating—which could have major implications for future development. In that election, a coalition of town residents challenged 194 voter registrations, including those of some voters who had been challenged in the previous one. After a protracted legal battle, disputed ballots were counted, and, as a result, the village remained its own municipality.

The following year, after another round of accusations and counter-charges, pro-Lamm Board of Trustees candidate Aron Rabiner beat an incumbent by just nine votes when contested registrants once deemed ineligible by elections officials had their votes counted anyway.

Check out this VICE News Tonight look at the lead-up to Election Day in the critical battleground state of North Carolina.

In the midst of the electoral and legal chaos, 27 Hasidic Bloomingburg residents filed a federal lawsuit charging the Board of Elections with engaging "in an unyielding discriminatory campaign to deprive Hasidic Jewish residents of Bloomingburg... of the fundamental right to vote." Mamakating and Bloomingburg officials, in turn, called upon New York State's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, to investigate what they believed to be election fraud. So far, Schneiderman does not appear to have responded publicly, though the FBI has maintained a presence in the area since agents carried out a raid of several of Lamm's properties in 2014.

In February of this year, the Sullivan County Legislature settled the discrimination lawsuit by consent decree "in order to avoid the substantial expense and inconvenience" of further litigation. While the decree said the Board of Elections had used an impermissible procedure for handling the challenged votes, it did not alter any of the board's prior voter eligibility determinations—and it did not address the underlying question of whether the voters actually lived in the village they said they did.

The decree also mandated an election monitor to oversee registration challenges in Bloomingburg for the next five years, depriving the board of the power to act independently. It further entitled a voter whose challenge is upheld to argue that the board acted in an "arbitrary or discriminatory" manner.

When contacted for this story, Fragin—the Lamm spokesman—said of his client's written guarantee about the 2014 mayoral election, "At worst, it was in-artful language." Fragin added via email, "Mr. Lamm vehemently denies that he participated in any voter fraud in connection with any election in Bloomingburg. No charges have been filed against anyone in this regard, and we believe that any such charges would be unfounded."

Meanwhile, some locals—including those who don't live in Bloomingburg proper—fear the consent decree's provisions could effectively stave off future challenges and encourage electoral mayhem in the area.

"The voter fraud in Bloomingburg was blatant, hostile, and proven," argued area resident John Kahrs. "Amazingly, it went un-prosecuted because of the political influence of special interests."

While cautioning that he had not reviewed the document, University of California at Irvine election law expert Rick Hasen said he was unaware of another consent decree like the one in Bloomingburg. "On the one hand, a town that is concerned that its character is going to fundamentally change by... bringing in people who can vote and essentially change the government," Hasen said. "And on the other hand, you have the right that people can generally live where they want and participate in the political process the way anyone else does."

The locals I canvassed claimed not to disagree with any of that. And they also expressed what seemed like a genuine desire to have good relations with the Hasidim who have taken up residence there. But many also believe they have been the victims of voter fraud, and remain concerned about what this saga portends not only for Bloomingburg, but for other small villages like theirs around the country.

Follow Hella Winston on Twitter.

File photos of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. Photos via CP

In an unprecedented move following a front-page tabloid story linking his girlfriend to a porn website, Prince Harry has released a statement, blasting the press's coverage of his relationship with the Toronto-based actress.

Someone preparing black tar heroin for injection. Photo WikiCommons user Psychonaut, via

This post originally appeared on VICE UK

The War on Drugs is, to some extent, a war on the survivors of childhood physical and sexual abuse. This is not an easy idea to accept, but in the conversation I am having it seems inescapable. I'm speaking to Sarah, a former addict and sex worker, who is absolutely clear that she used heroin to self-medicate in order to cope with the aftermath of horrific abuse. Quite simply, "nothing else worked."

This, of course, is not to say you should start self-medicating with heroin—or any other harmful illegal drugs, for that matter. Causing yourself physical damage to mitigate the effects of psychological damage is best avoided wherever possible. But it is a pattern a lot of people appear to fall into, and many choose much less harmful substances, such as cannabis or psychedelics.

Sarah has long since left heroin behind and is about to begin post-graduate research project into issues around trauma and addiction. She sends me a series of studies in which around 67.5 percent of the problematic drug users surveyed reported childhood physical or sexual abuse, and insists I note that these studies have been replicated over 20 times. The figures need to be taken seriously.

