General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums#BlackLivesMatter co-founder warns presidential candidates: ‘We will shut down every single debate’
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/blacklivesmatter-co-founder-warns-presidential-candidates-we-will-shut-down-every-single-debate/#.VavP3ngKF58.twitterGood, hope they do. Wouldnt it be nice if they could actually make a difference? Stay tuned.
They wont be allowed in republican debates, but there would be no reason to go there in the first place.
Republicans are on record being fine with the killings of Black people, as far as I am concerned.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scuba
(53,475 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)You don't think we're there yet?
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)
Historic NY
(37,458 posts)<Throughout the Democratic primaries in 1968, voters consistently backed candidates who promised to wind down the war--from McCarthy; to New York Sen. Robert Kennedy, who was assassinated after winning the California primary in June; to South Dakota Sen. George McGovern. But at the Democratic convention in Chicago, the party bosses imposed Hubert Humphrey, LBJ's pro-war vice president, as the nominee.
To antiwar activists and delegates representing McCarthy and the others, the Democratic establishment offered nothing at all. In fact, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley turned the city into an armed camp, unleashing his police force on protesters in the streets near convention hotels. The images of police beating hundreds of demonstrators were so shocking that Connecticut Sen. Abraham Ribicoff, a McGovern delegate, denounced them as "Gestapo tactics" on the floor of the convention.
In November--just four years after LBJ had won a landslide victory--conservative Republican Richard Nixon defeated the divided "majority" party with a mere 43 percent of the popular vote. The Democratic Party's actions in Chicago and its refusal to address the concerns of its grassroots supporters--as well as international events like the May general strike in France and the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia "turned a generation of radical activists into revolutionaries," wrote author Joe Allen in Vietnam: The (Last) War the U.S. Lost.>
<WHAT, IF anything, does McCarthy's campaign for the White House tell us about Bernie Sanders today? That thousands of activists drew radical conclusions, despite the ultimate failure of McCarthy's campaign, would seem to support the idea that a similar effort could lay the groundwork for greater organization of the left. But a closer look shows the opposite.
First, as important as movements like Occupy Wall Street a few years back or Black Lives Matter today are, they are nowhere near as widespread or powerful as the antiwar or Black Power movements of 1968 were. Whatever impact McCarthy's campaign had inside the Democratic Party owed to what was going on outside the party, not the revolt within it.
Sanders' supporters today have even less ambition than 1968's McCarthy supporters, who were challenging the central plank of the foreign policy agenda of a sitting president. And even if thousands of antiwar activists drew radical conclusions from their failed efforts to influence the Democratic Party from within, that was certainly not the intention of those who went "clean for Gene.">
http://socialistworker.org/2015/05/11/the-ghost-of-liberal-democrats-past
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)"...until you start protesting us."
Its going to be fun to see DU and other left leaning publications suddenly turn on BLM protesters.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)But who am I to say? I'm just some white leftie. Knock yourselves out.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Just hand the reichwingers a hammer, but don't be surprised when they belt you with it.
randys1
(16,286 posts)But we cant pretend to be surprised or that this is new.
Racism is in charge everywhere in this country
EVERYWHERE
Quackers
(2,256 posts)It is everywhere. It doesn't stop at party affiliation. I know one guy who is now retired. He's a hardcore Democrat, retired from Ford, has been Union all his life, but he absolutely hates black people.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)Those against BLM are not leftists. Protests like this have been going on for decades. It seems certain "leftists" are oh so upset that people are paying attention this time.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Every bit as effective as PETA, Critical Mass, open carry dunderheads, etc...for the same damn reason.
chalmers
(288 posts)You are talking about them
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...then I think you have to question its effectiveness in terms of achieving your goal. Threatening to disrupt every debate is probably not advancing the cause. Actually disrupting them would almost certainly be counterproductive.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)craigmatic
(4,510 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Bush was re-elected, we're still in Iraq, and Wall Sreet is even wealthier than before.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)Iraq got the dems congress in 2006 and Obama made president in 2008.
Wall street backlash helped get Warren elected and Sanders is running against them. Sometimes you have to bring attention to an issue first to get things done.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Maybe the candidates who agreed with the issues were just spewing platitudes? They're the same ones ignoring police brutality and killing... Maybe protest them? Maybe elect candidates who have been walking the walk for 50 years, not triangulating the talk for 30 years?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... then YES, you get attention, but is that kind of attention productive?
Code Pink is disruptive, but they don't disrupt events where there are people on their side already. They focus on the enemies of their causes as well as other public institutional events like Supreme court hearings, congressional hearings, where being heard there can present something that gets better attention for you.
