Hillary Clinton

Everything You Need to Know About Hillary Clinton's "Black Lives Matter" Problem in 10 Minutes

Leading Democratic presidential contender sloughs off complicity in mass incarceration, tells protesters they need to figure things out.

|

Not long ago, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) got squeezed off the stage by a couple of Black Lives Matter protesters. He was also heckled at a various other events for supposedly being insufficiently mindful to the problems of African Americans.

Say what you will about Sanders, but at least he's a consistent opponent of many drug-war and mass-incarceration programs. Not so with Hillary Clinton, who is leading the Democratic field for the party's 2016 presidential nomination.

Whatever lip service she pays toward equal rights, the Twitter feed of @BlackLivesMatterBos argues, "she has also repeatedly called for more police & tougher prison sentences."

The group points to a post from Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown:

Good magazine has just posted two videos totaling little more than 10 minutes that suggest Clinton is extremely uncomfortable with the issues being raised by Black Lives Matter.

Rather than deal forthrightly with the protesters, she gives an obtuse history lesson about past social movements and the ways in which they combined grievances with specific pieces of legislation they wanted passed.

Sean Davis at The Federalist transcribes part of the encounter:

"The piece that's most important, and I stand here in your space and I say this as respectfully as I can," Julius Jones, one of the activists, said to Hillary Clinton, "but if you don't tell black people what we need to do, then we won't tell you all what you need to do."

"Well, I'm not telling you," Clinton responded. "I'm just telling you to tell me."

"What I mean to say is that this is and has always been a white problem of violence," Jones continued. "There's not much that we can do [as black people] to stop the violence against us."

That's when the conversation got awkward.

"Respectfully, if that is your position, then I will talk only to white people about how we are going to deal with the very real problems," Clinton snapped back, eliciting a wide-eyed look of horror from Daunasia Yancey, the founder of Black Lives Matter in Boston who was standing directly to Hillary Clinton's left.

Jones is alluding to the findings of the Kerner Commission, which was convened in the wake of race riots in the 1960s. The commission controversially affixed most of the blame to white racism rather than black pathology:

Segregation and poverty have created in the racial ghetto a destructive environment totally unknown to most white Americans. What white Americans have never fully understood but what the Negro can never forget–is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.

You can disagree with that assessment—plenty have, for sure, and I think it robs blacks of meaningful agency—and still acknowledge the ways in which a morass of laws, policies, and practices combine to make life far, far more difficult for African Americans than white Americans.

Anyone interested in Clinton's semi-floundering campaign and her engagement with grassroots activists should take a look at these two videos. Lord knows that the Republican Party, with the exception of Rand Paul, doesn't seem interested in engaging the problems of black Americans, but between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton's unease with activists, there's a strong case that neither do the leading Democratic candidates for president. Blacks are great when they are a reliable, 90-percent-plus voting bloc for Dems, but kind of off-putting when they ask tougher questions.

NEXT: "Allowing a reality television program to film an ongoing murder investigation is a recipe for trouble"

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “What I mean to say is that this is and has always been a white problem of violence,” Jones continued. “There’s not much that we can do [as black people] to stop the violence against us.”

    This is the Black Lives Matter version of the “big lie.” Check the FBI crime statistics, Jones. You’ve got things backwards.

    1. I think he’s referring to violence perpetrated against blacks by people wearing badges.

      1. Shhh, Hugh, don’t interrupt him when he’s being reflexive. It’s funny.

      2. Take out black people who were asking for it and that problem, statistically, doesn’t exist. But when Mike Brown is a martyr and even Tyrone Harris is a victim because he was shot by police who returned his fire we’re not talking about actual problems, we’re just dealing with the newest translation of “Fuck the Police.”

        1. We all know that every black person stopped and frisked was just asking for it.

          (“violence” does not just mean fatal shootings, dear Pablo)

          1. Dude, don’t you know that the existence of black criminals means that all black people are criminals? Just like the existence of white criminals means that all white people are criminals. Right?

            Thank Jeebus I’m polychromatic. You monochromes make me sick, with your violence and criminality!

            1. Nobody is saying “all,” but the statistics are irrefutable, and people who deal with crime know it. It sucks for the innocent, but it’s simply human to draw general conclusions from real-world experience. Often those conclusions are wrong, but that’s the process.

