Can Rand Paul beat Hillary?

[Flaxxony]

I would never want anyone but libertarian to win but at least Rand wants to shut down military bases and I'm cool with that

What about his stances on other issues? Are you fine with those?

As long as he is cutting more than he is introducing, its the small victories that count.

[The Scientific States]

What about his stances on other issues? Are you fine with those?

As long as he is cutting more than he is introducing, its the small victories that count.

What do you mean by that?

[The Black Forrest]

http://theblacksphere.net/2013/07/civil ... b-johnson/

Woweeeee! I have to admit I now looked that site over and its a really good NUTBAG site! Thank you. I do like reading that kind of nonsense.

I like how the editor has to specify the immigrants of her family were legal.

[Dyakovo]

I would vouch to say that almost every conspiracy has some shred of truth unlike mass media so I doubt it will hurt that much.

Ok. So what's the truth in his conspiracy theory of the Weather service stockpiling ammunition?

1: The Weather Service really exists.
2: Ammunition is being stockpiled, just not by the Weather Service.
*nods*

[Jinwoy]

What about his stances on other issues? Are you fine with those?

As long as he is cutting more than he is introducing, its the small victories that count.

I've always seen libertarians as individuals who don't fully understand how economics and society work... and thanks to groups like the Tea Party, my hypothesis has been proved correct.
Basically, Rand Paul might be the worst president in history. Hillary at least has the chance to do less bad of a job, maybe even a good one.
See, Hillary has experience and knowledge on what Presidency is like. Everyone seems to forget that. She's basically already had 8 years in office. Let's give her 8 more.

[Jinwoy]

Ok. So what's the truth in his conspiracy theory of the Weather service stockpiling ammunition?

1: The Weather Service really exists.
2: Ammunition is being stockpiled, just not by the Weather Service.
*nods*

whoa there don't go so far fetched

[Freiheit Reich]

One can only hope

...That Hilary would win.

So you think that out of over 100 million eligible Americans to become president, Hillary is the best choice?!

You have low standards.

[Freiheit Reich]

I would never want anyone but libertarian to win but at least Rand wants to shut down military bases and I'm cool with that

Do libertarians really believe he will do that?

Not shut them all down, the ones in foreign countries should be shut down though. Ron Paul might do this but Rand Paul is too much of a politician to do what is right in this case.

[Sun Wukong]

...That Hilary would win.

So you think that out of over 100 million eligible Americans to become president, Hillary is the best choice?!

You have low standards.

Only because Franken is unlikely to get the nomination.

[Atlanticatia]

...That Hilary would win.

So you think that out of over 100 million eligible Americans to become president, Hillary is the best choice?!

You have low standards.

Well, I don't think Hillary is the best choice to run the country (obviously) but she's the best compared to other mainstream options, and is the most politically viable that we've seen so far.

[Freiheit Reich]

5 reasons to take Rand Paul seriously:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/5 ... 89105.html

[Atlanticatia]

5 reasons to take Rand Paul seriously:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/5 ... 89105.html

1. He is appealing to...the people that would vote GOP anyway
2. He has a whopping base of about 4-5% of the electorate
3. He said something but not really anything about information
4. He's not a libertarian at all
5. He's extremely socially conservative

That's what I got from that article. He's overrated. He's just another right wing conservative with basically one moderate about imprisonment that gets called "libertarian".

[Death Metal]

That's what I got from that article. He's overrated. He's just another right wing conservative with basically one moderate about imprisonment that gets called "libertarian".

Which puts him in the exclusive club of "every 'libertarian' politician".

[Alien Space Bats]

I'm willing to believe he said something along those lines. I'm NOT willing to believe he said it when the only source is a gossip book. Yes, that's what that book is. It's a gossip book, like ALL of the books Kessler has written. He's less reliable than Ann Coulter.

