Black Lives Matter disrupts Martin OMalley, Bernie Sanders town hall
- Thread starter Guevara
- Start date
- Status
I bet O'Malley is the big winner on this. He made it all over the news and even apologized afterwards. It's not like the vast majority of the black vote wasn't already going to Hillary Clinton
and Lincoln Chafee
People apparently forgot she said the same thing O'Malley said last month.
Maybe: I don't claim to know everything about every word she has said during this campaign cycle. It wouldn't surprise me. Reforms like ending three strikes laws for non-violent offenders are actually on a lot of people's radars. Hell, even Rand Paul and Jim Webb have talked about it.
Of course, a candidate saying that they are for "prison reform" and "ending mass incarceration" can mean a lot of things without knowing the specifics of their proposals. I don't think any of the candidates have gone into details about their proposals, which isn't unusual this early in a primary I don't think.
Edit: I meant to quote A Link to the Snitch's reply to me (post 396). I apologize for the confusion.
When a candidate like Sanders who is considered far left and is supposedly a socialist, goes on to blast the prison system for being... Too expensive -- it leaves a lot to be desired in US politics.
Because the ACA and the past year of "dont give a F" Obama are obviously just like a GOP presidency.
If it had been Bernie coming back out to say that, would you have derided him for 'pandering'?
Hillary's fb comment actually came out hours ago, and smarter people than you and I have analyzed it with the conclusion that given time, Hillary was able to come up with a detailed answer that showed exactly how she was different from Bernie without insulting anybody. It seemed very likely with recent events and Hillary herself discussing race the past few months that her campaign was prepared with an answer. That's not pandering, that's composed and ready to tackle the subject.
From a certain standpoint one could call it pandering. And yet, under those same rules one can easily also place Bernie's populist messaging as pandering too.
The situation is not merely as simple as pandering. It's also about readiness and flexibility for circumstance. Someone asks, "What about IS?" Bernie can't just revert to stump speech and say economics. Elizabeth Warren performed admirably at Netroots, because she remembered correctly that this was an event where you have to talk about race.
And yet, none of you were able to articulate any of them until you saw Hillary's comment. What we got instead: Bernie marched with MLK. If Bernie has current positions, state them. Don't run amok deriding the event, deriding the activists, and claiming conspiracy.
Wasn't the affordable care act exactly a GOP plan? And is he not continuing the war on terror, illegal spying, drone strikes, etc. Has he not deported more immigrants than Bush?
Sanders would probably be a slightly leftish liberal in the Democratic party of the 1960's based on what I see of his "radical" proposals.
Politics in the U.S. took a hard right turn in the last quarter of the 20th century, to put it mildly.
Fenderputty
Banned
It is a GOP plan. Which is why it's hilarious anyone would think the GOP is on even footing with any dem. They'll railroad their own heritage born plan if means not giving a W to black man in office.
Team Alucard
Banned
Except his economic policy is what sets him apart from the rest of his peers, and is the main reason why he has gotten so much attention.
If he campaigned primarily on social issues, he'd be Generic Not-Hillary Democrat #3436 and be getting completely ignored along with the likes of O'Malley and Webb.
Yes, it was originally pushed as the GOP alternative to the Dem proposal in the early '90s. It's still a good, economically sound first step towards abolishing the employment/insurance link in this country that undermines everything else. Not every conservative point is bad or wrong, not every liberal idea or theory is correct or a net positive.
Only in a rhetorical sense. It's not like a Republican president would have tried to pass something like it. To the extent that it looks like a Heritage plan, that plan was not a serious policy proposal but was an effort to have something to point to as a better alternative to Hillarycare (where the idea is to use it as a reason not to pass Hillarycare, not to actually pass the alternative - think "repeal and replace"). To the extent that it looks like Romney's health care plan, note that that was Massachusetts.
Likewise it's just kind of silly to talk like Obama has been as bad or worse on immigration than a Republican would have been. McCain was running away from his own bill on the subject.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
"Did u no: Lincoln was a Republican"
You have no idea what you're talking about. People have posted plenty of times about Bernie's positions in here. It's pretty clear at this point that that the mainstream media, Hillary, and these activists all agree that Bernie has a racial messaging problem, and in order to fix it we all have to implement his policies right away. Policies that are the polar opposite of the 90s Clintons.