              For example, a scruffy guy shows up in an urban emergency room, complaining of horrible back pain. An experienced ER doctor will immediately think: “drug seeker,” because that’s a common way to get painkillers: complain about back pain. It’s difficult to verify. Now, he could really be in pain, but all the other scruffy drug-seekers have made the doctor a bit jaded.

              It should be obvious, but to make it clear: I’m not saying the doctor is right. I’m not saying he should treat every scruffy guy as a faker. I’m just explaining why this situation happens. I think something similar is a large percentage of what people call “racism” by police and the criminal justice system as a whole.

              1. You forgot the part where the scruffy guy says “Docs, I needs me some Vicodins”.

                1. You know what I’m talking about, right? Maybe the guy really is in pain, and happens to know what you’d prescribe, but….

              2. This is the wrong place to come if you want to be reasonable about police practices.
                Your facts are irrefutable but it won’t sway the “true believers” at REASON.

            2. We all know that every black person stopped and frisked was just asking for it.

              Dude, don’t you know that the existence of black criminals means that all black people are criminals?

              You guys really beat the crap out of that straw man.

          2. Are there any other truly bizarre and logically disconnected things that you “know” and would like to share?

            1. WHOOOSH

          3. Dear Pablo, you are right. All those family dogs who they shoot are also asking for it, what with their annoying yapping. And the kid with the toy gun? Asking for it by! How can a neon-colored water pistol possibly NOT scare someone into thinking it’s the real thing? Selling cigarettes as singles is devastating to any polite society, and likely will herald the apocalypse — so no argument there. And don’t even get me started on the toddler badly burned by the flash grenade. That little bastard probably made a royal mess every time he ate a meal on his high chair!

            Like you, I’m sick and tired of our brave heroes in blue being unjustly maligned when all they want to do is get home safely.

        2. So the deaths of Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland, Samuel DuBose, etc etc etc never happened, from a statistical viewpoint?

          1. Do I really need to explain how statistics work? If so, should I do that before or after I explain how suicide is not police violence?

            1. Ah, now I understand. They had it coming because they were the wrong color in a dangerous animal’s territory.

              1. Perhaps you understand what the drugs are telling you, Hugh. You clearly can’t even read what I wrote.

          2. It’s funny how people here like to cite statistics about terrorism whenever people bring that up.

            So it doesn’t matter when terrorists kill a handful of people, but it’s vitally important when police do?

            Or illegal immigrants committing crimes. That doesn’t matter.

            1. So no one got this? No one?

              It is frequently pointed out that we are statistically highly unlikely to be the victim of a terrorist attack because terrorists actually don’t kill all that many people. Statistically.

              And illegal immigrant cr–oops, not ‘illegal immigrant crime’, just ‘immigrant crime’ is statistically quite low.

              So we don’t need all this hysteria about terrorists and immigrants.

              But, statistically it is also hugely unlikely for an innocent black man to be killed by police.

              Yet we’re supposed to up the hysteria on this. This statistically highly unlikely event is worth going crazy over.

              And it is even more statistically unlikely that all of these killings are deliberate. It is much more likely that most are accidents caused by the tenseness of the situation–no lessening of responsibility, mind you, but a definite lessening of malice.

              Which puts the need for hysteria even more into question.

          3. The number of blacks unjustly killed by police is a drop in the statistical bucket compared to the number of blacks unjustly killed by other blacks. Not that it isn’t a problem, but it’s blown out of proportion and focused on by BLM and libertarians for ideological reasons. It’s a molehill more comfortable to talk about than the mountain next to it.

            1. Perhaps you just have the misfortune of immediately following JeremyR’s post, but I am somewhat dumbfounded that the argument being seriously proposed for why we shouldn’t be concerned about police violence is that at least they’re not as bad as terrorists and murderers!

              Jesus Christ.

              1. I said “not that it isn’t a problem,” which should tell you that I’m not saying “we shouldn’t be concerned about it.”

                1. Fine, but the “mountain” is a multifaceted problem with no simple answer (we are, after all, already putting lots of people behind bars); the “molehill” is, on the other hand, something that is amenable to more straightforward solutions (no LEOBOR/LEOPA, decertify police unions, scale back immunity).

                  1. Which is not to say that I think the “mountain” of black-on-black violence should be ignored, but we are libertarians talking about the government. The government isn’t employing black people for the specific purpose of killing other black people and then shielding them from accountability; it is employing police to enforce the law and shielding them from accountability.

              2. …but I am somewhat dumbfounded that the argument being seriously proposed for why we shouldn’t be concerned about police violence is that at least they’re not as bad as terrorists and murderers!

