Charleston shooting

Hillary Clinton Blames Charleston Shooting on Free Speech

Particularly a speech by a political adversary, conveniently enough


We'll see what she has to say if some nutjob goes postal on some rich corporation.
Credit: marcn / photo on flickr

I suppose none of us should be surprised that the presidential candidate who wants a constitutional amendment to censor criticism of her and other politicians wants to blame the racist shootings in Charleston, South Carolina, on things her adversaries have said. Behold, Hillary Clinton somehow blaming Dylann Roof killing nine people on the stupid crap that comes out of Donald Trump's mouth. Via Poitico:

"We have to have a candid national conversation about race and about discrimination, prejudice, hatred," Clinton said in an interview with KNPB's Jon Ralston. "But unfortunately the public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger people who are less than stable."

"For example," the former secretary of state added, "a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that's not acceptable. You don't talk like that on talk radio. You don't talk like that on the kind of political campaigns."

Here's what Trump said:

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best," Trump told the audience. "They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people."

Clinton here is invoking a variation of the heckler's veto—the "crazy person veto." It's holding all of culture responsible for the inability of the mentally ill to properly process their experiences. Anything dangerous or "problematic" has to be sanded away from speech, the entertainment, and the arts, because it may trigger (she actually used the word "trigger") bad responses from other people.

We see similar arguments about violent video games (Clinton has a history of calling for government intervention there, too). At least she isn't actually calling for government policing of how candidates talk about the issues—not yet anyway.

NEXT: Ronald Bailey Argues that People Should Be Free to Assert Whatever Gender or Racial Identity They Feel.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Silence you plebes!

    Your betters will tell you what to do and when!

    1. She really is a horrible, horrible, person.

      1. I was going to comment this exact sentiment. She has zero redeeming qualities.

        1. Just about everything that comes out of her mouth triggers me…….

          *use of the term ‘trigger’ is no way meant to be construed as a threat to do harm using weapons with triggers or other destructive devices including woodchippers.

        2. You guys beat me. She’s just so shameless. Souless. She really is Tracy Flick grown up and very, very bitter.

          1. Can you imagine how much more vile Tracy Flick would become if she were married to Bubba for 30+ years, putting up with all his antics? The level of entitlement would be astounding.

        3. Whether you like Obama, or not, and I don’t, he had some qualities you could see people getting behind. Same with Kennedy, a scumbag for sure, and Reagan, Clinton, even George.

          How can anyone get behind Hillary? As you point out, she has no qualities that one would be inspired by, or could respect.

          Plus, I have met people who were really really unpleasant and nasty. But, then you find out they work tirelessly helping poor people. You can say, ‘he’s a jerk to be around, but he’s done a lot of good things – I’ll vote for him.’ But, she hasn’t even done anything good or competent, or anything.

          Where is this support coming from? And, why?

          1. “How can anyone get behind Hillary?”
            You’re not supposed to get behind her; you’re supposed to let her get behind you. #bottomingforhillary

            “Where is this support coming from? And, why?”
            Well I guess when the team is all that matters, no one really cares who the players are.

            1. To quote my husband’s niece “it is time we had a woman President”. The strength of her campaign.

  2. Fuck Hillary Clinton.

    Off-topic – are there any decent technology/gadget blogs where the commenters aren’t all pro net-neutrality-derp, communists, or other shades of liberal retardation? I can’t deal with Endadget anymore and anything run by Gawker is off the table.

    1. Oh, God! No.

      That’s Bill’s cross to bear.

      1. Given the evidence available, I don’t think he bore that cross as much as he was required to.

        1. wasn’t once enough?

          1. Lewis Black joke, actually on TV:
            Clerk is running up a sale for a woman, wants to make small talk: ‘What wonderful children, ma’am, are they twins?’
            Woman: ‘Are you crazy? One’s 7, the other one is 12!’
            Clerk: ‘Well, you’re so ugly, I didn’t think there was a chance you’d (get fucked) twice.’
            Obviously, the verb got changed for TV.

            1. Somewhere, Virginia Postrel laughs in spite of herself while an illegal Vietnamese immigrant paints her nails a particularly garish red.

      2. The Clinton marriage is a just punishment for both scumbags.

    2. That’s a good question, crab_apple. I keep trying Ars Technica, but then I have to take extended breaks because the derp is so thick. The halfway reasonable people who post from time to time are really trying hard, but can’t succeed in drowning out the noise.

      One thing they seem to be doing a reasonable job at not being totally retarded about is the Ellen Pao saga, but I think it’s only been ever since it became obvious she was a complete dirtbag and lost badly in court.

      1. It’s frustrating because a few years ago you rarely saw much political commentary on Engadget or Gizmodo – the conversations stayed on topic about actual technology products. Engadget has a few commenters that have attempted to hold them to task for their blatant political support for Net Neutrality laws but they are drowned out by the sea of derp which mostly comes in the form of (YEAH COMCAST IS THE WORST! THE FCC WILL GET ‘EM!). It hurts my brain. It’s gotten to be about the same level of quality that I would expect from like, comments at CNN. And lately you even end up with actual marxists railing against capitalism. In a blog about products created by capitalism.