Ultimately, if you try to cut off those speaking who otherwise are your biggest fans or supporters, just because you say they aren't doing enough, you are just going to dig a deeper hole to crawl out of rather than finding those that can build a ladder to get out of that hole.
Occupy Wall Street protestors didn't just spend time yelling at people in homeless shelters or those working in them to get attention that they are "doing something different" to get attention by going after people who otherwise support them heavily. They focused on WALL STREET and other situations/organizations like that to confront those situations and those persons who are primarily responsible for their concerns.
Iraq War protestors were most effective when they could actually get soldiers who fought in these wars to protest with them. It's been that way since Vietnam days. Likewise, BLM protests would be a lot more effective the more white people join them in protests instead of just venting against every white person they see because "all of them" have to be aware of the problem.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Erose999
(5,624 posts)
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Code pink protested pro war government officials, not anti war advocates
Iraq war protesters didn't protest against peace groups or organizations
They went to the belly of the beast.
False analogy.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)with their attacks on the left.
inwiththenew
(972 posts)n/t
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)police brutality or reform the system gets the black votes and probably the nomination.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)why is that do you think?
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)We volunteered and did grunt campaign work for him but gays gave money as a bloc. Still that hasn't stopped him from signing exec actions to end sexual orientation discrimination in the federal government and giving a full throated endorsement of gay rights before the SCOTUS case decided the issue. Like I said money talks.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Got it.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Should be an interesting year.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Unless they're following the principle that the GOP should get in there and make things so bad that people will finally wake up.....yawn.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)Nobody care if they're killed off.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Stellar
(5,644 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Protest at times and places that don't f'up the candidates who are most on the side of the protestors.
In candidates QA's ask pointed questions but respectfully.
Actually meet with the candidates and staff.
Choose spokespeople who are capable of expressing clear anger forcefully but realize that the goal is to convince people, not alienate them or poke fingers in the eyes of people who support their positions. (I've seen many great spokespeople for these positions on TV who are effective in that sense)
Stop assuming that people who aren't as aware or directly impacted are all unsympathetic morons or stooges of racism.
Just a few thoughts.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)
Democratic presidential candidates under pressure at liberal event
Democrats are pinning their electoral fortunes on African-American and Latino voters. But the Sanders revolution looks a lot like Vermont, the second whitest state in the country. To mount a competitive challenge against Hillary Clinton, Sanders must do something he has never had to do—reach beyond the kind of post-racial political message he honed in his home state and connect with voters who don't look like him.
And so far, he's coming up short...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/19/politics/bernie-sanders-african-americans-2016-netroots/index.html
Anyway, the issue gave Bernie a chance to do some homework. So forget it. People may just vote for Hillary because Bernies supporters are... I hope it's not too late for Bernie.
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/totally-outrageous-sanders-says-of-texas-police-video/
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Telling the truth and backing up your argument with extrinsic, verifiable evidence.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)Things change regularly, don't you know. I'll even bet Bernie isn't wearing the same clothes that he had 50yrs ago (although he's probably still the same size) because he changed them.
Black lives matter is about cops killing unarmed black people.
Comparing the killing of black people with the 'March on Washinton' like it's the same thing. smh
Stellar
(5,644 posts)...Perhaps that was the only way he would meet and take pictures with black people, LOL . J/K
cascadiance - - -what has any of that to do with Black Lives Matter? You found some huge pictures of Bernie Sanders and posted them here, And to make yourself feel even better, you posted a picture of Hillary,the Goldwater girl (real old news). I've seen them all before. Bernie joined the March on Washington, which featured the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech, in 1963. Also, "Hillary Rodham entered Wellesley College, in the fall of 1965, as a Goldwater Girl, and left it, in the spring of 1969, as an admirer of the community organizer Saul Alinsky. Today, the story of a young person from Middle America moving to the left while at an élite college is familiar, and back then it was probably even more nearly universal."
Yes, I know all of that because I googled it too.
What has any of that to do with #Black lives Matters?
What has any of it to do with unarmed Black folks being murdered in the street by cops with impunity? 
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Hasn't Bernie working alongside them on so many issues and being in the streets with them meant anything that black lives matter to him. Certainly as much as any of the other presidential candidates running at this point if not more.
Tell me WHERE Bernie has been working AGAINST the goals of Black Lives Matter to deserve CRITICISM and PROTESTS against him that have been done far moreso towards him than others who deserve criticism far more than he does.
It looks to me like people just trying to get an opportunity to be "heard', not necessarily minding that they are probably doing more to have many people who would be supporting many of them so much more to be more turned off by them.
It's like the reason Bernie is being targeted is because he's an old white guy from a white population state and that must make him bad and a racist. Does anyone understand how that works so against the fundamental goals of what I perceive the BLM's group's goals to be, in having a more pluralistic society where we get rid of racism and black people aren't targeted for violent actions? As I've said many times, we're better off working with many groups of people willing to do the right things, not just go after them because of their skin color too. Many people spit on soldiers coming back from Vietnam too, even though many of those soldiers probably felt the same way they did about the war, and would be involved with protests themselves later. Same kind of problem!
Just an hour ago or so, in a PCP group I attended from a very white area here in Oregon, we passed a resolution that our resolution committee came up with that takes issue with the police violence around the country and is recommending some laws and better infrastructure changes are made to fix many of these problems and specifically made the case for protecting black people as the most disproportionately affected by it. I wonder if it might not have passed if a BLM group came in and gave those trying to get this resolution passed amongst many other things a hard time the way they did Bernie at Netroots.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)It looks to me like people just trying to get an opportunity to be "heard', not necessarily minding that they are probably doing more to have many people who would be supporting many of them so much more to be more turned off by them.
If the Sanders supporters (the many people) are doing anything, it is turning off the people that Bernie need to help him to get elected. Bernie needs blacks and latinos to create the same coalition that Obama won with, or so I've read. Black people left Hillary in the 2008 election because of their racist campaign against Obama. Now, perhaps black will return to Hillary because of the Sanders supporters extremely hostile environment.
What the Hispanic Vote Says About Bernie Sanders’s Chances
Even as Bernie Sanders moves up in the polls, many people are realizing that there’s a big hole in his coalition: black voters.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/upshot/what-the-hispanic-vote-says-about-bernie-sanderss-chances.html?_r=0
Can Bernie Sanders win black voters?
(CNN)In his bid to ride a progressive wave to the White House, Bernie Sanders is failing to connect with a key Democratic constituency: African-Americans.
Democrats are pinning their electoral fortunes on African-American and Latino voters. But the Sanders revolution looks a lot like Vermont, the second whitest state in the country. To mount a competitive challenge against Hillary Clinton, Sanders must do something he has never had to do—reach beyond the kind of post-racial political message he honed in his home state and connect with voters who don't look like him. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/19/politics/bernie-sanders-african-americans-2016-netroots/index.html
Bernie Sanders' two big problems: race and gender
I realize that there's a big Bernie Sanders thing going on at Dailykos. There are going to be a lot of people mad at me for throwing cold water on the parade by addressing some drastic flaws in Sanders' campaign. After a successful Wisconsin rally that attracted more than 10,000 people both the people and the press have been trying to catch some of that lightening in the bottle. The awkward phrase "Bernie-mentum" has been heard, and the slightly more clever "Feel the Bern" has become a huge hit for fundraiser e-mails.
Still, despite all the celebration on Daily Kos, there has been a very awkward issue about Bernie Sanders that most people around here have been trying to ignore. NBCNews buried it deep in its article about Sanders' Wisconsin rally, but it was an important fact nonetheless.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/03/1398901/-Bernie-Sanders-two-big-problems-race-and-gender
Bernie Sanders could be the new Howard Dean that could get all of the white Liberals to vote for him but no one else and lose the election.
And finally, yesterday...
http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show
Sanders speaks out on Sandra Bland
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders issues a forceful statement on the case of Sandra Bland, days after a tense confrontation with #BlackLivesMatter activists. Sanders joins Ed Schultz to explain.
Duration: 7:27
One other thing that you said..."It's like the reason Bernie is being targeted is because he's an old white guy from a white population state and that must make him bad and a racist."
'You' see an old white guy but at this point I see a person (any person) that appears to be ahead of the game and BLM could use his power as POTUS if he was to win the election. BLM people are saying...don't forget us or our issues in your stump speech. He'll get black voters then.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)ANY! Only articles that say he "isn't connecting" that is derived from crappy "evidence" that he only had mostly white people at his big announcement he was running in Vermont. In the real world he only had three choices to do this announcement, that had absolutely no bearing on what he himself would do for people of color and other gender. And it appears you leave out articles on LGBT people, probably because it is harder to measure their faces in a crowd, and it is also hard to argue with him who's fought for their rights like gay marriage way for MANY more years than so many other politicians.
The three choices he had were:
1) Have it in his state of Vermont, where the population mix that is mostly white is reflected in the crowds attending his speech.
2) Have it in his state of Vermont, but bus in tons of extra women and people of color to artificially inflate the totals for the optics of the cameras covering the event.
3) Basically tell the people of Vermont, that though he is their senator, they don't matter as much when he runs for president, and have that announcement elsewhere.
He chose the first one, which in my book was appropriate and the most honest and representative of his character, even if the optics of the crowd didn't show a lot of diversity. The last two would show that either he at times backs away from those who supported and brought him to where he has been, or to try to artificially doctor reality to make it look like he's someone he's not. Those two options aren't true to his character. If you have another option from these three that you feel he should have taken that was practical and in the real world that BLM would feel helps him as a candidate to show he supports them, then please suggest it.
