BLM after Bernie

[whatchamacallit]

Bernie supporters are cast as universally insensitive or resistant to BLM and their goals. As far as I can tell, the evidence for this notion seems to be a lack of humility and an overzealous defending of their candidate. I believe most Sanders supporters absolutely do believe in and support the goals of BLM, but they push back because they're having trouble understanding the focus on a single candidate (theirs), and the mixed messages coming from BLM and Hillary supporters.

Here are a few recent examples of things that confuse Bernie supporters -

Aggressively disrupting Sanders events, and being openly contemptuous of the candidate and his supporters, is perfectly acceptable because "that's how activism works..."
What follows is a litany of complaints about how poorly Sanders handled the situation and how it translates to a lack of leadership...

Meeting with Hillary behind closed doors, sans press, is also perfectly acceptable because...?
What follows are tweets with positive messages and campaign perfect photos of compassion, unity, and leadership...

The baffling fact that the only entities actually able to do something about black lives in the here and now (POTUS and AG) are entirely out of the equation. The rationale offered is "we're looking forward to 2016 and beyond...". But if that's to be believed, why not focus on the presumed front runner? Why direct the brunt at a candidate who most believe won't be the nominee let alone president?

One of the things I find interesting with the intense focus on Sanders is the potential aftermath. If BLM place all their protest eggs in one basket, what happens after that basket is knocked out of the race? Is it Mission Accomplished? Do they suddenly retool their message and grievances and direct their efforts at Hillary? And if not, what was won by mainly going after Sanders and how will it save black lives?

Maybe she's not been a real target because of the puzzling notion that Hillary has the backs of PoC, and will do the right thing when elected. But ask yourselves, if our AA president couldn't or wouldn't address it, why the hell would anyone assume Hillary will?

[olddots]

1. let it rest its over

our complaints ( as in all of us ) get misdirected and BLM became aware of that .

[aikoaiko]

54. What does your post mean?

Out complaints about what get misdirected where?

[virtualobserver]

2. the most ridiculous detail - Hillary begged the Secret Service to let them in.....

and they wouldn't do it......Yeah right!

also Hillary's people said BLM wanted their meeting without reporters...

the BLM activists said that it never came up in their conversation.

[Supersedeas]

62. everyone has their way to frame it

[MADem]

4. You would do well to understand that BLM is not ABOUT electoral politics. They make this clear in

their statement of purpose. They are well funded--Beyonce and Jay-Z are among their sponsors--and they aren't going away.

Stop looking at them with your Bernie goggles on. It's not "All About Bernie." And carrying on with the "You're not gonna get a better deal....look at all he's DONE for 'you people!!!' " themes is TONE DEAF.

This isn't about eggs and baskets. #BLM really doesn't give a shit if a GOP enemy or a Democratic "friend who doesn't help" gets elected. They want concrete, material CHANGE.

Sheesh. Is the "real target" like "the real killers?" The defensiveness, bordering on conspiracy theories, is just ... epic, as the kids say.

And, fwiw, Hillary was "targeted," just the other day. But in the orchard of presidential candidates, it's easier to grab for the low-hanging fruit. Further, the young lady who "targeted" Sanders at Westlake was operating out of a portfolio crafted from within www.OutsideAgitators206.org, not #BLM.

I think that understanding the #BLM movement is the first step.

Start here--and read the press release first: http://blacklivesmatter.com/

[whatchamacallit]

7. There are so many strange and silly statements in your post it's hard to know where to start

but I'll keep it simple by responding to your title. They've made it about electoral politics by inserting themselves directly into them. Using the election as the main medium for their cause.

[MADem]

14. I won't be goaded and baited by you with belittling remarks. You can either take the

information I have offered in good faith, or you can disregard it.

At this point, I really don't care.

I am learning, here on DU, that you can't explain something to people who just do not want to understand.

You plainly--based on your response to me--didn't even bother to read the material I have offered you.

Take off the Bernie Goggles. You're talking about your candidate, they are talking about dead young black people in the streets of America.

#BLM is winning--the topic is trending on the platform plank leader board.

So there's that, anyway.