      2. I think we might just need to create our own tech blog. With blackjack, and hookers.

    3. Don’t rely on Ars Technica. Not only do they swallow the establishment line, they take far more words for everything than even the most shameless pulp writer from the 1930s. I swear, sometimes I have to wade through a dozen pararaphs before I find anything related to the subject at hand.

      1. My comment was NOT in response to Timon 19, but it looks like you know where not to go.

    4. tends to evenly mock both sides of the aisle, which is a rarity for a UK site. The tech coverage isn’t too deep, but the headlines alone (random sample from today: “Heinz cockup sees Ketchup’s QR codes spurt saucy sites”) make it worth perusing.

      And as for the first line of your post, all I have to say is this: Not with a utility pole.

    5. Here you go:

      I can’t vouch for the quality of the comments. The articles are so dense with information that I seldom bother moving on to that section.

    6. “Fuck Hillary Clinton”

      That’s a punishment on par with waterboarding.

  3. “At least she isn’t actually calling for government policing of how candidates talk about the issues?not yet anyway.”

    You just got through mentioning how Hillary “wants a constitutional amendment to censor criticism of her and other politicians.” Of course, this is in the name of “campaign finance reform,” not “hate speech,” but I’m not sure I rely on her to keep these categories legally separate.

    Do you?

    1. “At least she isn’t actually calling for government policing of how candidates talk about the issues?not yet anyway.”

      She’ll hold off on this until after she’s elected.

    2. And separation of those two categories is purely illusory anyway. Anyone who says that “Campaign Finance Reform” beyond making absolutely sure that anyone who wants to can know exactly where any candidate is eating his financing from is anything other than censorship is either a scoundrel or a fool.

  4. Eh. Hillary is pure scum, but this quote seems to be more about people pushing back against racist speech than about criminalizing it. What Trump said was absurd and I think Hillary is arguing that such things should be criticized and stopped with better speech rather than that we should actually make such speech illegal.

    There’s a difference between saying ‘people shouldn’t say x’ and saying ‘people shouldn’t be allowed to say x under penalty of law.’

    1. Hillary would say a lot of the commentary on here is absurd, as well. Most of the commenters and many of the blog posts rail about SJW’s silencing people through the hecklers veto.

      Hillary got very specific here in what caused this, but its naive to think that some honest national conversation that leftists are always saying they want would have prevented this. Donald Trump and Republican talking points didn’t motivate this shooting. The propaganda he was reading, when it comes out, was likely far shadier and didn’t include mere dog whistles.

      1. “Hillary would say a lot of the commentary on here is absurd, as well.”

        If she did, it would probably be one of the few things she uttered that I would agree with.

        As one of the many individuals who frequently write absurd comments here, I think that I can safely point this out.

        Additionally, several of my friends are white and I actually like mayonnaise (in moderation).

      2. What she said is about as nonsensical as blaming the Holodomor on Bernie Sanders. But it’s part of the process of winning elections; “proving” that the people disagree with you are not merely wrong they are dangerous, and things need to be done to protect ‘us right folks’ from their wrath.

        I’m also gonna ask, does anyone else find it ludicrous to ‘call for a conversation?’ Why not just say whatever the hell you want to say? It’s like calling someone up to tell them you’re going to call them up later.

        1. When a leftist calls for a “conversation”, you can bet that they’re just going to declare things that they want banned and try their damndest to eliminate them. Remember the “conversation about gun violence”?

          In all fairness, I’m sure right-wingers are equally ridiculous if they call for a “conversation”, but I’ve never come across an instance of them using that word in that way.

    2. I agree with this for the most part. Trump’s a jackass and in a vacuum, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with her comments.

      However, it comes off as insincere and politically opportunistic when she doesn’t criticize Trump until a racist mass shooting takes place. Where was she right after he actually said this?

      1. Also, I just now caught the line about “triggering people who are less stable.” It was definitely not called for to say that and then call out Trump, which does imply he’s responsible for this.

        Trump deserves to be criticized in his own right, there’s no need to tie him to a shooting he had nothing to do with. If she wanted to have a conversation about racism and call out Trump as an example that’s fine, but trying to blame him for the shooting is absurd and comes off as really opportunistic, self-serving, and insincere.

        1. The funny thing is that Trumps comments were fairly accurate. If you are fleeing Mexico to come here you’re not their most eminent citizens. You are one rung up the ladder from refugee. I am referring to the illegals of course. Not so much those that go through legal channels.

          1. Being poor, uneducated, etc. doesn’t mean you’re a bunch of drug-dealing criminal rapists. And plenty of people in Mexico have shit lives through little to no fault of their own. Also, there’s nothing in his comments indicating he was only talking about illegal immigrants.

            “They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.”

