Black Lives Matter supporters interrupt Hillary Clinton Rally

Status
Not open for further replies.
For those of you that criticize their methods not message. Let me just say this, during the many civil rights struggles (lgbt, black, women) people of these minorities had to "be rude" and be less than thoughtful with who they targeted for protests. But it's not about being nice and waiting on progress. People are dying while we criticize someone's tone and timing. Once I realized the historical backdrop, the context for the BLM folks...I can't fault them. By the same high standards we hold MLK and others to, we have to hold them to that standard as well.

An honest question: whose campaign events or public speeches were disrupted by MLK? I am certainly not a student of the era, but most of the notable civil disobedience I can recall were boycotts, sit-ins, and marches that were designated, independent events. They weren't attempts to disrupt, co-opt, or upstage someone else at their own separate speech or rally.
 
Anyway, what blows me away about that clip is that Clinton actually brags about cutting 270 thousand fucking jobs and using the money saved to build prisons. Like both are good things. Like, what the fuck?
If everyone is in prison either as a guard or a prisoner (ideally both) we won't have any unemployment!
 
/shrug

Lets all just hope that this shit doesn't vanish like a fart in the wind the next time we get midterms post 2016. That's the biggest opportunity for making actual inroads.
 
An honest question: whose campaign events or public speeches were disrupted by MLK? I am certainly not a student of the era, but most of the notable civil disobedience I can recall were boycotts, sit-ins, and marches that were designated, independent events. They weren't attempts to disrupt, co-opt, or upstage someone else at their own separate speech or rally.

Protests, by their very nature, are meant to disrupt.

Sit ins, one of the examples you gave, when they were originally were introduced, were seen as a major disruptions and seen as too radical, even by liberals at the time.

In any case, why do we have to protest the way King did? What King did clearly didn't work, as we are still in the same situation. Why should we repeat the past?
 
Didn't Hilary meet with Black Lives Matter supporters after the whole Bernie Sanders interrupting? Why interrupt her if she actually took the time to meet them? I could be wrong but I swear she had a closed door meeting with them.
 
Didn't Hilary meet with Black Lives Matter supporters after the whole Bernie Sanders interrupting? Why interrupt her if she actually took the time to meet them? I could be wrong but I swear she had a closed door meeting with them.

It wasn't closed door. There was a video, and she dismissed it with "wait your turn" nonsense.
 
It wasn't closed door. There was a video, and she dismissed it with "wait your turn" nonsense.

Closed-door does not mean secret, it means private. It was a private meeting with a BLM person taking video.

What are you talking about with "wait your turn nonsense"? As I recall from that video, she pretty explicitly said "Okay, what policy proposals do you have?"
 
Closed-door does not mean secret, it means private. It was a private meeting with a BLM person taking video.

What are you talking about with "wait your turn nonsense"? As I recall from that video, she pretty explicitly said "Okay, what policy proposals do you have?"

From my memory, it certainly felt like "wait your turn."

And I don't see why not protest Hilary? Her policies are very anti-black and are pretty Republican.
 
From my memory, it certainly felt like "wait your turn."
She told them simply that past successful civil rights movements (women's suffrage, racial equality, LGBT rights etc.) have pushed clear legislative proposals onto lawmakers who then pass the law, and that if they did that they would get the attention they deserve. It wasn't "Wait your turn," it was "What do you want me to do?"

I support the Black Lives Matter movement, but in the early stages she was right that there were no clear policy goals. "End police brutality." Okay, how? I understand there have been some proposals since then and I haven't been paying much attention to the movement but there should be an effort to lobby state lawmakers to implement specific reforms.
 
From my memory, it certainly felt like "wait your turn."

And I don't see why not protest Hilary? Her policies are very anti-black and are pretty Republican.

She pretty much just asked them what she wanted her to do policy-wise. I'm not saying that this makes her immune to BLM protests, but she gave them a legitimate meeting with someone that could be President.

And she's not a Republican or anti-black, for fuck's sake.
 
Talk about some uncalled pricks (the protestors, not the black-awareness guys of course) , she hasn't done any harm to them. They should sabotage congress though.
 
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

-MLK, Letter from a Birmingham Jail 1963

Why not push the issue you care about and need those in power to care about to the person who is likely to be the next leader of the free world. You have to hold your leaders feet to the fire. Even those who claim to be on your side.

*claps*
 
Talk about some uncalled pricks (the protestors, not the black-awareness guys of course) , she hasn't done any harm to them. They should sabotage congress though.
Liberals don't care about Congress. Only conservatives seem to understand the way to get things done is through Congress and especially lately, state legislatures.
 
