Bernie Sanders bullied off stage by black lives matter protesters

[MisSkeptic]

Bernie Sanders is an admitted socialist, so it's interesting to see a defense put up for him here. If he wasn't running against Hillary, this would not be happening. While Hillary is clearly less left-wing than Sanders, somehow she is more disliked. It's clearly because she can win the general election and Sanders odds of doing so are much lower. Sanders is to Republicans what Trump is to Democrats, the person you hope gets the nomination so that your party has a better chance at winning. Is that so hard to admit?

I would substitute Trump with either Ron Paul or Rand Paul.  

Ron Paul isn't even running now so idk what you're  talking about, but Rand Paul has consistently polled as the best candidate to beat Hillary. Yes he is high risk, but he also has a very high ceiling. No sane Hillary supporter should hope Rand wins the nomination unless they don't want to win.

No, I'm talking about candidates who appear more "alternative". Like how Ron Paul was for multiple presidential elections.  

[Higgs]

Bernie Sanders is an admitted socialist, so it's interesting to see a defense put up for him here. If he wasn't running against Hillary, this would not be happening. While Hillary is clearly less left-wing than Sanders, somehow she is more disliked. It's clearly because she can win the general election and Sanders odds of doing so are much lower. Sanders is to Republicans what Trump is to Democrats, the person you hope gets the nomination so that your party has a better chance at winning. Is that so hard to admit?

I would substitute Trump with either Ron Paul or Rand Paul.  

Ron Paul isn't even running now so idk what you're  talking about, but Rand Paul has consistently polled as the best candidate to beat Hillary. Yes he is high risk, but he also has a very high ceiling. No sane Hillary supporter should hope Rand wins the nomination unless they don't want to win.

No, I'm talking about candidates who appear more "alternative". Like how Ron Paul was for multiple presidential elections.  

OK I see what you mean then. The Paul's would definitely fit in with Bernie and the Donald in that sense.

[Figueira]

Maybe they disagree with the progressive politics? Honestly, I understand where they are coming from since I am black. They are still retards.

They aren't criticizing him for being progressive.

This is the equivalent of MLK leading his protest marches almost solely outside the ACLU's headquarters because he doesn't think they're doing quite enough.

Because the entire BLM movement is focused on criticizing Bernie Sanders?

And since you mentioned MLK...

"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past 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 his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler 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 cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

--Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", 1963

They certainly seem to have developed a bizarre fixation with disrupting his rallies. And Sanders is far from a "white moderate". He's probably the only candidate who actually takes their issues seriously.

You're somewhat right, but he's made a few awkward comments recently and I can see why they're annoyed.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Maybe they disagree with the progressive politics? Honestly, I understand where they are coming from since I am black. They are still retards.

They aren't criticizing him for being progressive.

This is the equivalent of MLK leading his protest marches almost solely outside the ACLU's headquarters because he doesn't think they're doing quite enough.

Because the entire BLM movement is focused on criticizing Bernie Sanders?

And since you mentioned MLK...

"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past 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 his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler 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 cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

--Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", 1963

They certainly seem to have developed a bizarre fixation with disrupting his rallies. And Sanders is far from a "white moderate". He's probably the only candidate who actually takes their issues seriously.

You're somewhat right, but he's made a few awkward comments recently and I can see why they're annoyed.

I can see why they're annoyed as well.  They're delusional folks with hatred toward white folks and their hatred is either excused or ignored.

It was "white moderates" that made the civil rights legislation happen.  It couldn't have happened without Everett Dirksen, William McCullough, and a whole slew of Republican moderates, plus a whole slew of Democratic moderates outside the Southern states.  (Only one Northern Democrat voted against a Civil Rights bill, Rep. John Lesenski of Michigan, and he was promptly defeated at the next election.) 

I suppose MLK was referring to SOUTHERN White "moderates", and, yes, that's a horse of a different color.  He was probably speaking to folks in office who were genteel, personally sympathetic to black folks, but were afraid to vote for Civil Rights legislation, lest they be run out of office on a rail.  In this category, we can include J. William Fulbright, Sam Ervin, Fritz Hollings, John Sparkman, Lister Hill, and a number of Southern representatives.  And I suppose he may have been referring to Eisenhower, who, when he finally spoke on the issue of Civil Rights, argued for going slower.  (Many blacks hoped Eisenhower would break the deadlock on the issue with his force of authority, and they were disappointed with his tepid support for Civil Rights.) 