            Reread that last part especially. He’s basically straight up saying most Mexican immigrants are low-lifes, and that there might be a few good people mixed in, but he’s not sure. That’s not accurate and genuinely offensive.

          2. I have a Mexican friend who has a business in California and Mexico. He said he is considering shutting down his Mexican business. He said Mexico’s big problem is the best and brightest from each new crop of people leave Mexico. No one who isn’t really well connected and is halfways bright, in his estimation, stays there.

            He was shutting his business down because the good workers, the smart ones, etc., in his opinion won’t stay. They go to California, legally or illegally, if they are really poor, to make a better life for themselves.

            Which is the opposite of what Trump is saying, and you are saying.

        2. But, it isn’t the Trumps of the world causing racist angst. It is the Al Sharptons of the world, and the Obamas.

          1. I’m not sure what that’s in response to, I wasn’t blaming Trump for the shooting.

            There’s plenty of blame to go around, it’s not either/or. For the most part, Sharpton and Obama (as well as people like Trump for that matter) feed off of and exploit angst that already exists and exists because of centuries of history, not a few statements made by public figures in the last 10 years.

          2. You note an obvious double standard: Al Sharpton has said things far worse than Trump ever has, and yet he is still the definitive authority on race in the Democratic partym never even gets mocked on the daily show.

            In fact didn’t Al Sharpton basically incite an anti-Semitic riot in New York a while back that got like 6 people killed? In addition to libeling a public official falsely accused of rape and not paying his taxes, that guy most likely belongs in prison. Doubt Hillary will complain about him though.

      2. Where was she right after he actually said this?

        a poll and focus group were being conducted to tell her what to say.

    3. “There’s a difference between saying ‘people shouldn’t say x’ and saying ‘people shouldn’t be allowed to say x under penalty of law.’ ”

      For the sane, yes. How many times does the Hildebeast have to assert that something shouldn’t be said before the frothing-at-the-mouth, anti-citizens united crowd begins screaming for blood?

  5. The stupidity isn’t going to end on this one for a few weeks. You have race and you have guns. It’s going to come from both sides.

    How frequent are racially charged mass shootings aimed at African Americans?

    1. Not involving cops…

    2. Funny how you never hear about it when it’s the other way around.

      1. Mass shootings pretty much always make the news.

      2. Those mass-shooters are different though: they’re shooting up. Shooting up is ok. What’s wrong with this guy isn’t that he shot people; it’s that he was shooting down, the white cishet pig.

    3. How frequent are racially charged mass shootings aimed at African Americans?

      I dove into the pond so the rest of you wouldn’t have to. On Salon, this sort of thing is epidemic. Never mind that one article used examples that ended about 1920 or so. Epidemic. Particularly among gun owners, every one of whom is a racist biding his time.

      1. Did anyone explain to them that the vast majority of black homicide victims are killed by other black people? Who possessed their weapons illegally?

  6. Free speech did get Chris Stevens killed.

    1. That does not matter anymore.

    2. Who?

      Did you know that Bruce Jenner, olympic hero, is now a woman?

      1. No he’s not either! I heard he still has his tallywhacker and everything.

        So he’s just playing dressup for now.

        1. Even if he surgically maimed himself he would still be a he. Not a she. Wishing REALLY hard still doesn’t count.

      2. I’d like to hear Lou Reed’s views on this. Someone from Reason should interview Lou.

        1. I just saw him hanging with Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

        2. He wrote “A Walk on the Wild Side”, I’m pretty sure he’d be quite, uh… supportive

  7. “We have to have a candid national conversation about race and about discrimination, prejudice, hatred,”— HRC

    Uh, right, but you’ll be demanding that comments you don’t agree with shouldn’t be said, and maybe even those making them should be arrested.

    1. It is the progressive way.

    2. Oh, Hillary especially wants the people she disagrees with to voice their opinions. That way she knows who we are.

      1. see also: Hundred Flowers Campaign

  8. I hate Hillary, but it’s not unreasonable to claim that free speech, especially of the crazy KKK variety, can contribute to such actions. The honest thing to say is that this is the price we pay for freedom — allowing KKK types to say exactly what they want, unlike in Europe where they are censored.

    1. Is the censorship effective? There are lots of hate speech laws in Europe, true. There are still hate crimes, as well. Plenty of Jews felt threatened enough of late to think about leaving parts of France. The Charlie Hebdo attackers had no trouble accessing propaganda that fueled their hate. But France did lock up a few hundred people for Facebook posts, so…success?

      1. No these attempts fail because a free society is a less racist society. Is it so hard to believe that modern hatred for minorities stems from a resentment of laws/policies that are intended to “level the playing field” but lead to different treatment based on race? How many of the crazy KKK types are just disenchanted white youths who think (incorrectly, of course) that the government is biased against them?

        1. I think the best way to deal with this is to treat this guy as a criminal and not dignify his actions by discussing his motivations. If you don’t give his ideology the time and attention he desperately craves, you reduce him to the status of a common murderer which is exactly what he deserves.