But beyond childhood trauma, the sheer scale of people who use illegal drugs to self-medicate goes much further and much deeper. When I started putting the word out that I was exploring this, the response was overwhelming. The stories speak for themselves, but the problem is clear: there is an arbitrary line drawn between certain chemicals, meaning some can be used to treat illness, while some cannot. At a stroke, entire classes of people simply trying to manage extreme pain or chronic illness are turned into criminals.

In fact, the problem goes even deeper. Not only are suffering people criminalized and denied effective treatment, but researchers are blocked from even investigating the therapeutic potential of banned drugs.

I spoke to Amanda Fielding of the Beckley Foundation, which has conducted several successful experiments on the therapeutic power of psychedelics, but constantly struggles against legal obstacles. "It is a disgrace that these compounds, which have such immense potential to treat illness and alleviate suffering, are scheduled in a category which makes it impossible for doctors to prescribe them, and extremely difficult and expensive to undertake scientific research," she said.

It's a near impossible point to argue against. A government that deliberately keeps its citizens in pain, and actively blocks research into potential cures for their suffering, has lost its claim to moral authority. Each one of the people interviewed below is a criminal, for no other reason than trying to be well when they are ill.

Jamie, in his forties, uses psychedelics for his PTSD

My PTSD crept up on me, resulting from experiences at a previous job that I can't discuss in detail. It got to the point where memory-specific anxiety cut through my every waking thought and I was staying awake almost all the time.

Anti-depressants helped in their way. They numbed the effect, but never resolved anything. Psychedelics, though, helped me to actually explore my mental illness. In particular, the chemical 4-AcO-DMT was life changing. This is similar to psilocybin in magic mushrooms, but offers a deeper introspection about one's emotional state. Over six different trips I explored the damage that had been done to my emotional stability. It was like unknotting scar tissue and re-finding my inner confident self. I very actively "thought myself better."

If I was asked for evidence of the near miraculous extent of my improvement, I could easily sit down with therapists and psychiatrists and explain in great detail the thought processes that made me well. Unfortunately, the misunderstandings about psychedelics, brought about by a drug policy that is not evidence-based, holds back scientific exploration of such potential therapies.

Sarah, in her thirties, used heroin and now uses psychedelics to help her deal with childhood abuse

I was physically and emotionally abused by my father from about 18 months old, and sexually abused by another man between the ages of five and ten.

I tried many coping mechanisms—heroin was the one that worked. I began using at about 14, then stopped, then became badly addicted again from about 18 to 20. Heroin got rid of the nightmares, helped me sleep, and made it easier to live—in the lack of other support. Even now I believe support isn't truly available; the people who study and treat trauma haven't gone through it themselves.

I was undiagnosed manic depressive and bipolar. The benefit of heroin was that if I used a very specific amount, with a specific amount of dex-amphetamine, then my mood was balanced. I got quite scientific with it—down to the milligram.

Since I stopped using those drugs, I've been prescribed just about every anti-psychotic and SSRI going. They have a sledgehammer effect: they flatten you. You survive, but you're too tired, too drained, and too heavy to actually deal with anything. On the other hand, using psychedelics like psilocybin and 4-AcO-dmt has been a much more constructive experience, and has enabled me to begin working through my past in a really profound way. This has really helped me get to where I am now—I've just got a first in my degree, and am about to continue into post-graduate study.

Tim, in his thirties, uses cannabis for his glaucoma

I smoke weed every day to stop myself from going blind.

I've got glaucoma, which is an old person's disease. You usually get it when you're, like, 70, but I first developed it at 14. I went to see the specialist with my very conservative, white middle-class mother. At that time there was a story on EastEnders where Dot Cotton had glaucoma, and someone on Albert Square made her some weed tea for it. So my specialist was like, "Tim, have you been watching EastEnders? You know that's alright?" *wink wink*

They usually medicate glaucoma with beta blockers, but you develop immunity and they have to keep changing the dosage. It gets really dramatic—they always want to operate, but I don't let them.