                Perhaps if you spent more time on improving your literacy skills (thus enabling you to better understand what it is that you’re responding to) and less on erecting straw men to tear down you’d be a lot less dumbfounded.

            2. When Prosecutors start routinely failing to prosecute black murderers and terrorists because their victims were reaching for their waistbands or making furtive movements, then I’ll start to think there’s a problem. But right now the system seems pretty good at punishing those people.

            3. “…it’s blown out of proportion and focused on by BLM and libertarians for ideological reasons.”

              I can’t speak for the BLM crowd, for me as a libertarian it definitely does matter a great deal. You see, when a criminal of whatever race kills someone, he is actually held accountable and gets punished for his crime. But when the criminal is wearing a badge, he has the full power of the state and his public sector union to shield him from any responsibility. At worst, the victims’ families get a multi-million dollar payout not from the perpetrator’s pocket, oh no, but from the taxpayers. Meanwhile, the perpetrator likely gets to keep his job — right after enjoying a nice paid vacation while the matter is being covered up.

              1. Inigo, I agree with that. I’m not objected to focusing on the issue for the reasons you list, but I object to things being blown out of proportion, even when I agree. My original post was directed at BLM, because to listen to them, there’s a genocide of racist cops slaughtering masses of innocent blacks.

        3. Out of curiosity, what’s the objective standard for “asking for it”?

          1. According to Slut Walk, halter tops, miniskirts or Daisy Dukes, and ‘fuck-me’ pumps.

            1. Don’t forget DWB and Failure to Follow a Lawful Odor.

            2. I once wore ‘fuck-you’ pumps. I went home alone.

      3. Jones is referring to structural racism, to include buy not limited to the criminal justice system. But Hillary won’t really need to worry about this point of view because many non-black Americans would grant that the police can be overly aggressive and some laws are stupid, but as Papaya illustrates, most whites are appalled by black on black crime and until blacks attempt to address this I don’t see Hillary losing votes over it.

        1. I think 90%+ of “structural racism” amounts to the unfortunate facts that blacks are more often criminals, and the “structures” have learned that. It sucks for the non-criminal blacks, but humans are good at pattern recognition. It’s adaptive, and while it can lead to negative stereotypes, but that’s not really “racism” or “structural.” The term is just activist bafflegab to distract from the core problems and deflect blame.

          1. It sucks for the non-criminal blacks, but humans are good at pattern recognition. It’s adaptive, and while it can lead to negative stereotypes, but that’s not really “racism” or “structural.”

            While the left has certainly done its level best to destroy the meaning of the word racism, but I’ll be goddamned if the good old-fashioned definition of treating people unjustly based solely upon the color of their skin is going to be thrown out. What in the serious fuck is wrong with you?

            1. Uh…he likes to collectivize people based on skin color? There might be a word for that, but I don’t know it.

              1. Epi, it’s not “collectivizing” to simply note the odds.

                1. I am walking down a dark street in a bad neighborhood at night, see a group of three young men ahead, and cross the street to avoid them.

                2. I am walking down a dark street in a bad neighborhood at night, see a group of three young women ahead, and don’t cross the street to avoid them.

                That does not mean I am “collectivizing” and thinking: “men are always muggers/women are never muggers.” It’s just prudence and common sense based on common knowledge.

            2. If you carefully read what I wrote, you should realize that that is not what I am saying, or advocating. But to make the distinction in another way:

              For a cop to say (or act as if) “all blacks are criminals” is indeed racist. But if he stops a car with four young black guys and is a bit more tense than he is when he stops a car with an elderly Asian lady, it’s very possible he’s not racist, but simply reacting based on past experience (his own, of that of his colleagues).

              1. The police officer knows nothing personally about the 4 individuals in the car. If he treats them differently based solely upon skin color, that’s racism. Whether it’s “structural” or not gets into left-wing bullshit territory.

                The fact that the cop doesn’t hate black people or has a bunch of black friends or wouldn’t look twice at a well dressed black man in a well lit office doesn’t change the fact that he made a snap judgment, which could potentially have life-threatening consequences to boot, based upon race.

                1. But as I said, it’s not just skin color. Any cop would be an idiot if he was equally wary of four black church ladies. Being more or less wary based on race + gender + age + clothing + etc. isn’t “racism.”

