Support NeoGAF

[BronsonLee]

It's a massive movement and I've got no problem with what they did, but my mind still keeps going back to when members of it got a one on one meeting with Hillary where they literally dictated all the terms, and they still fucked it up.

Still blows my mind.

 

[Gotchaye]

They're creating awareness with the only group that has always been receptive and has always been aware? If the other half doesn't cooperate there is no way, no how significant shit will get done. It's a fools errand and will continue to be so.

I'm not sure that there's much reason to think this hurts the Democrat's chances in the general election. Now, probably if the candidate made a big deal out of police brutality it would hurt them a bit, but I'm not seeing much harm in what the protesters are doing. If anything I expect it helps a Democrat in the general to be seen to be disliked by BLM. It's not like black people have a better option and lots of white people don't like BLM.

In the context of the primary, there was some value in pressuring Bernie Sanders because his supporters are overwhelmingly white with strong anti-racist commitments. It really hurts Sanders' ability to spread the word about socialism if he's not seen as good for black people, and he really needs to make inroads with minority voters if he wants to do well in the actual primary elections.

This strikes me as pretty much purely a messaging thing. This is a way to get people talking about BLM, police brutality, etc. I'd guess it's pretty effective, too. They're probably not going to get Clinton to make commitments she wouldn't otherwise have made directly, although to the extent that they can get everybody aware of their issues the candidates might at least express support or be asked about it in a debate (as happened). Maybe Clinton tries a little harder if she wants to be absolutely sure she crushes Sanders. But for the most part they're just using Clinton as a way to get covered, which is not a bad strategy.

Interrupting Republicans sounds like a good way to get the party to come out as pro- brutality.

 

[Fenderputty]

Has Black Lives matter crashed a Republican event or gathering yet?

I believe they did a Bush rally some time ago. The GOP isn't the party that's supposed to have minorities backs though.

 

[Slayven]

I think to many people look at BLM through the lens of privilege. Other movements can afford to bid their time and have other routes. Climate change, important issue with lobbyists and open doors in Washington.


BLM and too a certain extent black people don't have that shit. never really had that shit. Despite the rumors there is no billionaire backing them, they only have their feet, their voices, and will to change things. And we ain't going to stop, it won't happen over night, might not happen in my lifetime but we will make this shit right. No matter how mad "allies" get

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

Kind of pretentious/arrogant of her to say "they weren't listening". Maybe they were, but aren't stupid enough to believe that just because a politician says something, means they're actually going to live up to their word and follow through on it?

She can say this and that as much as she wants but history shows she supported Bill's push for legislation that directly benefited the for-profit prison industrial complex at the expense of mostly lower-class black minorities. That's...probably a big reason #BLM showed up at your event in the first place, Hilary.

Democrats aren't receptive, as shown by the results of this, today. BLM is long done with liberal promises and then surprise it's fucking nothing.gif. If they actually give a fuck, let's see the work.

What's with the few of you who care about the survival of Democrats over black issues?

It'd actually be quite interesting if black people voted more for Republicans this upcoming election compared to the past.

A big reason Democrats take their vote for granted is b/c they have historically always voted Democrat, and with Obama it was a no-brainer (likely setting a precedent for whenever they eventually have a Latino candidate or Asian candidate, etc., expecting to have those groups in their pocket b/c, hey, this candidate looks just like you! /s). But if more of them voted Republican, it'd probably at least 1) make the Republican party seriously reconsider some of their legislation and 2) show Democrats that if they want a group's vote, they have to be serious about respecting that group after the votes come in.

At the very least, it wouldn't mean black voters would be serious about expecting a Republican candidate to do right, but at least it'd send a message to Democrats and they'd be more respectful of that part of their voting base the whole time through, not just when they "need a favor" for the election cycle. And FWIW, not all Republicans are like Ben Carson or Donald Trump; they are the extremes who unfortunately get propped as the face for the (admittedly quite less, but still there) logical moderate Republicans who tend to work with Democrats moreso than work against them. Those ones usually aren't in DC though.

 

[rambis]

I'm not sure that there's much reason to think this hurts the Democrat's chances in the general election. Now, probably if the candidate made a big deal out of police brutality it would hurt them a bit, but I'm not seeing much harm in what the protesters are doing. If anything I expect it helps a Democrat in the general to be seen to be disliked by BLM. It's not like black people have a better option and lots of white people don't like BLM.