She pretty much just asked them what she wanted her to do policy-wise. I'm not saying that this makes her immune to BLM protests, but she gave them a legitimate meeting with someone that could be President.

And she's not a Republican or anti-black, for fuck's sake.

Hilary's positions are pretty traditional Republican. Not modern hysterics Republican, but pretty Republican. Her support of prison SuperPACS, is one example. She's very anti-black. The prison system destroys our families.

Tell me how her policies are pro-black. If you want to argue they're neutral towards Black folks, go ahead. But her positions definitely harm Black people directly, from her support of for profit prisons, death penalty, to the drug war.
 
And I'm telling you that the federal government already has in place an enforcement body that can be ordered to focus resources on it.

States and local governments are basically owned by their police. I agree, but good luck and godspeed.

A President can and should shove the FBI down their throats.

#BLM is about a deficient culture, to take another example, so was/is Wall Street. The federal government choosing to look the other way and not enforce existing laws effectively promotes the culture. With Wall Street it's an active ignorance, with police abuse it's more of a passive one.


He only did that because the Republicans would have said mean things about him otherwise! They'll probably do the same thing to Hillary and Bernie! Well, just Bernie, since Hillary is headed to federal prison.
And im telling you that the existing system hasn't worked. Don't really know how to make this any clearer. Change is change. Stump speeches and finger wagging does nothing for the long term. As history has repeatedly and repeatedly showed.
I think it's Willy Sutton's answer here. Why rob banks? Because that's where the money is.

BLM wants to get attention from the Democratic Party so that Democratic politicians will integrate BLM's policy goals into their platform so that they will get implemented. The best way to do that is show up at Democratic events and make a scene. Presidential campaign stops are the biggest events around, so that's where they go protest.

It's not like presidential candidates exist in a vacuum. When Hillary and Bernie make police reform part of their platform, it becomes part of the Democratic platform. That means every Democrat ends up talking about it and thinking about it more and it becomes a more prominent issue at every level, from local to state to federal. Saying that you're only allowed to protest people who could directly take action to fix your problem is kind of bizarre. The goal of protest isn't to inconvenience particular individuals directly, it's to create social unrest, to raise awareness, and, arguably, to increase the overall negative consequences of ignoring you.
Unless a person has been living under several rocks, there is nobody who hasnt heard about the BLM movement or the escalating racial tension in this country. This goes doubly for politicians who I think have all been questioned on their positions regarding this.

I don't mind the protest. A show of force can helpful yes. But there is a line between positive reinforcement while getting your message thoughtfully across and being obnoxious and ignorant and dissuading people from wanting to actually give you an ear.

Clinton acknowledged protesters' "Black Lives Matter" chants, saying "yes, they do," but kept talking, although much of the audience couldn't hear what she way saying over the noise.
If she acknowledges you and you still attempt to overtalk her and take over her rally before she can even say what she has to say then you have jumped well across that line.

What good has it done your movement if you can now be barred from entering future events?

And I've said nothing about where they're allowed to protest. Time and a place, again. Damaging the image of a candidate thats most likely to help you because she now has to remove you to even get a word off isn't an effective use of your platform. Im sorry but no.

And all that goes without repeating how little a role a president plays in this reform. Obama has called for reform before and nobody jumped. What makes you think this will change with a different talking head? Pressure the people who make laws. Pressure the people who actually have authority over your police. A protest to a person who might be able to sniff a public office in over a years time is going to have what effect exactly?

I really don't see whats so outlandish about wishing they'd choose their battles more wisely.
 
From my memory, it certainly felt like "wait your turn."

And I don't see why not protest Hilary? Her policies are very anti-black and are pretty Republican.

Name them. Name these anti-black policies that she is running on. Please. I would love to read them.

The very first policy speech Hillary gave after announcing her candidacy was on criminal justice reform and policing.

What we’ve seen in Baltimore should, indeed does, tear at our soul.

And, from Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable.

Walter Scott shot in the back in Charleston, South Carolina. Unarmed. In debt. And terrified of spending more time in jail for child support payments he couldn’t afford.

Tamir Rice shot in a park in Cleveland, Ohio. Unarmed and just 12 years old.

Eric Garner choked to death after being stopped for selling cigarettes on the streets of this city.And now Freddie Gray. His spine nearly severed while in police custody.

Not only as a mother and a grandmother but as a citizen, a human being, my heart breaks for these young men and their families.