Before you blindly choose the big 'D' candidate consider they are not always pro-black. LBJ might be your hero but you should consider this:

http://theblacksphere.net/2013/07/civil ... b-johnson/

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Some Of The Lost History In The Civil Rights Movement

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40889

Were you aware that in order to break the racist ways of Southern Democrats, it was Republican President Eisenhower who sponsored both Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act and it was a LBJ lead Senate who fought tooth and nail against them?

Does it REALLY matter who was more of a racist asshole in the past? I mean, we could get into an LBJ vs. Nixon pissing match, noting how each man was deeply racist in their personal thinking, and yet did good things for the African-American community on the basis of political calculation (however cynical said calculation might be)?

The REAL question is not, "Which Party has defecated longer and harder on American blacks?" They've BOTH been shitty, each in their own way and time; and both CONTINUE to be shitty, each in its own inimitable way.

The REAL question — and the ONLY question — is: "Which Party offers the better deal to American blacks TODAY?"

And when it's put THAT way, it's kind of hard to argue right now that the GOP's the answer to that question. I mean, why would it be the Party that denies the existence of racism, actively tries to make it harder for African-Americans to vote, and generally couldn't give two wet shits about what happens to urban black populations, or the cities in which they live? How cold that kind of malign neglect and willful political disenfranchisement POSSIBLY be "better" for blacks?!?

[Death Metal]

Before you blindly choose the big 'D' candidate consider they are not always pro-black. LBJ might be your hero but you should consider this:

http://theblacksphere.net/2013/07/civil ... b-johnson/

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Some Of The Lost History In The Civil Rights Movement

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40889

Were you aware that in order to break the racist ways of Southern Democrats, it was Republican President Eisenhower who sponsored both Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act and it was a LBJ lead Senate who fought tooth and nail against them?

Does it REALLY matter who was more of a racist asshole in the past? I mean, we could get into an LBJ vs. Nixon pissing match, noting how each man was deeply racist in their personal thinking, and yet did good things for the African-American community on the basis of political calculation (however cynical said calculation might be)?

The REAL question is not, "Which Party has defecated longer and harder on American blacks?" They've BOTH been shitty, each in their own way and time; and both CONTINUE to be shitty, each in its own inimitable way.

The REAL question — and the ONLY question — is: "Which Party offers the better deal to American blacks TODAY?"

And when it's put THAT way, it's kind of hard to argue right now that the GOP's the answer to that question. I mean, why would it be the Party that denies the existence of racism, actively tries to make it harder for African-Americans to vote, and generally couldn't give two wet shits about what happens to urban black populations, or the cities in which they live? How cold that kind of malign neglect and willful political disenfranchisement POSSIBLY be "better" for blacks?!?

And that is exactly why the GOP only talks about the past (more accurately, the other side's past).

I'd call it a smokescreen but usually smoke isn't so transparent.

[Mavorpen]

Does it REALLY matter who was more of a racist asshole in the past? I mean, we could get into an LBJ vs. Nixon pissing match, noting how each man was deeply racist in their personal thinking, and yet did good things for the African-American community on the basis of political calculation (however cynical said calculation might be)?

The REAL question is not, "Which Party has defecated longer and harder on American blacks?" They've BOTH been shitty, each in their own way and time; and both CONTINUE to be shitty, each in its own inimitable way.

The REAL question — and the ONLY question — is: "Which Party offers the better deal to American blacks TODAY?"

And when it's put THAT way, it's kind of hard to argue right now that the GOP's the answer to that question. I mean, why would it be the Party that denies the existence of racism, actively tries to make it harder for African-Americans to vote, and generally couldn't give two wet shits about what happens to urban black populations, or the cities in which they live? How cold that kind of malign neglect and willful political disenfranchisement POSSIBLY be "better" for blacks?!?

And that is exactly why the GOP only talks about the past (more accurately, the other side's past).

I'd call it a smokescreen but usually smoke isn't so transparent.

And, of course, these people are also usually the ones to parrot, "I'm not responsible for my ancestor's ownership of slavery! Why should I be punished!?!"I mean, not that anyone argued that they are, but the cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy there is amusing.

