Longknife

Quote me. Go find the quote that suggests this. You're being blatantly dishonest. I said you look ****ing ridiculous trying to tell someone who actually knows people who once worked for the Clinton Administration that he's misinformed about the Clintons while you simultaneously imply that you, a person who isn't even from the USA, knows better. The discussion was never "who will win," because the very post I made preceding my post addressing you implies the exact opposite: I stated I hope the FBI nails her so we don't have to deal with her, again implying she's likely to win on the Democratic side. Likewise, once again you prove incapable of making actual tangible arguments. You continue to only point at others while you can't defend your own stances worth a damn. I asked you to state why on earth you choose to support Hilary, and here you are once again changing the subject. For someone who claims to be so informed, you offer very little. I would think that anyone heavily knowledgeable about politics would want to educate as many people as possible so they vote the "correct" way, but you seem to act as though your reasons for supporting her are some really big secret that dare not be leaked. Perhaps I was mistaken. Perhaps you support her not because you're oblivious to how frequently she's dishonest, but rather you yourself can relate to a dishonest person. LK I'm not angry with you ....just annoyed You have a problem where somehow you think being rude is fine and even though sometimes I am condescending have I ever been rude to you? Yes you clearly implied as someone outside the USA I am uninformed ...you said " Surely a random asswipe in South Africa is far more educated in these matters than " End of the day you can make the exact same points without the personal attacks? And the sad part is clearly no one you respect has ever said to you " dude ...tone down the insults " Yes, I am very rude to people who are a blatant dead weight in a debate, let alone a debate that's regarding the future of a nation and you seem to treat it more as "I need to win this argument on the internet" rather than "this is actually important." Yknow why I'm rude? Because you deserve it. A debate should be a chance for people to discuss issues back and forth and highlight which facts are true, which are false and where the candidates stand on a multitude of matters, with the goal being that ALL parties involved in a debate will walk away from it feeling more informed and better qualified to cast their vote. It's not about winning, it's not about picking a side and doing ANYTHING to prove that side superior even if the debate proves your initial side may be lacking, it's about progress. You never back up your stances. You never answer questions when challenged. You never add ANYTHING meaningful to ANY debate on this website. You sit on the sidelines...who am I kidding, you sit smack dab in the middle. The sidelines is where you SHOULD be, but you always act as though you have something meaningful to say. You sit in the center of every debate making worthless, empty passive aggressive comments while providing nothing of real weight or value. And then about once a month, someone calls you out on it, and rather than manning up and participating in a meaningful way, you continue making passive aggressive comments about the person as well as the topic without actually improving yourself. Here's my take on it: you are absolute dead weight to any discussion regarding US Politics. I mean I've spoken out before about how I'm not fond of Volourn's hysteria-driven "you're a nazi" responses he's prone to, but to his credit, I'm at times willing to overlook that and read his posts while filtering that out because sometimes he can actually back up his arguments and bring information to the table. But you? I honestly don't think anyone would miss you if you were somehow barred from participating in these discussions, because what substance have you ever brought to the table...? We wouldn't be missing anything. I take debate seriously. It's a chance for progress and a chance to learn something. It should be a chance for people to come together and refine their opinions and their knowledge of the topic. The disrespect I show you...? It's akin to if you were assigned to be a fellow surgeon at an operating table when you clearly had absolutely zero medical knowledge. Of course I wouldn't respect that surgeon, of course I want them gone. They're a problem more than they are a valued asset. If that surgeon contributes in a meaningful way though, suddenly he's welcome. See how that works? How sometimes you need to be QUALIFIED to participate in something, otherwise people will tell you you're unwelcome? And granted I'm not even asking much here. It's not like I'm gonna say "your opinion about healthcare is wrong, gtfo you're unqualified." No, if I disagree with your opinion about healthcare, then at least by telling me your opinion I have a chance to counter it. You'd be an active member of the discussion. Yay! But that's just it: this is no hate vendetta, this is no malice or personal problem with you. This is all very simple: "Put up or shutup." You wanna prove me wrong? Back up a claim or stance of yours for once in your god damned life. Do that, and we're having a discussion. Don't do that, and damned right I'm gonna be discussing how worthless your opinions are and why I want you gone from the discussion. By all means you're as welcome to chat on these forums as anyone else and I'm not saying I'm trying to run you off from the community or something, but damn right you piss me off when you sit here with that entitled ****ing attitude that you have a right to sit here and PRETEND you have a lick of political knowledge like all the big boys, and how dare anyone call you out when they notice your knowledge is a facade. This discussion does not exist to make you feel smart or better about yourself, it exists so informed individuals who actually care about the matter can discuss various strengths and weaknesses they see in the main candidates. Kindly grow up, or if you truly wish to be a valuable contributer to such discussions, defend your damned candidate and defend your damned stances. Then and only then will you see that I suddenly start speaking to you with more respect; once you've earned it.