We have to come to terms with some hard truths about race and justice in America.

There is something profoundly wrong when African American men are still far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than are meted out to their white counterparts.

There is something wrong when a third of all black men face the prospect of prison during their
lifetimes. And an estimated 1.5 million black men are “missing” from their families and
communities because of incarceration and premature death.

There is something wrong when more than one out of every three young black men in Baltimore can’t find a job.

A single speech means absolutely nothing, but she has been speaking about issues affecting the African American community. When she met with BLM, she asked them what they would like her to do. She's listening. Is she perfect? Nope. Not even close.
 
And im telling you that the existing system hasn't worked. Don't really know how to make this any clearer. Change is change. Stump speeches and finger wagging does nothing for the long term. As history has repeatedly and repeatedly showed.
Because they haven't tried doesn't excuse those from not leveraging the power they do have to make things better.

The DoJ cutting a path of destruction through just 25 police departments of decent size will send a message.
 
Protests, by their very nature, are meant to disrupt.

In any case, why do we have to protest the way King did? What King did clearly didn't work, as we are still in the same situation. Why should we repeat the past?

MLK's protests were aimed largely at the institutions perpetuating discrimination -- buses, hotels, stores that enforced "whites only" policies. Attempting to undermine potential allies doesn't strike me as particularly fruitful, and the ultimate result may just be increased security at speeches and rallies.

"What King did clearly didn't work" is a pretty grim assessment of the man's accomplishments.
 
Name them. Name these anti-black policies that she is running on. Please. I would love to read them.

The very first policy speech Hillary gave after announcing her candidacy was on criminal justice reform and policing.



A single speech means absolutely nothing, but she has been speaking about issues affecting the African American community. When she met with BLM, she asked them what they would like her to do. She's listening. Is she perfect? Nope. Not even close.

Hilary and speeches doesn't mean much.

She talks about helping the situation with Wall Street while gaining donations from some of the biggest dogs in Wall Street. She gave a speech on prison reform:

“There is something profoundly wrong when African-American men are far more likely to be stopped by the police and charged with crimes and given longer prison terms than their white counterparts,” Clinton said. “There is something wrong when trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve breaks down … We must urgently begin to rebuild bonds of trust and respect among American between police and citizens.”

And she still is getting millions from pro-profit prisons.

With Hilary, you have to look behind the lines to find the true story. She may say one thing, but the money always tells the truth.

For profit prisons, for death penalty, pro drug war. In my mind, all of these are anti-black positions. It's everything that represents the status quo, and the status quo for black people in this country right now is absymal.
 
So, I don't know if it's worth noting, but the thing I find weird about this protest is that earlier in the month Clinton and BLM/Campaign Zero leaders actually had a sit down meeting to discuss issues and policy.

While I think it's perfectly fine to protest wherever they see fit and draw attention to the problems being faced, I think this kind of highlights that they need to improve their organisational infrastructure and internal communication a bit.

It doesn't really seem like her campaign, or for that matter a Clinton presidency, would be hugely resistant to further such meetings and discussions either, so far as I can tell - which could be more fruitful.

And at some point, as already noted, movements aimed at drawing attention to problems usually need to get involved in the policy development towards creating solutions.
 
You do realize that there's like 4 or 5 studies that show politicians do try and keep their campaign promises right? Your argument is basically, "I know what she's about better than you do because I'm not blind, man."
 
Because they haven't tried doesn't excuse those from not leveraging the power they do have to make things better.

The DoJ cutting a path of destruction through just 25 police departments of decent size will send a message.
Eh im sorry dude but I really don't see you as a valid authority on what previous presidents have tried or not tried to do with this issue. Not saying you are necessarily wrong or right but sometimes you should sit back and realize you are in an armchair and not working on the hill before making grand sweeping generalizations.
 
they need to interrupt state legislature candidates everywhere

because hillary isn't going to be able to do shit with the GOP controlling the house for years to come. they also have many state legislatures and governors.
 
MLK's protests were aimed largely at the institutions perpetuating discrimination -- buses, hotels, stores that enforced "whites only" policies. Attempting to undermine potential allies doesn't strike me as particularly fruitful, and the ultimate result may just be increased security at speeches and rallies.

"What King did clearly didn't work" is a pretty grim assessment of the man's accomplishments.

King's accomplishments? He accomplished a lot, sure. Does this mean he's infallible? No. When I talk about King's accomplishments, I mean the Civil Rights Movement at large. It hasn't changed a thing.