                  I’m not advocating snap judgments as final judgments, just saying that anyone with their eyes open judges situations by a variety of clues. Yes, snap judgments can have fatal consequences… as can a refusal to make them.

                2. Here’s an exercise:
                  Go buy yourself a police radio scanner, especially in a large/medium sized city.
                  Listen to the descriptions of those being sought for criminal acts, that have just occurred. These are things right out of the mouths of the victims, not descriptions invented by the police.
                  Now, try listening to that for, say six hours a day, five days a week for a couple of weeks.
                  You’ll get a pretty good idea of who is committing the crimes and what race they belong to.
                  That is what police officers hear all day, every day. To not look with added suspicion on young black men would mean a rather large suspension of disbelief.

            3. but I’ll be goddamned if the good old-fashioned definition of treating people unjustly based solely upon the color of their skin is going to be thrown out.

              Probably just your “white privilege” talking…

          2. It sucks for the non-criminal blacks, but humans are good at pattern recognition. It’s adaptive, and while it can lead to negative stereotypes, but that’s not really “racism” or “structural.”

            It is impossible for a “black = criminal” stereotype to arise from GOOD pattern recognition because that isn’t the actual pattern. The majority of black Americans aren’t criminals.

            Certainly criminals are disproportionately black, but generalizing from “crimes are disproportionately committed by black people” to “this black person is disproportionately likely to be a criminal” is poor reasoning. “Most A are B” does not imply “most B are A”.

            In short, it is an ignorant and illogical race-based negative stereotype. Feel free to spin that as “not racist” if you please.

            1. I don’t think “black = criminal” is even a stereotype. Nobody thinks an elderly black church lady is going to mug you.

              generalizing from “crimes are disproportionately committed by black people” to “this black person is disproportionately likely to be a criminal” is poor reasoning.

              Indeed it would be, but generalizing to “this young black man is more likely to be a criminal than the average person” is logical, true, and not ignorant at all. It’s unfortunate and uncomfortable and politically incorrect, but it’s still true.

              1. Indeed it would be, but generalizing to “this young black man is more likely to be a criminal than the average person” is logical, true, and not ignorant at all. It’s unfortunate and uncomfortable and politically incorrect, but it’s still true.

                Yet even a few seconds of observation will give you far more information than just the age, race, and sex of the person. In making a determination, every variable has to be weighted based upon its predictive power. If you overweight race, then your judgments are racist; if you overweight sex, then they’re sexist, etc. The likelihood that a random young, black male is going to kill you is still very small, even if it might be higher than a random individual at large.

                1. The extension from “be a criminal” to “is likely to kill you” is meant in the context of police shooting people and was not intended as a misrepresentation of what you said.

                2. If I overweight sex in judging whether someone is a potential rapist, am I “sexist”? Or just acknowledging that men are more likely to be rapists than women?

                  (Interestingly, of the three people I’ve ever known who were raped, one was a guy raped by a group of women in college, back in the ’70s.)

                  I grant that one can overweight race as a factor, but that’s not really BLM’s complaint.

    2. Collective self pity is the basis of black culture. Facts be damned.

  2. The best thing blacks and all minorities could do is desert the Dems en masse, even to the point of voting Repub. Repubs won’t ignore them any more than the Dems already do, it would shake the Dems like nobody’s business, and there’s always a remote chance that the Repubs might actually wake up a little too.

    1. The best thing blacks and all minorities could do is desert the Dems en masse

      They’ll get right on that.

      1. Yeh, I’m even more influential in the real world than here in the comments 🙂

    2. ” there’s always a remote chance that the Repubs might actually wake up a little too.”
      Wake up about what?
      The Repubs get the label of being “against” this group, or that, because they refuse to treat groups as different than any other one.
      They are called “racist” because they don’t advocate special treatment based on race.
      They are called sexist because they don’t advocate special treatment based on sex.
      They are called anti-homosexual because they don’t advocate special treatment for homosexuals.
      If all the groups would stop expecting to get special treatment because of who they are and simply try to do the best they can, individually, they just might be the ones who “wake up, a little”.

  3. Blacks are great when they are a reliable, 90-percent-plus voting bloc for Dems, but kind of off-putting when they ask tougher questions.

    Well, if “they” ask tougher questions (and post them on Youtube?), but then, regardless of whether they get answered or not, continue to be a reliable, 90-percent-plus voting bloc for Dems…why would Hillary or anyone else bother to answer them?

    I seriously doubt this is going to be a problem for Hillary, and I’d bet a lot of money she agrees with me.

    1. “I’m never voting for her again after this time!”

    2. Almost reminds you a certain libertarians and the republican party, doesn’t it?

      1. Partisanship makes people retarded. Don’t be a retard, JJ.

        1. TOO LATE HAHAHAHAHA!!!

          *shits pants*

    3. Are blacks en mass even paying attention to BLM? Doubt it. This isn’t an insult to blacks generally. Most Americans only pay marginal attention to politics.

  4. No coments ?

    I’m kinda speechless too.

  5. So the Democrats patronizing racism.against blacks is coming into conflict with the need of the black.left to abjure all responsibility.

  6. Not all racism is someone in a sheet burning a cross on a lawn.
    Blacks had stable families, and weren’t as different coming into the 1960s yet they were still the victims of police brutality. The lesson that it didn’t matter if they were saintly or rabidly feral, the police would harass and abuse them all the same was not lost. In that the police failed to discriminate between good and bad people.

  7. then I will talk only to white people
    .
    Back to business as usual, then.

  8. Let us not forget what the Kerner Commission recommended:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerner_Commission

    It called to create new jobs, construct new housing, and put a stop to de facto segregation in order to wipe out the destructive ghetto environment. In order to do so, the report recommended for government programs to provide needed services, to hire more diverse and sensitive police forces and, most notably, to invest billions in housing programs aimed at breaking up residential segregation.

    Worked out so well…

    1. So a shit ton of nice neighborhoods are going to be abandoned in favor of locations where the government hasn’t yet attacked property values and quality of life.

      1. Detroit is the model, it just wasn’t done right.

        1. They just didn’t have the right people in charge. Next time they will.

  9. One death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic.

    1. One hundred million is socialist realism.

      1. “All of you is Utopia”

        /Ming the Merciless

  10. “What I mean to say is that this is and has always been a white problem of violence,” Jones continued. “There’s not much that we can do [as black people] to stop the violence against us.”

    That’s when the conversation got awkward.

    Sounds back-assward to me. BLM clearly states they are nothing but a race-baiting organization, as if black police don’t fuck over black people. THEY made the conversation awkward

  11. “Say what you will about Sanders, but at least he’s a consistent opponent of many drug-war and mass-incarceration programs”

    Nah. What I’ve learned from you, nick, is that he’s basically a Donald trump clone.

    1. Uh oh, somebody’s cranky! You want a juice box, big guy? Maybe time for a nappy-poo?

    2. Consistency is really important to “the left.”

    3. Well, at least our resident scum claims to have learned something.
      Hey, shitbag! Learn to pay your mortgage yet, or are you sill relying on everyone else to take care of you?

    4. Let me spell it out s-l-o-w-l-y for you.

      Bernie is similar to Trump in that he is anti-immigration and a staunch protectionist on trade issues. Those two positions are decidedly not libertarian.

      Bernie is dissimilar (this unfamiliar word means he is “not like”) Trump in that he is against the drug war and the kind of mandatory sentencing that fills prisons with many non-violent offenders. Those two positions are consistent with libertarian principles. No, that doesn’t mean Nick is saying Bernie is a real libertarian, just that Bernie happens to agree with us on a couple of issues among many.

  12. Money quote from another article on this, in which the Hildebeast basically just says, fuck convincing people, that shit is hard. Just force them.

    The former first lady was also pressed about what she would do to change American “hearts and minds” about black lives.

    “I don’t believe you change hearts,” she said. “I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate. You’re not going to change every heart. You’re not. But at the end of the day, we can do a whole lot to change some hearts and change some systems and create more opportunities for people who deserve to have them.”

    1. In other words, engage in compulsion and crush dissent.

      1. It’s called “government”, ProL.

        1. It takes some pillage, Episiarch.

          1. Oooo… I’m going to tell my friends I made that one up myself. Thanks.

      2. She’s saying you change the laws – like the three strikes laws that she advocated for.

        Which is correct. of course, then she throws in “allocation of resources” which is basically code for “i’ll give you more free shit.”

        1. Hmmm, I read it as “we will take more of your shit.”

          1. Don’t forget the “…for your own good” part. That’s Hillary’s specialty.

            1. Well, of course, she is vastly smarter and more capable than any of we mere mortals. I’m going to write her a check now !

              1. Oh, you don’t have to bother with that. She’ll take her cut from your employer he’ll give you what’s left.

        2. In Hillary’s case, it’s also more of your shit in her pocket.

    2. I find it refreshingly honest. After all, forcing people to do things they won’t do on their own is the sole function of government.

      Government officials talking about changing the hearts and minds of their fellow citizens reminds me too much of the last half of 1984.

  13. Well they do need to figure things out, like how the world actually works outside of their racialist fantasies.

  14. engage in compulsion and crush dissent.
    Then sit back, and listen to the sweet, sweet sound of the lamentations of the womynz.

  15. Out of the four people in that video, three could end up in a maximum security wing if they acted without thinking to many times. The other one might lose her law license …if that.

  16. Wait, Hillary supported life sentences for three-time convicted violent offenders (which I presume means three-time violent *felons*)? How awful! And it’s *totally* relevant to the question of excessive drug sentences!

    And let’s not forget that many of the counterparts to the Black Lives Matter people, going back a few decades, were demanding *stiffer* sentences against the Criminals Who Prey on Our Communities.

    1. Sentencing isn’t really relevant to the issue BLM is protesting. People killed by police don’t get convicted, let alone sentenced.

      1. BLM thinks a robber who many local witnesses described as attacking a policemen and trying to get his gun, is a poster child. So the heck with BLM.

        1. Not sure what that has to do with the point I made.

  17. Here’s a crazy idea – maybe the black community should focus on getting its members to stop committing crimes in the first place.

    Are sentences too harsh for drug offenses? Sure. But stop condoning and glamorizing the violence often goes with them. And the general acceptance of theft and stealing, especially from other members of the black community.

    Just yesterday here in St. Louis, there was an elderly ex Tuskeegee Airman who was robbed not once, but twice. After getting robbed, he asked two black males for help. They helped by robbing him again, this time of his car.

    1. What do they have to do with each other? The importance of the one does not negate the importance of the other.

      1. Do I really have to explain this? The “racist” association of blacks with criminality comes from… lots of black crime. Ergo, if blacks committed less crime, the association would lessen or even disappear entirely.

        1. There you go again: trying reasonable positions on the unreasonable at REASON.

          You’ll type your fingers into nubs before you convince some of the “I hate cops, because they want to stop me from getting high” crowd.

    2. “Squirrel!” would have conveyed the same point with less typing.

    3. I agree. And then the white community can confront its problem. White people kill more white people.

  18. NOW Hillary is an uppity white woman.

    1. Wait – what does NOW have to do with it? Is this an abortion thread?

  19. Someone could make a killing selling an “intense-looking Hillary” bobblehead.

    1. Ha!
      Wake up and see that in the morning, and you’d go screaming out the door nekkid!

  20. Since Nick is hell-bent on getting folks to vote Republican, he’s bound to get better traction selling Hillary as Satan than pushing Rand Paul as Jesus. I guess libertarian candidates don’t fit into the schema here the way they did when Bob Poole was editor.

    1. Is Nick really hell-bent on that? It might be a little difficult for Reason to do a lot of reporting on the LP candidate when there isn’t one yet, so far as anyone knows.

      Now, I did see an interview with the most recent LP presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, a few weeks back. Johnson said he currently has no plans to run again.

      If the LP chooses to not run any presidential candidate this time, I suspect that at least some of the readers here will not vote. I can only speak for myself, but I know I am through with voting for lesser-of-two-evils pols. I don’t expect 100% agreement on all my views, but I’ll be damned if I pull a lever for some statist authoritarian from either major party.

  21. I just don’t understand how anyone can have a conversation for more than 30 seconds with Hilary Clinton and not instinctively reach out to slap her mother fucking bobble head.

    Jesus Christ that’s annoying and incredibly distracting! I swear Jones was clearly having trouble concentrating while Hilary mesmerized him with that fucking bobble. Its god damn hypnotic!

  22. Hillary was merely reprising Bill telling Sister Souljah to take a hike way back when.

  23. She was dead on about the necessity of forming a clear agenda with specific, understandable goals in order to effect change…

    …though it’s classic Hillary that her sober analysis was just a dog-and-pony show to deflect the central line of questioning for which she has no soundbyte-able answer (Paraphrased: “How have you, personally, changed since your full-bore endorsement of the war on drugs”)

  24. Sounds like a plan to me dude.

    http://www.Total-Privacy.tk

  25. “Diverse society will fail” –Putnam;
    Let black Police/Judge deal with black Culprits;
    http://www.boston.com/news/glo…..diversity/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.