Quote me. Go find the quote that suggests this. You're being blatantly dishonest. I said you look ****ing ridiculous trying to tell someone who actually knows people who once worked for the Clinton Administration that he's misinformed about the Clintons while you simultaneously imply that you, a person who isn't even from the USA, knows better. The discussion was never "who will win," because the very post I made preceding my post addressing you implies the exact opposite: I stated I hope the FBI nails her so we don't have to deal with her, again implying she's likely to win on the Democratic side. Likewise, once again you prove incapable of making actual tangible arguments. You continue to only point at others while you can't defend your own stances worth a damn. I asked you to state why on earth you choose to support Hilary, and here you are once again changing the subject. For someone who claims to be so informed, you offer very little. I would think that anyone heavily knowledgeable about politics would want to educate as many people as possible so they vote the "correct" way, but you seem to act as though your reasons for supporting her are some really big secret that dare not be leaked. Perhaps I was mistaken. Perhaps you support her not because you're oblivious to how frequently she's dishonest, but rather you yourself can relate to a dishonest person.

Godspeed, Effeminate Air Conditioning Repair Guy

Agree completely. Take Bill O'Reilly as an example. Today he's known as "that ass that lies all the time for Fox News. But I would propose this quote I learned from my criminology studies: "A society deserves it's criminals." Criminology largely takes a stance where society must hold itself accountable for the bad eggs. Who's to say that, for example, Bill O'Reilly isn't what he is today due to what he underwent yesterday? Society needs to learn to condemn and condone actions based on their own merits, not on who is participating in those actions. Otherwise, it's just gonna be a nonstop back-and-forth war between the two where things continue to worsen as condemnable acts continue to occur, either as an act of revenge or hell, even because someone honestly may not want to but feels it's neccesary in order to keep the balance of power in check. I've voiced concern that a vote for Clinton today is likewise a vote for the establishment 4-8 years from now as I have no doubt she'll benefit their pockets and make lobbying/fundraising easier in the future, I would not be surprised if a Republican candidate held similar concerns about the Democratic party and then held a "no mercy" stance when in office in order to counteract such possibilities of an opposing party becoming too established to beat.