In the context of the primary, there was some value in pressuring Bernie Sanders because his supporters are overwhelmingly white with strong anti-racist commitments. It really hurts Sanders' ability to spread the word about socialism if he's not seen as good for black people, and he really needs to make inroads with minority voters if he wants to do well in the actual primary elections.

This strikes me as pretty much purely a messaging thing. This is a way to get people talking about BLM, police brutality, etc. I'd guess it's pretty effective, too. They're probably not going to get Clinton to make commitments she wouldn't otherwise have made directly, although to the extent that they can get everybody aware of their issues the candidates might at least express support or be asked about it in a debate (as happened). Maybe Clinton tries a little harder if she wants to be absolutely sure she crushes Sanders. But for the most part they're just using Clinton as a way to get covered, which is not a bad strategy.

Interrupting Republicans sounds like a good way to get the party to come out as pro- brutality.

The more this keeps happening the worse the outfall. The worse the outfall and the more this gets talked about. The more this gets talked about the more it dissuades the african american community. I don't think its hard at all to see these dominoes.

I mean, do you seriously think any of these protesters have anything good to say about Hilary or Bernie when they have to be escorted out of their rallies? If this happens when we actually have nominees, then I can certainly see a Carson or Rubio capitalize.

 

[dramatis]

I think to many people look at BLM through the lens of privilege. Other movements can afford to bid their time and have other routes. Climate change, important issue with lobbyists and open doors in Washington.

To be fair Slayven climate change is technically something we can't afford to bide our time on lol

Kind of pretentious/arrogant of her to say "they weren't listening". Maybe they were, but aren't stupid enough to believe that just because a politician says something, means they're actually going to live up to their word and follow through on it?

She can say this and that as much as she wants but history shows she supported Bill's push for legislation that directly benefited the for-profit prison industrial complex at the expense of mostly lower-class black minorities. That's...probably a big reason #BLM showed up at your event in the first place, Hilary.

It's hardly pretentious or arrogant to say they weren't listening when the movement was clearly shouting over her. Regardless, she can say everything she means and there will still be people who doubt her and call her a liar. So she might as well just say it.

As for the usual "for-profit prison industrial complex" buzzwords, here's some extra information for you. Also, Hillary donated the money she got from private prison lobbies to charity last week, so you're welcome to criticize that as fake and pandering too.

The issues in question here are apparently either what she intended to discuss, or Shaun King's assertions about police brutality.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

The more this keeps happening the worse the outfall. The worse the outfall and the more this gets talked about. The more this gets talked about the more it dissuades the african american community. I don't think its hard at all to see these dominoes.

I mean, do you seriously think any of these protesters have anything good to say about Hilary or Bernie when they have to be escorted out of their rallies. If this happens when we actually have nominees, then I can certainly see a Carson or Rubio capitalize.

Your paranoia game for the democratic party is untouchable. You keep setting up your own hypotheticals for yourself to call.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Would people say she handled this worse or better than Sanders?

Did they got on the stage and grab the mic from her? If not, she handled it better. Bernie looked so weak.

 

[Slayven]

To be fair Slayven climate change is technically something we can't afford to bide our time on lol

And black folks dying in the streets is? Our government can focus on many things at the same time, that is why they have a billion departments.

 

[rambis]

And black folks dying in the streets is? Our government can focus on many things at the same time, that is why they have a billion departments.

Yes but we don't bitch at the DOD to change school policies do we?

 

[pigeon]

Not a lawmaker?

I wanna say I learned that in 4th grade American Government. So yeah you're half right.

It most certainly is. Bernie is still getting reamed and called racist by people I've talked to on the matter. All it takes is a loosely worded Facebook post and people's opinion change rapidly.

I mean, Bernie got protested by BLM, people criticized the way he handled it, and now people are saying he's a racist. And in your model this is BLM's fault?

Let's just wait and see what people say about Hillary first.

 

[Captin Quacker]

I think to many people look at BLM through the lens of privilege. Other movements can afford to bid their time and have other routes. Climate change, important issue with lobbyists and open doors in Washington.


BLM and too a certain extent black people don't have that shit. never really had that shit. Despite the rumors there is no billionaire backing them, they only have their feet, their voices, and will to change things. And we ain't going to stop, it won't happen over night, might not happen in my lifetime but we will make this shit right. No matter how mad "allies" get

 

[kame-sennin]

Im black and I have no qualms about saying that yes we need my people to vote democratic if they want to see anything resembling progress.