He does talk about issues of color and gender, etc. too. But it's also true that he spends a lot of time talking about many other issues that other politicians don't want to talk about to avoid taking stances that their corporate owners don't want discussed (like TPP/TPA, updating our tax code, helping those young people with huge debts or who can't afford to go to school to be a part of the work force, raising the minimum wage, etc. In context when he speaks on all of these issues, it might be "made" to appear to some through the media working for corporate forces looking to divide us, that he doesn't care about BLM issues. I call that out as complete BS! It's just that he's got so much on his plate and all of our plates as Americans, and so many of these issues also help BLM people with so many of their issues too.
Yes, he could speak more directly at times in that mix of issues on police violence, etc. too. There are plenty of ways to do that and get him to talk about them more and talk about how he plans to try and tackle them in the same ways that a person of color who's in office now hasn't been able to. But just because he doesn't ONLY talk about these issues doesn't mean he cares. And if so many of BLM voters dislike him for talking about these other issues and not having a second head to talk about BLM at the same time, or not just avoiding talking about the other issues and only talking about BLM issues, then I would say that their expectations are too high for a presidential candidate. Yes, a leader like Malcom X or MLK who's not running for president will focus on those issues and not talk about them just in context with many others in the mix. But they were working to further the cause and my hats off to them for doing so effectively in their day. JFK or other presidential candidates couldn't only talk about issues of race in their time and get elected to do things for them either. It's just not practical. Bernie needs to appeal to many different segments of the population to get elected, and emphasize issues that have been screwing all of them and they all feel deeply about to overcome the big money machine that has grown so much bigger than it ever has in our history of elections.
If in forums where people are allowed to ask questions, we can make sure that organizers allow BLM people to be at the front of the line to have their questions heard, I'm all for that. That way, he can respond directly to what you all ask him to talk about that you feel isn't being talked about enough in our society, and I believe he'd be happy to answer them in that context. But if you just yell at him and don't give him a chance to speak anything (whether it is on other issues, or what could be leading to issues you care about), then you aren't accomplishing anything but breaking apart the base that is needed to get someone in to office that can make changes that more corporate politicians can't or won't make to make a difference, whether they be white, women, or another person of color like we have in office now. THAT DOES NOT HELP YOU! And if it doesn't then why are you doing it? Because the media and the other campaign want this division to be aired out to stop both Bernie's campaign and the wants and desires of your movement by splitting the 99% base? I and many other Bernie supporters think so. You might interpret our voices here being ones that we're all siding against BLM and the problem that Bernie has. But as I noted when I spoke of us here where I live passing a resolution last night against police violence against people of color, there are many of us who are working hard on these issues, and you assume that because we are white and support Bernie that we are aligned against you. Can't you see how that is a form of prejudice which is the core of what you are trying to work against being part of our society?
I really want to stop us both arguing as it makes me sad too, as it has made many others here. I want to focus on BLM's peoples issues, as well as so many other issues that are fundamentally needing fixing in this country. At the top of those in my book are climate change issues, as it likely will have to be dealt with forcefully or we won't have anyone living on this planet in a generation or two, or at least many of them will be living in a Mad Max type of reality then. Do you want your young kids or their kids having to endure that (if we even have a second generation)? We need a fundamental change of those in power at the top, and the system of institutionalized bribery that puts them there now. We won't achieve that when we are divided on the minutia of how we feel different issues are emphasized... I still feel that Bernie is the best opportunity of getting a leader in place to facilitate that change. I just wish you would follow one of those very bright young people of color here that had the same feelings as noted here...
Still hoping that Bernie wins the nomination, and we have this bright person of the future speaking for him at the convention and also speaking for all of the young people that don't have a vote in this election, but who's future lives are at stake if we don't deal with big issues for his generation on things like climate change.
Just spoke to a younger person last night who as an independent voter was registering as a Democrat and as a PCP because he wanted to help Bernie as the hope he sees for our country too. He even said that he doesn't know if he wants to have kids now, without feeling like we're doing something to deal with climate change, as he doesn't want to bring a life in to the future that has no decent future to live in. I had just made a point to some visiting Oregon state legislators that not only should we have a free community college system for kids starting in 2017 that they fought hardly for and won in such a great way, despite our limited budget now, but that we need to work in the next year or two on at least planning on how we can provide some funding for students that are hugely in debt just from attending community college the last few years who will feel singled out as being left out of the equation versus all other age groups here when we need them most when they become registered to vote. They should use what has just been passed as a model for measuring how much money they should get back so that we can have a balanced society too.
http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-33425-oregon_will_become_second_state_to_offer_free_community_college.html
This gentleman echoed that concern as he's in his final year of community college now too, and says his generation has been turned off to both political parties because of the system we have in place now that puts many of them in to positions of debt slavery amongst other things and feeling like they don't have a voice in either party as well. Someone like Bernie gives him hope! I'm looking to work with him to get more young people and people of color (whether they be black, latino, asian, or those of the middle east that aren't as present in our PCP group as they should be).
We NEED that hope! Please don't tear that hope down. I trust that's not your objective in going after Bernie, even if that appears to be that net effect might happen as a result of it.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)Please show me or explain this BEFORE I read everything you just sent me. Because the first thing I read doesn't make sense to me. That is not Bernie's nature to work against anyone that I know of.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and that they perceive that whatever he's done has worked against them in some way.
I had just asked for some links to something where BLM have a focus on what he's done against them. And you say there isn't any. Why are they so upset?
I guess it is their perception of a lack of enough emphasis on their issues. As I noted, he has spoken out on these issues and gone to places like Selma to communicate that he cares about them. But many of you are just clueless if you think he'll get elected and be able to do anything about fixing these problems if that is only what he talks about, or isn't able to talk about anything else because people try to yell over him saying anything else.
I think if there's a person or group of people that is showing they can't connect with other people, it is more BLM that was doing so in situations like what happened in Netroots. To many outside the movement and to many who really want to help it too, it seemed like a kid that is crying to get attention rather than an adult trying to pragmatically pick appropriate times to be heard and strongly assert themselves in doing so. Of course the corporate media love trying to give attention to those that will help split apart the populist progressive base that is what they as corporate entities want to put down more than any other group of people.
If the BLM people attending the session had given him a chance to speak, and then during the Q/A session at that point if no questions are being brought up about black violence, etc. after the first or second question, THEN it would have been entirely appropriate to yell and I think you would have had the whole crowd yelling to them to do so, and if the questioner had such a question in his hand, I'm sure he would have read it, or even tried to offer one that he thinks the crowd is asking, and Bernie could have answered it, and I think WOULD have answered it enthusiastically. In my mind, even though it might not have made as much national news, it would have built a lot more support for BLM amongst the conference attendees. If they had a lot of people suddenly putting up signs at the same time to have a huge visual impact at that point too, maybe they could have gotten the national media still to cover it a lot then too. But then it could have been a productive dialogue that elevated their issues nationally too at the same time, having everyone be a winner!
Stellar
(5,644 posts)
kentuck
(111,111 posts)...if it is backed up by Hillary or Bernie? Will either of them be able to meet the BLM halfways?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But not if the people advocating for controls on the cops build up public resentment on the issue and create another Nixonian opportunity for the GOP to create another Silent Majority backlash campaign
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Ala "the rent is too damn high".
Make police brutality part of the platform. If BLM wants a coalition, they have to accept that other issues will also be on the platform, and will be spoken about. And crap like "the candidates didn't humble themselves before us" is just plain egotistical bullshit, and a complete turnoff.
Basically, if BLM wants change through the system, they have to learn how to work through the system.
If they reject working within the system, and just want to throw bombs, OK...but they are marginalizing themselves.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Could we be heading towards something along those lines?
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)This is just getting black issues adopted by the platform plank. We need to reform or severely change the way the criminal justice system works.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)They are targeting the left because the left actually listens.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)The left can't act it it doesn't have any power.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)Blacks have been the most loyal voters in the democratic party and the fact that your best answer is to keep doing the same thing without demanding something in return is stupid and self-defeating. If the party ignored issues you cared about would you still support it?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Progressives aren't in power.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Because Bernie IS the choice outside of that box, and if they work against him, they either want corporate people to stay in power, or they don't understand who the candidates in this election are really working for. Why would they love corporate people being in power over them, when those that have been in power from that power group have done NOTHING for them but screw them along with many of the rest of us over the last three decades.
If their goal is that we all need to be made to suffer like they've had to suffer, and just increase suffering for everyone, then maybe they'll succeed. But is that what Americans want? Why would they want that?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The sort of anger that surfaced as a result of the Democratic party not listening to those who felt strongly about similar issues.
pa28
(6,145 posts)Hopefully BLM and their supporters will find a sympathetic ear in president Rubio because that's exactly what they're going to get.
quizzle
(44 posts)Cullors told This Week host L. Joy Williams that she felt neither O’Malley nor Sanders were “humble enough” during their town hall appearance, and called on presidential candidates to be willing to openly discuss issues of race and gender.
“No more skirting around the issues,” Cullor said. “We will shut down every single debate.”