What I find embarrassing is your constant attacks on Clinton as if you know what you talking about Oh ho ho ho here we go. Bruce let's get two things straight: You are not a US citizen. You are some guy in South Africa who sucks America's **** even if we're doing something terrible, and you've got some weird hang-ups with women. Little surprise you love Clinton. Second, this is my Godfather. (Michael Winter) He died about 2-3 years ago. You may not know this about him, but he worked under the Clinton administration. You can google his name and find evidence for this, such as this page here where the timeline of his work in the government co-aligns with Bill's time in office. He was picked out specifically because of his activism in the name of the disabled community. Infact, when 9/11 went down, he and his wife Atsuko (awesome woman, told her home country of Japan to **** off when they actively treated her as a third-class citizen for being disabled) were the two friends I needed to show concern for cause they were actually only a couple blocks away from it all at the time. It's at this time I wish I were in the USA, because somewhere in some old boxes I'm sure my mom has stored away, I have a letter from Bill Clinton himself. Michael actually had a talk and asked him to take a moment to write me a small letter. I forget why exactly, but I remember my mom was proud enough about it that she kept it in good condition. If you believe I'm some blind hater of the Clintons that "doesn't know what he's talking about," I promise you that having known people that had direct involvement with that particular administration, I am in a much better position to be educated about the Clintons then some blind lemming that has exceedingly limited knowledge of American culture, given that you don't even ****ing live there. Now listen, I respect the **** out of Bill Clinton, even today, even after some of his more damning mistakes. Whether you disagree with the guy or not (and I do, on several occassions), he is a guy that has - on numerous occassions - had reporters try to "trap" him and ask him a hardball question to try and make him look incompetent. It never works. Whether you agree with the guy or not, he always makes it clear that this is a man who has done his homework. EVERY time, he will understand exactly what issue the reporter is referencing, and he will be able to cite every detail and explanation for why he held the stance that he did. This is a guy who, as I said, demands respect. Even if his decisions are sometimes misinformed or downright bad for the country, you are never given the impression he didn't try to help the country. That's, in some ways, all I ask of a candidate, as hopefully our system can provide a nice average of presidential efforts that ultimately points us in the right direction when combining the efforts of multiple presidents. Still, I'm not aware how much you know, but Clinton himself is largely responsible for many of the problems surrounding the global economic recession we had years ago. That wasn't Obama's doing, that wasn't even Bush's doing. Bush was an idiot sure, and he did the economy no favors, but Clinton was the one that allowed for much of the deregulation of the banks that led to their negligence being possible. Sadly, for as much of the praise I can offer Bill, I cannot do the same for Hillary. Bill, I just gave you a small sample of my views on the guy. He's someone insanely intelligent and I do believe he actively tried to help the American people, but regardless of his intentions, the ramnifications of his presidency are likely going to negatively affect us longer than those of "Dubya," despite what an idiot Dubya was and despite Dubya more recently holding power. But Hillary? This is a woman who houses all of Bill's faults, but none of his redeeming qualities. (except intelligence) I just got done praising Bill as a man who does his homework and - whether you disagree with him or not - clearly takes the time to educate himself on all the matters he should be educated in. Hillary? Man, I've lost count of how many times she's been caught fumbling about her words on stage, blatantly dodging questions or lying to the people. This is a woman that seems to be nothing but blind ambition, and this is well documented **** too. Surely you know of what Elizabeth Warren had to say about Hillary: Intelligent? Sure. Well-meaning? Dunno about that. Or here, I came across this video just yesterday. Stupid little video, to be honest. Some portions of it are ridiculous or stupid accusations, some of it actually puts her in a good light (her answer for abortion for example is a strictly legal response that's currently correct, he assessment of Putin is good though if she wants a conflict with him...? **** no, go to "war" with economic sanctions, nothing more), others are quite warranted, but overall, even a stupid little video like this can show why people have such doubt it her integrity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDMBgLMmB1Q Notably, I find it heavily ironic that today, Hillary is very much reliant upon the African American vote to sustain her, and yet as you can see, if you turn back the clock, only one of the two candidates was marching with Dr. King, and it wasn't Hillary. Granted, times change and I'm by no means willing to paint her as a racist; that was then, this is now. A lot changes between one's teen politics and their adult life. I'm merely lamenting that there is no meaningful gap between the treatment of the African American community between Sanders and Clinton today, and yet the vote is swayed heavily to her side. Why? Because of Bill. Bill did address the African American community during his presidency (which btw is a mixed issue of upsides and downsides for the African American community itself, but let's not get into that as what's important is what the community as a whole considers Bill's impact to be, and they seem to view it as a net positive), but Hillary? No, not really. And that pretty much sums up her campaign: "look at these great things people I associate myself with accomplished, please disregard any of the actions I took part in on my own accord." Go watch the last debate, two things will jump out at you: that she's riding the coat tails of her husband and of Obama, and that any "success" she spouts, is little more than "I tried." She'll talk about how she negotiated peace in Israel, but glosses over how sub-par that went and how those negotiations did little to solve some problems. She'll talk about how she helped Obama do this or that...but she is not Obama. Her entire career is just one giant "I almost did it" or a "I assisted the important people that did stuff," and while ok, that does hold some merit, it does not hold half as much merit as she claims it does. This is a woman who is fortunate enough to be lumped into a "the Clintons" group where the bulk of the efforts and the bulk of the work was done by Bill, not her. Yes, absolutely, she had a hand in it and I'm not trying to discredit that, but I likewise believe that she's very eager to take credit for acts by her husband that she had little to no involvement in. Seriously, please name a tremendous victory or a great act that is Hillary's and Hillary's alone. I certainly don't know of any. Add into that that she's been proven time and time again to be exceedingly untrustworthy, by multiple accounts. I mean I would HOPE you could watch her speak and just see how fake, pandering and full of **** she is, but apparently your ability to read people is about as good as that of a moth. Even chimpanzees would be internally screaming "danger" to themselves after seeing that big fake grin, but this all seems alien to you. God knows why. I mean I honestly dunno how to respond to you on a lot of these issues because of a lot of it is stuff where I and over half the country can blatantly see contradictions in her record, the fumbles in her speeches or how blatantly she panders or changes the subject. Fact of the matter is that this is a candidate that has received millions in bribe mone- I MEAN FUNDING, and that on multiple accounts, she has been proven dishonest and untrustworthy. This isn't even a big secret either, because the moment someone starts probing her for answers regarding a lie, she visibly and audibly stumbles over her words on stage. She did it when she was against Obama, she's doing it now versus Sanders, and it's no secret amongst polls that she is considered one of THE least trustworthy candidates in politics. She's not a good liar, and yet you are fooled. The real mystery is how people such as yourself and how people like you are fooled by her. So here comes the fun part Bruce... This is the part you're notoriously good at on these forums: Let's here you back up your candidate, let's hear you make an argument. Let's here you name reasons why Clinton would be a good president. Let's hear what you have to say in response to any of these criticisms. After all, I'm just an American that happened to be the godson of a man who worked directly under Bill Clinton. What the hell do I know about anything? Surely a random asswipe in South Africa is far more educated in these matters than I, so please enlighten me so I can go cast my vote for Mrs. Clinton come November, and then I'm sure we'll have rainbows and absolute equality between races and genders thanks to the sheer raw power of her magical vagina, and all the big banks will have a change of heart and donate their money to starving children, all because Hillary asked them to. Clearly that's what's going on in her fundraising speeches with all these big banks and lobbyist groups, right? They're discussing ways to throw a surprise party for the American people and give all of us ONE MILLION DOLLARS! That's why she's going to such great lengths to keep the contents of those speeches a secret!