[Freiheit Reich]

Before you blindly choose the big 'D' candidate consider they are not always pro-black. LBJ might be your hero but you should consider this:

http://theblacksphere.net/2013/07/civil ... b-johnson/

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Some Of The Lost History In The Civil Rights Movement

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40889

Were you aware that in order to break the racist ways of Southern Democrats, it was Republican President Eisenhower who sponsored both Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act and it was a LBJ lead Senate who fought tooth and nail against them?

Does it REALLY matter who was more of a racist asshole in the past? I mean, we could get into an LBJ vs. Nixon pissing match, noting how each man was deeply racist in their personal thinking, and yet did good things for the African-American community on the basis of political calculation (however cynical said calculation might be)?

The REAL question is not, "Which Party has defecated longer and harder on American blacks?" They've BOTH been shitty, each in their own way and time; and both CONTINUE to be shitty, each in its own inimitable way.

The REAL question — and the ONLY question — is: "Which Party offers the better deal to American blacks TODAY?"

And when it's put THAT way, it's kind of hard to argue right now that the GOP's the answer to that question. I mean, why would it be the Party that denies the existence of racism, actively tries to make it harder for African-Americans to vote, and generally couldn't give two wet shits about what happens to urban black populations, or the cities in which they live? How cold that kind of malign neglect and willful political disenfranchisement POSSIBLY be "better" for blacks?!?

What racist policies does the GOP advocate?

The only racist policies I can think of are gerrymandering districts based on race (as well as income) and affirmative action (which is pro-black but at the expense of other races).

The republicans are less supportive of affirmative action because it is racist. Is it OK to be racist if it is pro-black racism? Some would say yes because of slavery (even though all slaves and their masters are probably dead by now). Anti-affirmative action people state that all racism is wrong (which I agree with).

Gerrymandering is a concern. According to the article, the UK and Australia have made attempts to make gerrymandering fair by having a neutral group organize the districts. The USA should do the same. I am not sure what party is to blame for playing the gerrymandering game (unfairly drawing districts based on race, income, etc.), my guess is both parties have done this, the problem is fixable as other countries have shown.

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

Tell me other racist policies though. I have never heard Rand Paul advocate any Jim Crow laws.


In fact, Rand Paul said drug laws are often racist. This speech will surprise some. Whether drug laws are racist or not he has a good point. It harshly punishes people for minor crimes. This hurts the criminals and also taxpayers (prison costs are insanely high in the USA).

Rand Paul Tackles Racist Drug Laws: Prisons ‘Full of Black and Brown Kids’

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rand-paul-ta ... rown-kids/

[Mavorpen]

The republicans are less supportive of affirmative action because it is racist.

No, it isn't. Affirmative Action benefits white women the most.

Is it OK to be racist if it is pro-black racism? Some would say yes because of slavery (even though all slaves and their masters are probably dead by now). Anti-affirmative action people state that all racism is wrong (which I agree with).

No, Anti-affirmative action people use "COLOR BLINDNESS!!!" as a smokescreen to pretend as though they care about racism, but actually don't, and entirely want to ensure that minorities have as much stacked against them as they possible can. And of course, these people know that "color blindness" doesn't work, and only perpetuates racism. But that's the point, isn't it?

[Freiheit Reich]

And that is exactly why the GOP only talks about the past (more accurately, the other side's past).

I'd call it a smokescreen but usually smoke isn't so transparent.

And, of course, these people are also usually the ones to parrot, "I'm not responsible for my ancestor's ownership of slavery! Why should I be punished!?!"I mean, not that anyone argued that they are, but the cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy there is amusing.

It is because people always think of democrats as the pro-black party which seems very general. This is to show it is not true and the statement is ignorant to say.

If we say 'whites have always been kind to blacks' then the statement could be attacked by pointing out slavery.

You should say 'Currently, the democrat party is the one that will help blacks the most.' By throwing in 'currently', politicians from the past (from either side) couldn't be used in the debate.