          1. Print his name once, never show his photo, and never refer to him by his name again.

            There is a streak in many people, and most especially guys, they want to be stars. They want the spotlight; they want to make their mark in the world. We give them this when we put their photos in every newspaper for weeks on end.

        2. I don’t think that’s the case with this guy. He wore South African and Rhodesian flags, he strikes me as a guy who despite being 21, is pretty old-school racist and has a problem with a lot more than stuff like affirmative action. And while I agree that things like that don’t really help the problem, it can’t be ignored that this country has a racist history and that up until about 50 years ago, it was explicitly encoded into the laws of many states (in addition to all the extralegal stuff, some of which continues today). All of that prejudice and hatred doesn’t disappear over night. We’ve come a long way, but those attitudes still linger among some and would continue to do so even absent things like affirmative action.

          1. Fair enough, you might be right when it comes to this guy. I still think that it’s not the job of the government to end all individual racial bias and that the government would accomplish a lot by just killing all race-based legislation.

            1. I agree with you. To be fair to Hillary, she seemed to be calling more for societal dialogue and action rather than governmental. My biggest problem with what she said was trying to tie Trump to it. As much as I think he’s a jackass for what he said (and everything else he’s done), bringing that up right after you say rhetoric pushes people over the edge comes off as blaming him for the shooting, which is stupid.

              Overall, I don’t think rhetoric by mainstream political figures contributes to these things very often. The kind of people who go out and do this sort of stuff are already reading or listening to far more extreme rhetoric than even anything said by Trump, which was one of the more explicitly racist comments I can recall from a mainstream national politician in recent years.

              1. Well said! It is through open participatory dialogue that there exists the potential for learning and peaceful resolution of differences. Limiting speech or shouting down the opposition does nothing but anger and embolden others to violence.

              2. Hillary isn’t calling for governmental action…..yet. She has not been crowned empress yet. Should that happen………game on.

    2. She;s not talking about the KKK, she’s talking about political speech.

      Is Hillary blaming the political left for Ismaaiyl Brinsley?

      1. FYI, I meant “KKK types” as a shorthand for people who explicitly believe in the superiority of white people over people of other races. Whether Trump falls in this category is neither here nor there. Whether his words actually incite racial hatred in the hearts of people is irrelevant. The point is that this is the price we pay for freedom.

    3. “…it’s not unreasonable to claim that free speech, especially of the crazy KKK variety, can contribute to such actions.”

      Yes it is.

      1. Why?

        1. That is an old, tired anti-free speech argument.

          First, it removes responsibility from the person who actually commits an offensive act.

          Secondly, if extreme speech by one contributes to bad behavior by another then we have a responsibility to hold the speaker responsible. Then the word extreme gets defined down until it means anything authorities down like. Before you know it you are living i n the modern day UK.

          Making the assertion that one’s speech causes another’s action is indistinguishable from calling for an end to freedom of speech to me. It is unreasonable because we know what the real world effects of following that reasoning leads to. It is like advocating for socialism while Venezuela implodes before your eyes.

          1. Okay, clearly we’re having a semantic argument. I prefer to acknowledge that free speech can contribute to extreme behavior and still defend it to my last breath.

            I think “if extreme speech by one contributes to bad behavior by another then we have a responsibility to hold the speaker responsible” is nonsense. We don’t prosecute things that contribute to extreme behavior — we don’t prosecute a murderer’s absent father or unfaithful wife!! The “root cause” of a problem does not lead to a legal liability. The only crime is the murder and it’s the only thing that should be prosecuted.

            Unless the speaker is prosecuted for conspiracy to murder, his speech can contribute but at the same time be completely legal.

            1. “I prefer to acknowledge that free speech can contribute to extreme behavior”

              How would that happen?
              Do you think hearing someone say ‘we should kill X’ actually moves someone to action who was not going to perform that action anyway?

              1. No, but I think someone who might be instinctively aggressive and prone to violence could be led to commit this act if they’re fed a racist dogma on a regular basis. I might even go so far as to say that people prone to violence are more likely to be drawn towards this harsh racist dogma. I’m not talking about Donald Trump here, by the way.

                1. If they are prone to violence and look for something to get het up about then I would argue the free speech had no effect. One way or the other they would have gotten themselves in a lather and gone out and done something.

          2. I know lots of young college commies who advocate for socialism while Venezuela explodes before their eyes.

            1. Socialism in Venezuela and Russia only had a hope of working because of high oil prices. Now that prices have dropped, Venezuela is imploding.

        2. Prove that he was motivated or inspired by someone’s, especially someone such as Donald Trump, talking.

          Prove he wouldn’t have done something equally as heinous for some other other he made up in his head in another context.

  9. Of course. Progs don’t believe in individual rights at all. They’d erase the Bill of Rights completely if they could. Since they can’t, they do the next best thing: apply the Least Common Denominator Rule. If a right can be abused by anybody: a child, a criminal, a crazy person, whatever, then it should only be available when our benevolent overlords permit it.