Black Americans are worse off now than in 1960's.

http://www.urban.org/sites/default/...pdfs/412839-The-Moynihan-Report-Revisited.PDF
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-white-economic-gap-hasnt-budged-in-50-years/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/todays-racial-wealth-gap-is-wider-than-in-the-1960s/[/url]

If the Civil Rights Movement did anything, it was make people complacent.

I also disagree heavily with many of those targets and institutions. We were more interested in integrating than proving that we are equal. We are no longer separate, but you'd be a damn fool if you'd argue we're now equal.

In that respect, the Civil Rights Movement was a failure.
 
So, I don't know if it's worth noting, but the thing I find weird about this protest is that earlier in the month Clinton and BLM/Campaign Zero leaders actually had a sit down meeting to discuss issues and policy.

While I think it's perfectly fine to protest wherever they see fit and draw attention to the problems being faced, I think this kind of highlights that they need to improve their organisational infrastructure and internal communication a bit.

It doesn't really seem like her campaign, or for that matter a Clinton presidency, would be hugely resistant to further such meetings and discussions either, so far as I can tell - which could be more fruitful.

And at some point, as already noted, movements aimed at drawing attention to problems usually need to get involved in the policy development towards creating solutions.

I just get the impression that yelling "black lives matter" is the most important aspect behind Black Lives Matter.
 
You do realize that there's like 4 or 5 studies that show politicians do try and keep their campaign promises right? Your argument is basically, "I know what she's about better than you do because I'm not blind, man."

Give me reason to believe in Hilary's racial justice policies? Her track record is abysmal.
 
I just get the impression that yelling "black lives matter" is the most important aspect behind Black Lives Matter.
That seems an unfair characterisation - as steps have been taken towards developing the movement - and even if it wasn't, fundamentally, drawing attention to the disproportionate number of black people incarcerated, subject to injury or death due to institutionalised racism, is an important action in itself.

That said, there are openings to go beyond that and develop the movement much further. And they should be seizing those opportunities.
 
The Black Lives Matter organization I am a part of is quite disorganized. I never see any large, actual protests for state legislature or policy change despite being in a red state, and the election coming up soon. We could definitely use some work, but there's also benefits to having a leaderless organization given that our past leaders were assassinated.

Could BLM do better? Yes. Is the cause impractical or without merit because we could do better? No.
 
Hilary and speeches doesn't mean much.

She talks about helping the situation with Wall Street while gaining donations from some of the biggest dogs in Wall Street. She gave a speech on prison reform:



And she still is getting millions from pro-profit prisons.

With Hilary, you have to look behind the lines to find the true story. She may say one thing, but the money always tells the truth.

For profit prisons, for death penalty, pro drug war. In my mind, all of these are anti-black positions. It's everything that represents the status quo, and the status quo for black people in this country right now is absymal.

Hillary has refused to accept any money from PACs, lobbyists or bundlers associated with private prisons. Any funds she has received from them will be donated to charity. In fact, there are a few news articles that show she Tweeted about private prisons, and their stocks fell in value by $100-200 million (depending on the company).

I do not agree with Clinton on the death penalty. However, unless you're willing to call anyone who supports it anti-black, I think that's too broad a brush. She has said that there are issues in which the states currently utilize it, and she would like to see changes made.
 
Eh im sorry dude but I really don't see you as a valid authority on what previous presidents have tried or not tried to do with this issue. Not saying you are necessarily wrong or right but sometimes you should sit back and realize you are in an armchair and not working on the hill before making grand sweeping generalizations.
How do you know I don't work for the DoJ? Or FBI? Or Cato: http://www.policemisconduct.net/maps/searchable-map-2009-2010-misconduct-incidents/
http://www.cato.org/raidmap

Give me reason to believe in Hilary's racial justice policies? Her track record is abysmal.
Look, as Hillary said, you can't end the drug war because there's too much money in it.
 
Hillary has refused to accept any money from PACs, lobbyists or bundlers associated with private prisons. Any funds she has received from them will be donated to charity. In fact, there are a few news articles that show she Tweeted about private prisons, and their stocks fell in value by $100-200 million (depending on the company).
What about police and prison guard unions?

EDIT: This makes me laugh for some reason:
Assn of Flight Attendants $20,000.00
That's almost twice what the Directors Guild has given her, and the Teamsters

Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Workers $2,000.00
That's an odd union.
 