I don't particularly want to smoke weed every day—I'm not a stoner. But I have no choice with my sight. Getting high every night is actually quite boring. I'm lucky to have a dealer who doesn't sell me massively powerful skunk. In a lot of countries, like the States, I'd be prescribed weed—but here I'm a criminal. It's really backwards—especially how all my doctors know, but we all have to pretend it's not happening. It's pathetic, really.

Martha, in her twenties, uses cannabis and amphetamines for her OCD

Photo: Andoni Lubaki

My diagnosis changed from generalized anxiety disorder to OCD a couple of years ago, but I'd always known there was an obsessive disorder. I've had intrusive thoughts and some small tics for a while. More generally—like lots of others—I medicate with alcohol, though I find hangovers are bad for the anxiety. Smoking marijuana avoids the day-after crash.

Alcohol blanks out anxiety, but blanks out a lot of other things, too. Marijuana doesn't wipe out the repetitive thoughts, but it does allow me to stop feeling like I need to control them—it gives me a sort of negative capability I otherwise find quite difficult.

I'm sensitive to strobe lights because of the OCD. If I'm going somewhere with strobes I'll take amphetamines so they don't bother me. That's quite minor, but I wouldn't be able to stay without them.

I've taken valium in the past, but don't any more—I find it too easy to get hooked. The main reason I tend to opt for illegal over prescription drugs is that, crazily, it's much easier, quicker, and less traumatic. If I want a prescription, I have to take time off work, get an appointment with a doctor—which is difficult enough—justify it to a doctor, then trek to a pharmacy. If I want to buy weed or amphetamines I could make a call and have them within an hour. No need to explain to anybody that I'm having trouble getting bad thoughts out of my head, or can't stop clicking my fingers, or can't look upwards that day because I'm worried about having a stroke.

Winston, in his thirties, uses psychedelics to help deal with childhood abuse

Following my father's suicide at age two, my mother remarried and I suffered physical and sexual abuse for 12 years. As a result, I was shipped between special educational institutions and was a regular with child psychiatry, police, foster, and social services. I started self-harming at nine, using it as a means to control and regulate my hormones and other brain chemistry.

As an adult, I have been diagnosed with PTSD, Type 2—prolonged; depression; anxiety; and borderline personality disorder, mixed. I've spent eight years being passed from pillar to post within the psychiatric sector, each doctor prescribing more SSRIs and anti-psychotics, without really seeking to understand the underlying causes of my conditions.

About three years ago I started intermittently microdosing LSD and psilocybin—about 50 micrograms per-day for a week or so. The effects were astonishing. I began researching—reading everything I could on the subject, and experimenting on myself. In a very short time I found I was able to stabilize my life entirely. I wasn't self-harming as much, or feeling the desire to do so. I was eating regularly and sleeping every day. I was able to socialize again and beginning to rediscover positive emotions and associations.

I now take acid or psilocybin every month, or five to six weeks, in a ritualized manner, or whenever I feel my psyche slipping back into that negative mindset. I don't take it as a "party drug," but something far more akin to a shamanistic or therapeutic use.

John, in his thirties, uses cannabis to treat his chronic pain and ME

Photo: Jake Lewis

I have had chronic, crippling pain for as long as I can remember. When you're a child you don't even realize that this is abnormal—that other kids don't suffer in this way. But it definitely marks you out.

When I was about six my doctor began prescribing Co-codamol, a powerful painkiller made from the opiate codeine. I used Co-codamol to manage my pain, and the ME I was eventually diagnosed with, for years. Inevitably I built a tolerance. It got to the point where I was taking 30 tablets a day just to get through. I know this has taken a toll on my internal organs. I live in the constant knowledge that one day it will be problems with my kidneys or liver that gets me, as a result of the damage done by the long-term use of prescription meds.

Discovering cannabis in my mid-twenties was a complete revelation. It's what allows me to get through the day. There is no doubt that cutting down the prescription pills is giving me a longer, better life. But because cannabis is illegal, it makes things very complex for my family, friends, and partner—no matter how supportive everyone is. I think the fact that managing my condition makes me criminal in this country is not just wrong, it is actually sick and inhumane.

If you or someone you know is dealing with issues brought on by childhood abuse and would like support, visit SafeHorizon's website.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau answers a question during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on November 2, 2016. Photo by CP/Adrian Wyld

A number of federal departments, including Canada's spy agency, have been careless with classified or secure government documents.