The protest began during O’Malley’s interview with Vargas, with demonstrators jeering when O’Malley used the phrases “every life matters” and “white lives matter” while responding to a question calling on him to demonstrate an “action plan” for how he would address police violence if elected.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)That's how the gays got Obama and that's how we need to get whoever the next nominee is. Shuting shit down accomplishes nothing except making us look like assholes at the very least we should do both.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Huh?
smh
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)Being right and just is only half the battle but money pushes issues to your side.
msongs
(67,478 posts)quizzle
(44 posts)This isn't helpful
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)been supporting the democratic party since the 60's at least and we still face institutional racism and police brutality in places where democrats hold office. They need to side with us and stop this otherwise we shouldn't vote for them. If this happened to whatever group you belonged to you would want your party and government to stand beside you too.
quizzle
(44 posts)Republicans are even worse. Giving the government to republicans isn't going to solve either problem.
Also the next president could be putting 3 justices on the bench. Giving the cons the chance to put 3 more tea bag judges on the bench is gonna be very bad
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)until they do for you.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)So they need to stop acting like they do.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)The AA community is free to vote for the candidate of their choice. No, the Democratic Party doesn't own Black votes. True, the Third Way wing of the Democratic Party has often failed Blacks. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party has strongly supported Blacks since the Civil Rights fight, but hasn't been in power since the 70s.
quizzle
(44 posts)Have to pander to the center/right. But you're correct they don't it own it perhaps you'll be happier under a republican reign at least they will listen to you, right? Perspective people perspective
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)The candidates are repeating their message. Because it's the right message. The rest of us need to get on board as well.
Warpy
(111,423 posts)as Democrats have to start looking like Republicans, throwing disruptive children who only want to wreck any possibility of dialog or discussion out on their bums.
Black lives will matter a whole hell of a lot more as more of this stuff hits the courts and starts costing cities and police forces a lot of money, as well as cops and officials their jobs.
Black lives haven't mattered to the power structure for a very long time. The way to make them matter is to start hitting these assholes in the only place they feel pain, their wallets. The only way to do that is with intelligence, education, and planning. It is already starting to happen that way, although not frequently enough yet.
Temper tantrums in public forums might appeal to the young and frustrated. They just won't work and will provoke a backlash.
Warpy
(111,423 posts)but I was right and they were wrong and we got Richard Nixon.
Think about that.
former9thward
(32,127 posts)SDS argued against demonstrations on the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam Committee which coordinated the demonstrations. We (I was a west coast leader of SDS at the time) told the other groups that Chicago cops would kick people's asses if we tried to screw with Daley's convention. The other group saying not to come to Chicago was the Communist Party. Don Hamerquist was the CP Youth leader and the CP's rep on the Mobe and he made the same argument. Those arguments were ignored and the rest is history.
Capn Sunshine
(14,378 posts)FBI had provocateurs well entrenched in all these groups, and most of the violence began when these clowns would throw bottles and rocks at police lines and cars.
As a leader of the Student Mobilization Committee at the time, we began assigning our own "security" to keep these guys in check during our demonstrations. Some were actual anarchists, who believed that the revolution would start when people saw them getting beat up on the evening news, but most were just FBI stooges as we found out later thanks to early FOIA requests.
former9thward
(32,127 posts)
Damn, I haven't thought about them in forever. I can see your point, though BLM has yet to reach the levels of disruption SDS did. Plus 1968 looked a hell of a lot different than 2016 does. Do you really think the analogy is apt?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Of course the SDS was only one of the groups allied in the anti-war movement...it was far bigger than BLM, who are doing a poor job of cultivating allies, even though the cause is just.
What happened, is that when RFK was killed, the left couldn't agree on a candidate, and Humphrey was declared the nominee. No matter how righteous the cause, the left was blamed for the violence, even though it was Daleys (a Democrat) thug cops and union-workers who were committing it. The country at large threw the fractured and in-fighting Dems out, and elected Nixon. The war continued, the protests continued, and then Kent State pretty much killed the spirit of the Left. The war continued for 5 more years.
I've been down this road before. I know where it leads.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)Wouldn't it be likely that if they did get in, they'd be escorted out?
That seems more likely than the idea that they could shut down the debates . . . .
And if they want their issues to be discussed, why would they want to shut down the debates?
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)Of course, they can start profiling and turning away black attendees. I'm sure that would go over well...
This is an excellent strategy. All the candidates must do is not be dismissive.
Erose999
(5,624 posts)down. There has to be more to protest than just causing a disruption. #BLM missed an opportunity for dialogue with the only candidate out there who is even remotely sympathetic to their concerns.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)I think Sanders did fine.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Will be all over it, in it and under it, if they haven't out right set it up to lure in activists. Its why every domestic terrorist sting is an entrapment set up.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)
Hekate
(91,001 posts)"They wont be allowed in republican debates, but there would be no reason to go there in the first place." --> randys1
Please tell me this part isn't so. Please.