One reason people say the democrats are pro-black is because they are pro-welfare. An argument given is that the welfare state has hurt blacks more than other races though.

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/01/2 ... son-riley/

“THE WELFARE STATE HAS DESTROYED THE BLACK FAMILY”WALTER WILLIAMS INTERVIEWED BY JASON RILEY

Posted By Ruth King on January 23rd, 2011

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... ASON+RILEY
The State Against Blacks
‘The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do. . . . And that is to destroy the black family.’
By JASON L. RILEY

Devon, Pa.

‘Sometimes I sarcastically, perhaps cynically, say that I’m glad that I received virtually all of my education before it became fashionable for white people to like black people,” writes Walter Williams in his new autobiography, “Up from the Projects.” “By that I mean that I encountered back then a more honest assessment of my strengths and weaknesses. Professors didn’t hesitate to criticize me—sometimes to the point of saying, ‘That’s nonsense.’”

Mr. Williams, an economist at George Mason University, is contrasting being black and poor in the 1940s and ’50s with today’s experience. It’s a theme that permeates his short, bracing volume of reminiscence, and it’s where we began our conversation on a recent morning at his home in suburban Philadelphia.

“We lived in the Richard Allen housing projects” in Philadelphia, says Mr. Williams. “My father deserted us when I was three and my sister was two. But we were the only kids who didn’t have a mother and father in the house. These were poor black people and a few whites living in a housing project, and it was unusual not to have a mother and father in the house. Today, in the same projects, it would be rare to have a mother and father in the house.”

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often weren’t permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do,” Mr. Williams says. “And that is to destroy the black family.”

View Full Image

winter

Zina Saunders
winter

Government programs and regulations are favorite butts of the professor, who is best known today for his weekly column—started in 1977 and now appearing in more than 140 newspapers—and for his stints guest-hosting Rush Limbaugh’s popular radio program. Libertarianism is currently in vogue, thanks to the election of a statist president and the subsequent rise of the tea party movement. But Walter Williams was a libertarian before it was cool. And like other prominent right-of-center blacks—Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele—his intellectual odyssey began on the political left.

“I was more than anything a radical,” says Mr. Williams. “I was more sympathetic to Malcolm X than Martin Luther King because Malcolm X was more of a radical who was willing to confront discrimination in ways that I thought it should be confronted, including perhaps the use of violence.

“But I really just wanted to be left alone. I thought some laws, like minimum-wage laws, helped poor people and poor black people and protected workers from exploitation. I thought they were a good thing until I was pressed by professors to look at the evidence.”

During his junior year at California State College in Los Angeles, Mr. Williams switched his major from sociology to economics after reading W.E.B. Du Bois’s “Black Reconstruction in America,” a Marxist take on the South’s transformation after the Civil War that will never be confused with “The Wealth of Nations.” Even so, the book taught him that “black people cannot make great progress until they understand the economic system, until they know something about economics.”

He earned his doctorate in 1972 from UCLA, which had one of the top economics departments in the country, and he says he “probably became a libertarian through exposure to tough-mined professors”—James Buchanan, Armen Alchian, Milton Friedman—”who encouraged me to think with my brain instead of my heart. I learned that you have to evaluate the effects of public policy as opposed to intentions.”

Mr. Williams distinguished himself in the mid-1970s through his research on the effects of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931—which got the government involved in setting wage levels—and on the impact of minimum-wage law on youth and minority unemployment. He concluded that minimum wages caused high rates of teenage unemployment, particularly among minority teenagers. His research also showed that Davis-Bacon, which requires high prevailing (read: union) wages on federally financed or assisted construction projects, was the product of lawmakers with explicitly racist motivations.

One of Congress’s goals at the time was to stop black laborers from displacing whites by working for less money. Missouri Rep. John Cochran said that he had “received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics.” And Alabama Rep. Clayton Allgood fretted about contractors with “cheap colored labor . . . of the sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country.”

Today just 17% of construction workers are unionized, but Democratic politicians, in deference to the AFL-CIO, have kept Davis-Bacon in place to protect them. Because most black construction workers aren’t union members, however, the law has the effect of freezing them out of jobs. It also serves to significantly increase the costs of government projects, since there are fewer contractors to bid on them than there would be without Davis-Bacon.

Analysis of this issue launched Mr. Williams’s career as a public intellectual, and in 1982 he published his first book, “The State Against Blacks,” arguing that laws regulating economic activity are far larger impediments to black progress than racial bigotry and discrimination. Nearly 30 years later, he stands by that premise.

“Racial discrimination is not the problem of black people that it used to be” in his youth, says Mr. Williams. “Today I doubt you could find any significant problem that blacks face that is caused by racial discrimination. The 70% illegitimacy rate is a devastating problem, but it doesn’t have a damn thing to do with racism. The fact that in some areas black people are huddled in their homes at night, sometimes serving meals on the floor so they don’t get hit by a stray bullet—that’s not because the Klan is riding through the neighborhood.”

Over the decades, Mr. Williams’s writings have sought to highlight “the moral superiority of individual liberty and free markets,” as he puts it. “I try to write so that economics is understandable to the ordinary person without an economics background.” His motivation? “I think it’s important for people to understand the ideas of scarcity and decision-making in everyday life so that they won’t be ripped off by politicians,” he says. “Politicians exploit economic illiteracy.”

Which is why, he adds, the tea party movement is a positive development in our politics and long overdue. “For the first time in my lifetime—and I’m approaching 75 years old—you hear Americans debating about the U.S. Constitution,” he says. “You hear them saying ‘This is unconstitutional’ or ‘We need limits on government’—things that I haven’t heard before. I’ve been arguing them for years, but now there’s widespread acceptance of the idea that we need to limit the government.”

Still, he’s concerned about how far the country has strayed from the type of limited government envisioned by the Founding Fathers. “In 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 to help some French refugees,” he says. In objection, “James Madison stood on the House floor and said he could not take to lay his finger on that article in the Constitution that allows Congress to take the money of its constituents for the purposes of benevolence. Well, if you look at the federal budget today, two-thirds to three-quarters of it is for the purposes of benevolence.”

Mr. Williams says that “if there is anything good to be said about the Democratic White House and the [previous] Congress and their brazen attempt to take over the economy and control our lives, it’s that the tea party movement has come out of it. But we have gone so far from the basic constitutional principles that made us a great country that it’s a question of whether we can get back.”

The place to start, says Mr. Williams by way of advice to the new Republican House, is on the spending side of the federal ledger. “We need a constitutional amendment that limits the amount of money the government can spend,” he says. “Let’s say 18% of GDP to start. The benefit of a spending limitation amendment is that you’re going to force Congress to trade off against the various spending constituencies. Somebody says, ‘I want you to spend $10 billion on this,’ and the congressman can respond, ‘My hands are tied, so you have to show me where I can cut $10 billion first.’”

Mr. Williams says he hopes that the tea party has staying power, but “liberty and limited government is the unusual state of human affairs. The normal state throughout mankind’s history is for him to be subject to arbitrary abuse and control by government.”

He adds: “A historian writing 100 or 200 years from now might well say, ‘You know, there was this little historical curiosity that existed for maybe 200 years, where people were free from arbitrary abuse and control by government and where there was a large measure of respect for private property rights. But then it went back to the normal state of affairs.’”

Hoping to end our conversation on a sunnier note, I pose a final question about race. “A Man of Letters,” Thomas Sowell’s fabulous book of correspondence, includes a letter the Stanford economist sent in 2006 to Mr. Williams, whom he’s known for four decades. “[B]ack in the early years,” writes Mr. Sowell, “you and I were pretty pessimistic as to whether what we were writing would make an impact—especially since the two of us seemed to be the only ones saying what we were saying. Today at least we know that there are lots of other blacks writing and saying similar things . . . and many of them are sufficiently younger that we know there will be good people carrying on the fight after we are gone.”