Yeah, look at all that "progress" from 1992-2000.

 

[dramatis]

And black folks dying in the streets is? Our government can focus on many things at the same time, that is why they have a billion departments.

Perhaps you thought by implication I was saying that black people getting killed by cops is an issue to bide our time on. The answer is no, that's not what I said.

What I was suggesting is that your choice of 'climate change' as an issue that the movement advocating for it can 'bide their time on' is a poor choice of an issue for that description, since it's a ticking clock that may be even past human capability to reverse. That's all.

 

[GnawtyDog]

I'm not sure that there's much reason to think this hurts the Democrat's chances in the general election. Now, probably if the candidate made a big deal out of police brutality it would hurt them a bit, but I'm not seeing much harm in what the protesters are doing. If anything I expect it helps a Democrat in the general to be seen to be disliked by BLM. It's not like black people have a better option and lots of white people don't like BLM.

In the context of the primary, there was some value in pressuring Bernie Sanders because his supporters are overwhelmingly white with strong anti-racist commitments. It really hurts Sanders' ability to spread the word about socialism if he's not seen as good for black people, and he really needs to make inroads with minority voters if he wants to do well in the actual primary elections.

This strikes me as pretty much purely a messaging thing. This is a way to get people talking about BLM, police brutality, etc. I'd guess it's pretty effective, too. They're probably not going to get Clinton to make commitments she wouldn't otherwise have made directly, although to the extent that they can get everybody aware of their issues the candidates might at least express support or be asked about it in a debate (as happened). Maybe Clinton tries a little harder if she wants to be absolutely sure she crushes Sanders. But for the most part they're just using Clinton as a way to get covered, which is not a bad strategy.

Interrupting Republicans sounds like a good way to get the party to come out as pro- brutality.

Wait up...I'm not saying they shouldn't crash Democratic events..... Dems def gotta be kept honest about promising and not delivering like the other poster said. All I'm saying is that one side is receptive and conditioned to be receptive or passive to reform. However, there is still half a country out there that's not receptive, is not passive and has racist and prop racism in their platform. That camp should be taken head on just as fierce or worse.

Looking at today's GOP and their current state of candidates I think it's prime opportunity to tackle them on; not because it "benefits Dems" but because eventually they'll have to change their tune whether they like it or not. Some candidates will be harder to crack than others, (many won't) but if just a few do... that's progress, that's recognition and awareness where it's needed most. The GOP candidates as a whole are ripe for divide and conquer. It's a trickle down effect towards consensus between both camps that criminal justice reform is needed and that police brutality should be addressed. When one side of the aile can hide behind the skirts of obstructionism practiced by the other party while the other side plays effective politics with "protecting and supporting police - unlike Dems" nothing gets done.

 

[rambis]

I mean, Bernie got protested by BLM, people criticized the way he handled it, and now people are saying he's a racist. And in your model this is BLM's fault?

Let's just wait and see what people say about Hillary first.

Why are the protesting potential presidents in the first place? I think a fundemental misunderstanding of the seperation of powers between local, state and federal government and the 3 branches of federal government is to blame more than anything.

Yeah, look at all that "progress" from 1992-2000.

You're right. GOP it is.

 

[Slayven]

Yes but we don't bitch at the DOD to change school policies do we?

Going by your hand wringing scenarios black people shouldn't talk to anybody about it.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, look at all that "progress" from 1992-2000.

So criminals need to be freed?

 

[i_am_ben]

what does 'banning the box' entail? How far would the ban go?

Some crimes are very relevant whilst others obviously aren't at all.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

So criminals need to be freed?

Do you really think just out of nowhere we saw a 800% increase in criminality?

 

[Slayven]

Do you really think just out of nowhere we saw a 800% increase in criminality?

Yep seen the raise with my own two eyes, the USA is a failed state on par with Somali. We are full on Mad Max in this motherfucker

 

[D i Z]

Is there a reputable source for the idea that police brutality has actually been getting worse, as claimed?

Exactly how would one compile that data I wonder. Ten or twenty years ago who exactly was going to be writing up cops en masse for actual brutality incidents? Other cops? lol

 

[rambis]

Going by your hand wringing scenarios black people shouldn't talk to anybody about it.

Dude fuck off with the strawmen. That's not what im saying at all and you fucking know it.

 

[Slayven]

Exactly how would one compile that data I wonder. Ten or twenty years ago who exactly was going to be writing up cops en masse for actual brutality incidents? Other cops? lol

Too bad BLM doesn't want an outside agency to keep tabs on this kind of stuff.