[Famous Mortimer]

What can Sanders realistically do? If it was any other type of protesters, the cops would just be called in to take them away. That's obviously not politically feasible. Maybe Sanders needs to assemble some sort of all Black security force?

[PJ]

Dear God, some of the defenses of Sanders here are mind-bogglingly condescending and ignorant. Are Black people somehow obligated to vote for Sanders because he supported Jesse Jackson 37 years ago, or that he supported civil rights 50 years ago? This argument is nearly tantamount to accusing Democrats of being racist because of Dixiecrats or claiming that Blacks are obligated to vote Republican because of slavery. No, those concerned with police brutality and racial profiling should support the candidate willing to make meaningful changes toward preventing institutional racism, which is clearly one of Sanders' weaker areas. Condemning incidences of police brutality (which Sanders has done, and has a better record than most candidates on) does not make a concrete policy proposal to solve the issue, nor does talking about past support for civil rights. 

[VPH]

O'Malley I can understand, given his record in Baltimore. But what exactly is their issue with Sanders?

Also, it's funny to see Atlas Republicans defending Sanders all of a sudden.

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

Dear God, some of the defenses of Sanders here are mind-bogglingly condescending and ignorant. Are Black people somehow obligated to vote for Sanders because he supported Jesse Jackson 37 years ago, or that he supported civil rights 50 years ago? This argument is nearly tantamount to accusing Democrats of being racist because of Dixiecrats or claiming that Blacks are obligated to vote Republican because of slavery. No, those concerned with police brutality and racial profiling should support the candidate willing to make meaningful changes toward preventing institutional racism, which is clearly one of Sanders' weaker areas. Condemning incidences of police brutality (which Sanders has done, and has a better record than most candidates on) does not make a concrete policy proposal to solve the issue, nor does talking about past support for civil rights.  

We aren't talking about black people as a whole. Not all black people are obliged to be Democrats, or vote for Democrats, or support the BLM movement, or support Bernie Sanders. The point was that these "tactics" and I use that term very loosely, of raiding the stage of a Presidential candidate and refusing to allow them to speak so that you can push your agenda, is sickening.

These BLM protesters have every right to protest. But after the netroots nation fiasco where they raided the stage to speak while the host, Jose Vargas, did absolutely nothing combined with the the event that the article is referring to, is pathetic to say the least. These people are making a movement look like a total joke with these antics. Demanding that Martin O'Malley apologize for saying "all lives matter"?? Using Sander's stage as an opportunity to shove their agenda down people's throats?

This is not how progress works.

[PJ]

Dear God, some of the defenses of Sanders here are mind-bogglingly condescending and ignorant. Are Black people somehow obligated to vote for Sanders because he supported Jesse Jackson 37 years ago, or that he supported civil rights 50 years ago? This argument is nearly tantamount to accusing Democrats of being racist because of Dixiecrats or claiming that Blacks are obligated to vote Republican because of slavery. No, those concerned with police brutality and racial profiling should support the candidate willing to make meaningful changes toward preventing institutional racism, which is clearly one of Sanders' weaker areas. Condemning incidences of police brutality (which Sanders has done, and has a better record than most candidates on) does not make a concrete policy proposal to solve the issue, nor does talking about past support for civil rights.  

We aren't talking about black people as a whole. Not all black people are obliged to be Democrats, or vote for Democrats, or support the BLM movement, or support Bernie Sanders. The point was that these "tactics" and I use that term very loosely, of raiding the stage of a Presidential candidate and refusing to allow them to speak so that you can push your agenda, is sickening.

Most of the culprits stating this are red avatar Sanders hacks. I'm not sure why you're defending an argument you don't subscribe to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'All Lives Matter' is a particularly poor method of changing the conversation. For someone who claims to be in agreement with preventing police brutality and reducing injustice in the criminal justice system, you sure seem uncomfortable with a movement dedicated to that cause.

[Famous Mortimer]

Dear God, some of the defenses of Sanders here are mind-bogglingly condescending and ignorant. Are Black people somehow obligated to vote for Sanders because he supported Jesse Jackson 37 years ago, or that he supported civil rights 50 years ago? This argument is nearly tantamount to accusing Democrats of being racist because of Dixiecrats or claiming that Blacks are obligated to vote Republican because of slavery. No, those concerned with police brutality and racial profiling should support the candidate willing to make meaningful changes toward preventing institutional racism, which is clearly one of Sanders' weaker areas. Condemning incidences of police brutality (which Sanders has done, and has a better record than most candidates on) does not make a concrete policy proposal to solve the issue, nor does talking about past support for civil rights. 

