ilovefuzz.com

Was this posted in here? If not, shit is gold.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0tE6T-ecmg[/youtube]

It's looking like this race might be between Hil Dog and Trump. Sanders isn't doing so great and I'm not sure he'll last.

So who would you vote for? Given all we know about both, it's a really shitty choice. I've been very unhappy with Trump lately with his constant wall talk and now Pope bashing. I'm a Catholic. So that shit pisses me off. But Hilary is evil as well and has deep rooted shit in politics since the Nixon era.

I fear for this country.

I'd say I'm not going to vote but that won't help anything. This election is going to be awful.

There are many valid reasons to dislike the idea of a Clinton presidency.

There are exactly zero valid reasons to hypothetically vote for Trump over Hils if you're not a millinerian nutcase, a troll, or have an IQ low enough to commonly be confused with the age that someone encounters a life crisis.

Lol

I mean, come on dude. Whatever awful things you have to say about Hil., she's not Donald Fucking Trump (and I mean that in a good way).

D.o.S. wrote:I mean, come on dude. Whatever awful things you have to say about Hil., she's not Donald Fucking Trump (and I mean that in a good way).

Here's the thing. Regardless of whether I'd vote for Hillary (and I wouldn't) she may be indicted still for the email scandal. The FBI is not letting up on it and they are fighting to push the issue. Now how in the world could she become President if that happens?

So that means we are left with what? Would Sanders get the candidacy by default?

One can only hope.

Last I heard Clinton was "getting a free pass" for the emails from the FBI.

I know it's CNN, but check this out. It's the last thing I've heard on it.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/12/politics/ ... stigation/

jwar wrote:I know it's CNN...

What exactly's this supposed to mean?

Chankgeez wrote:

jwar wrote:I know it's CNN...

What exactly's this supposed to mean?

CNN sucks. LOL. God I hate that station.

All media's biased in one way or another. I don't have a TV. So, I can't remember the last time I watched CNN.

Quick question: how many media moguls are you guys dealing with states side?

Iommic Pope wrote:Quick question: how many media moguls are you guys dealing with states side?

Most likely all of them on TV. LOL!! They all are owned or run by some fat cat somewhere. I have no idea how many. That's why it's all biased information. Some are worse than others, but they all suck ass.

The local news in the only thing I actually enjoy and that's only in the morning.

^Was my point.
We have two, maybe three at a stretch major players for network/media control down here and it gets ridiculous.
Murdoch press can suck it.

jwar wrote:

Chankgeez wrote:

jwar wrote:I know it's CNN...

What exactly's this supposed to mean?

CNN sucks. LOL. God I hate that station.

CNN died the day they had John Stewart on crossfire
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE[/youtube]

D.o.S. wrote:

Mudfuzz wrote: And Dirge if the electoral collage was incorruptible than I would not disagree with you but with all the UNCHECKED gerrymandering that has happened where it is being used for a known outcome it's hard to get behind the system as it stands, and at least with one person one vote even if we get the worse choice at the very least it is because people are stupid and not the choice made by Standard Oil, Nike and Goldman Sachs.

politely disagree. I've known some superdelegates, and they're (anecdotally) very thoughtful people that aren't beholden to the corruption trappings your laying at their feet. I certainly trust them to make the right decision far more than the average moron.

I can live with that

D.o.S. wrote:I mean, come on dude. Whatever awful things you have to say about Hil., she's not Donald Fucking Trump (and I mean that in a good way).