Wait they do.....

 

[Fenderputty]

So criminals need to be freed?

That's what you took away from that graph?

 

[IrishNinja]

haven't heard her say much of anything about police reform, nevermind drug war etc

also i'm all for this ban the box stuff too

Good everyone needs this work

talk to em
effort like this needs more support, fewer status quo defense force members

 

[BennyBlanco]

Is there a reputable source for the idea that police brutality has actually been getting worse, as claimed?

I think the vast majority of our population walking around with cameras in their pocket is just shining a light on it. Even 10 years ago way less people had cell phones with cameras.

It's easy to win a "he said she said" case as a cop. Not easy when there's a camera on you (even though they still do win a lot of the time). At least the public is more aware and something has got to give sooner or later.

 

[Gotchaye]

Wait up...I'm not saying they shouldn't crash to some Democratic events..... Dems def gotta be kept honest about promising and not delivering like the other poster said. All I'm saying is that one side is receptive and conditioned to be receptive or passive to reform. However, there is still half a country out there that's not receptive, is not passive and has racist and prop racism in their platform. That camp should be taken head on just as fierce or worse.

Looking at today's GOP and their current state of candidates. It's prime opportunity to tackle them on; not because it "benefits Dems" but because eventually they'll have to change their tune whether they like it or not. Some candidates will be harder to crack than others, (many won't) but if just a few do... that's progress, that's recognition and awareness where it's needed most. The GOP candidates as a whole are is ripe for divide and conquer. It's a trickle down effect towards consensus between both camps that criminal justice reform is needed and that police brutality should be addressed. When one side of the aile can hide behind the skirts of obstructionism by the other party while the other side plays effective politics with "protecting and supporting police" nothing gets done.

I just don't see how BLM ought to go about trying to divide and conquer Republicans. There is no Republican candidate who is going to gain ground by saying anything at-all critical of police. Certainly there is no candidate who will gain by being seen to agree with BLM.

You pretty much have to let the Republicans decide for themselves that they've got to do better on this if they want to win elections. What you want to aim for is a broad national consensus that police brutality is a problem and then for Democrats to hammer Republicans on the issue until they either go along with it or just lose elections. You need representation in politics before you start pressuring the people who are most opposed to you to let you enact your agenda.

Like, look at gun control. You're not going to get anywhere telling Republicans they should support gun control. That's a waste of everyone's time. All you accomplish is giving them an enemy to point at who wants to take away everyone's guns. What you do is you work on getting Democrats to make gun control an issue in elections, and they win those elections because most people are for gun control. The people it made and makes sense to pressure are the Democrats who are wishy-washy. Obviously it's not clear that anything will actually happen on gun control, but so far Hillary Clinton has made a much bigger deal out of it than Obama did in his campaigns. This is an issue that Democrats now feel it makes sense for them to be loud about in explaining why they're better than Republicans. That's where you want police brutality to go.

I'd also note that, on the other side, people who want the government to accomplish nothing whatsoever accomplished what they've accomplished by pressuring wishy-washy Republicans. They didn't waste time trying to pressure Pelosi to defund Obamacare.

 

[Inuhanyou]

"When its my candidate these people should have better uses of their time, those people they interrupted before are perfectly fine"

And i thought my initial kneejerk defense of Bernie was bad on reflection...some of you are truly hypocrites.

The fact of the matter is, they are forcing these candidates to highlight the issues in their campaign. Its not enough to simply assume that people fighting for equality by default includes black lives, because its not understood by default for a lot of people in this country

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

To be fair Slayven climate change is technically something we can't afford to bide our time on lol


It's hardly pretentious or arrogant to say they weren't listening when the movement was clearly shouting over her. Regardless, she can say everything she means and there will still be people who doubt her and call her a liar. So she might as well just say it.

As for the usual "for-profit prison industrial complex" buzzwords, here's some extra information for you. Also, Hillary donated the money she got from private prison lobbies to charity last week, so you're welcome to criticize that as fake and pandering too.

The issues in question here are apparently either what she intended to discuss, or Shaun King's assertions about police brutality.