Asked if he shares his friend’s optimism, Mr. Williams responds that he does. “You find more and more black people—not enough in my opinion but more and more—questioning the status quo,” he says. “When I fill in for Rush, I get emails from blacks who say they agree with what I’m saying. And there are a lot of white people questioning ideas on race, too. There’s less white guilt out there. It’s progress.”

Mr. Riley is a member of The Journal’s editorial board.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A13

[Mavorpen]

It is because people always think of democrats as the pro-black party which seems very general. This is to show it is not true and the statement is ignorant to say.

If you ACTUALLY wanted to show that, you would support it instead of annoyingly cherry picking shit from 40 years ago.

You should say 'Currently, the democrat party is the one that will help blacks the most.' By throwing in 'currently', politicians from the past (from either side) couldn't be used in the debate.

No shit.

One reason people say the democrats are pro-black is because they are pro-welfare.

No, it's because they typically don't do shit that explicitly hurt minorities, including black people. It's because, compared to the GOP, who shove their fingers into their ears and scream "LALALALALALALALALA!!!" the Democratic party actually listens.

You know utterly fucking nothing about black people, and I have no idea why you pretend that you do.

[Othelos]

And, of course, these people are also usually the ones to parrot, "I'm not responsible for my ancestor's ownership of slavery! Why should I be punished!?!"I mean, not that anyone argued that they are, but the cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy there is amusing.

It is because people always think of democrats as the pro-black party which seems very general. This is to show it is not true and the statement is ignorant to say.

If we say 'whites have always been kind to blacks' then the statement could be attacked by pointing out slavery.

You should say 'Currently, the democrat party is the one that will help blacks the most.' By throwing in 'currently', politicians from the past (from either side) couldn't be used in the debate.

One reason people say the democrats are pro-black is because they are pro-welfare. An argument given is that the welfare state has hurt blacks more than other races though.

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/01/2 ... son-riley/

Most people on welfare or dependent on the government for income are white

[Mavorpen]

By the way, any reasonable person would stop reading that article at "The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do. . . . And that is to destroy the black family."

I mean, what the actual fuck? Only someone that has NEVER read ANYTHING about slavery could make such a stupid fucking claim. Black people couldn't get married. Many slaves taken from Africa were separated from their families. And slaves who came WITH their families could, and often were, separated and sent to separate plantations. Who the fuck would take this article seriously when it apparently doesn't know basic shit about the institution that affected the black population the most?

[Othelos]

By the way, any reasonable person would stop reading that article at "The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do. . . . And that is to destroy the black family."

I mean, what the actual fuck? Only someone that has NEVER read ANYTHING about slavery could make such a stupid fucking claim. Black people couldn't get married. Many slaves taken from Africa were separated from their families. And slaves who came WITH their families could, and often were, separated and sent to separate plantations. Who the fuck would take this article seriously when it apparently doesn't know basic shit about the institution that affected the black population the most?

I didn't even bother reading it.

[Mavorpen]

By the way, any reasonable person would stop reading that article at "The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do. . . . And that is to destroy the black family."

I mean, what the actual fuck? Only someone that has NEVER read ANYTHING about slavery could make such a stupid fucking claim. Black people couldn't get married. Many slaves taken from Africa were separated from their families. And slaves who came WITH their families could, and often were, separated and sent to separate plantations. Who the fuck would take this article seriously when it apparently doesn't know basic shit about the institution that affected the black population the most?

I didn't even bother reading it.

I ALMOST didn't bother reading it, but I decided to give it at least ONE shot, and I stopped barely a few lines in because of that statement above.

[The Black Forrest]

...That Hilary would win.

So you think that out of over 100 million eligible Americans to become president, Hillary is the best choice?!

You have low standards.

Too bad Republican choices are even lower standards.