Code Pink was given the bum's rush. BLM didn't know when to shut up.

Last edited Sun Jul 19, 2015, 03:25 AM - Edit history (1)

Staying quiet just gets more people killed.

Candidates need to hear those demands.

will they know what a candidate proposes? ' bye

If Sander's and O'Malley were embarrased, they need to listen.

They protested, marched, and got in the face of complacent politicians.

Sanders marched with them so he knows it wasn't conversations that pushed Johnson to act. It wa protests and demands.

It took a hundred years of activism and demonstrations in the US to get women the vote, not sitting down and listening to what they are told.

Leadership in the Civil Rights fight were smart. They knew when to protest, and when to engage in dialog. They knew who to protest, and who was an ally.
The anti-war protests were disorganized. The leadership was fractured and poor...many just wanted the limelight. Nothing was accomplished...the war continued, Nixon was elected, and re-elected. Some of the anti-war leaders went on to become Reagan republicans.
I think BLM falls in the latter category. Self-aggrandizing leadership that doesn't know there's a time for dialog instead of shouting. Unable to discern between opponents and allies. Too bad a just cause is being setback by poor leaders.

I look forward to seeing what they do, and how the men and women running for the nomination take up their concerns.

BLM is doing wha thtey need to do.

I hit the wrong answer I support protest. BLM is trying to give the dem party a wake up call. It's early on the race, best the candidates address these issues and work on their message now. No vote is owed anyone.

IF the disruptions are limited to specific candidates, I'm less than thrilled with them. IF they're putting ALL candidates on notice that they're no longer simply going to let themselves be used, that they're demanding that their needs be met in order to get their votes, then I think that's legit. Black people are being murdered and abused every freaking day. They desperately need change, and I'm 100% behind them even going after my preferred candidate if they're telling EVERY candidate that their support and their votes only come with the candidate doing something for them to help end the slaughter. The candidate who ignores them risks being the next 'Gore 2000' in that case.

Even if it is far too reasonable and nuanced for the Internet(s), lol. I hadn't really ever considered your viewpoint, but now that I have, I think I agree.

It needs to be all candidates, not just two at one event, and not just Democrats.

Protest AND dialog are also needed.

Now that BLM has at least O'Malley's and Sander's attention, now it the time for them to sit down with both of them separately and discuss the issues rationally with plans and goals in mind.

No group is monolithic though, and all votes from any individual or group must be earned. No one is more special than any other in that regards. And I say that as a person of color.

The above was just an explanation of how I personally am processing the information I have about the events. Obviously no black or brown person has to give a damn about what I or any other white person think is 'legit'. I'm just pointing out how it comes across from my viewpoint, and anyone can use that info or ignore it as they please. I don't 'represent' anyone but myself, but I probably am 'representative' of some section of the political junkie spectrum.

I've believed your final paragraph for much of the political phase of my life. EVERY vote must be earned, no one simply gets my vote handed to them because they belong to a specific party, or any inborn trait. As I semi-joked with bravenak, part of the shock on the left is that the black lives matter folks are doing something the left has done for years, and actually getting it to work. When the left demands things from the candidates in exchange for their votes, they simply get insulted and ignored and threatened with Republican victories being placed at our doorstep. Black Lives Matter (and black people in general) might actually get the candidates to promise to DO something.

some have when a white person communicates their thoughts on things like this.

I actually do value dialog, and if you are here and a progressive (which I have no reason to doubt given your posting history) I want you as in my alliance.

Frankly, I have been rather irritated at the whole Clinton automatically has the AA and minority vote because...well...she does.

Votes from voters are earned. I would argue that she has not earned our allegiance whereas Sanders certainly does not only with his history but with what he is doing today.

And you are dead on. The progressive do get treated like that by the New Dems. In my older New Left and instead of this New Post Left activist mind set, I want to form a coalition that is stronger for us both.

Being bi-racial, I am so used to having a foot in two worlds at one time. It used to really bother me in my youth. Where do I belong? Why do both sides expect me to be fully one or the other? Now, I have no problems holding that dynamic tension of being more than one thing at once to more than one group of people. I recognize that I can understand two worlds and perhaps that means I need to try and bridge gaps even more than I tried previously.

Thank you for communicating with me on this.

So many different people, using it in so many different ways...

I'm kinda tired. I just don't understand why the concept of true equality for all humans is such a difficult thing, why we keep having to fight decade after decade for autonomy over our own lives, for safety from the very state that is supposed to be there to serve us, why people can be murdered or beaten or harassed simply because of the hue of their skin, their genitalia, or the genitalia of those they love. Why people fixate on the hateful parts of thousands of year old religions, instead of the loving parts. Why we constantly are being pushed back into lives in poverty of service to the wealthy few.

Why is it so damn hard just to get people to treat other people AS people?

As a psychologist and psychotherapist, I often see the same issues over and over in just about every type of human being that walks into my office.

My observations, theories, and thoughts on your question really belong in another thread topic.

- Rep. Joe Wilson (SC)

These particular protesters weren't interested in the responses Sanders and O'Malley tried to give or else they would have STFU and listened instead of just keep hollering.

I get that they are frustrated but this just did not portray them in a positive light at all.

O'Malley looked as though he was just barely tolerating it, and I do not blame him.

not everyone is dialed into the news 24/7

Maybe add a link?

I have to say all of the "shouting down" on behalf of the BLM was tactless and counterproductive so I voted for the first option. I don't know about O'Malley and his "all lives matter" bit was cringeworthy; but Sanders didn't deserve the heckling. Some of those activists didn't give a shit about Sanders credentials and what he had to say; all they cared about was "shutting shit down".

Well they shut it down alright and nothing productive happened so congrats on them I guess. They want more than talk but aren't interested in ideas or plans so why should I give them the benefit of he doubt. I gave them enough.

makes this a bs poll. Try another approach.

I don't care that they yelled at Martin and Bernie. I think both candidates handled it very well, perhaps not perfect, I don't ask for perfection in any case. They gave them a chance to bridge the gap between income equality and social justice and if you listen to the actual responses of both of them they gave some good answers. I think it was rude to ask questions and then proceed to keep shouting, when answers are coming. But, if they don't want answers and just want a place to yell fine they can yell all they want without the candidates present.

Anyone has the right to protest and has the right to be disruptive.

would just have agreed with the statement "Black lives matter" it seems there would be no controversy.

I think the whole issue, however, of promoting your own group's rights becomes confusing to people and candidates who do not belong to that group because people who promote their own group are really doing something that non-members of that group aren't allowed to do for their own.

I think more people should take up advocating for people who don't look like themselves as a way to promote more social unity instead of just advocating for themselves.


I don't like this pitting of groups against each other in the liberal community as if only people that look like you have problems and can hurt. It doesn't seem very unifying at all.

If you want someone who doesn't look like you to help you, the best way to inspire that is not make accusations but to first help someone who doesn't look like you.