[Spacedog1973]

28. Its about publicity

Thats what protests are about. At the moment there is huge publicity regarding presidential elections and you are contributing toward it just by the posts you make. You are proving the point.

Meanwhile, BLM have met with Hillary behind closed doors. She was dismissive and patronising and thats it. No media, no discussion about the issue. Nada.

What do you think BLM would prefer or indeed any protest group? The constant chatter about their issue which raises awareness and eventual action? Or polite mutterings behind closed doors that don't offend anyone's feelings and everything can go on as usual?

Publicity affects that racist cop with an itchy trigger finger. It makes him think once, perhaps twice more than he would have before. He doesn't want to be front and centre on the media for making a call he used to get away with. He wouldn't be aware if all BLM did was have polite conversations with politicians.

Publicity and awareness goes beyond just political debate but seeps into the public conciousness.

Think of BLM as the foot in the slowly closing door of anti racism activism. Yes, its rude, but the door not only needs to stay open, but busted wide open forever. No gentle push will do that.

[virtualobserver]

25. I was impressed with the questions that were asked of Hillary

quite different from the www.OutsideAgitators206.org activists

also clear.....they are certainly not Hillary surrogates based on the serious questions that they asked....
I was a little surprised by the way that they characterized Hillary's response actually.

I don't know what will happen going forward, but the #blacklivesmatter activists certainly put any concerns that
I had about them completely to rest.

[MADem]

27. Marissa Johnson's "technique" was certainly confrontational. It was designed to be thus.

It was rude, it was disorderly, it was impolite, and it was attention-seeking. But hey, polite women who don't make waves never make history, do they?

That said--and all of that is most certainly true--she accomplished HER goal of shining a light on these issues. Senator Sanders has already changed his stump speech, hired a black press secretary, and modified his web page.

To hear the full flavor of Ms. Johnson's POV, this interview is very instructive. People certainly might not agree with everything she has to say, but they should come away with a clearer perspective.

You can hear exactly what she had to say at Westlake on that stage--and you can also hear what the crowd said to her (How DARE you!!!! Get OFF! GET OFF! GET OFF!!! How DARE she call ME a racist!! Don't tell ME what to do, young lady!!!!).

[virtualobserver]

38. I don't want to rehash why I didn't like the "technique"

I wouldn't want to put you through that

my concern was primarily whether #blacklivesmatter was giving Hillary a free pass.

What I saw here was that the Hillary campaign skillfully controlled the situation so
that #blacklivesmatter activists would not be able to ask the tough questions
in either a public forum or in front of reporters when they spoke privately.

Hillary blamed the Secret Service for not letting them into the main forum.
She said that she tried to convince them, but to no avail. That is impossible for me to believe
but much safer than getting those tough questions publicly.

The Hillary campaign also said that #blacklivesmatter wanted the meeting to be private.
I foolishly believed them, so I was still convinced that #blacklivesmatter was behaving in
a partisan manner because it made no sense that they would want that.
The tweets from #blacklivesmatter after the meeting made it clear that
they did not request that. I doubt that it went unnoticed within #blacklivesmatter that they were
manipulated in that way as the Hillary campaign shifted the blame to them for the exclusion of
reporters.

[MADem]

45. At the end of the day, it's not about Sanders OR Clinton. It's about black lives mattering.

This constant push-back is counterproductive.

I don't think Clinton manipulated a thing, but her detractors will, of course, say that. At the end of the day, who cares? Does it matter, big picture?

One could opine that Sanders 'manipulated' his horrible press when he changed his stump speech, changed his web page, and rather ostentatiously hired a black woman as his public face, his national press secretary, to gain some kind of "advantage," but really, who gives a shit WHY he did it?

The important point is that he is LISTENING.

I think a lot of people would do well to listen more. To hear.

To spend five minutes trying to imagine what it's like to send your child or your grandchild down to the corner to buy some milk, and wonder if they'll MAKE IT HOME because the police might shoot them.

To imagine what it's like going to buy a new suit or shirt, and having "store security" tailing you and giving you sideways looks, hearing the whirr of the security camera turning and focusing on you while you stop to examine a price tag.