I slipped up in wording "for-profit", should have just said prisons in general. I admit that mistake. However, for-profit or not, there are a lot of people in there who were only guilty of petty crimes, and most of those people are black and Latino men. If certain laws weren't around that unfairly discriminated againt them, it wouldn't be like that. If institutional racism wasn't a thing, many of them likely wouldn't be forced into the circumstances that got them placed into prison. So ultimately it doesn't matter if they're for-profit or not because they all benefit from the same laws, some of which were pushed by the Clintons in the 90s, not directly intended to harm certain individuals sure, but nonetheless, that was a massive byproduct of it all.

It's maybe also a better question to ask...why did she accept money from those prisons in the first place? Up until she donated it back she was sitting on that extra cash cushion, and if attention wasn't being drawn in that direction, likely would still have it or used it to fund her campaign. Just think about that: using money from prison companies to fund a nationwide Presidential campaign. Not so much different than a music mogul using drug money to fund a record label. Another way to look at it is, if she wasn't running, that money wouldn't have been returned. That's just the reality of it.

And again, them "listening" doesn't have to be specific to that exact rally at that exact location. Like many politicians Hilary has said those things time and again over the years, phrases packaged differently but the message being the same. Yet nothing ever comes of it. So those particular protesters, were likely not wanting to hear what essentially boils down to the same thing they've probably been hearing for what feels like forever, and in that context you can't blame them. The Democrat establishment keeps saying "we'll fix X and Y", but as long as that pertains to particular groups, X and Y are never fixed, or at least not seriously. Hilary is the face of the Democrat establishment right now, so she's carrying the burden of failed promises from Obama, Clinton, Johnson, Carter etc. on her shoulders.

Perhaps that's unfair on her, but it's the situation. So is she for real, or is she just another big talker that'll come up short? My money's on the latter but if she's elected at the very least hopefully she's as progressive on the things Obama was, and more progressive on things he seemed shy on (gun control, police brutality in particular, etc.).

 

[benjipwns]

Yeah, look at all that "progress" from 1992-2000.

Republicans held Congress 1994-2000. And were Presidents during much of the other years.

 

[rambis]

I slipped up in wording "for-profit", should have just said prisons in general. I admit that mistake. However, for-profit or not, there are a lot of people in there who were only guilty of petty crimes, and most of those people are black and Latino men. If certain laws weren't around that unfairly discriminated againt them, it wouldn't be like that. If institutional racism wasn't a thing, many of them likely wouldn't be forced into the circumstances that got them placed into prison. So ultimately it doesn't matter if they're for-profit or not because they all benefit from the same laws, some of which were pushed by the Clintons in the 90s, not directly intended to harm certain individuals sure, but nonetheless, that was a massive byproduct of it all.

It's maybe also a better question to ask...why did she accept money from those prisons in the first place? Up until she donated it back she was sitting on that extra cash cushion, and if attention wasn't being drawn in that direction, likely would still have it or used it to fund her campaign. Just think about that: using money from prison companies to fund a nationwide Presidential campaign. Not so much different than a music mogul using drug money to fund a record label. Another way to look at it is, if she wasn't running, that money wouldn't have been returned. That's just the reality of it.

And again, them "listening" doesn't have to be specific to that exact rally at that exact location. Like many politicians Hilary has said those things time and again over the years, phrases packaged differently but the message being the same. Yet nothing ever comes of it. So those particular protesters, were likely not wanting to hear what essentially boils down to the same thing they've probably been hearing for what feels like forever, and in that context you can't blame them. The Democrat establishment keeps saying "we'll fix X and Y", but as long as that pertains to particular groups, X and Y are never fixed, or at least not seriously. Hilary is the face of the Democrat establishment right now, so she's carrying the burden of failed promises from Obama, Clinton, Johnson, Carter etc. on her shoulders.

Perhaps that's unfair on her, but it's the situation. So is she for real, or is she just another big talker that'll come up short? My money's on the latter but if she's elected at the very least hopefully she's as progressive on the things Obama was, and more progressive on things he seemed shy on (gun control, police brutality in particular, etc.).

Explain to me what you think a president can do in regards to state/county police reform. Because apparently its easy as pie and Obama is just a dolt.

 

[GnawtyDog]

I just don't see how BLM ought to go about trying to divide and conquer Republicans. There is no Republican candidate who is going to gain ground by saying anything at-all critical of police. Certainly there is no candidate who will gain by being seen to agree with BLM.

You pretty much have to let the Republicans decide for themselves that they've got to do better on this if they want to win elections. What you want to aim for is a broad national consensus that police brutality is a problem and then for Democrats to hammer Republicans on the issue until they either go along with it or just lose elections. You need representation in politics before you start pressuring the people who are most opposed to you to let you enact your agenda.

