Aye Y'all Know Hillary Clinton is Trash Right?

[zzombie]

The real bad thing about Hillary Clinton's presidency will be the fact that she will most likely get to a point a few Supreme Court Justices

that's the hope

trump will more than likely appoint justices who could possibly help to...

-further gut the voting rights act

- challenge the legality of affirmative action

- over turn roe vs wade

- uphold the citizen's united decision so corporations and unions can continue to spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities

- uphold the ruling that evidence collected during an illegal police stop can be used in court, which was made over the summer

no thank you

Speak daughter of Satan speak.

Abortion is evil.

that's subjective

funny how you're pro life but oppose most policies and initiatives that would help struggling mothers and their children

Affirmative action weakens blacks and primarily helps white women.

it helps all minorities....women included

and how doe sit weaken us ?

Corporations deserve the right to be politically active.

the wealthy should not be allowed to dominate the political marketplace

If police catch you with illegal substances you should go to jail period. The bad search doesn't prove you didn't break the law the cop breaking the law doesn't mean you didn't also break the law

so you're ok with the discovery of a baggie of weed or warrant for an unpaid parking ticket used a means for police officers to continue to violate our fourth amendment rights.....

smh

shouldn't we be doing things to discourage police misconduct and unlawful searches????

you would think that evil is subjective because your operating ideology has not moral value or grounding i would love to help struggling mothers and children when intelligent programs are invented i will support them. Affirmative action WEAKENS THE RACE because it teaches us that we can depend on government to force " others" to treat us fairly and give us a shot and to make shit worse because other races and demographics benefit the most from AA the program is actually helping our competition more than it is helping us.

The wealthy don't dominate the political marketplace they dominate advertising but how much money you spend is no indication that people are going to vote for you.

IF police conduct an illegal search they should be punished for breaking the law...... but if you have a gun or crack on you what do you think should happen?? they should just let you go with your crack and weapon

 

[blackrain]

The real bad thing about Hillary Clinton's presidency will be the fact that she will most likely get to a point a few Supreme Court Justices

that's the hope

trump will more than likely appoint justices who could possibly help to...

-further gut the voting rights act

- challenge the legality of affirmative action

- over turn roe vs wade

- uphold the citizen's united decision so corporations and unions can continue to spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities

- uphold the ruling that evidence collected during an illegal police stop can be used in court, which was made over the summer

no thank you

Speak daughter of Satan speak.

Abortion is evil.

Affirmative action weakens blacks and primarily helps white women.

Corporations deserve the right to be politically active.

If police catch you with illegal substances you should go to jail period. The bad search doesn't prove you didn't break the law the cop breaking the law doesn't mean you didn't also break the law

Isn't the bold a huge part of the reasons people say elections are bought now? And no you shouldn't just go to jail period for an illegal substance. Weed is still "illegal" yet anyone with common sense knows sending somebody to prison over a bag of weed is stupid as fuck.

 

[blackrain]

it's like this.

we're getting fucked regardless, with all her pandering at least Hillary is taking niggaz out to dinner and a movie first....

I just saw someone from the IC post this on Facebook...is this who I think it is? lol

 

[blackrain]

You wanna burn fast or slow

i choose not to play wit fire. lol

they out there right now standing in long ass lines voting to declare if they want to be house negroes or field niggas.

The house nigga/field nigga analogy is very often misused...this is another one of those instances. You do know there was no real significant difference in how they were treated right? Just a difference in where the slavery was done.

 

[zzombie]

The real bad thing about Hillary Clinton's presidency will be the fact that she will most likely get to a point a few Supreme Court Justices

that's the hope

trump will more than likely appoint justices who could possibly help to...

-further gut the voting rights act

- challenge the legality of affirmative action

- over turn roe vs wade

- uphold the citizen's united decision so corporations and unions can continue to spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities

- uphold the ruling that evidence collected during an illegal police stop can be used in court, which was made over the summer

no thank you

Speak daughter of Satan speak.

Abortion is evil.

Affirmative action weakens blacks and primarily helps white women.

Corporations deserve the right to be politically active.

If police catch you with illegal substances you should go to jail period. The bad search doesn't prove you didn't break the law the cop breaking the law doesn't mean you didn't also break the law

Isn't the bold a huge part of the reasons people say elections are bought now? And no you shouldn't just go to jail period for an illegal substance. Weed is still "illegal" yet anyone with common sense knows sending somebody to prison over a bag of weed is stupid as fuck.

illegal substances are not limited to weed stop thinking about fucking weed all the fucking time and people say elections are bought because rich people donate a lot of money

 

[5th Letter]

The electoral college usually aligns with the popular vote, only 4 times in history did a president lose the popular vote but won the electoral college vote. Most recently in 2000. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes which is completely independent of popular votes. In other words the popular vote is worthless.

Welp I guess the most recent time is 2016...

 

[Stiff]

The electoral college usually aligns with the popular vote, only 4 times in history did a president lose the popular vote but won the electoral college vote. Most recently in 2000. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes which is completely independent of popular votes. In other words the popular vote is worthless.

Welp I guess the most recent time is 2016...

I don't think anybody was arguing this..it's already been established that the national popular vote doesn't determine the winner. The electoral vote count does..the electoral votes are dependent on the popular vote of each individual state.. What Civic and you seemed to be suggesting was voting doesn't matter because the electoral college does what it wants when in actuality which candidate gets which state is determined by the popular vote of each state.

 

[xxCivicxx]

The electoral college usually aligns with the popular vote, only 4 times in history did a president lose the popular vote but won the electoral college vote. Most recently in 2000. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes which is completely independent of popular votes. In other words the popular vote is worthless.

Welp I guess the most recent time is 2016...

I don't think anybody was arguing this..it's already been established that the national popular vote doesn't determine the winner. The electoral vote count does..the electoral votes are dependent on the popular vote of each individual state.. What Civic and you seemed to be suggesting was voting doesn't matter because the electoral college does what it wants when in actuality which candidate gets which state is determined by the popular vote of each state.

Once again, the electoral college has the power to do what it wants period. The state color is the color of the party from which the electorate comes from, it does not mean that the electorate is obligated to vote that way

You vote on which major party the electorate comes from. That's it

Then THEY VOTE in december, and most of them can vote how they want, but, once again, they vote how the people voted so as to avoid revolts/riots

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this

 

[Stiff]

The electoral college usually aligns with the popular vote, only 4 times in history did a president lose the popular vote but won the electoral college vote. Most recently in 2000. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes which is completely independent of popular votes. In other words the popular vote is worthless.

Welp I guess the most recent time is 2016...

I don't think anybody was arguing this..it's already been established that the national popular vote doesn't determine the winner. The electoral vote count does..the electoral votes are dependent on the popular vote of each individual state.. What Civic and you seemed to be suggesting was voting doesn't matter because the electoral college does what it wants when in actuality which candidate gets which state is determined by the popular vote of each state.

Once again, the electoral college has the power to do what it wants period. The state color is the color of the party from which the electorate comes from, it does not mean that the electorate is obligated to vote that way

You vote on which major party the electorate comes from. That's it

Then THEY VOTE in december, and most of them can vote how they want, but, once again, they vote how the people voted so as to avoid revolts/riots

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this

I understand what you're saying..it's just not plausible and has never happenned once in American history.

 

[xxCivicxx]

The electoral college usually aligns with the popular vote, only 4 times in history did a president lose the popular vote but won the electoral college vote. Most recently in 2000. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes which is completely independent of popular votes. In other words the popular vote is worthless.

Welp I guess the most recent time is 2016...

I don't think anybody was arguing this..it's already been established that the national popular vote doesn't determine the winner. The electoral vote count does..the electoral votes are dependent on the popular vote of each individual state.. What Civic and you seemed to be suggesting was voting doesn't matter because the electoral college does what it wants when in actuality which candidate gets which state is determined by the popular vote of each state.

Once again, the electoral college has the power to do what it wants period. The state color is the color of the party from which the electorate comes from, it does not mean that the electorate is obligated to vote that way

You vote on which major party the electorate comes from. That's it

Then THEY VOTE in december, and most of them can vote how they want, but, once again, they vote how the people voted so as to avoid revolts/riots

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this

I understand what you're saying..it's just not plausible and has never happenned once in American history.

Again incorrect smh

Please google "faithless voters" or "faithless elector", learn the definition and then read the list of 150+ occurrences of faithless voting

Smh again for making statements without researching what you're saying

 

[xxCivicxx]

I'll just put these here for all these "why should I vote they're both terrible" muthafuckas SMMFH. Niggas literally got brainwashed into thinking Hillary Clinton was just as bad as Donald Trump. Again the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist....

You're completely out of your element here and you should fall back and read the thread before you further embarrass yourself

 

[Stiff]

The electoral college usually aligns with the popular vote, only 4 times in history did a president lose the popular vote but won the electoral college vote. Most recently in 2000. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes which is completely independent of popular votes. In other words the popular vote is worthless.

Welp I guess the most recent time is 2016...

I don't think anybody was arguing this..it's already been established that the national popular vote doesn't determine the winner. The electoral vote count does..the electoral votes are dependent on the popular vote of each individual state.. What Civic and you seemed to be suggesting was voting doesn't matter because the electoral college does what it wants when in actuality which candidate gets which state is determined by the popular vote of each state.

Once again, the electoral college has the power to do what it wants period. The state color is the color of the party from which the electorate comes from, it does not mean that the electorate is obligated to vote that way

You vote on which major party the electorate comes from. That's it

Then THEY VOTE in december, and most of them can vote how they want, but, once again, they vote how the people voted so as to avoid revolts/riots

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this

I understand what you're saying..it's just not plausible and has never happenned once in American history.

Again incorrect smh

Please google "faithless voters" or "faithless elector", learn the definition and then read the list of 150+ occurrences of faithless voting

Smh again for making statements without researching what you're saying

And again like I've already acknowledged and MENTIONED...a single "faithless elector" has NEVER in the history of America been enough to flip a state from the will of the popular vote of given state or been consequential in an election.

Your argument is not plausible.

 

[xxCivicxx]

The electoral college usually aligns with the popular vote, only 4 times in history did a president lose the popular vote but won the electoral college vote. Most recently in 2000. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes which is completely independent of popular votes. In other words the popular vote is worthless.

Welp I guess the most recent time is 2016...

I don't think anybody was arguing this..it's already been established that the national popular vote doesn't determine the winner. The electoral vote count does..the electoral votes are dependent on the popular vote of each individual state.. What Civic and you seemed to be suggesting was voting doesn't matter because the electoral college does what it wants when in actuality which candidate gets which state is determined by the popular vote of each state.

Once again, the electoral college has the power to do what it wants period. The state color is the color of the party from which the electorate comes from, it does not mean that the electorate is obligated to vote that way

You vote on which major party the electorate comes from. That's it

Then THEY VOTE in december, and most of them can vote how they want, but, once again, they vote how the people voted so as to avoid revolts/riots

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this

I understand what you're saying..it's just not plausible and has never happenned once in American history.

Again incorrect smh

Please google "faithless voters" or "faithless elector", learn the definition and then read the list of 150+ occurrences of faithless voting

Smh again for making statements without researching what you're saying

And again like I've already acknowledged and MENTIONED...a single "faithless elector" has NEVER in the history of America been enough to flip a state from the will of the popular vote of given state or been consequential in an election.

Your argument is not plausible.

Smh now you're backpeddling and trying to change the subject

That's not what you were arguing at all and it's irrelevant to my point

Once again, you didn't know what a "faithless elector" was until I just told you

You didn't know that faithless voting had ever happened in the history of the US until I just told you

You don't vote for the president. You vote to elect people and THEY vote for the president.

I just explained to you how this process works very clearly

What is your point?

 

[xxCivicxx]

The electoral college usually aligns with the popular vote, only 4 times in history did a president lose the popular vote but won the electoral college vote. Most recently in 2000. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes which is completely independent of popular votes. In other words the popular vote is worthless.

Welp I guess the most recent time is 2016...

I don't think anybody was arguing this..it's already been established that the national popular vote doesn't determine the winner. The electoral vote count does..the electoral votes are dependent on the popular vote of each individual state.. What Civic and you seemed to be suggesting was voting doesn't matter because the electoral college does what it wants when in actuality which candidate gets which state is determined by the popular vote of each state.

Once again, the electoral college has the power to do what it wants period. The state color is the color of the party from which the electorate comes from, it does not mean that the electorate is obligated to vote that way

You vote on which major party the electorate comes from. That's it

Then THEY VOTE in december, and most of them can vote how they want, but, once again, they vote how the people voted so as to avoid revolts/riots

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this

I understand what you're saying..it's just not plausible and has never happenned once in American history.

Again incorrect smh

Please google "faithless voters" or "faithless elector", learn the definition and then read the list of 150+ occurrences of faithless voting

Smh again for making statements without researching what you're saying

And again like I've already acknowledged and MENTIONED...a single "faithless elector" has NEVER in the history of America been enough to flip a state from the will of the popular vote of given state or been consequential in an election.

Your argument is not plausible.

And if you'd read the list like I advised you to, you would know that it was a lot more than just 1 "faithless elector" in a few elections smh

It's like you're arguing just to argue

 

[blackrain]

The real bad thing about Hillary Clinton's presidency will be the fact that she will most likely get to a point a few Supreme Court Justices

that's the hope

trump will more than likely appoint justices who could possibly help to...

-further gut the voting rights act

- challenge the legality of affirmative action

- over turn roe vs wade

- uphold the citizen's united decision so corporations and unions can continue to spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities

- uphold the ruling that evidence collected during an illegal police stop can be used in court, which was made over the summer

no thank you

Speak daughter of Satan speak.

Abortion is evil.

Affirmative action weakens blacks and primarily helps white women.

Corporations deserve the right to be politically active.

If police catch you with illegal substances you should go to jail period. The bad search doesn't prove you didn't break the law the cop breaking the law doesn't mean you didn't also break the law

Isn't the bold a huge part of the reasons people say elections are bought now? And no you shouldn't just go to jail period for an illegal substance. Weed is still "illegal" yet anyone with common sense knows sending somebody to prison over a bag of weed is stupid as fuck.

illegal substances are not limited to weed stop thinking about fucking weed all the fucking time and people say elections are bought because rich people donate a lot of money

I'm sorry, this blunt distracted me...stop thinking about what all the time?

 

[Stiff]

The electoral college usually aligns with the popular vote, only 4 times in history did a president lose the popular vote but won the electoral college vote. Most recently in 2000. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes which is completely independent of popular votes. In other words the popular vote is worthless.

Welp I guess the most recent time is 2016...

I don't think anybody was arguing this..it's already been established that the national popular vote doesn't determine the winner. The electoral vote count does..the electoral votes are dependent on the popular vote of each individual state.. What Civic and you seemed to be suggesting was voting doesn't matter because the electoral college does what it wants when in actuality which candidate gets which state is determined by the popular vote of each state.

Once again, the electoral college has the power to do what it wants period. The state color is the color of the party from which the electorate comes from, it does not mean that the electorate is obligated to vote that way

You vote on which major party the electorate comes from. That's it

Then THEY VOTE in december, and most of them can vote how they want, but, once again, they vote how the people voted so as to avoid revolts/riots

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this

I understand what you're saying..it's just not plausible and has never happenned once in American history.

Again incorrect smh

Please google "faithless voters" or "faithless elector", learn the definition and then read the list of 150+ occurrences of faithless voting

Smh again for making statements without researching what you're saying

And again like I've already acknowledged and MENTIONED...a single "faithless elector" has NEVER in the history of America been enough to flip a state from the will of the popular vote of given state or been consequential in an election.