So your goal is to go after go after the better candidates and force them to go on long Tumblr rants about White supremacy and condemn America as inherently racist so that they can make themselves unelectable and the worse candidates can win?

[Maxwell]

Dear God, some of the defenses of Sanders here are mind-bogglingly condescending and ignorant. Are Black people somehow obligated to vote for Sanders because he supported Jesse Jackson 37 years ago, or that he supported civil rights 50 years ago? This argument is nearly tantamount to accusing Democrats of being racist because of Dixiecrats or claiming that Blacks are obligated to vote Republican because of slavery. No, those concerned with police brutality and racial profiling should support the candidate willing to make meaningful changes toward preventing institutional racism, which is clearly one of Sanders' weaker areas. Condemning incidences of police brutality (which Sanders has done, and has a better record than most candidates on) does not make a concrete policy proposal to solve the issue, nor does talking about past support for civil rights. 

Really??? Compared to the other candidates? Especially Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Martin O'Malley, not to mention the entire Republican field.

[Famous Mortimer]

No one here is saying Black people are obliged to vote for Sanders because he voted for Jesse Jackson, by the way. People are saying these activists have no right to prevent a presidential candidate from talking by screaming about how he's silencing THEM. Furthermore, if they must do that, yes, it does seem extremely dumb to do it to the presidential candidate who everyone seems to agree is better, if not the best, on the issues they claim to care about.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/250667-protesters-interrupt-bernie-sanders-rally

He didn't even get out a word.

You would think that BLM would adore candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley. They gave the same treatment to Martin O'Malley when he said "all lives matter." I'm starting to wonder if this group is really for equality as much as it claims.

Tbf, Martin o'malley's stewardship of Baltimore left a lot to be desired in that respect.

I don't see why Sanders or any "liberal" should be given a free pass.

Because it's a really lame thing to do regardless of which candidate they harass.  Thousands of people spent their hard earned time to see Bernie Sanders speak, only for him to be upstaged by a couple of douchebags.  How would you feel if you were them?  

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Dear God, some of the defenses of Sanders here are mind-bogglingly condescending and ignorant. Are Black people somehow obligated to vote for Sanders because he supported Jesse Jackson 37 years ago, or that he supported civil rights 50 years ago? This argument is nearly tantamount to accusing Democrats of being racist because of Dixiecrats or claiming that Blacks are obligated to vote Republican because of slavery. No, those concerned with police brutality and racial profiling should support the candidate willing to make meaningful changes toward preventing institutional racism, which is clearly one of Sanders' weaker areas. Condemning incidences of police brutality (which Sanders has done, and has a better record than most candidates on) does not make a concrete policy proposal to solve the issue, nor does talking about past support for civil rights. 

Obviously, I believe that every single black person should have voted Republican from 1868 until 1960 and that they should then have voted for the Democrats from 1964 until the present.

What I am saying is, why go after someone who is sympathetic to your cause?

I'm a blatant Sanders hack, guilty as charged. I think that there should be steps taken to reduce the number of people, especially blacks, killed by police without an actual threat to said policeman's life. But when someone goes up on stage and takes over someone's event when that speaker largely agrees with whatever cause is patently absurd. So, should they just going to keep harassing the person who has a proven record of being sympathetic to civil rights rather than, as others have suggested, go after those who disagree or do not agree as much as Sanders?

[Fuzzy Bear]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/250667-protesters-interrupt-bernie-sanders-rally

He didn't even get out a word.

You would think that BLM would adore candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley. They gave the same treatment to Martin O'Malley when he said "all lives matter." I'm starting to wonder if this group is really for equality as much as it claims.

Tbf, Martin o'malley's stewardship of Baltimore left a lot to be desired in that respect.

I don't see why Sanders or any "liberal" should be given a free pass.

Because it's a really lame thing to do regardless of which candidate they harass.  Thousands of people spent their hard earned time to see Bernie Sanders speak, only for him to be upstaged by a couple of douchebags.  How would you feel if you were them?  

Well, yes. 

And, as others have said, it's not real productive to disrupt the events of those who are most sympathetic to your viewpoint.

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because this movement doesn't address the fact that most people killed by the police happen to be white. This movement didn't bat an eye when Kelly Thomas was brutally killed (in my opinion murdered) in 2011 by the police. This movement didn't bother to respond to the death of James Boyd either. They focus primarily on black victims of police brutality, instead of focusing on an inclusive tone and message.

The term "all lives matter" isn't a bad phrase given that most people who die because of police shooting are white. Yes black people are three times more likely to die because of police brutality and this is an issue we must address. However it must be addressed along with police brutality towards everyone, regardless of the victim's skin color.

If you support these types of tactics of rushing Presidential candidates and silencing/shouting at them until they comply, then go right ahead and keep supporting this movement. I don't believe that these types of acts are conductive towards progress regarding race relations and fixing police brutality.

[Pyro]

Condemning incidences of police brutality (which Sanders has done, and has a better record than most candidates on) does not make a concrete policy proposal to solve the issue, nor does talking about past support for civil rights.  

I think this is the most important issue here and is the key to understanding why this portion of BLM chose to take the stage. It's not because he's white and they're against white people, it's because Sanders is likely the only candidate who would be willing to listen and put together a real plan to address the issues which made BLM happen. He needs to take this seriously and treat it the same as he has economic issues.

However, looking at the broader picture, is interrupting a rally the best way to make the candidates talk about the issues pertaining to black lives, or is it deterring people away? If this type of action does lead to real change and prompts Sanders to push social issues more in his campaign, then I'm all for it, but the consensus seems to be that it's hindering them more then helping.

[Simfan34]

Please somebody remove these people's political rights and throw them in jail for being stupid.

Like the good old days...?

[Bull Moose Base]

I do believe it would be appropriate for President Obama to make a public statement condemning this action in the strongest possible terms, and stating that the actions by BLM are not an appropriate exercise of the 1st Amendment.  There actions were coercive and intimidating, and such actions deprive others of the ability to exercise THEIR 1st Amendment rights.  Mr. President, it's time to step up.

It's a good idea, but given this president's actions on issues like this in the past, it's pretty clear he'll do nothing.

If Obama doesn't address the nation after 2 obnoxious protestors interrupt a Bernie Sanders speech, when will he?

[PJ]

Dear God, some of the defenses of Sanders here are mind-bogglingly condescending and ignorant. Are Black people somehow obligated to vote for Sanders because he supported Jesse Jackson 37 years ago, or that he supported civil rights 50 years ago? This argument is nearly tantamount to accusing Democrats of being racist because of Dixiecrats or claiming that Blacks are obligated to vote Republican because of slavery. No, those concerned with police brutality and racial profiling should support the candidate willing to make meaningful changes toward preventing institutional racism, which is clearly one of Sanders' weaker areas. Condemning incidences of police brutality (which Sanders has done, and has a better record than most candidates on) does not make a concrete policy proposal to solve the issue, nor does talking about past support for civil rights. 

So your goal is to go after go after the better candidates and force them to go on long Tumblr rants about White supremacy and condemn America as inherently racist so that they can make themselves unelectable and the worse candidates can win?

To pressure candidates to focus on succinct solutions to police brutality is perfectly rational. While Sanders recognizes the problem and is far better than the other candidates, his 'plan' to solve the issue is wholly lacking.

Dear God, some of the defenses of Sanders here are mind-bogglingly condescending and ignorant. Are Black people somehow obligated to vote for Sanders because he supported Jesse Jackson 37 years ago, or that he supported civil rights 50 years ago? This argument is nearly tantamount to accusing Democrats of being racist because of Dixiecrats or claiming that Blacks are obligated to vote Republican because of slavery. No, those concerned with police brutality and racial profiling should support the candidate willing to make meaningful changes toward preventing institutional racism, which is clearly one of Sanders' weaker areas. Condemning incidences of police brutality (which Sanders has done, and has a better record than most candidates on) does not make a concrete policy proposal to solve the issue, nor does talking about past support for civil rights. 

Really??? Compared to the other candidates? Especially Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Martin O'Malley, not to mention the entire Republican field.

Sanders is better than the other candidates on the issue, which is really not a difficult feat. Just because Sanders calls out police brutality does not mean that his hypothetical presidency will have an effective response to the issue. In fact, his suggested response to the issue is largely nonexistent and mostly consists of lip service.

Dear God, some of the defenses of Sanders here are mind-bogglingly condescending and ignorant. Are Black people somehow obligated to vote for Sanders because he supported Jesse Jackson 37 years ago, or that he supported civil rights 50 years ago? This argument is nearly tantamount to accusing Democrats of being racist because of Dixiecrats or claiming that Blacks are obligated to vote Republican because of slavery. No, those concerned with police brutality and racial profiling should support the candidate willing to make meaningful changes toward preventing institutional racism, which is clearly one of Sanders' weaker areas. Condemning incidences of police brutality (which Sanders has done, and has a better record than most candidates on) does not make a concrete policy proposal to solve the issue, nor does talking about past support for civil rights. 

Obviously, I believe that every single black person should have voted Republican from 1868 until 1960 and that they should then have voted for the Democrats from 1964 until the present.

What I am saying is, why go after someone who is sympathetic to your cause?

I'm a blatant Sanders hack, guilty as charged. I think that there should be steps taken to reduce the number of people, especially blacks, killed by police without an actual threat to said policeman's life. But when someone goes up on stage and takes over someone's event when that speaker largely agrees with whatever cause is patently absurd. So, should they just going to keep harassing the person who has a proven record of being sympathetic to civil rights rather than, as others have suggested, go after those who disagree or do not agree as much as Sanders?

See above. Sanders' lip service to police brutality does not equate an effective solution to police brutality, which is lacking from his campaign.

Regarding the bold, that is patently absurd. There is a clear and present difference between arguing that a certain candidate is more pro-civil rights and implying that a certain group of people are inherently obligated to vote a certain way, which is what you're doing. While it is a tangent, it's also worth pointing out you are arguing that Blacks (who were disenfranchised for most of this period, mind you) should have voted for Rutherford B. Hayes of all people, who arguably did more to stifle civil rights for African Americans than any other president.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because this movement doesn't address the fact that most people killed by the police happen to be white. This movement didn't bat an eye when Kelly Thomas was brutally killed (in my opinion murdered) in 2011 by the police. This movement didn't bother to respond to the death of James Boyd either. They focus primarily on black victims of police brutality, instead of focusing on an inclusive tone and message.

The term "all lives matter" isn't a bad phrase given that most people who die because of police shooting are white. Yes black people are three times more likely to die because of police brutality and this is an issue we must address. However it must be addressed along with police brutality towards everyone, regardless of the victim's skin color.

If you support these types of tactics of rushing Presidential candidates and silencing/shouting at them until they comply, then go right ahead and keep supporting this movement. I don't believe that these types of acts are conductive towards progress regarding race relations and fixing police brutality.

To clarify, I do think some of the tactics used by the protesters were a bit, erhm, excessively aggressive, but I still believe in terms of substance, they are in the right here.

The key difference is that the infamous cases of African Americans being murdered by police forces would in all likelihood not have been killed if not for their race. Police brutality does indeed affect those who are not white, but due to institutional racism within the police system, African Americans are far more likely to become victims of police brutality, which is a problem all its own. To respond to "Black Lives Matter" with "All Lives Matter" directly ignores this. It's the equivalent of responding to concerns of rampant poverty in the United States with "But what about Africa??"

Condemning incidences of police brutality (which Sanders has done, and has a better record than most candidates on) does not make a concrete policy proposal to solve the issue, nor does talking about past support for civil rights. 

I think this is the most important issue here and is the key to understanding why this portion of BLM chose to take the stage. It's not because he's white and they're against white people, it's because Sanders is likely the only candidate who would be willing to listen and put together a real plan to address the issues which made BLM happen. He needs to take this seriously and treat it the same as he has economic issues.

However, looking at the broader picture, is interrupting a rally the best way to make the candidates talk about the issues pertaining to black lives, or is it deterring people away? If this type of action does lead to real change and prompts Sanders to push social issues more in his campaign, then I'm all for it, but the consensus seems to be that it's hindering them more then helping.

I'm largely in agreement with you on the first paragraph, although I'm not sure if I'm optimistic if Sanders will come up with a satisfactory response. If anything, Sanders' presidential campaign has tainted my opinion of him because it has forced him to address issues where his progressive credentials are far more questionable.

The 'consensus' you're referring to seems to be primarily on this forum, where Sanders is practically worshipped by the entire membership. There is a reason Sanders does not poll well among African Americans.

[Higgs]

I wish Bernie showed some backbone, kinda disappointed he just let them take over his event like that.

[BM]

Well, he's used to being worshiped and adored by the few people who knew who he was. Perhaps he's out of his depth when facing actual challenges.

Very fun to see him get devoured on the national stage

[YaBoyNY]

Please somebody remove these people's political rights and throw them in jail for being stupid.

Like the good old days...?

Exactly.

[Senator Cris]

Pathetic.

[DavidB.]

LOLOLOLOL