Chicago 1968 gave Richard Nixon the election on a silver platter, and believe me when I say there is NO ONE running on the GOP side this year that has half his intellect.
"Republicans are on record being fine with the killings of Black people, as far as I am concerned." --> randys1
So, you're telling me that you are in favor of raking your allies over the coals, but not challenging your enemies. Please reconsider you words, or explain to me that I misunderstood you badly.
HFRN
(1,469 posts)as possible
'They wont be allowed in republican debates, but there would be no reason to go there in the first place.'
randys1
(16,286 posts)HFRN
(1,469 posts)whatever it was, that you thought you were saying
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)we want because there's no sympathy here. All they care about is unity for unity's sake and not people issues.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Either democratic debates become bizarre sideshows, or, everybody hates black people ...
There is no middle ground? ... Either focus exclusively on MY issues, or you are racist? ...
It's a big world with lots of problems ... BLM is a HUGE issue, to be sure ... It needs to be dealt with NOW - Not just during debates, but immediately with the government that is CURRENTLY in power ...
Why wait until the next government? ... Why not march to the DoJ? ... Why not protest at the Supreme Court? ... It's fair to expect BLM will be top agenda item, but, to try and take control and derail the debates, in the middle of an already tough campaign, ... Well, it simply doesn't seem wise ...
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
historylovr
(1,557 posts)Black Lives Matter, goddess knows. Unfortunately, as I understand it, the panel they disrupted at Netroots was about immigration issues. Oh ... well?
And yes, how many more black people will be killed by cops during the current administration? We need action NOW!
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Here, I found one for you 
Even with it, you do not get a pass for this ridiculous crap.
HFRN
(1,469 posts)someone's taking a wrecking ball to your opposition, and leaving you alone?
you help them any way you can
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Because the only candidacies that need to be shut down are Sanders, Clinton and O'Malley.
That there's a winning strategy.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Whether they will or not I dont know.
But if you dont know the OBVIOUS reason, then nothing i ever say about anything will make any sense to you.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 22, 2015, 10:28 PM - Edit history (1)
"shutting down debates" doesn't do anything productive for Democrats and boycotting Republican debates doesn't do anything negative to them.
This is entirely irrational unless electing republicans is the goal.
One cannot be heard at debates which are turned into bedlam.
If Hillary skips those debates like she skipped the netroots debacle, she's picked the winning strategy. A point which is (at a minimum) not lost on her $50 million campaign staff.
Paladin
(28,282 posts)The right wing has gotten a lot of mileage out of the recent BLM demonstrations, already. I don't see why our candidates should absorb all the public criticism, and the asshole right-wingers' appearances go off without a hitch. If that's really what's planned, somebody's not thinking things through.
And I say the foregoing as someone who participated in his first civil rights demonstration about 50 years ago.
rollin74
(1,994 posts)
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Grandstanding at debates might sound cool, but it won't get anything done. You don't move your agenda by bitching in public, you do it by pressuring your opponents until they move it for you. It won't turn into Chicago 1968, it'll just marginalize the movement further in official eyes and make it harder for anything to get done. Only amateurs call the only allies they can find assholes in public.
randys1
(16,286 posts)MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Grow up. I know DU's all about this passive-aggressive moral high horse bullshit lately, but give it a rest. Cheerleading stupid ideas when you know they're stupid is actually worse than being on the wrong side. But hey, do what you like. Just don't whine when it's blindingly obvious in hindsight that it's a bad idea.
randys1
(16,286 posts)and tell them straight to their face...
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)I know you're so full of self-righteousness now that you'll blatantly lie (calling "black folk" stupid), but bad news friend. That stupid shit doesn't work on me. You go on cheerleading and just hope everybody forgets you did when this fails. Good luck with that.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)None are officially scheduled at this point.
It would be interesting to see how this would happen, considering how carefully tptb manage primary debates, with custom questions for each candidate, and not even a glancing effort to make it look like they give a shit about equal talk time or opportunity.
Who will they be protesting? The debaters, who are answering the questions they are asked, or the debate organizers, if they don't ask the right questions?
It's good to demand answers, but then, if they want to hear specifics from candidates, they need to allow them to speak.
I guess they could wait for a racial justice question, and then, if one is asked and a candidate deflects or generalizes, then they could shut them down.
I'm sure some sort of racial justice question will be asked of at least one candidate, since they've gotten attention, and it should. Which candidate do you think the debate organizers will ask? Will they suddenly, out of the blue, develop a conscience and let all the candidates answer?
pansypoo53219
(21,005 posts)
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Lets give democrats the poison pill of turning off black voters by being forced to run these people out of the debates or appearing weak and unable to control their own events to everyone else.