Well it was uncomfortable no doubt and like I said, I did cringe a bit because of the yelling and not letting them answer but I think good things can come out of it. Just speaking about issues that blacks face would be a big first step. Ask yourself this question, would you even be talking about #blacklivesmatter and any issue related to it if they hadn't done this? I'm going to assume you wouldn't because no one was talking about it. Everyone was talking about economic issues. This will at least give some attention to the issues blacks face.
Well I'm hoping black folks give Bernie a chance. Just been seeing a lot of negativity aimed at Bernie from black people lately so it makes me think that the dye has been cast which would be disappointing. Hopefully he can find a way to resonate with them better because I think he could potentially do a lot of good for black community.
Hopefully out of this struggle Sander's campaign can learn and come out stronger. Because I really want his campaign to succeed as well as possible even if he has a very low chance of coming out on top. So hopefully, hopefully, he has listened, shows some flexibility, and is steering the campaign towards a better direction.
exmachina64
Banned
A ton of Bernie's ideas and policies require Congressional support. Proposed items in a budget mean nothing if they get whittled away by a Republican budget. What's the functional importance of the VP presiding over the Senate if he only votes in a tie-breaker?
Hillary and Bernie will appoint the same caliber of SCJ. Are you asserting there will be a difference in the kind of people they appoint? Will Bernie only appoint socialists?
makingmusic476
Member
I like that Hillary Clinton has been moving leftward on issues like criminal justice, but I think anyone who is so easily dragged around on issues when public perception requires it will just as easily be dragged back towards the center by the general public upon election.
Did anyone expect Romney to stay as extreme as he had become during the primaries in office, should he have somehow won? I'm pretty sure most people would've expected him to moderate on topics like the ACA after winning.
Though I haven't been paying *too* close attention to how consistent Clinton and Sanders have been on these issues. Do we have good reason to believe these are firm changes in opinion by Clinton?
Did anyone expect Romney to stay as extreme as he had become during the primaries in office, should he have somehow won? I'm pretty sure most people would've expected him to moderate on topics like the ACA after winning.
Though I haven't been paying *too* close attention to how consistent Clinton and Sanders have been on these issues. Do we have good reason to believe these are firm changes in opinion by Clinton?
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Yep.
My feeling is that if you label yourself a progressive, actually be progressive, and that's going to take disruption, discomfort, and radical change. We've been claiming to hope for change since 2007, but white liberal America's attitudes about helping black lives have only gotten lazier and more ignorant since we elected a black president.
How did this pull him leftward?
Jeevesmeister
Banned
Also, mind you, that this is an election for the office of President of the United States. Being as "right" (left, in this case) as possible is political suicide - it's about convincing a majority of the nation to vote for you as the best possible leader for the future of the nation. White Americans still hold 77% of the racial makeup of the nation - you can cater your entire platform to the needs of black America but at the end of the day they're only 13.2% of the nation. Not that they're not important or should be devalued, in any way - but at the end of the day if we're going to get someone who can actually effect some positive change elected there is going to have to be some putting up with the disingenuous white liberal voting bloc. Maybe even sway some independents and Republicans while we're at it.
Not too long ago there was a pretty extensive thinkpiece going around making the case for reparations - which of course, is impossible in good faith to disagree with the vague ideal of reparations - but when you start dealing with the practical matters of such a political course of action and the possible consequences, and its no wonder the author said he had no plans to pursue it, and even admitted it would be political suicide for someone like Obama to attempt it in this day and age - the Republicans would have a massive resurgence across the playing field, would come back into power the next election cycle, and immediately undo everything.
Of this entire shitshow going on right now, the only real winner is Hillary - who is a goddamn charlatan with a record that is firmly against everything BLM stands for, and has the money and resources to protect herself from being near BLM. This is election season, and the fact that Donald Trump of all people is a colossal frontrunner goes to show just how regressive this country is. Last election I'm sure we all remember the Romney and Ryan invasion of the corporate body snatchers, and before that we were *this* close to a rootin' and tootin' Alaskan hockey mom a skipped heartbeat away from the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, you bet'cha. It's going to take some meeting people where they are, unfortunately, and being the most effective has priority over being the most right. McCain/Palin (you betcha!) still got 45% of the popular vote, Romney/Ryan got 47% four years later. There's still tens of millions willing to elect total monsters for leaders.