To see a cop car in the rear view mirror and get that cold, sick, "Oh shit will I get out of this alive?" feeling in the pit of your stomach as they pull you over. Hands on the wheel, visible! Slow deliberate movements! Tell the officer what you are doing before you do it!! Just reaching into my coat to get my wallet, officer....just reaching over to the glovebox to get my registration, officer....yes, sir, no sir...no trouble, keep it easy.... because you could lose your life if you deviate.

The whole "hurt feelings" schtick is unhelpful and all it does is create a tribal, circle-the-wagons environment, which is the opposite of what any campaign wants. White people are lucky. They can imagine what it is like to endure these assaults on their dignity, but at the end of the day, they get to go home in their white coats of skin. They don't have to deal with being an "other" in this land which should be OUR land. And people who take offense when being confronted with these observations, who think they are being accused of racism or aren't 'appreciated' for the fact that they marched here or waved a sign there, they need to grab a clue. This isn't about them. This is about dead kids in the street.

It needs to stop.

Bravenak tried to articulate all this before she was chased off this board, and it's remarkable how right-on-the-money her observations were.

[virtualobserver]

48. It matters because this manipulation made me suspicious that #blm was partisan

because it made no sense that they would want this meeting to be private.
When I read the tweet that said that they did not even talk about the meeting
being private and I saw that they were holding Hillary to the same standard
a wave of total relief came over me.

this is not push back. I am explaining why I now completely trust #blm

[MADem]

53. All you have to do is go to their website and it becomes completely apparent that they are

not interested in framing their issues in terms of electoral politics. They simply want a focus on the issues the view as critical to black lives. And really, that translates to all lives, at the end of the day. Police overreach starts in the black community, but it won't end there. This is an issue that will affect everyone if it isn't confronted now.

I'm happy you understand their POV. Maybe you can help explain it to others!

Even OCCUPY (where in Atlanta, they shushed John Lewis) has gotten the spirit, and is trying to get the point across...

http://www.occupy.com/article/open-letter-bernie-sanders-supporters

[Number23]

56. Awesome posts from you in this thread.

[MADem]

58. TY. I hope I am getting through! nt

[Bluenorthwest]

44. This is so different from other rants you have placed against disruptive activists. Bias a flying...

Ready---FIRE---Aim.

You heckle people who are OPPOSED to your POV. Not people who are on the same page.

The Obamas are supportive of Equality in all its forms. If Obama signs an executive order, that just gives Congress reason and excuse to NOT ACT. It takes the pressure off demanding real change, it provides NO urgency as a campaigning issue in 2014.

Further, Michelle Obama is NOT an elected official. She gets no government paycheck. She was speaking about providing funding for inner-city kids that evening. Her focus and emphasis was on that issue, and how we need more people who are on that page in Congress.

Screaming at her isn't going to make her want to either hear what her heckler was griping about, or repeat it to her husband.

Sorry Bill--this was a Major, Massive FAIL. Wrong place, wrong time, wrong target. I was viscerally offended by it, and I'm not the only one.

When these Bravehearts start heckling Boehner, I'll be impressed. But they don't DARE, EVER--and I notice that, too.

No guts, no glory. Go after the lawmakers--not the wife of the President giving a speech about poor kids.
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/10022950156#post62

Your OP celebrating the President Shaming a trans activist for interrupting him:
"She wasn't really saying much--she was repeating her complaint about deportations in English and Spanish. Had she shut up after the first outburst, he probably would have let it go--she just refused to stop, and was disrupting the ceremony. "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110229739


Environmental activists:
"Why do people think they'll get any play when they interrupt the topic du jour?

Reminds me of the Code Pink protesters, completely eviscerating the important testimony of Valerie Plame with their distractions and disturbances.

Only difference is, they got away with it, and this group got hustled out and boo'd for their bad form (not the points they were making, necessarily).

There's a time and a place for everything. This was the wrong time, and the wrong place."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023951174


I could do this for hours. You have never had even a shred of understanding for disruptive tactics used by most people. Equal means equal. Double standards create bigotry.

[MADem]

51. I tell you what--you keep complaining about #BLM. I encourage the behavior, in fact!

Start five dozen threads MORE about how terrible they are.

Frankly, you're helping my preferred candidate when you do that!