Like, look at gun control. You're not going to get anywhere telling Republicans they should support gun control. That's a waste of everyone's time. All you accomplish is giving them an enemy to point at who wants to take away everyone's guns. What you do is you work on getting Democrats to make gun control an issue in elections, and they win those elections because most people are for gun control. The people it made and makes sense to pressure are the Democrats who are wishy-washy. Obviously it's not clear that anything will actually happen on gun control, but so far Hillary Clinton has made a much bigger deal out of it than Obama did in his campaigns. This is an issue that Democrats now feel it makes sense for them to be loud about in explaining why they're better than Republicans. That's where you want police brutality to go.

I'd also note that, on the other side, people who want the government to accomplish nothing whatsoever accomplished what they've accomplished by pressuring wishy-washy Republicans. They didn't waste time trying to pressure Pelosi to defund Obamacare.

I am pretty sure they already decided they rather go after Hispanics than Blacks. Case in point why they should be confronted just like they were confronted in the South during the Civils Rights Movement. If anyone expects its going to be easy to get them to change tune then you better be serious about the ambitions and effectiveness the movement thinks it will have. Dems will try to do whatever they can within the realm of possibility -- always weighting political costs. That's a reality whether some like it or not. Not to mention the current state of affairs for Dems in the House, and state elections. Dems are not as strong as they appear. You want a filibuster proof bill on criminal justice reform? Better get some GOP senators to crack ASAP. In short, as I've been alluding, targeting Dems alone cause "GOP is a lost cause" is really no argument for success at all.

 

[benjipwns]

Explain to me what you think a president can do in regards to police reform. Because apparently its easy as pie and Obama is just a dolt.

Order the FBI/AG to pursue charges against police more actively?

Spoiler

Pardon/commute federal drug criminals.

 

[rambis]

I just don't see how BLM ought to go about trying to divide and conquer Republicans. There is no Republican candidate who is going to gain ground by saying anything at-all critical of police. Certainly there is no candidate who will gain by being seen to agree with BLM.

You pretty much have to let the Republicans decide for themselves that they've got to do better on this if they want to win elections. What you want to aim for is a broad national consensus that police brutality is a problem and then for Democrats to hammer Republicans on the issue until they either go along with it or just lose elections. You need representation in politics before you start pressuring the people who are most opposed to you to let you enact your agenda.

Like, look at gun control. You're not going to get anywhere telling Republicans they should support gun control. That's a waste of everyone's time. All you accomplish is giving them an enemy to point at who wants to take away everyone's guns. What you do is you work on getting Democrats to make gun control an issue in elections, and they win those elections because most people are for gun control. The people it made and makes sense to pressure are the Democrats who are wishy-washy. Obviously it's not clear that anything will actually happen on gun control, but so far Hillary Clinton has made a much bigger deal out of it than Obama did in his campaigns. This is an issue that Democrats now feel it makes sense for them to be loud about in explaining why they're better than Republicans. That's where you want police brutality to go.

I'd also note that, on the other side, people who want the government to accomplish nothing whatsoever accomplished what they've accomplished by pressuring wishy-washy Republicans. They didn't waste time trying to pressure Pelosi to defund Obamacare.

This only matters while there is no nomination. After that a republican will have everything to gain by sympathizing.

 

[D i Z]

So? The GOP should be enemy #1 when it comes to creating PR drama which is what these "crashes" ultimately do.

Democrats get lobbied from all places to get things done for the Black community and are usually very receptive - well the overwhelmingly most receptive. Nothing gets done in Congress cause the GOP will block shit and we know it.

The GOP should be their #1 target. Bush, Rubio, Carson's, Huckabee's camp are prime real estate. Take the events with racists head on. If the goal of this group is to really turn their movement into a national plea, it's time to start banging on the doors that are completely shut down. Problem is, the other side won't go as easy on them. Not that it should be a deterrent.

The BLM isn't a loaded gun to be aimed at the opponents of white liberals. The agenda for the BLM is as transparent as can possibly be, and there is absolutely nothing to be gained by protesting Republican candidates except getting headlines for white liberals as black protesters are arrested or manhandled and beaten, or worse.

 

[rambis]

Order the FBI/AG to pursue charges against police more actively?

Spoiler

Pardon/commute federal drug criminals.

What does this even mean, exactly? Quantify what they aren't doing in respect to what they could be doing and provide examples if possible.

