I’d like to start a discussion about why it (at least) appears that the folks in BLM are choosing only to protest at Bernie Sanders rallies and not at the rallies of other candidates for the Presidency.
Sanders appears to be handling the disruption with grace and aplomb and as has been pointed out elsewhere, is instructing security/police not to intervene in the protests.
I’m a fairly distant observer to these events, in more ways than one, and I thought the BB ‘hive’ mind might do a good job of representing fair and balanced positions that do at explaining this phenomenon than other mostly biased sources I’ve seen on the web.
From my limited point of view it seems like the choice to protest and effectively disrupt Sanders’ rallies is counter-productive in some aspects. However, it obviously is garnering column inches (or whatever the appropriate metric for news-worthiness is) and therefore raising awareness for the cause but (and perhaps this is down to my own lack of total perception of the American news cycle) it does appear that Sanders’ speeches are being disrupted whilst those of the other candidates are not.
I’d love to hear some educated and balanced views on the topic.
I am disappointed that two people disrupted a rally attended by thousands at which I was invited to speak about fighting to protect Social Security and Medicare. I was especially disappointed because on criminal justice reform and the need to fight racism there is no other candidate for president who will fight harder than me.
On one hand there’s the argument that Bernie is being targeted because it’s a waste of time hassling anyone else due to security issues and the fact that he’s the only one who looks like giving a shit despite supposedly ‘not doing enough’… which completely ignores the MSM using this insanity against him. (Which is a piece of piss, since what kind of fuckwit attacks their biggest ally?)
On the other hand, when you consider the net harm to both causes (as if they’re actually distinct anyway), and the fact that the American right contains some of the most devious, unscrupulous, utterly vile fucking scumbags the world has ever seen, then IMO you’d be foolish to rule out foul play.
And the conduct of those two women, continuing to carry on like they’re having some kind of fit even after they’ve been given the mic, pretty much couldn’t have done more harm to the perception of African Americans than if they’d used marketers and focus groups to come up with something.
I’m going to be blunt: I don’t like Bernie Sanders and I see him as being the lesser of two evils next to Clinton. BUT, this protest came way out of left field. I don’t think of it as a BLM protest, mainly because there is no one authority representing BLM and I can’t see how this helps BLM in any way. I think it’s a few individuals who want attention for themselves, and somehow came up with the idea that Sanders is an easy mark. I can’t explain it any other way.
When you’re outright telling people what’s good for them, calling them “fuckwits”, saying their causes aren’t distinct, saying people are “carrying on”, and blaming them for the perception of all African Americans?
Yeah, it’s no wonder people are saying that the Sanders supporters are pathetic, hypocritical liberals…
Seems to me that this is literally the only candidate that is taking them seriously and this would explain why they keep coming back to protest his rallies. I can’t imagine he has any more than basic security, and he’s likely not going to keep people out of the protests. I think he’s the only one who has changed message in response to their protests. Likewise, I support them coming to Sander rallies, because I do think at least some of his supports are not fully cognizant of these issues and why they matter. Wherever BLM’s goes, we should be supportive, until we manage to change these issues in a real, fundamental way.
I don’t think that’s fair. This is an important issue, and it should be a central, if not THE central issue of the campaign. It’s been hundreds of years of endless, rampant racism. Time to end this shit.
I honestly like you lots and generally agree with you (and try to support you around here), but I’m not sure this is fair of all of us. But if you think I’m a hypocrite, so be it.
He tows the party line on Israel. I’m tired of American presidents throwing up their hands and giving carte blanche to an apartheid state. Period. I’m not a single issue voter, and Clinton is no better on this (though she does have more foreign policy experience.) Still, a minimum wage raise is in the cards almost no matter what. It’s become a very popular cause even among conservative voters. Would Sanders be a better president, overall? Sure. Can I get excited about him? No.
I’m not a Democrat anyway and have zero intention of affiliating with that shitshow just to pick a nominee.
Has Obama been as good as he could have been (should have been?) for black lives?
Is Sanders going to be better, or worse?
Is being an old white guy part of the problem? Is he too focussed on fiscal issues to get the minority support he needs to beat Clinton? (is she getting that support instead? If so, what is she doing better?)
Look - I’d rather him win that Clinton. I’d rather him win than any republican. But the people pushing for him hard need to shut the fuck up a lot of the time. They have been extremely aggressive, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, all while screaming “I’M AN ALLY.”
But that’s the thing - you don’t get to declare your allyhood. Or at least, when you do, all you do is declare “I don’t care about people, all I care about is making myself look good.” Where are his supporters calling out the bigotry among their own? Why does it always go unremarked on?
I WANT Sanders to be everything he’s claiming to be. I don’t want him being everything his loudest supporters are saying he is.
This seems to me to be the most likely scenario. Where else are you going to make the most impact but with a group of people more likely to listen to you?
I’ve read that Bernie’s staff had met with BLM representatives previous to his most recent speech in order to get on the same page, perhaps he needs to explicitly bring them on board and make time for them in the schedule at his rallies?
All of the conspiracy theories floating around about funding coming from CLinton osupporters and modeerators writing books about her seems to be crazy-pants, but that hasn’t stopped the internet before.
I’m troubled that the liberal agenda (as opposed to the lib’rul agenduh) is being negatively impacted by the two groups appearing to be so at odds with one another, it really plays into the criticisms that the left so often evokes, that being that they are fragmented and disorganised, presenting a non-unified front.
Unity of purpose already exists (seemingly) so some behind the scenes conversation might go a long way to knitting the agendas together into a powerful vehicle for, well, social justice.
Didn’t want to step on @Cowicide’s toes, my question might pull weight from the strength of purpose of his thread given the nature of my question, ‘why not protest at Clinton or any of the cray-cray Republican rallies?’
Is it s security theatre thing? Is Bernie’s ‘meet the people’ attitude a weak point to be exploited or a strength waiting to be enhanced?
I wanted to concentrate on that rather than Bernie’s legitimacy as a candidate, which seems to me to be very strong, for the record.
Here’s the thing though - there really is not a lot of “unity of purpose” among american “liberals”. The sooner you realize that just because someone votes democrat doesn’t mean they’re a good person, the easier it is to grasp. There are a LOT of positions that get lumped in in “liberal” - economic inequality, racial inequality, anti-blackness, sexism, bigotry against non-Christians, gay rights, transgender rights, etc. Just because someone is good on one of these, doesn’t mean they’re really good on all of them - and a lot of people CLAIM to be an “ally” on one, but that’s basically the biggest sign they really aren’t.
I meant between Bernie’s camp and BLM, not ‘all liberals’. Also that the types of critical narrative which are usually levied at liberal groups are being used to criticise both Bernie and BLM.
I’m not saying that all liberals everywhere should or do present a unified front. Just these two groups in particular.
Yeah… I honestly can’t help thinking along similar lines, even if it is just speculation to be later abandoned.
The scenario we seem to be seeing is definitely being gamed in some ways, like BLM taking advantage of a crowd of people likely to listen to them but there’s for sure this niggling part of me that whispers about game-theory and maximum advantage scenarios playing out a lot like what we’re seeing.
Seriously, WTF. It’s as if BLM just sees an old white guy when they look at Sanders - I’ve seen no acknowledgement of his record, only the opposite.
To make like Sanders isn’t doing enough and needs to apologise is absolutely absurd; if we pretend that’s even halfway true, there still isn’t anyone else running for president who’ll do a tenth of what Sanders will do for black folks.
This is complete bullshit. Like your opinion of Sanders. How many decades does it take to convince you its not an act?
Furthermore, I’ve yet to come across a single obvious racist, sexist or homophobe voicing support for Sanders; that just sounds bizarre. I don’t see any attraction for bigots in his platform.
It seems you’ve edited your post above where IIRC, you said Sanders was the lesser of two evils out of him and Clinton, amirite? What fucking planet are you living on where you can expect a better presidential candidate than Sanders? He’s the best in a lifetime.
And you just called Sanders supporters pathetic hypocrites. So hey, I know a goat you can blow.
BTW, either I called the BLM activists fuckwits, or he’s not their biggest ally. Pick one.
No. You’re not right. I didn’t edit anything along those lines. But hey, when you make stuff up, it’s easy to win debates, right?
No. YOU can believe both things, but that doesn’t mean I have to. Using weasel-words and sliming around what you actually said, while claiming I said things I never did is really pathetic.