Hillary has refused to accept any money from PACs, lobbyists or bundlers associated with private prisons. Any funds she has received from them will be donated to charity. In fact, there are a few news articles that show she Tweeted about private prisons, and their stocks fell in value by $100-200 million (depending on the company).

I do not agree with Clinton on the death penalty. However, unless you're willing to call anyone who supports it anti-black, I think that's too broad a brush. She has said that there are issues in which the states currently utilize it, and she would like to see changes made.

I don't think anyone who supports the death penalty as anti-black. For me, it's a combination of drug war, private prisons, and death penalty which I find to form the trifecta of anti-black policies dating to the 70's. You get arrested for a non-violent drug offense, you go to prison, you can no longer vote - which means a repressed voice and one less vote on the streets, you struggle to find a job due to your conviction, which leads to being forced to do illegal jobs for mere sustenance. The cycle repeats.

If Hilary supports all three of them, I find it pretty dead pressed to not call her anti-black. Even if it's not framed that way, the ultimate conclusion is indirect (and direct) anti-black policy making.

As for the death penalty, an overwhelmingly majority of people on death row are Black and Latino, often for crimes they didn't commit. There is a clear bias in terms of race in regards to the death penalty. It's very much tied to race and de-humanization as well, which is the core of why BLM is so important.

To act like these issues are merely separate would be illogical as much as it is insulting.
 
From my memory, it certainly felt like "wait your turn."

And I don't see why not protest Hilary? Her policies are very anti-black and are pretty Republican.

That is the exact fucking opposite of what she said. Her policies are NOT anti-black.

Really great article from the New York Times from that exchange - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/u...akes-on-civil-rights-generation-gap.html?_r=0

A Black Lives Matter activist, Julius Jones, demands, at great length, that Mrs. Clinton acknowledge her culpability for supporting criminal justice policies put in place by her husband’s administration that wound up harming black Americans — and say how she would change “hearts and minds” to address what he calls a virulent strain of “anti-blackness” that reaches all the way back to slavery.

Mrs. Clinton, after listening and nodding for several minutes, responds calmly that her life’s work has been helping the nation’s poorest children, many of them black, before turning the tables on the much younger man and demanding instead to know how he plans to turn his deeply felt emotions into meaningful, lasting change.

“You can get lip service from as many white people you can pack into Yankee Stadium and a million more like it who are going to say: ‘We get it, we get it. We are going to be nicer,’ ” she says. “That’s not enough, at least in my book.”


It was a forthright statement by Mrs. Clinton, whose advocacy work dates to the 1960s. But her confrontation with a black activist in his 30s showed how, for all her decades of effort on behalf of civil rights, there is a generational divide between those who appreciate that résumé and those to whom she has to prove herself all over again

Mr. Jones seems to press Mrs. Clinton to bare her soul: “Now that you understand the consequences, what in your heart has changed?” he asks. “How do you actually feel that’s different than you did before?”

Mrs. Clinton calls it a “very thoughtful question” but demurs. “This country has still not recovered from its original sin,” she says, but adds that the “next question” is, “So what do you want me to do about it?”

She urges Mr. Jones to help her come up with a specific “vision and plan.”

“That’s what I’m trying to put together,” Mrs. Clinton says, “in a way that I can explain it, and I can sell it — because in politics, if you can’t explain it and you can’t sell it, it stays on the shelf.”

Indeed, she comes to the issue with a great deal of credibility among African-American advocates and politicians of a certain age for using the existing systems to bring changes. She has told of being inspired by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a high school student, when she heard him speak in Chicago, and of being drawn into working for the Children’s Defense Fund by Marian Wright Edelman, her Yale law mentor. As the first lady of Arkansas, she worked to improve one the nation’s poorest school systems, in which many of the students were black. As the nation’s first lady, she fought for health insurance for poor children.

And to those criticizing Clinton for not adequately addressing racial justice issues during her current campaign - you have not been paying attention.

Even now, in her second presidential bid, Mrs. Clinton — often accused of being too cautious — has used some of her boldest language on issues of racial justice.

Mr. Morial favorably cited Mrs. Clinton’s speech before the Urban League in July, when she talked about inequities that have lingered despite other advances. “Race still plays a significant role in determining who gets ahead in America and who gets left behind,” she said then. “And yes, while that’s partly a legacy of discrimination that stretches back to the start of our nation, it is also because of discrimination that is still ongoing.”

In another speech shortly after the massacre of nine black churchgoers in South Carolina, Mrs. Clinton said that racism was not merely the province of “kooks and Klansmen.”


