Hillary called for income weighted voting in India

"I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product. So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward."
This is a retarded point because CA has 30% of welfare recipients despite being 15% of the population but would she have won if rich peoples votes counted more than poor? Break the numbers down Sup Forums. She's got Bezos, Zuck, Gates, Buffett. Trump's got Koch. Will any journalist ask her if a welfare mom's vote should count less than a CEO? Doubt it.

Attached: hillary-clinton-madhya-pradesh-afp_650x400_41520905516.jpg (650x400, 49K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Rbp3yne4h_4
twitter.com/MarkDice/status/973382195279777792
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Strange argument considering that if only taxpayers voted, trump would have taken all 50 states in a cakewalk.

Hillary basically just said that the votes of the rich should count more than the poor and Sup Forums isn't seizing on it. Unbelievable.

That's because Sup Forums thinks that they are future millionaires, so they are all for it.

This. The only reason she won in those areas is because nigs, spics and welfare queens go to those cities to get gibs. Obviously you'd vote for more gibs. The richest areas in New York voted for Trump.

Just when you thought maybe she was done jumping the shark.

That's not what she said you retarded strawmen. She said people living in those places aka just welfare queens whose vote is easier to manipulate with gibs.

Yeah, it's stupid if you crunch the numbers but she said that the opinions of the rich are more valuable than the poor. I agree with her because that means Jamal and Juans kids who get free school lunches shouldn't get to vote.

Leave Hillary alone, she is a frail old woman. youtube.com/watch?v=Rbp3yne4h_4

...

Sauce on this?

You could argue for something slightly more historically justifiable like only landowners get to vote or something like that. Nobody's going to take it seriously to suggest that rich people should count more.

Should have proofread but you know what I mean. If you get any government assistance your vote doesn't count.

>holy shit she still isn't over her loss

Attached: 1498238011313.webm (640x360, 623K)

PEE PEE POO POO
FELL DOWN THE THE STEPS
THEYRE REALLY A LOO

Wow.

twitter.com/MarkDice/status/973382195279777792

>ITT I WON IN PLACES THAT BENEFITTED MOST ECONOMICALLY FROM THE PREVIOUS ELECTION CYCLES WHEN MY PARTY WAS IN POWER

well no shit, this is the reason why she lost; she didn't address the places that were left behind by the Obama administration

why is everyone in India atm?

This is why females should not be leaders. They mostly have a shit track record and this is how they really feel when something doesn't go their way.

Diverisity is good. fuck the white race. greedy sefish faggots.

blocked toilets and poland is busy slinging shit at israel

I'm pretty sure if rich people were given more voting power they'd probably vote against the party that wants more taxes and regulations.

White working class:
>We want our industry back!
>We want our jobs back!
>Politicians aren't looking out for our interests!
Hillary:
>The only people who didn't vote for me were no-job losers!

She just doesn't get it does she?

Fucking love Asians.

This thank you Australia

Remember when the elevens made cheer leading videos and stuff for us? That was so sweet

Her implication is that the people living in those areas are all productive citizens and only non-productive citizens voted against her, when the opposite is true because of the massive wealth inequality in those areas.

literally an elitist communist

so basically niggers and spics

Seeing as how California is a diner state, that is, they're in the top 13 states that give more to the federal government than any others and receives far less than 40 other states, the rest of the country should shut the fuck up.

>Are you saying that the opinions of the wealthy are more valuable than those of the poor?

If Tucker and every conservative talker doesn't make this point tomorrow you failed Sup Forums.

Attached: 3E1E412700000578-0-image-m-113_1489096044264.jpg (306x394, 18K)

12% of population and 30% of the welfare recipients.

I hadn't watched any tucker in months until last week, and I have to say that while it's not the funny tuckening it started out as (which couldn't last anyway) he's really doing an impressively good job for being on the fake news, especially the monologue portion. I would not normally expect to hear that from a prime time talking head.

American Liberalism in a nutshell. Smug technocratic elitism masquerading as progressivism.