 

[Gnome]

Institutional racism is much deeper than politics, but it's a start.

 

[Gotchaye]

I am pretty sure they already decided they rather go after Hispanics than Blacks. Case in point they should be confronted just like they were confronted, just like they were confronted in the South during the Civils Rights Movement.

I mean, if they thought they could get Donald Trump to go after them with dogs and hoses that'd be a great idea. But nobody's falling for that again. The point of marching through Selma wasn't to put political pressure on George Wallace; it was to expose just how horrible things were there. The people the marchers were attempting to persuade were moderates in the north. In general people are much smarter about this stuff nowadays - the police in Ferguson went to some lengths to be seen to be only maintaining order, for example. There's a lot of effort to paint protesters as unruly and violent, etc.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Not a lawmaker?

I wanna say I learned that in 4th grade American Government. So yeah you're half right.

Yet the president has his name on one of the biggest laws passed in the past 10 years. You can break out the semantic calculator but many people consider the potus key in many laws. They help construct them, promote them and is seen as an integral part of law making. Their veto power moves laws in different directions. Seems like a great place to start. The president pushed for the Iran treaty and veto power finalized it.

I would say I'm 90% right.

Would people say she handled this worse or better than Sanders?

Did she run?

 

[benjipwns]

This only matters while there is no nomination. After that a republican will have everything to gain by sympathizing.

The GOP is not going to get black votes, their only hope is keeping the number that vote down.

This was arguably the last good attempt at outreach by the party:
https://archive.org/details/gwb_urbanl
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72700

The thing I like about the National Urban League is you believe in the future of the African American community. You've got this great faith that the future is going to be better, and I share that. That's what I'm here to talk about. I believe the same thing. I believe this country can and will be a place of opportunity and hope for every single citizen. It's not a given; there's work to be done. But it's a goal, and it's an important goal.

I don't care what party you're in, what city you live in, or what State you're from, the goal has got to be—America has got to be an hospitable, hopeful place for every single citizen. That's what I believe. That's kind of the heart of what they call compassionate conservatism, that the American experience must be alive and viable for everyone and that Government has a role to help people have the tools so they can help themselves. See, I believe in the human spirit; I believe if people have the opportunity and the ability, they will achieve their God-given talents. That's what I believe. And I think that's a proper role for the Federal Government, to help people.

But there's more than just fighting crime. We need to help the 600,000 men and women who are being released from prison each year. I went to the Congress in my State of the Union; I talked about a prison reentry program. I said, "Put some money up to help these souls come out. Let's make sure we're the country of the second chance. Let's make sure people have got a chance to get an education and a job. Let's make sure there's—if need be, let's make sure there's church families available to welcome a person back in community." And so this prison reentry program is a vital part of making sure America is a safe country.

Progress for this country, for African Americans and all Americans, depends on the full protection of civil rights and equality before the law. My administration and its Justice Department has vigorously enforced the civil rights laws. The Civil Rights Division has opened a Federal investigation into the murder of Emmett Till. I'm the first President of the United States to ban racial profiling in Federal law enforcement. And to serve the cause of justice on the bench, the Federal bench, I have nominated outstanding men and women to the courts, including 6 superbly qualified African Americans for the courts of appeal and 11 for district courts.

We've begun the largest initiative ever to combat global AIDS. America is in the lead on dealing with the pandemic that ravages the continent of Africa. We're taking the lead because we're a compassionate nation. We feed more of the hungry than any nation on the face of the Earth. We're a compassionate nation.

We're also a wise nation when it comes to smart policy. I signed the African Growth and Opportunity Acceleration Act of 2004. It recognizes that the best way to help lift people out of poverty is to trade; it's through the free flow of commerce. And it's working on the—this policy is working on the continent of Africa.

Problems come to our desk because of our influence in the world. We've dealt with Liberia. We're now dealing with the Sudan. The United States is working closely with the United Nations. As a matter of fact, the Secretary of State was recently with Kofi Annan, talking about this very subject. We're working closely with the African Union to bring relief to the suffering people in that region. We've made our position very clear to the Sudanese Government: They must stop the Janjaweed violence. They must provide access for humanitarian relief to the people who suffer.

Ours is a solid record of accomplishment. And that's why I've come to talk about compassionate conservatism and what I envision for the future. I'm here for another reason. I'm here to ask for your vote.

No, I know. I know—I know. The Republican party has got a lot of work to do. I understand that. [Laughter] You didn't need to nod your head that hard, Jesse. [Laughter]

Do you remember a guy named Charlie Gaines? Somebody gave me a quote he said, which I think kind of describes, maybe, the environment we're in today. I think he's a friend of Jesse's. He said, "Blacks are gagging on the donkey but not yet ready to swallow the elephant." [Laughter]

Now that was said a while ago. [Laughter] I believe you've got to earn the vote and seek it. I think you've got to go to people and say, "This is my heart. This is what I believe, and I'd like your help." And as I do, I'm going to ask African American voters to consider some questions.

 

[heliosRAzi]

Yet the president has his name on one of the biggest laws passed in the past 10 years. You can break out the semantic calculator but many people consider the potus key in many laws. They help construct them, promote them and is seen as an integral part of law making. Their veto power moves laws in different directions. Seems like a great place to start. The president pushed for the Iran treaty and veto power finalized it.

I would say I'm 90% right.

Not to mention that as the leader of their respective party, the President can push for certain things to get made into law. And they appoint justices and attorney generals and blah blah blah. Targeting a presidential hopeful is smart and visible.

 

[benjipwns]

What does this even mean, exactly? Quantify what they aren't doing in respect to what they could be doing and provide examples if possible.

To quote the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division:

It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). "Color of law" simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal). A law enforcement officer acts "under color of law" even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by these laws include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed.

When there's serious police misconduct, especially when police murder innocents, they should be filing federal charges, not letting police departments handle it internally.

 

[GnawtyDog]

The BLM isn't a loaded gun to be aimed at the opponents of white liberals. The agenda for the BLM is as transparent as can possibly be, and there is absolutely nothing to be gained by protesting Republican candidates except getting headlines for white liberals as black protesters are arrested or manhandled and beaten, or worse.

I am not going to advocate for that but as we all know nothing comes easy and those very headlines and "beatings" (more like massacres at times) moved a nation during the 1960's. The alternative is par for the course watching blacks get killed for no god damn reason in the states while an event or two get crashed - rinse and repeat. The GOP is a loaded gun against fill the blank _____________________.

If it ever comes to that in this day and age you bet your savings account that shit will get done.

And funny that you mention white liberals - they seem to be the primary target of BLM - in practice.

I mean, if they thought they could get Donald Trump to go after them with dogs and hoses that'd be a great idea. But nobody's falling for that again. The point of marching through Selma wasn't to put political pressure on George Wallace; it was to expose just how horrible things were there. The people the marchers were attempting to persuade were moderates in the north. In general people are much smarter about this stuff nowadays - the police in Ferguson went to some lengths to be seen to be only maintaining order, for example. There's a lot of effort to paint protesters as unruly and violent, etc.

You think this wasn't tried back then too? The baiting, the shouting, the slurs, the beatings.... Miss-characterizing, outright lying and deceiving is always at play. It's not new - it happened plenty back then too.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

Good

 

[User1608]

Good to see... I hope something can come out of all of this.

 

[D i Z]

I am not going to advocate for that but as we all know nothing comes easy and those very headlines and "beatings" moved a nation during the 1960's. The alternative is par for the course watching blacks get killed for no god damn reason in the states while an event or two get crashed - rinse and repeat. The GOP is a loaded gun against fill the blank _____________________.

So damned if we do, damned if we don't eh. I think we'd rather look into option #3.

 

[rambis]

Yet the president has his name on one of the biggest laws passed in the past 10 years. You can break out the semantic calculator but many people consider the potus key in many laws. They help construct them, promote them and is seen as an integral part of law making. Their veto power moves laws in different directions. Seems like a great place to start. The president pushed for the Iran treaty and veto power finalized it.

I would say I'm 90% right.

Did she run?

Yes the president executes laws and he has veto authority. He does not make laws, he enacts or vetos what is presented to him from the congress. If you want to call these basic facts semantics then whatever but this reeks of a bad attempt to save face after your earlier snark.

I mean he is being sued by almost half the states for trying create immigration policy via executive order and was threatened by congress for another lawsuit. And he is still begging congress to actually write a bill.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/224948-obama-to-congress-pass-a-bill

If this doesn't explain to you the scope of his law making ability, I dont know what will.

 

[teruterubozu]

Exactly what good would it do to ban employers from asking about criminal convictions?

Any decent job is probably going to have a background check anyway.

Yup. HR departments, lawyers, corporate insurance and background check companies have a lock on this.
Removing it from an application won't do shit. Just silly fluff.