Minyon Moore, a longtime close friend and adviser to Mrs. Clinton, said that her credentials on race could not be questioned, and suggested that the younger cohort of activists be willing to have more of a dialogue.

“She was one of the first leaders out there on race,” said Ms. Moore, one of several African-American women among Mrs. Clinton’s innermost circle of friends and advisers. “What presidential candidate has asked the question, ‘Imagine for one second if you were a black man and the police stopped you? Imagine.’ If that’s not in a person’s heart, I don’t know what is.”
 
I do not agree with Clinton on the death penalty. However, unless you're willing to call anyone who supports it anti-black, I think that's too broad a brush. She has said that there are issues in which the states currently utilize it, and she would like to see changes made.

States where millions of Super Pac money are deciding local elections, great idea I'm sure the people elected will make great strides in the changes.

The anti-government fervor infusing the 2010 elections represents a political triumph for the Kochs. By giving money to “educate,” fund, and organize Tea Party protesters, they have helped turn their private agenda into a mass movement. Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist and a historian, who once worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a Dallas-based think tank that the Kochs fund, said, “The problem with the whole libertarian movement is that it’s been all chiefs and no Indians. There haven’t been any actual people, like voters, who give a crap about it. So the problem for the Kochs has been trying to create a movement.” With the emergence of the Tea Party, he said, “everyone suddenly sees that for the first time there are Indians out there—people who can provide real ideological power.” The Kochs, he said, are “trying to shape and control and channel the populist uprising into their own policies.
 
I just get the impression that yelling "black lives matter" is the most important aspect behind Black Lives Matter.

That's the kind of bullshit dismissal OWS got, but guess what, income inequality and police brutality against minorities are now top political issues that candidates can't ignore.

Not everyone has to be a strategist. The people who are just mad as fuck and in the streets are critically important. It's not like there aren't already plenty of people writing all kinds of thinkpieces on strategy already. It's useless without the actual pressure.
 
I don't give a damn what Hilary said.

Show me what she does, who gives her money.

Where there's smoke, there's a fire. Especially when your former President husband's crime laws helped create the situation in the first place.

Hilary is anti-black.
 
I don't give a damn what Hilary said.

Show me what she does, who gives her money.

Where there's smoke, there's a fire. Especially when your former President husband's crime laws helped create the situation in the first place.

Hilary is anti-black.

jennifer_lawrence_ok.gif
 
The B&C began as the Journeymen's Bakers Union, organized in 1886 in Pittsburgh, PA. In 1957, the American Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union was formed. In 1969, the two organizations united under the B&C banner.

The Tobacco Workers International Union was founded in 1895. As it and the Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America shared many common goals, both organizations merged in 1978, creating the Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers (BCT).
What are these common goals they shared?!? I don't even. #BakeryConfectionaryTobaccoLivesMatter
 
An honest question: whose campaign events or public speeches were disrupted by MLK? I am certainly not a student of the era, but most of the notable civil disobedience I can recall were boycotts, sit-ins, and marches that were designated, independent events. They weren't attempts to disrupt, co-opt, or upstage someone else at their own separate speech or rally.

I'm not saying the methods are the same. Just that people definitely say around and talked about how "rude" or counterproductive the protests were. And yes, they were disruptive. That was the reason they worked. I'm saying that abrasive tactics have been used by civil rights movements in the past. And we need to view this movement in the same light. A light of extreme urgency.
 
That's the kind of bullshit dismissal OWS got, but guess what, income inequality and police brutality against minorities are now top political issues that candidates can't ignore.

Not everyone has to be a strategist. The people who are just mad as fuck and in the streets are critically important. It's not like there aren't already plenty of people writing all kinds of thinkpieces on strategy already. It's useless without the actual pressure.

"income inequality" is a synonym for socialism, communism, and Hitler to one of the two parties, a party that recently won back control of the Senate, widened their lead in the House, and has dominated state gubernatorial races and legislatures. It's a top issue for two candidates in one party and one of them is a self-described democratic socialist and is planning to give a speech to explain to people what that exactly means. I'm not going to blame OWS for this but i'm not exactly worried about dismissing them.
 
uZq8F9w.png


Looks like progress to me.

Your logic is backwards, certainly?

Crime fell, but Black people are being imprisoned at an insane rate. Unless your hypothesis is that we are inherently more predisposed to do crime than any other race (we aren't).

If crime has fallen, and Black prison populations is over 1 million, certainly this means the opposite of progress and certainly hints at highly systemic inequality moreso than even in 1950's and 60's?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom