Fair enough, although that would be a benefit of doubt thing that, here again, works both ways.then we don't know who has tried reaching out to who on whichever available back-line.
idk, would the distinction make *that* much of a difference in terms of how you try to "relate" to one another, at least insomuch as whether such "relating" should ever need to involve shouting at and denying the other party the chance to speak?But are they comrades? Or is he just another "ally"?
Hillary?
It's painful to say, but the left really has something to learn from the Tea Party. They have had amazing message discipline, and more importantly by and largew understand civics far better than the left seems to. They field candidates for their causes in primaries and petition their state governments to implement their (Awful) policies. With the left, all they seem to do is cause disruptions in the hope of making the news while at the same time acting as foils for "Law and Order" conservatives opposed to their cause while alienating people that agree with them.
Most of the police they are opposed to are not federal employees and yet all BLM seems interested in targeting are federal authorities. And even then, not federal leadership capable of actual change. The Tea Party worked on changing laws at the state level and were overwhelmingly successful at ruining the country that way. Why can't BLM follow the same blue print for something positive?
That has always been an issue. The right can have its nuts that don't tow the line but generally they are orderly and go through the process even if gaming it at times to force change for good or ill.
Many on the left embrace the anarchist message or the revolutionary image. There is not going to be some socialist revolution or a breakdown in society that allows the anarchists to win so trying to use those methods are doomed to be ineffective.
The right amount of anarchy can help a movement but you still need the proper methods as far as politics for any real chance. Pure anarchy by itself just turns everyone against it.
So essentially what the argument is that liberals should be more ideologues instead of democratic?
Not at all. The point is if you want to effect change you need more than anarchy or a revolution. Shouting down a guy who was fighting for proper treatment of Black Americans before most of these people doing so were even born is anarchy for the sake of anarchy and will not create any change
That has always been an issue. The right can have its nuts that don't tow the line but generally they are orderly and go through the process even if gaming it at times to force change for good or ill.
Many on the left embrace the anarchist message or the revolutionary image. There is not going to be some socialist revolution or a breakdown in society that allows the anarchists to win so trying to use those methods are doomed to be ineffective.
The right amount of anarchy can help a movement but you still need the proper methods as far as politics for any real chance. Pure anarchy by itself just turns everyone against it.
I agree.That has always been an issue. The right can have its nuts that don't tow the line but generally they are orderly and go through the process even if gaming it at times to force change for good or ill.
Many on the left embrace the anarchist message or the revolutionary image. There is not going to be some socialist revolution or a breakdown in society that allows the anarchists to win so trying to use those methods are doomed to be ineffective.
The right amount of anarchy can help a movement but you still need the proper methods as far as politics for any real chance. Pure anarchy by itself just turns everyone against it.
No I think the argument is that activists on the right band together and work within the system to effect change while activists on the left work outside the system seemingly to bring about a wholesale revolution or something. The right wing approach is proven to be more effective.So essentially what the argument is that liberals should be more ideologues instead of democratic?
No I think the argument is that activists on the right band together and work within the system to effect change while activists on the left work outside the system seemingly to bring about a wholesale revolution or something. The right wing approach is proven to be more effective.
Here's a bang-up idea: You let them talk, and then you respond.
O'Malley got it. Why can't Bernie?
Holy shit, what a waste of energy ending a Bernie Sanders rally like that. Go take that angst to the GOP where it belongs.
Truly, the left eating itself alive again. This kind of stuff is getting out of control.
I feel bad for Bernie, he looked like he was going to cry. I was also worried for his safety; it's kind of ridiculous someone can just charge the stage like that.
Will this happen to Hillary? Surely she has better security.
Yes, if only Bernie could better emulate the "tough on crime" former mayor of the city that killed Freddie Gray.
Yes, if only Bernie could better emulate the "tough on crime" former mayor of the city that killed Freddie Gray.
Yes, if only Bernie could better emulate the "tough on crime" former mayor of the city that killed Freddie Gray.
Why do people bring Hillary into this as though people are posting "Bernie should be more like Hillary?" Seriously, you need to get off of that train!
Why do people bring Hillary into this as though people are posting "Bernie should be more like Hillary?" Seriously, you need to get off of that train!
Attention-whores.*walks into the thread*
*Sees that it's turned into a shit load of condescending paternalism from white liberals and conservatives alike about how black people should act in a crisis.*
Ok. Here's a link on a hint as to why this keeps happening, and a way it could be stopped instead of telling black people to shut up. Tl;dr version: Bernie needs to meet with the BLM founders and other activists instead of running away from them. Bernie's followers need to stop acting like they know what's best for black people or automatically know more than black people.
Please try to listen.
Thanks.
*walks out*
I think voting and campaigning in midterms is a good indicator. It's unsexy and grinding work. Seems to me that right wingers do that grunt work while left wingers don't.I don't think thats true.
....O'Malley
He's referring to O'Malley
I'll ask you since it's been avoided already:*walks into the thread*
*Sees that it's turned into a shit load of condescending paternalism from white liberals and conservatives alike about how black people should act in a crisis.*
Ok. Here's a link on a hint as to why this keeps happening, and a way it could be stopped instead of telling black people to shut up. Tl;dr version: Bernie needs to meet with the BLM founders and other activists instead of running away from them. Bernie's followers need to stop acting like they know what's best for black people or automatically know more than black people.
Please try to listen.
Thanks.
*walks out*
Having watched the video and all the tweets that came with it on the page, I get where the protesters where coming from. Initially, it didn't seem their beef was with Bernie, but with white liberals. Like, you have a guy whose supporters are overwhelmingly white, and this guy apparently offers up a pretty dismissive version of American race relations ("It's really economic inequality!") that kinda panders to his overwhelmingly white supporters. And when white liberals (I speak generally but I'm not generalizing, I assure you) often have trouble sympathizing with black people, and sometimes are just racist, is it really a mystery why he's attracting these protesters and Hillary isn't? I'm not at all a Hillary fan in part because of her past issues with relating to black people, but Hillary sees her black supporters crying out and she's addressing them now.
And that's what makes it even worse. THAT guy got it more right than Bernie did.
This whole thing was really easy to solve. At least on Bernie's end. It's now becoming an avalanche because his followers are being absolutely classless in their reactions, while talking about "civility".
Attention-whores.
He and his group of protesters are attention-whores, here is why:
They know Bernie is on their side, they know he is a good fella. They also need to know that any bad news in an election can destroy a candidate, especially someone like Sanders.
But no, they want to see the world burn just to have their 15 minutes of fame and a candidate talking about their stuff. They want the validation now, the results now. Unrealistic and childish.
The economic issue is more widely popular, doesn't mean he doesn't care about race. It's simply campaigning smartly. So yeah, STFU and vote is indeed what you should do because it is the most effective thing to do.
How you got any of that from my post is beyond me...
So all BLM wants is some pie in the sky reform plan proposed that will never happen?
I mean it does stem from economic policies. There are specific economic policies that effect the black community only but the point behind economic restructuring or reforming economic policies is it creates more opportunities for the black community such as opportunities in education, opportunities in the job market, opportunities in where they live, opportunities in a lot of different areas. This also crosses over with other classes and other races so that's why centrally it's all an economic problem.
Having watched the video and all the tweets that came with it on the page, I get where the protesters where coming from. Initially, it didn't seem their beef was with Bernie, but with white liberals. Like, you have a guy whose supporters are overwhelmingly white, and this guy apparently offers up a pretty dismissive version of American race relations ("It's really economic inequality!") that kinda panders to his overwhelmingly white supporters.
If the problem is with Bernie supporters more than Bernie then why attack Bernie?
*walks into the thread*
*Sees that it's turned into a shit load of condescending paternalism from white liberals and conservatives alike about how black people should act in a crisis.*
Ok. Here's a link on a hint as to why this keeps happening, and a way it could be stopped instead of telling black people to shut up. Tl;dr version: Bernie needs to meet with the BLM founders and other activists instead of running away from them. Bernie's followers need to stop acting like they know what's best for black people or automatically know more than black people.
Please try to listen.
Thanks.
*walks out*
Exactly. Exactly. And they deleted that tweet, and he also tweeted #BlackLivesMatter. So for me, I'm looking at those as positives. Maybe I'm being foolish. But hey, they're hearing, they're receptive, they're responding — they don't seem to be hurt over it, which, I don't know how you can run for president if you're that easily hurt. I think his campaign will do a better job.
I cant tell if you are talking about Bernie supporters here or the BLM people.Excusing the poor behavior of other individuals that supposedly act on the behalf of a movement with the explanations of "he deserved it" and "those people don't really represent us" is eerily reminiscent of GamerGate. And that's not a good thing.
But you see why this is dismissive, right? Like, police officers aren't disproportionately harassing black people because they see the poor on them.
Or maybe they want push politicians closer to their position and Sanders is a small enough guy so that he can actually be influenced.
I think protesting him is misguided because it's actually helping the mainstream Democratic Party candidate, rather than the more progressive candidate who was never actually taking their vote for granted. But I don't think it's intentionally to damage him or that they're just looking for attention.
Well, then Sanders should release a plan like O'malley did. I don't think the plan O'Malley released should be characterized as "pie in the sky" either. Progressives need to fight for reform that is meaningful, not just reform that sounds good.
Unless Sanders already released a plan and I am not aware of it.
That is such a gross oversimplification of his view on American race relations, and it's not difficult to look through this thread (or even Google) and see what Sanders has actually said, particularly since the Netroot thing as he has since been much more outspoken and straightforward about racial issues in the country.
Except he also has talked about wanting police accountability and to end mass incarceration. The "He only talks about economics" rhetoric is bullshit. Economics are the center of his campaign because he has to appeal to the entire country, but it isn't the only damn thing he talks about.
Sure, a month or two ago he was pretty bad at that, but he's made improvements. Every speech he mentions Black Lives Matters and the name of an individual that was killed unarmed, and talking about the mass incarceration that same system is talking about.
He learned, he was right to learn, and now we're legit wondering what more do you want?
I mean, even that article says he's listening and doing better.
Believe me I'm listening, but I'm not hearing what he's done wrong since the original protests opened his eyes to the problem.
But you see why this is dismissive, right? Like, police officers aren't disproportionately harassing black people because they see the poor on them.