What could possibly go wrong.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,377 posts)This would keep Bernie's voice from being heard.
I think Hillary would applaud BLM killing any debate.
It's good to be in the lead.
Response to randys1 (Original post)
Freelancer This message was self-deleted by its author.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Response to randys1 (Reply #111)
Freelancer This message was self-deleted by its author.
randys1
(16,286 posts)and yet YOU are telling them what to do.
period
as whites BLM is something peripheral to us
Response to randys1 (Reply #114)
Freelancer This message was self-deleted by its author.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... unless they are pushed hard.
Can you see how that notion of how people think because of what skin color they have is in itself the very problem that you are trying to fight and stop? Yes, there are many of us who acknowledge that POC have been screwed over the years, and many of us want to help too. But if many spit in our faces when we try because we aren't POC and "can't understand them" before even hearing us out on how we might help them out, then don't you see how that doesn't help anyone?
Yes, as Thom Hartmann (who hosts Bernie on his show many times) notes so many times on his show, we white people really can't have the same perspective that those who as POC have had to endure such abuse every day of their lives. Many of us don't get that who are on the right, but many of us do on the progressive side. And it's not a "choice" of ours, but a factor we are born with since we can't just change our skin color to be a POC.
But it IS a choice that we want to hear POC out and try to work with them to fix the system that has been screwing them for so long. The latter is something that can be achieved and will help with these problems. Just tuning out everyone who's not POC and saying they can't understand doesn't help their cause.
randys1
(16,286 posts)had protested ANYWHERE else and ANYONE else other than Bernie, we would NOT be discussing it.
Please admit that.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... specifically against police violence against black people? That was a two month process and way before controversies that have been manufactured about Bernie's campaign.
Are you saying we didn't discuss these problems then when we were WORKING ON A PARTY PLATFORM RESOLUTION for the last two months?
No, you are right, you might not have been heard as MUCH had you protested anywhere else but when trying to stop Bernie speaking. But it was because you were playing in to the corporate media's hands of wanting to draw the image of the progressive populist movement being split, NOT because they feel these issues need to be discussed more.
You might have gotten more attention, but more as someone who's yelling and causing division, not as someone that's building momentum for their causes and growing the base of their support. I would like to think that you want the latter and not the former, but the latter has NOT been achieved through actions like this!
Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)As mentioned above, why wait until the next administration is in place?
Why aren't more people out constantly protesting at the capitol, state capitols, police buildings and so forth. Protest at the debates, sure, but that's just one angle. This needs to be a much larger sea across the general populace rather than isolated political events that aren't even happening until next year for the most part.
randys1
(16,286 posts)are being covered.
Not personalities but you know what I mean.
No, they did it at the PERFECT place
if you cant tell that by now, I cant help you
Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)This is not some one off series of events that they need to focus on, it's something that needs to be done everywhere on a big scale. I'm talking about camping out in front of these places like Occupy did and really making it known more than just when shit happens with more people killed. It needs to be a constant drumbeat, not just at some goddamn debates that aren't happening for several months.
Snow Leopard
(348 posts)I don't enjoy people interferring with exchanges of ideas.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Would that be better?
Response to randys1 (Reply #126)
Freelancer This message was self-deleted by its author.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Response to Freelancer (Reply #128)
Freelancer This message was self-deleted by its author.
melman
(7,681 posts)I notice there's been no answer but it is definitely a good question.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Yes, BLM should be there to make sure theirs are discussed, and very prominently too. I think most of us want that to happen.
But in a forum where you are shouting down someone trying to speak on the wide range of topics, and don't even let them finish where they might be including an emphasis on your issues, then you are basically saying that that person speaking "doesn't count" and shouldn't be allowed to speak, and you don't have any basis for it, because you can't show anything they've done in the past against your issues, nor have you allowed them to speak for or against your issues. You've put them in a no win situation, and many outside will perceive that too, and many will additionally feel it is just because that person is white, and not black that they weren't allowed to speak. That last notion might be false, but many will come to that conclusion whether you like that or not.
If you give a person a chance to speak to the point where they give their views, etc. and then ask for questions afterwards, which is the normal protocol for a forum like that, then that is the time to demand to be heard. You then have the speech as a basis to speak about things you feel were left out, or perhaps even things you support that you want emphasized more and go in depth on. But then you are pushing to get more attention to those issues in a constructive way, and one where people will actually hear and digest the depth of those issues, rather than just digest that you are fighting with the speaker for some reason, and feel that he is standing against you for whatever reason that is not obvious to most outsiders seeing that. THAT is what the corporate media likes and THAT is why you got more attention, not because they want to help give more attention to BLM's issues.