We're over half a year out from the first Democratic primary and a lot could change between now and then. I would love to see BLM front a candidate, get involved with local and state elections, etc etc - zero disagreements that these are massive issues that need to be addressed with real solutions. But across the board right now, Bernie's the best thing we've got - and elections aren't about who's right, but who can get the most votes sadly. So yeah, sad to say, maybe jumping on a stage and declaring you're going to "tear this shit down" probably isn't the most effective approach to getting your voice heard and your needs addressed.
Call it a tone argument all you like, but at the end of the day this is the nitty gritty of politics. There's a lot of problems in the culture, a lot of things people simply accept as the status quo, and to convince them to see otherwise and really challenge their ideals, can't be attained by simply shouting down and doling out sick burns on Twitter. There's a groundswell behind Sanders because the policies he's laid out are simply the most effective chance at bringing about positive change to the entire nation, and the relief from economic disparity will be a massive contribution to alleviating racial woes - sandbagging him for not being perfect or picking out semantics only to give up the primaries to an establishment candidate like Hillary would only send us further down the path towards a potential economic collapse.
soulassssns
Banned
OuterLimits
Member
I tend to agree
I'm a Conservative so I admit I don't follow the daily speeches by Democrats on the campaign trail, but I feel Hillary is much more likely to move back to the center during the general. Especially if she faces Bush or Rubio. If she is up against a more far right wing candidate, she can safely stay a bit more Left on some issues.
It seems to me Bernie Sanders has been more consistent with his positions over the years. Hillary Clinton has changed or "evolved"(as her supporters like to say) her stances on issues.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Trump winning is best for everyone. If Bernie wins, he stays to the left. If Hillary wins, she stays to the left. Without saying a word, they can probably win against Trump simply by letting his own positions ruin his chances.
Erin S Kittens
Member
You think she'd move leftward during the general, eh?
Personally I didn't know about those comments till I read this thread. Her husband's reputation is carrying her way too much.
Jeevesmeister
Banned
This really goes to show how little you understand how politics work, much less the Republican mindset. They make appeals to fear, they play off of the nightmares that terrorists might come over the border brandishing Chinese lead-coated assault rifles and teach our children to get gay married whilst trampling over the American flag - the more left a candidate like Hillary would move, the more conservative-leaning undecideds turn to Trump because regardless of how full of shit his policies are, he's the only one "man enough" to stand up to the Axis of Evil, the Chinese, ISIS, gay people, whatever monster of the week Fox News is running. Hence why Romney was so right-wing in 2012, and rnow that he's not running for anything stating that the Confederate flag should come down and there should be more women running for President. They're playing off fear - it's illogical and is an emotion beyond reason, which is precisely why it's so effective.
Much like Hillary in 2008. Or does nobody remember the infamous "3AM" ad?
When it comes to politics, hardly anyone acts rationally or logically, and much less are willing to criticize their own worldview. It's all a collective madness shitshow and the only thing you can really do is just try to ensure the best outcome possible, especially considering the consequences for when we fail to do so.
Here's her comment in full:
Good job you oil seller, show those people who actually advocated for civil rights how you do things in this age. And judging from posters in this thread, Bernie is a bigot and viva Hillary.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
These are very different. Bernie Sanders offers a mechanism for disruption: votes Bernie gets are votes Hillary doesn't, which encourages Hillary to move her platform closer to Bernie. These protesters don't offer that: votes Bernie doesn't get aren't ones going to Hillary (at least I hope not, as her position is worse), which means Bernie doesn't really have any reason to do anything. A #BlackLivesMatter candidate, or, given the movement isn't at all centralized, a candidate who heavily espouses the #BlackLivesMatter and #SayHerName ethos, challenging Bernie would be a much better way of getting him to do this. Politicians react to incentives; Bernie Sanders is a politician [and not a messiah as the weird "Ron Paul"-ite section of his support base thinks].