Your argument is not plausible.

Smh now you're backpeddling and trying to change the subject

That's not what you were arguing at all and it's irrelevant to my point

Once again, you didn't know what a "faithless elector" was until I just told you

You didn't know that faithless voting had ever happened in the history of the US until I just told you

You don't vote for the president. You vote to elect people and THEY vote for the president.

I just explained to you how this process works very clearly

What is your point?

LMAO WRONG.

The popular vote is irrelevant on a NATIONAL level. On a state level the popular vote is THE determining factor of how the state's electoral college vote goes. The electoral college has historically ALWAYS voted with the popular vote of its state with the exception of one or two "faithless electors" which are rare and don't ever sway the election.

I posted this like 4 pages ago...what are you talking about b. This post sums up my whole argument and what I'm trying to make clear..you're just moving the goal posts at this point. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[xxCivicxx]

The electoral college usually aligns with the popular vote, only 4 times in history did a president lose the popular vote but won the electoral college vote. Most recently in 2000. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes which is completely independent of popular votes. In other words the popular vote is worthless.

Welp I guess the most recent time is 2016...

I don't think anybody was arguing this..it's already been established that the national popular vote doesn't determine the winner. The electoral vote count does..the electoral votes are dependent on the popular vote of each individual state.. What Civic and you seemed to be suggesting was voting doesn't matter because the electoral college does what it wants when in actuality which candidate gets which state is determined by the popular vote of each state.

Once again, the electoral college has the power to do what it wants period. The state color is the color of the party from which the electorate comes from, it does not mean that the electorate is obligated to vote that way

You vote on which major party the electorate comes from. That's it

Then THEY VOTE in december, and most of them can vote how they want, but, once again, they vote how the people voted so as to avoid revolts/riots

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this

I understand what you're saying..it's just not plausible and has never happenned once in American history.

Again incorrect smh

Please google "faithless voters" or "faithless elector", learn the definition and then read the list of 150+ occurrences of faithless voting

Smh again for making statements without researching what you're saying

And again like I've already acknowledged and MENTIONED...a single "faithless elector" has NEVER in the history of America been enough to flip a state from the will of the popular vote of given state or been consequential in an election.

Your argument is not plausible.

Smh now you're backpeddling and trying to change the subject

That's not what you were arguing at all and it's irrelevant to my point

Once again, you didn't know what a "faithless elector" was until I just told you

You didn't know that faithless voting had ever happened in the history of the US until I just told you

You don't vote for the president. You vote to elect people and THEY vote for the president.

I just explained to you how this process works very clearly

What is your point?

LMAO WRONG.

The popular vote is irrelevant on a NATIONAL level. On a state level the popular vote is THE determining factor of how the state's electoral college vote goes. The electoral college has historically ALWAYS voted with the popular vote of its state with the exception of one or two "faithless electors" which are rare and don't ever sway the election.

I posted this like 4 pages ago...what are you talking about b. This post sums up my whole argument and what I'm trying to make clear..you're just moving the goal posts at this point. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Yes and I explained to you how this post was incorrect and you keep arguing for some reason

For the 1000th time, you don't choose the president and you don't force anyone in the electoral college to vote a certain way because you voted for them

Again, what is the point you are trying to make?

And fyi there were 71 faithless voters in 1 election iirc, so to continually say that they don't make a difference is ignorant and it shows that you actually still don't understand the process

 

[mc317]

Bill Clinton-hillary don't bring that loser ass pussy over by me

 

[JJ_Evans]

Good job in helping Trump win @Stiff

You shitted on Hillary and the Dems for months leading up to the election.

 

[not_osirus_jenkins]

@Sion democrats just like republicans are bad for black people. Yea trump is worse. Who wants a bullet when they can choose a bite? Doesn't mean that bite isn't mean as a bitch. Neither one is looking out for black people.