In your first example, that wasn't a public event, it was a private fundraiser. FLOTUS was invited by a lesbian couple to an LBT event, and the HOSTS were the first one to take issue with the conduct of the protester. There were no cameras, there was no opportunity for real publicity--that was an "act up" action within a very specific community--and I didn't have to weigh in at all, the guests at the party told the protester to STFU and get the hell out. In fact, the people AT THE PARTY showed the interloper the door. So, whatever, there!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/us/politics/michelle-obama-confronts-heckler-at-fund-raiser.html

In the second case, the goals of the Code Pink protesters--those Rand Paul loving idiots--were directly (and some might wonder if deliberately) distracted from and trivialized important federal testimony that should have started a groundswell against the Darth Cheney crew. When someone is interfering with a message that is time sensitive, and where there are no do-overs (unlike a standard stump speech that could have waited, only the rally organizer shut it down and the candidate left), yeah, I'll get pissed. It's not like Valerie Plame went on to a BIGGER hearing that night, in front of MORE Congressmen, and was able to give her testimony again. They got behind her, kept moving and moueing, and pretty much sucked the impact out of her statement. It certainly helped to dilute Plame's message. When they got rowdy, Henry Waxman had some choice words for them: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-touch-of-pink-at-the-plame-hearing/


As for the third event, again, that was not a public event, it was a private, invitation-only LGBT pride event, with drinks and snacks She said her piece, about immigration--a single sentence about releasing people from detention and stopping deportations. It was only when she started mindlessly chanting the same thing, over and over and over, that Obama told her she could either stop it, or be given the bum's rush. She wasn't prevented from expressing her singular thought, but she wasn't going to be permitted to stand there bellowing the same chant endlessly until she ran out of air.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/politics/activist-removed-after-heckling-obama-at-lgbt-event.html


So, sorry--I DO have a "shred of understanding." And these examples you're waving have nothing in common with a public rally that will be repeated, over and over, from now until either the primaries end or the candidate drops out.

But, as I said--keep telling the world how awful #BLM is, and how they're ruining your day.

I'm sure your candidate will thank you for it (not).

[Bluenorthwest]

60. Again your bias fails you. I support Black Lives Matter, it's work I have been doing all my own life

as well. Sorry to disappoint, I'm not that you assume me to be. But you had to attack me because your own words show how situational your ethics are and how biased you are.

You speak for yourself, so do I. I am consistent, you are just not. As anyone can see. I am quoting you directly, you just make up bullshit and throw it at me.

[MADem]

61. No, my bias does not fail me and you do not disappoint me.

In order to disappoint me, I'd have to have expectations of you.

I am not attacking you--anyone can read our exchange and see that. It's not nice to characterize people in an untrue manner, and that is what you are doing when you make that uncivil accusation. You're angry at me SOLELY because I do not share your POV. You keep throwing that "bias" word at me as though you believe it to be some sort of epithet, while you are the living and breathing definition of the term. Were I "on your wavelength" you'd be yanking out the emoticon and giving me virtual high-fives.

Believe me, you will get over it. This will pass, your ire will recede, and life WILL go on.

It's not my fault that you are challenged to recognize context, even when I provide you with concrete examples AND links (something you're shy/selective about doing, I can't help but notice). Private events in homes, invitation-only events with glasses of champagne and petit hors d'oeuvres, and committee hearings where someone is testifying before Congress are VERY different venues from a public rally in a public square, open to anyone who happened to wander past.

And it's not like these protesters at these private/governmental events didn't have the ability to make their views known, their worst "sin" is that their complaints didn't go over too well, they were ham-handed and clumsy and didn't reach an audience of caring advocates--that's the bottom line, here. No one starting fifty threads whining about the events you so portentously enumerated. And none of them got the traction that #BLM continues to receive on the national stage and in the national press.

See, there's a right way and a wrong way to grab and keep the headlines. #BLM has decoded the strategy, and you're still angry about it, even though they've moved on to other targets. You might want to "move on" too, and get beyond your feelings of outrage that someone would dare to challenge your favorite, when their issues are NOT about "him." And no, he doesn't deserve "thanks" because he "marched" a half century ago. Obviously his marching wasn't enough, otherwise there wouldn't be so many unarmed black youth murdered by police. There's much more to be done, and he can either participate in finding a solution, or rest on his laurels and be derided for that. That's the bottom line, here.

I've got an article for you to read--maybe it will help you see the big picture:

http://www.occupy.com/article/open-letter-bernie-sanders-supporters

Maybe not, either. That "bias" thing is hard to crack.

My advice to you? Get OVER it. Or don't--like I said, keep pounding that drum, and crying about how anyone who criticizes your favorite is the Wooorrrrrrrst person EVER! All that kind of framing does is perpetuate a meme that Sanders is an incompetent, weak, hapless victim who can't take care of his own campaign business, never mind a country.

And, FWIW, I don't think he's that at all. I think he's handling this matter way better than his ardent "helpers" seem to be doing.

[Armstead]

31. Then they should stay the hell out of politics

Seriously. If they're committed to protest and in-your-face truthtelling, fine. Go for it.

But if they really don't see the political system as an agent of change, at least follow the oath of "Do No Harm" and realize that a GOP victory would set their goals back 50 years.

I realize that don't muck it up for the Democrats is the same advice given to the "left" in general, and there;s a certain irony coming from a sanders supporter. But the Sanders supporters ARE trying to work within the system.

[MADem]

36. They go where the people congregate, and where the issues are raised.

You aren't prosecuting a winning strategy if you keep telling them "How dare you? Get OFF! Shut UP!"

What they are saying--and you're ignoring--is that they aren't going to hitch their wagon to a Great White Star. They intend to hold feet to the fire. And threatening them with "Oooooh, REPUBLICANS" is such a loser approach. You're not going to scare them into silence with that tactic--in fact, you're only telegraphing your own team's weaknesses.

What is the difference, I ask you, between a known, apparent, OBVIOUS Republican 'enemy' in the White House, and a Democratic "friend" who does NOTHING?

Telling black activists to "stay the hell out of politics" sounds a lot like "Don't go where you aren't wanted" pique because "your guy" is being asked to confront some ugly truth.

If you think that's the way to bring supporters to the table, keep it up.

It has the opposite effect.

Sanders is listening. He didn't hire a black press secretary, change his platform on his web page, and modify his standard stump speech that he's been repeating at every pit stop out of the blue, now, did he?

Clinton is listening, too--she has a far more diverse staff and has for decades, but she's articulating specifics.

People need to stop with the "HOW DARE THEY?" rhetoric. The optics are awful with that kind of approach.

[Armstead]

40. Let me amend what I said

It would be great if they'd participate in politics, no matter what candidate,

But I don't think that kind of disruption of the process is helpful to anyone, I;d feel the same if a bunch of Sanderistas started storming Clinton rallies and going out of their way to embarrass her in ways that give the GOP ammo.

[dsc]

6. I am sure that none of this has to do with posts

where BLM is accused of being a front for Soros, no wait it's Hillary, no wait it's the right wing. Nor could it have anything at all to do with posts (all of which occurred before Seattle) where black posters where were compared to flatlanders, told that they should post more about black on black crime, and told they were too ignorant to understand which candidate was best. No it can't have been any of that behavior on the part of supporters of Sanders. It just has to be well anything else.

[Maedhros]

10. One BLM activist - Ms. Johnson - went way off message and called Sanders

a white supremacist. BLM supporters correctly noted that she's just one individual in a very diverse group and her actions are not representative of the movement as a whole.

Should we not extend the same benefit of the doubt to Sanders supporters? A poster who 'compares black posters to flatlanders' or says they 'should post more about black on black crime' is not representative of Sanders supporters on the whole.

[Spacedog1973]

29. People are individuals

and hold a number of views. Looking at vocal supporters as a whole, we can draw some conclusions but obviously there is no group mind.

The difference here, however, is that a white progressive can be supportive of BLM or anti racist work and at the flip of a coin, can tune out the level of urgency at will. After all, it has little objective impact upon them regardless of what stance they hold.

Black people on the other hand cannot change their views about Black lives, how could they? They can't decide that economic equity is more important than their children lives tomorrow because of a protest. That is impossible.

There is no equivalence to both groups.