I agree completely with the protesters' goals. I think is a hideous blight on the American soul that black American mortality rates are higher than white American rates for every social class, that one in three black American males will be incarcerated at least once in their life time, and that the national voting system is rigged in a way that damages the black American vote more than any other group. What I don't see is how the protesters change that, and I think they actively harm it at the point that the low-profile candidate who wants to end mass incarceration is associated with having a race problem more than the high-profile candidate who helped usher in the mass incarceration system in the first place.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Beyond the fact that I was clearly being hyperbolic (seriously, you put this much effort into responding to such a small idea?), Mitt Romney ran along the extreme far-right and suffered because of it. He did worse than McCain did, a man who - while aiming for the far-right - was also less about it than Romney was. There are always going to be people who give in to fear, but the fact is that the country is moving left. Trump has extreme far-right people in the palm of his hand, but these people don't win elections anymore. A lot of independents aren't going to vote for Trump. Non-white people aren't going to vote for Trump. Moderate Republicans will be a lot less okay with voting along party lines than with Romney or McCain. Trump alienates TONS of people, and to be frank, Trump isn't Romney, which is ironic because they're both politicians who are also businesspeople. You listen to a lot of the Republicans like Lindsey Graham and you see people who aren't saying "Trump is misrepresenting the Republican party", you see people saying "Trump is saying what we believe, but he's not being subtle enough." The reason why a message of fear often works is because the person delivering the fear is a trusted person, a person who can pull off that fear. And the fear can't just be to white trash or to far-right extremists - you have to get people on all spectrums in the Republican party afraid. Donald Trump can't do that. Shit, the politicians who are experts at it aren't doing super well at it.
Good Job Bob
Member
Hillary just wants to be black America's champion. Great woman. =)Here's her comment in full:
...what is going on in this thread...
#BLM disrupts Netroots:
Winner, according to this thread? Hillary.
Hilarious.
"Bernie, you might be good, but you're not good enough! We know you're so far left you're practically unelectable but you need to be even further left! And if you refuse to sabotage your own campaign and be Jesus reincarnate, we'll vote for the person to the right of you! Yeah that'll show you! (read: us, when nothing gets done)
The fundamental difference between the MLK excuses for civil disobedience and what happened here is that in MLK's rallies, he was marching for desegregation and civil rights - a tangible goal. In this case the protestors are literally asking for the end of racism. How?
#BLM disrupts Netroots:
- O'Malley flops and repeats 'White Lives Matter', literally the dumbest response.
- Bernie agrees with the protestors who shout over him and are threatening to burn the place down.
- Hillary('s social media team) posts about it on FB later, despite the prison system being stacked against black people because of her and her husband.
Winner, according to this thread? Hillary.
Hilarious.
"Bernie, you might be good, but you're not good enough! We know you're so far left you're practically unelectable but you need to be even further left! And if you refuse to sabotage your own campaign and be Jesus reincarnate, we'll vote for the person to the right of you! Yeah that'll show you! (read: us, when nothing gets done)
The fundamental difference between the MLK excuses for civil disobedience and what happened here is that in MLK's rallies, he was marching for desegregation and civil rights - a tangible goal. In this case the protestors are literally asking for the end of racism. How?
A Link to the Past
Banned
Just a hunch, but I think that this might be a super slanted summation of the thread.
oneils
Member
Not sure what sanders supports, but there are a few things that liberal politicians could do to right the ship:
- change federal sentencing guidelines for non violent crime.
- end the "war on drugs" by changing enforcement strategies
- I don't know how the federal prosecutorial system works in the U.S. But maybe you can recruit prosecutors who share the same philosophy
- investigate hiring practices of large firms with demonstrated underrepresentation (see recent news about Facebook, Yahoo, Google etc)
- end federal subsidies that militarize local police forces
- subsidise body cams for local police forces
- subsidise de-escalation training for local police forces
- investigate police forces use of force.
- punish police forces that demonstrate pattern of abuse
Don't know if sanders supports all of this, if he does, he could make a good platform out of it.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
That's a really nice way of putting it. More like listening to no one but people he agrees with.
Oh and with the magic of google, here's a baseline of BLM's demands. I've personally heard more specific demands from activists within the movement.
I bet people are going to "simpsons did it" all over the place, dismissing how "universal" policies are absolutely not proven to close up the inequality gap but just elevate everyone.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
BLM reminds me of Occupy Wall Street. They are passionate, but they are bound to fail because they have no concrete objectives they can work towards. A group without a well defined leadership structure at least needs to be organized.
EDIT: What Kid Kamikaze10 just posted is exactly what I'm talking about. Those are very broad non-specific demands.