    Take the 2nd Amendment. I don’t think they’ll take it away completely; they’ll just tighten the screws until only a few privileged people can exercise it. So Bloomberg’s bodyguards will be armed, but the hoi polloi will only do so at risk of punishment.

  10. “We have to have a candid national conversation about race and about discrimination, prejudice, hatred,” Clinton said in an interview with KNPB’s Jon Ralston.

    You know, she could start “a candid national conversation about race and about discrimination”… but maybe it’s better to just keep calling for one.

    1. We should admire her courage for bringing up the subject of race, which timid politicians have scrupulously avoided until now.


    2. It’s a conversation like when a women wants to talk. You sit there and listen to all of the things you are doing wrong. The conversation is taking place in echo chambers across the internet and in the media. Their solutions are just more of the same. Only better this time.

      1. “It’s a conversation like when a women wants to talk.”

        You’re so Cis, you mansplainer you.

      2. yeah, if I hear one more time that ‘it is time women’s voices are heard’ I will…well, do nothing but fade away in my head and disengage.

    3. I’m not sure we could bear to broach the subject.

      I mean, no one’s ever spoken about it before now–is the nation really ready to address the verboten topics of race, discrimination, and prejudice going into an election year?

  11. On National Prog Radio, Some mammal with a funny accent and likely bad teeth was prattling on about gun control

    1. uncontrolled guns were what we used to kick their limey asses out of here 200 years ago.

  12. Gods forbid she come out flat-footed and tell the truth;

    “You know, one group has spent enormous amounts of time, energy, and treasure making sure that whites and blacks view each-other and alien and hateful . One groups has backed the Klan, Jim Crow, Force Bussing, Affirmative Action, the welfare state that destroyed Black Families. I hereby call for the disbanding and outlawing of that group; the Democrat Party!”.

    1. Indeed and the same group (in an act of incredible chutzpah) elected a biracial man to be president.

      1. But he was a ‘good one’, who was allowed to run the house for his masters. Like Stephen and Monsieur Candy.

      2. Can you say “House n-word”?.

        I knew you could!

  13. Hey Hillary: C u next Tuesday!

  14. This probably would’ve been mitigated had even one of the congregants been carrying, especially one of the older ladies. Everybody knows you don’t mess with little old black ladies with large purses; there’s usually a hand-cannon in there.

    1. I heard the church was a gun free zone. No?

    2. This did happen in a Colorado Springs church in 2007. One woman was packing. Legally.

  15. Rand Paul claims we should “blow up” the tax code. Can a federal building being bombed be far behind?

  16. “At least she isn’t actually calling for government policing of how candidates talk about the issues?not yet anyway.”

    No Scott, that is exactly what she is doing.

    Could this woman be any worse? I mean, she is not Nicole, but Goddamn.

  17. If inflammatory political speech is responsible for the actions of nuts acting on it are Hillary and others who promoted the Michael Brown narrative responsible for Ismaaiyl Brinsley’s murders? It’s not like they didn’t know the effect they were having, with a hundred people marching through NYC chanting their desire for dead cops.

  18. This was about one thing and one thing only. Re-enforcing the Rrepublicans are racist talking point. Expect a lot more of that and a resuscitation of the republican war on women meme. Going to be a long year and a half.

    1. Trump really isn’t helping matters in that regard.

      1. Well he’s not the only one. He’s the least threat to Hillary. that’s why she didn’t mention him by name. Low info voters aren’t going to look it up, they just hear republican and nod their heads.

      2. No one who has been roasted live on Comedy Central should be allowed to run for president. I don’t get it either. If I had that kind of money, I would never leave my gigantic house; I’d spend all day every day bathing in a tub filled with chocolate syrup with three or four of the best hookers money can buy. For a guy to forego that for a little attention, he must really not have been loved as a child.


    1. I thought that douchebag was leaving.

      1. I doubt his replacement will be less of a retard, but at least he won’t have the cult of personality and I won’t have to people rave about him at the water cooler everyday (if I actually knew where the water cooler were, that is)

  20. She doesn’t have the balls to blame the Second Amendment explicitly.

    Not because she wouldn’t regulate the Second Amendment out of existence if she could–but because there’s no way she’d win the swing states if she said what she really thought.

    Yeah, the Second Amendment, right now, is probably more popular than the First Amendment, but that isn’t saying much.

    1. The second amendment is a threat to her becoming Empress for Life.

  21. So now the shooting is Donald Trump’s fault? Really?

    Why don’t you sit down, sweetie, and let the grownups talk about this?

  22. Fascism is as fascism does. And no one is more fascist than the modern “Democratic” Party.

    1. Sounds like Hillary Clitdong just signaled all the progfascists to rub one out for the destruction of civil rights. Going to be a real sticky situation over in Liberellaland.

      1. You know who else experieced a sticky situation?…

        1. Everyone here?

  23. “We have to have a candid national conversation about race and about discrimination, prejudice, hatred,”— HRC

    Weird how these “national conversations” only happen (for weeks and sometimes even months on end) when it’s blacks that get killed by non-blacks.

    When it’s the other way around, the conversation lasts about a day or two, if that.

    1. “When it’s the other way around, the conversation lasts about a day or two, if that.”

      It’s racist to even suggest having a conversation about that.

  24. Hillary really is a test for America. If she wins the presidency it will be proof that over half of the people who bother to vote just don’t give a fuck. Her election will be proof that there are no standards of behavior or ethics for a Democratic candidate. That more than half of the voters will support the Democrat for President no matter how unethical, incompetent and unpleasant they are. More so than Obama winning, Hillary winning will be a Rubicon moment in the decline of the country. Hillary will set the bar lower than Obama and whoever follows her will sett it even lower than that.

      1. Doesn’t it? If after all that Obama has done and as horrible of a person and candidate as Hillary is, she still wins, then there is no Democrat who will ever lose at the national level.

        I don’t think she will win. But she might. There is no point in arguing about it. We will see soon enough. But one thing is for sure, if she does win, it will mark a real turning point for the country.

        1. I still suspect she won’t even win the nomination. I mean, she’s fucking appalling. Not just politically, but in pretty much any way you can think of.

          The fact that she’s able to even show her face in public shows how fucking far gone our culture really is. The media should be destroying her utterly, and her own party should be publicly denouncing her. But no, we just pretend that everything is fine.

          1. which Dem is going to beat her? Stated differently, which Dem will the media line up behind in favor of Hillary?

            The media should be destroying her utterly, and her own party should be publicly denouncing her.

            Neither of those things is happening, Sanders is a bit too candid about his leftist ideas that most progs know the public at large will not buy, and there’s O’Malley.

            1. I don’t know. She was guaranteed nominee in 2008, and then some guy named Barack showed up. Democrats really are not enthusiastic about her.

              1. Dems will vote for whoever or whatever has a D next to it.

                1. If she’s all that’s standing, yeah, they’ll vote for her. But I think there’s too much for her to keep going. Heck, even Biden is less offensive a candidate than her. Biden! And he’s a moron.

            2. Progressives have no values. The rest of the democrats don’t pay attention. Thats how she gets in. A combination of total amorality and abject stupidity.

            3. Biden??? We can only dream.

              1. Honestly, I think it would be worth it just for the comic value. He’s too much of a bumbling moron to get anything done; he’d just be up there saying hilariously stupid shit for 4 years.

          2. “The media should be destroying her utterly, and her own party should be publicly denouncing her.”

            The problem is that the Clinton family does play hardball, and people, especially people on their own side, are rightly skeered o’ them.

    1. On the other hand, a Clinton presidency might turn a whole generation of Obama loving kumbaya singing snowflowers in radid libertarians.

      1. If eight years of Obama didn’t do that, why do you think anything would?

        1. If things get worse, things get worse. I don’t think a collapse helps the libertarian cause, at least, not anytime soon.

        2. They’re still wandering right now. And if the GOP takes over they will immediately forget all of Obama’s failures because now the evil party is back in charge. With Clinton: no excuses whatsoever.

    2. Bill Clinton won re-election so…. I stopped trying to guess then.

      1. He only won because Ross Perot made it a three party race. If Hillary wins because Trump or Bloomburg run as a third party to attract the really stupid Republicans, we will be fucked but there will be a glimmer of hope in that at least a majority of voters didn’t want her sorry ass in office. If she wins in a two way race, we are fucking doomed.

        1. Maybe that’s why she’s calling him out?

      2. Bill was aided in no small measure by one H Ross Perot, the absence of whom I think would have led to Bush I being re-elected. Henry Ross did not take votes from Billy, he took them from George. That aside, at least Bill had been a governor.

        1. And if Bush would have won re-election then Hillary would just be some dumb bitch nobody ever heard of.

          1. What a wonderful thought. That power hungry bitchcunt bereft of power.

    3. It’s like the whole country is turning into California.

      They don’t care about the issues, exactly. They just care about voting for Democrats.

      It’s all about the brand name. But the brand name isn’t “Clinton”. It’s “Democrat”.

      They’ll vote for anybody–anybody–so long as they’re a Democrat.

      In California, minorities who hate gay marriage will only vote for Democrats, even if the candidates support gay marriage; meanwhile, gays will vote for minority candidates who hate gay marriage–specifically because they’re Democrats. Environmentalists will only vote for Democrats that are in the pockets of the Ag industry, and farmers will only vote for Democrats–even if it’s a candidate that’s in tight with the environmentalists.

      Yeah, if swing voter Democrats vote for Hillary, it’ll be proof of two things. 1) That Democrats have no scruples whatsoever, and 2) That the whole country is turning into California.

      P.S. I blame the baby boomers.

      1. I’m baffled at how the Democrat party continues to exist, it’s made up of so many small identity groups, most of whom seem to hate each other, have completely opposed interests, yet they’ll all still vote in lock step for the same party. It’s amazing to me that a narrative as stupid as that Republicans hate minorities, women, the poor, etc is enough to get these idiots voting.