[Armstead]

34. There are different kinds of urgency. There is equivalency.

I'm not demeaning the urgency of black Americans. Its real and it is totally warranted.

But "white progressives" also feel urgency about a lot of things -- and many see a larger collapse and/or modern form of totalitarianism coming if things don't change.

So please don't spout a lot of nonsense that "urgency" can only be limited to certain segments of the overall spectrum.

[Spacedog1973]

35. Please don't call what I say "nonsense"

Nor do I "Spout". Show some decorum.

My point is that white progressive feel urgency about issues that black people don't. Hence the need for protests. All of the issues you raise are held by black Americans, but not in the same order. Lives need to be lived to enjoy the equity we all fight for.

Take your emotions out of this discussion.

[Armstead]

37. I apologize if I got too strident.

But I stand by what I said. What many of us believe is not some luxury we indulge in because of our "privilege."

People have varying priorities, and the hostility among people who should be allies is tragic. It ought to be possible for us all to walk and chew gum at the same time. Or at least accept the parallel tracks of priorities.

[Spacedog1973]

42. Apology accepted and I agree

However, lets look at another issue; Sexism and female inequality.

I'm a man. I don't think about female issue daily. Its not important to me unless I have to think about it. In general I am supportive, but daily I rarely think about it.

A women's group busts into a live talkshow I was enjoying on TV and as consequence it is cancelled due to their disruption.

I become annoyed. I was enjoying the show.

I then criticise them for their methods and tell them if they were more moderate, I might have listened to them. As it is, all I have for them is annoyance and refuse to support their cause.

Their cause is sexual abuse, Female genital mutilation and workplace sexism.

They accuse me of being a sexist who values a talk show over their issues.

They would be correct until I adjust my attitude.

[Starry Messenger]

52. +1

I've been reading and enjoying your posts, I just wanted to say. Good stuff.

[NCTraveler]

12. As Marissa said when asked about this...

"then send me my fucking check."

Don't you get it? She couldn't have done this on her own or without monetary reasons. It's offensive on it's own.

[Spacedog1973]

30. She was being sarcastic

I heard the podcast as well. Its publicly available.

[NCTraveler]

41. That was my point.

If she's doing it for somebody, where's the check. I see how my post could have been misinterpreted considering the tone here. I find it to be offensive that within an hour of it happening, many determined she couldn't have done it on her own.

I enjoyed listening to the interview.

[Spacedog1973]

43. My bad apologies

[NCTraveler]

46. All good.

I read it again and see it can be read both ways. Lol

[Number23]

55. Just saw a post where someone said that black support of Hillary was due to brain damage

and another referred to #BLM protestors as "subhuman."

So that just begs the question... why would George Soros waste good money on sub-human brain damaged people? Is he that rich that he can just throw good money away now??

[JI7]

57. the soros thing has roots in the right wing conspiracy

Where they believe mindless blacks being a front for soros to take over the world.

It use to mostly be the right wing that believed this stuff m

[Number23]

59. None of that suprises me in the least. Nor the fact that it's being used here.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

8. The statement they made on Hillary was very harsh.

They want her to account for her husband's legacy which enabled white supremacy, (their words). That hasn't been widely reported on, but it did just happen yesterday. It doesn't appear that they are giving her a pass. But for now Hillary can hide behind her poll numbers, and Bernie can't.

[onehandle]

9. Please keep bringing this up.

Please proceed....

[NCTraveler]

13. I can understand your thought process here.

I'm just so taken back by the dog whistles and worse here it is more upsetting than anything else. I would think that would be the case for Hillary supporters as well. The mask coming off of some is very unsettling. I guess my past thought should be my current thoughts. The best way to find out is to look at what they say. One hand I want to tell them to back off. On the other hand, I wouldn't know what I now know about this place if they weren't going so scorched earth.

[MADem]

15. No shit!

This is ugly, ugly stuff.

It's disheartening.

[JI7]

19. "tell you black pres and black ag" to do something

And leave my guy alone. And i love black people that's why I'm voting for my candidate. It's in their best interest.