Can we talk about how at this rate, the hall of Presidents is either going to gain some smug a-hole with a hairdo that has a mind of it's own, OR the first woman president in our history is likely to also be one of our most corrupt presidents ever? Both are embarassments to history. One just downright LOOKS like a joke, the other doesn't exactly do the honor of being the first woman president any justice.

Personally I'm just praying the FBI indicts the **** out of Hillary so none of us have to suffer through "so do you want to be dipped in a vat of acid or roll around in molten hot broken glass for a while" come November.

And why not? Curious to hear your reasons as to why not. Or if you're so adamant about not having one, what alternative would you propose to what we have now? In Germany, parties can compromise amongst one another so as to combine votes to the benefit of both. The parties naturally gravitate towards their closest political allies for obvious reasons, and I as a citizen am free to vote for a smaller, less supported party and still have my vote count amongst the big two while my representation of my party does not go unnoticed, affording the smaller parties the momentum they would need to someday expand and grow larger. In the USA, it's Democrat and Republican. Bernie Sanders is legit running as a democrat simply because running as anything else was suicide for his campaign and suicide for his chances. Ralph Nader actually spoke out in defense of Bernie's choice, agreeing 100% that it's impossible to make it as a third party candidate. In this system, my vote often gets "dumbed down" in the sense that if Republicans oppose abortion regardless of all conditions whereas Democrats are fully supportive of it, I MUST voice support for one of these two extremes without having an ability to cast my vote more specifically for a party that shares my views on the matter more precisely. Democracy is a system of compromises, but when you only have two parties on the field total, then suddenly the American people themselves must compromise their ideals to those of the Democratic and Republican parties as entities. Meanwhile the Democratic and Republican parties only grow larger and larger because all money funneled through politics undoubtedly goes through them. Every lobbyist for drilling approaches the Republicans, every lobbyist wanting cleaner energy alternatives approaches the Democrats, and thus neither party realistically has a chance to fail because alternatives do not exist. These are parties that exist because the system - by design - cannot allow them to fail. They don't exist because they've earned the right to exist by doing a good job of properly representing the major opinions of the American people, they exist because the American people must compromise their values towards either "kill all the gays" or "let the gays have weddings with FABULOUS rainbow cakes and also give all of them 1 million dollars." It's not a system where the people are truly represented, and thus it is a failure. Germany's system, comparatively, alleviates the problem to a degree by allowing for a system and an environment in which any sizeable group could theoretically create a party, give it whatever political stances they want, and if it itself receives enough support, they can "ride the coat tails" of larger political parties in order to gain more national recognition so that everyone knows of that party's existence, has faith in that party's ability to make an impact on politics (aka get elected representatives in office), thus the party becomes well known and everyone that agrees with said party has every opportunity to educate themselves enough and realize they ally with that party's ideals, and thus each party receives support far more accurate and in line with how the people of the country feel about said stances. This is also a system that's more difficult to corrupt because A.) It's not the same two political juggernauts that all lobbyists must go through and MUST give money to, and B.) Should a party prove itself to be incredibly susceptible to bribes and corruption, it's supporters should have little qualms about abandoning it since multiple other parties exist and it's not exactly hard for a new party to become established. So how is this worse than what the USA has now? In my case, Bernie runs as an Independent, Donald Trump gets the largest vote come election time, but Bernie and Hillary can then create a coalition so that the combined Democrat-Independent vote outweighs that of Trump alone and reaches the neccesary 270 (or whatever it is), thus the presidency would still go to Clinton but with compromises from the Independents being forced upon the Democratic presidency. (yes a very rough example sadly, since obviously such a change can't happen overnight and our system currently isn't built to sustain such a thing) How is this worse than the current "**** you, you're either an elephant or a donkey whether you like it or not" system that we have now? EDIT: Also wanna clarify I'm not saying "yes by god we need a parliament so bad at any costs." The above run-off example could work too and what is important is that "too big to fail" needs to stop being a thing in all corners of the USA's systems, from business to politics. I simply ask because as a dual-citizen, I've experienced both the American system and the German system, and if you were to ask me which system is more corrupt and more easy to corrupt, it's not even a contest. I would legit think someone was pulling my leg (sometimes can't tell since it's fukn metal and all that) or trying to set up the punchline for a joke if someone on the street approached me asking which country currently houses the least corruptable election system. You seem to be of the opposite opinion in this, thus my curiousity.