        1. there is a common thread that identifies these disparate groups: a slavish devotion to the state, that through the power of govt they can achieve things that sane people would dismiss out of hand. Look at your own last sentence: women, minorities, advocates for the poor, all united toward the goal of defeating the common enemy and using the power of the state to their advantage.

        2. The people who blindly vote democrat are the same execrable subset of humanity that enabled monarchs for thousands of years.

        3. It doesn’t matter if they hate each other, as long as they all hate the same people the most.

          Of course, a part of me hopes they get their way. They’ve whittled their boogeyman down to the point where he almost can’t sustain all the hatred in order to broaden their appeal. It’s now the middle/upper class cishet white male that’s the evil one, and that’s like what,

        4. I think that they’re all motivated by the same thing: use of the Federal government to impose their viewpoint on whatever topic on everyone else. Once you gain control of the largest hammer (Washington DC), you can use it to force your viewpoint on everyone else through both laws and unelected bureaucrats. It’s so much easier and faster than actually trying to convince people that you’re right and allowing them to make personal choices in your favor.

    4. Hillary winning would be nothing short of disastrous for this country. Every Democrat candidate that came after her would be progressively more and more leftist, and they would be able to win just by beating the “they’re gonna put y’all back in chains/war on wimmins” narrative. But since they wouldn’t be able to win congress, the only way they’d accomplish their agenda is to go full Caesar, which they would, increasingly with the court’s backing when they were able to replace the conservative justices.

      1. On the bright side maybe I more overt dictatorship would finally wake up people to where their country is headed.

        1. Are you crazy? The failure of an overt dictatorship would merely show us that we didn’t have *enough* dictatorship. /sarc

      2. Yet so many of you wonder why I consider an armed civil conflict to stop the progtards to be inevitable. As they will NEVER stop until someone stops them. The dystopia you describe is their dream.

        Will all of you just passively submit to that world?

        1. “Will all of you just passively submit to that world?”
          If that’s how I avoid dying. Not dying comes first on my priorities list, so when things get rough I’m not ashamed to say that I’ll be hiding in the crawls space.

          Besides, I don’t particularly like this country, so I can always just move to New Zealand or wherever and be a kangaroo rancher or whatever the hell they do over there.

        2. And you wonder why DAs issue subpoenas for Reason commenters? Poor you, with your rhetoric advocating violence. Shouldn’t you be shooting up a church or a federal building somewhere?

          1. Amsoc

            Shouldn’t you be working on plans for murdering tens of millions of those not politically aligned woth you like your hero Mao?

      3. Gonna disagree here. Your country’s economic policies are so bad whomever wins is not going to be able to do anything. You have to hit the debt wall, watch the cost of all those things being made elsewhere sky rocket so you can’t even afford cheap Chinese junk. Watch a price of a European vacation get to be too high for doctors, for example. Then, when the debt hits the fan, someone will step in and fix it.

        Canada was rapidly sinking into second world status at one point due to debt. Our dollar was $.61 US at one point ($1.65 the other way). I was making good money and I went to Mexico and could hardly afford a burger. The US was prohibitively expensive. At the time I could sit in a nice restaurant where I lived and have a good sandwich and salad or fries for about $8. I went to Mexico and ordered a burger for 100 pesos, which at 5:1 made the burger a $20 meal. In those days I could get a really fancy sit down dinner in an upscale restaurant for $20.

        WE got poorer and poorer. Now no political party will even admit they are willing to run a deficit anywhere. No matter how far left the party is. They still do, by the way, but it is way, way better. And, as a result we have come back up in the world.

  25. Don’t ever think this hideous woman won’t be elected.

    In 2008. I made the mistake of smiling when it was going to be some sissy, skinny little Marxist, with strong ties to Africa, on the Dem-Marx ticket. I thought?.this will be a slam-dunk.

    I’ll never make that mistake again. The DNA of this country is quite different than it was just a few short years ago. And it sure ain’t for the better.

    Well, unless you are a Marxist.

    1. Obama won due to a perfect storm of Americans being fed up with Republicans, America wanting to cross “elect the first black president” off it’s to do list, and the Republicans nominating two empty suits that many of their own voters didn’t like.

      Obama’s election was a fluke not an example of any sort of national trend.

      1. I tend to agree. If it were a sea change, the GOP wouldn’t be winning at record levels across the board everywhere else.

        1. They’re working hard at flushing THAT down the toilet. Slavishly carrying water for Obama when they were elected to stop him. And pushing this trade bill that makes Obama an even more powerful dictator.

      2. This skinny, sissy, wussy, feminine little coward won….twice.


        This country, within 25 years, will elect Hugo Chavez quite enthusiastically.

        I am going to drink, enjoy life….mock the stupid and the poor….and leave nothing in my estate.

        Coulter is correct: Adios America!

  26. What Trump said was asinine, and I have no problem condemning it, but I don’t think that we should keep our ideas quiet just because “unstable people” might be triggered. A song could trigger someone, a look, a 200-year-old book. “Triggering” is not the same as calling for violence and shouldn’t be treated that way.

    1. Ban the Catcher in the Rye!

      IT is true though, that crazy people, being crazy, tend to be ‘triggered’ by things that do not make sense. That’s why they’re called crazy.

  27. “We have to have a candid national conversation …

    Hearing asshat politicians use this phrase tends to “trigger” me to throw up in my mouth a little bit. Usually because what they really mean is “shut up while I lecture you about how wrong anyone who disagrees with me is.”

  28. In other words, Reason writers are hurt and confused that candidate A says a bad thing about candidate B. it’s ok, scott, I’m a sensitive soul too.

    If you are at all ambivalent about gun control or think that local democratic elections should mean things or believe that local communities should have the right to control gun possession or sales than you, clearly are a fascist Stalinist. That’s what I’ve learned here on this website. That, and you sir, don’t have enough respect for the mushy, mixed-up writings of 18th century slavers who lived before there even was an Ayn rand, who– come to think of it– could of taught those dudes something about didactic and muddled prose. Meet your new improved 3,000 page Constitution. No fucking labor unions allowed.

    1. Amsoc shorthand version: Hillary 2016

    2. Re: American Stolid,

      In other words, Reason writers are hurt and confused that candidate A says a bad thing about candidate B

      Whenever you decide to have a ‘trip’, be sure to have someone there to guide you, lest you stray into schizophrenia like you’re showing.

      If you are at all ambivalent about gun control

      I’m not at all, which would mean ipso facto whatever you say from now on cannot apply to me.

      or think that local democratic elections should mean things or believe that local communities should have the right to control gun possession or sales than you, clearly are a fascist Stalinist.

      That’s it, then. I am not a Stalinist, or a Fascist.
      By the way, if you believe we think people who are ambivalent about gun control would want gun proscription like the little red Marxians do, you’re for the shock of your life.

      No fucking labor unions allowed.

      What is it about little red Marxians and labor unions? Only Marxians find them useful, no one else ?not even union members who are abandoning unions like refugees from a war zone.

      1. “What is it about little red Marxians and labor unions?”

        That they are freely associated groups that don’t have any ties to the dreaded government?

        OM, I feel the same way you feel about gun control about abortion. I think a women should have an unrestricted right to have an abortion up to the point of a live birth. I guess you think we should legislate on the issues you find important and I feel the same way about issues I feel important about.

        I don’t have any particular problem with the idea that government should be limited–although I don’t obsess over the bank accounts of plutocrats like you do. It’s just my experience that the people who call themselves “libertarian” tend to be such priggish assholes about it. Maybe the problem with libertarianism isn’t libertarianism, but libertarians.

    3. It’s not even 2016 and you’re already face deep in the winkle old snatch.

    4. If you think that local communities have the right to restrict the individual rights of members of that community, then yes you are a fascist.

      It’s pretty simple really. If you think the ‘collective’ has a right to democratically do away with the rights of some of it’s individual members, then you are indeed a fascist.

      So are you basically coming out of the closet then?

    5. “In other words, Reason writers are hurt and confused that candidate A says a bad thing about candidate B. it’s ok, scott, I’m a sensitive soul too.”

      Bad-mouthing is one thing, linking to terrorism is a little different.

  29. If you like your balls, you can keep them.

    Slick Hilly 2016

  30. In an alternate reality, Bill dumped her for Monica and instead of persuing a political career based on fascism she got a daytime talk show.

    1. IN an alternate, alternate reality Bill runs a sit com aimed at, and populated by, 14 year old girls. It is a big hit. Eventually though….

  31. Hillary Clinton did the almost impossible by making herself look like a bigger ass than Donald Trump.

    1. She already had a bigger ass than Donald Trump.

  32. Is it just me, or have Reason contributors suddenly figured out just how nutty and dangerous the left is?

    Which means its too late to do anything about it.

  33. Clinton is one crazed lady who supports Obama’s racist war on drugs and the war on women who smoke weed.

  34. For the love of crap no. She can’t be our next president. It cannot be allowed. The last 8 years were enough.

  35. Well, if the conservative voter stays home and doesn’t bother voting again, like in 2012, then Hilary (or one of the other saps) will likely be the next president of the USA.

    Good luck with that.

  36. “When Mexico sends its people”

    Mexico doesnt “send” its people. People leave Mexico because it sucks there.

  37. Work At Home 100% FREE Opportunity. You will never be asked a single penny. Make at Least $50 Per Day Guaranteed!
    Its FREE! Apply Here A LINK: ==

  38. “Trump adds some much-needed seriousness that has previously been lacking from the GOP field, and we look forward to hearing more about his ideas for the nation.”
    The spokesman went on to add that they are also looking forward to Trump’s tips on understated architecture, avoiding the media, cranial slenderizing and flattering hairstyles.
    ysl wallet on chain

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.