[Spacedog1973]

33. LOL

"Tell the black people" if they want 'their issues' solved, they need to bring us on board, by recognising we want Bernie elected first. Then we can deal with the issue of 'your people' being gunned down on the street by cops, sentenced to bullshit sentences for non violent offences, stopped by cops for traffic violations and then killed, having to stand by forever as cops get away with literal murder supported by the wider public and media." "Once we get our candidate elected, be assured he will deal with your issues. He marched with MLK yo!"

[JI7]

16. how about O'malley

[sibelian]

22. I hereby declare this sub-thread OPEN.

O'Malley, yeah, how about that O'Malley/BLM issue, big story.

Good point, J17.

[JI7]

17. And you claim to care about black people

[whatchamacallit]

18. Huh? Is there something in my post that indicates I don't?

[NuclearDem]

20. "Bernie supporters are cast as universally insensitive or resistant to BLM and their goals."

Good heavens, where would anyone get that idea?

[whatchamacallit]

21. Is it

logical possible for an entire group of democrats, defined only by their choice of candidate, to uniformly share this defect?

[NuclearDem]

24. Not all of them.

Two very, very vocal minorities among them, one simply tone-deaf in its approach to racial minorities, the other thoroughly down the CT rabbit hole, certainly.

[sibelian]

23. A campaign strategy document?

Perchance?

[AgingAmerican]

26. Perhaps if you keep throwing anti-Bernie stink bombs

Everything will magically be better

[Dems to Win]

32. Today's hashtag to mock Bernie is #AddBernie2Anything. Trended on Twitter last night

It just goes on and on....

This is all very depressing. Gives me a bad feeling in my gut.

If the election were held today, I don't think black and white progressives could come together to elect a dog catcher. Does not bode well for November 2016. I don't think this acrimony will help Hillary win the general election (assuming she's the nominee).

I'm thinking it's my time to step away from politics. Just too ugly.

I haz a sad.

[JI7]

39. here is the thing . much of the ridicule isn't about sanders himself

It's about the things many of his supporters were saying to and about black people.

Based on a lot of those arguments black people should have supported lieberman.

If you support sanders the best you can do is just let him do as he is doing . There were a lot more complaints about blm than pro sanders threads of his new press sec who supports blm and sees sanders as the best candidate for that cause.

And many black people viewed that as a credit to sanders for listening. But some of his white supporters still could not let go and kept up the attacks.

[Dems to Win]

47. thanks for the reply

I don't understand this sentence at all:

"Based on a lot of those arguments black people should have supported lieberman."

Can you explain further?

I totally agree with you that Sanders supporters need to simply leave Black Lives Matter supporters alone, especially on Twitter( I don't do facebook at all, I imagine the same is true there). So many BLM people have made it clear that they don't want any tweets directed at them saying "Bernie supports civil rights" that I would have thought everyone would have heard that message by now.

I am not a big poster here, I'm not a big presence on Twitter. But I did try to send out a few tweets urging Bernie supporters to be nice, to emulate Bernie, to understand that 'Bernie's got this.' I promptly got called a nanny and told not to tell others what to do. And the Bernie supporters that are not engaging in any kind of back and forth with BLM (the majority, I'm sure) -- well, they didn't leap on my bandwagon to ask others to tone it down. My tweets got a total of 3 faves, no retweets.

Howard Dean sent out a similar tweet, asking people to refrain from alienating our allies because it's damaging our coalition, and he only got about 40 retweets. Howard Dean! No one wants to be the nanny. I guess most people know it won't do a bit of good, and don't want to mocked for trying.

From what I'm seeing on Twitter, the hostility is flowing in both directions. Plenty of baiting going on. I can't really agree with you that it's just Bernie's white supporters that are keeping it going. Of course I recognize that Bernie's outrage brigade is still in action, but they do have their counterparts on the other side, too.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. And some supporters of Obama were far more homophobic than he was in 2008 and if I'd let them

and their petty little games lead me by a leash I'd never have looked at Obama. I read things on DU like 'the Party does not need LGBT voters anymore, Obama has replaced you with the faith community' when he was doing those rallies with the actual hate preachers to reach out to the religious voters who need to hear trash talk about their neighbors to worship or to vote.

I mean, you can't have it each and every fucking way.

[JI7]

50. And it did hurt Obama with gay voters

Maybe not you yourself but overall.