Saw this video, I wanna hear opinions: I adamantly disagree with them. A Clinton-Cruz-Trump-Sanders election is my dream scenario. I do not believe that Bernie is to blame if his running as a third party candidate would lead to Trump as president. I adamantly believe that in some ways, something like that should happen so it can highlight how flawed our election system is. The two-party system is a cornerstone of why American politics are so terrible, and the fact that the American people aren't given a chance for some sort of "second choice" ballot is likewise problematic. Germany has a coalition system where, if I for example agree with the Green Party more than anyone else but the Green Party stands no hope of seriously winning, the Green Party is going to create a coalition with whichever party they feel closest to, and thus they'll be splitting any potential victories with that other party. So the SPD and the Green Party make a coalition, and even though SPD has the better odds of winning, I should not be forced to vote for them solely for that reason when the Green Party holds to my ideals more. I'm not in Germany; I can safely vote for the Green Party and still have my vote count in the grand scheme of things. It isn't just "wasted" on a party that never stood a chance of winning. The USA needs that damned system. It's not rocket science. If Bernie were to run as a third-party candidate but create a coalition with the democratic party, then boom, those worries are completely alleviated. But to see the American people actively discourage the possibility of a VERY popular third party candidate because they worry what affect it would have on the election...? You're perpetuating the flawed system. The answer is not to tell third parties to **** off, the answer is to ****ing go through and do an overhaul of the electoral college. Democrats and Republicans...as far as I'm concerned both of these parties need to die off, but that isn't gonna happen if the American people never get a chance to see that a third party DOES actually have the potential to win.

<snip>

I BE REFRESHIN' GOOGLE FOR DEM RESULTS ALL LIKE:

I wouldn't vote for Hillary because quite frankly, of ALL candidates of ALL sides, Hillary seems like the most blatantly obvious vote for the same big names and wealth that have been known as established lobbyists and play makers for years. These very same big names lobby because when their preferred candidate wins, things get even easier for them and they become even richer. If Hillary were to win, my fear is that in the 2020 or 2024 election, it would become even MORE difficult to nominate anyone else as they'd have even more cash to crush the election with. I wouldn't vote for Trump because, quite frankly, whether that guy realizes it or not, he inadvertedly has the potential to spark race riots. Whenever race becomes a subject of discussion, he's either actively voicing disapproval of certain races or passively "condoning" hostility towards them by not speaking out against more racist views. Trump can be anything from "let's make Mexico pay" or "let's keep the Muslims out of the country until it's safer" to "I'm not gonna condemn these alleged KKK voters until I know the full story," but the result is all the same; he sets a tone where some of the more ignorant and easily swayed voters are going to feel as though their racism is validated, and then those very same people are gonna be out on the street involved in vigilante justice because they think their brave leader is supportive of their actions. I would personally much rather see America have to clean up the mess of an incompetent idiot rather than a Washington shill because I believe that in the long run it would be easier to clean up the mess of an idiot as opposed to that of a Washington shill since the shill is likely gonna use their time to ensure that future presidents and future policies continue to favor the same people, but the idiot is just gonna hit some shiny red buttons he's not supposed to before half the White House staff have a heart attack cleaning up his mess and ensuring nothing explodes. All the same, I cannot in good conscience vote for an idiot who I believe could lead to race riots, because that's it's own brand of awful altogether. I'd stay at home and not bother voting. Or consider burning my USA passport in an act of protest for how bad things have gotten. I mean I'm fortunate enough to have a spare country, so I could legit make such a statement and life would still go on for me.

Politics? In my TF2? It's more likely than you think! (and yes I was just as confused as you probably all are when I saw this)

Video pls I'm really late but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9xB6wCmao

I physically cringed at the end when people were chanting "Bernie" over Hillary's turn.

Not sure if you're aware but the International Space Station is almost exclusively American and Russian. (a Korean or some other crap stops by every couple years) You're definitely not being excluded in regards to recognition for space exploration.

I want that dude's helmet feather thing.

Oh and I guess this one's ok too:

If you let stupid or crazy people set you don't even know set you off, you're going to be 'set off' quite often in life as stupid and/or crazy people make up the majority of the population. Also, drugs #)@( people up, bad. I'd wager a lot that the guy in that video has been on some for quite some time (unless he's actually a very talented actor filming something, which I doubt). My experienced guess would be Ritalin or similar. Also, most of reddit isn't much better than 4chan, and that's mostly adolescent sewage. The whole thing is not worth getting upset about. Really. I looked into it cause I thought it could potentially be satire. Everything I dug up suggests the man is legit crazy. And yeah, not a fan of reddit whatsoever, use it mostly because it makes for a good news source if not a good forum. It's one of those scenarios where I use a website to come across relevant news here and there rather than actually enjoying the culture or website design. Whole thing is just one giant echo chamber and regardless of whose echo chamber you go in, the result is the same: don't line up with the dominant narrative and you'll be shunned. Also lol at Bruce's passive aggressive tendencies above.

Hello everyone, I will be using this video to rant about something I happened across online today. Check this out. Check the video from the OP, then read the entire comment thread I link. This absolutely sets me off. You want a group of people that's not well understood by society? The mentally ill or in some cases even the mentally disabled. It's very understandable, but it'd also be nice if society were slightly more educated on the matter, thus people know what steps to take to get such people help or how to defuse a situation involving them rather than escalating it. And here we are with this bitch sitting at her computer talking about how this man deserves no mercy, compassion or understanding because he's a misogynist. I'm sorry, how the HELL is he a misogynist, based on that clip? He's a nutjob. He needs help. And your concern is he offended a woman...? Holy ****ing **** dude, I'm so pissed. That just drives me up a wall, because to me? This perfectly embodies how some people prioritize feeling like a special snowflake over ACTUAL progressive movements to try and cater towards disparaged groups of people. You want a group that's disparaged? Go out on the street with schitzophrenia while hearing voices, and you better believe you're just as likely to get the snot beat out of you as you are to actually receive help. With a bit of googling I could potentially find and link 1-2 stories I recall over the years where a mentally disabled person died because police that were called to make an arrest because the guy in question was acting up did not have a proper enough understanding of how to work with people with mental disabilities and either ended up accidently killing the guy or escalating the situation to a point where one of them felt using his gun was neccesary. But no, let's disregard that. You and your glorious vagina got a ****ing boo boo because he called a woman attractive. That's clearly more important than the tragedy that is mentally ill/disabled people spending their entire lives without receiving proper care. Stupid bitch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9GA8yIZzjw "Funny"

He's a storm and a Disney Princess? I'm still trying to wrap my head around why so many people aren't voting for him. Not many people have those two things on their resume.