EDIT: What Kid Kamikaze10 just posted is exactly what I'm talking about. Those are very broad non-specific demands.
There's some seriously tortured logic among activists, or perhaps more accurately, not the activists themselves but the interested voters that follow these developments (i.e. posters in this thread), when the end result of a Jacobin-esque purity culling is said activists championing and then siding with a person much further from the extreme they occupy.
I don't care for Bernie Sanders in the least. I do find this fascinating, though.
But they haven't failed. They've got the entire country talking about police brutality. Many cities have starting implementing body cams. Cops are actually getting indicted. It has politically mobilized an entire generation of black youth in a way not seen since the 60s. I could go on but I'm on mobile.
#BLM had so far been very successful which is why it's growing.
Train of Midnight
Banned
The Young Turks did a segment on it that I feel encapsulates my reaction pretty well.
Basically: you're not wrong, but you're doing it the wrong way.
Basically: you're not wrong, but you're doing it the wrong way.
Depends if you think an end of police brutality and more accountability are concrete objectives. They help get traction on the trayvon martin, eric gardnar, Renisha McBride, and Mike Brown cases. Without them they would have been farts in the wind on CNN, MSNBC, or any other big news network. That alone is 1000x more than the Occupy movement did, just to get America to confront it's racism for just a few minutes is a monumental task.
Cause Black issues aren't American issues.
What is the correct way.?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
#BlackLivesMatter shouldn't have to come up with the policies, though, that's what politicians are there for - identifying problems and trying to persuade people they have the best solution. If politicians don't play any role in generating solutions and shaping the way we think about major issues, we may as well just replace them with referendum machines. We don't because we understand the the political process is a dialogue. Sanders isn't just there to do what I say, he's there, at least partially, to persuade me that I might actually want to say something else, or that there's a better future I've not even thought of yet.
Sanders failed at the point that protesters at a grassroots event started talking about their problems and he didn't have any solutions (or at least, ones he offered there), which is worrying because it appears as though (even if it isn't true) these aren't problems he has even thought about. That's partially why this has been so frustrating, because nobody wins. Sanders doesn't win because now he's considered the candidate with a poor racial equality message instead of Hillary, and #BlackLivesMatter doesn't win because nobody has addressed their problem yet; the dialogue didn't happen.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
Well, the democratic candidates aren't going to skirt around this issue now. They know that if they do, there is a contingency that will not allow it without disruption.
That would not be the case if they spent their time sitting on their hands.
That's not what brought attention to the numerous state violence cases. That's not why body camera's (and let this be known, that is a minuscule "solution") are even in the conversation. That's not what made BLM something in the first place.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
Go on, how are they broad?
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
About this "conversation" stuff.
Bernie didn't want one. Hasn't truly looked for one at this point. Not with black communities and activists. And that's why this has become an issue. And it was Bernie who shut down the conversation because he was too dependent on his stump speech.
He saw his solutions as THE solutions (much like many in this thread), without even talking to the people he supposed to be helping. Not enough to make national attention. He's calling himself a grassroots candidate, well the grass isn't all white.
The question isn't about his history. The question is what Sanders will do next, and, more importantly, whether he’ll be able to connect with black voters who think his fight against income inequality ignores racial injustice.
It's Bernie that needs to engage, not black people need to bow to the altar of Sanders. Shut down the conversation, and he's going nowhere.
EDIT: Thankfully, Sanders is already making steps in doing so. He just need to keep going that direction.
Bernie didn't want one. Hasn't truly looked for one at this point. Not with black communities and activists. And that's why this has become an issue. And it was Bernie who shut down the conversation because he was too dependent on his stump speech.
He saw his solutions as THE solutions (much like many in this thread), without even talking to the people he supposed to be helping. Not enough to make national attention. He's calling himself a grassroots candidate, well the grass isn't all white.
The question isn't about his history. The question is what Sanders will do next, and, more importantly, whether he’ll be able to connect with black voters who think his fight against income inequality ignores racial injustice.
It's Bernie that needs to engage, not black people need to bow to the altar of Sanders. Shut down the conversation, and he's going nowhere.
EDIT: Thankfully, Sanders is already making steps in doing so. He just need to keep going that direction.
Advance specific policy goals, make clear your disagreements in policy, don't shout down the candidate when they try to engage. This protest was so generalized to be pretty much without content.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll