Bernie Sanders bullied off stage by black lives matter protesters

[RI]

The proper remarks in this thread surprisingly came from a Democrat, who asked where the heck security was.

I was wondering why the event organizer appeared so willing to go along with the protesters.

[Beezer]

Where are the BLM protesters at HRC's rallies? After all her husband is the guy who gleefully executed a mentally retarded black man in 92 in order to appeal to white voters.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I think referring to Sanders' past support for civil rights causes when it was far less politically rewarding to do so is relevant in the context of a lot of people genuinely assuming the guy is a secret racist.

I think it's fair to say that Sanders' hasn't really been super specific on this issue (though not for lack of caring about the issue; it's just not what he's devoted literally his entire time to as a politician in the spotlight) but the fact that this is happening in a primary battle against Hillary Clinton is hilarious, because by absolutely no measure has Hillary's actions on this issue been any better. Sure, she's sucked up to a lot of rainbow coalition demographics since her campaign kicked off, but this is the woman who happily played race with Obama (remember when it was super obvious the Clinton campaign leaked those pictures of Obama in african garb, or whatever?) during their 2008 battle. The fact that Bernie, who has held solid and respectful positions about these issues going back for decades, is the one being painted as the candidate with the lack of respect for race, while his main opposition has demonstrated a total lack of respect for race outside of early campaign policy drafts that don't matter at all at this point, is pretty f**king sad.

Bernie is the best candidate for the left, and is the only one willing to go to more root causes of inequality as opposed to band-aid solutions, and it seems the left will happily run in the arms of a person who would sell them out for a few more percentage points if she could, instead.

Anyone being intellectually honest (which is not an activists' strong suit) knows Bernie supports all the things Hillary does on this issue and more. He's just not very good at selling that to people. Though admittedly, that's difficult to do when you're ran off stages by people who won't let you speak.

[Comrade Funk]

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

Because he doesn't have hired secret service like Ms. Unfavorable?

[Averroës Nix]

Historically there's a strain of anti-Semitism that's gone along with some elements of African American political activism. I don't think we can rule this out as an explanation for why Sanders, the only Jewish presidential candidate running in this cycle, has become the primary target for these disruptions.

Anyway, the Secret Service shouldn't offer Bernie a choice after this. When people are literally shoving a 70 year old candidate off of a stage, his personal safety is obviously in danger. That cannot be tolerated.

[Cory]

Where's George Zimmerman when you need him?

[NeverAgain]

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

What was he supposed to do? Shove them off the stage? He stood there respectfully for 20 minutes, the arguably best thing to do.

[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?

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.

The bold is in fact patently absurd because it is meant as sarcasm. Many blacks indeed voted for Democrats after 1936. Of course they aren't obligated to vote one way or another. I mean, look at Colin Powell, he could have been the first black president as a Republican. With the failure of the Lodge Bill in 1890, civil rights were largely ignored (discounting the failure of the Dyer Act). Hayes was definitely one of the worst, I'll agree with you on that (not that most of the presidents in the following 70ish years were that great with race relations).

I will say that Sanders could use some work, but to go after the most sympathetic candidate just seems counterintuitive.

Edit: Here's his policies as found on his website: https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/

[ElectionsGuy]

What a despicable group of people.

[Leinad]

This is the wrong way to go about it. Yes, all lives matter, and that certainly includes black lives. It's obviously a fact that they're more in danger, and the disgraceful problems with our police system is the main reason for it.

But division won't help us solve problems. Making white people the enemy doesn't help. There are white people, such as myself, who agree that something needs to be done. But it can only be done through at least some semblance of unity. Why protest "all lives matter?" Do you disagree with that statement? Alienating non-blacks doesn't help--if my math is right, black people aren't a majority, so presumably some white folk will need to vote in favor of anything to pass it. I mean, gay marriage never would've been legalized without support of many straight people.

Really, this is something we should all be getting behind. The struggle to gain access to and maintain our theoretically inalienable human rights is truly universal. Negativity puts this universal cause in a bad light, which frustrates me.

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 hate it when people try and say what someone else's intentions are. Please don't do that. I'm not a Republican, but I want Bernie Sanders to beat Hillary because he's not part of the establishment (and is vastly more trustworthy). The establishment of both parties is really what's hurting us--they answer to the lobbyists, not the people. That's why I can applaud both Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders: they may not share all my views, but they share a common enemy.

Besides, even if this was Hillary getting wrongly protested, I'd take her side. Yeah, there'd be some schadenfreude, but I can still recognize right and wrong, and interrupting someone's speech before they even get to start is wrong.

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?

No one ever said that. Ever. They're just saying that it's stupid to single out Sanders when he's very clearly not racist.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Historically there's a strain of anti-Semitism that's gone along with some elements of African American political activism. I don't think we can rule this out as an explanation for why Sanders, the only Jewish presidential candidate running in this cycle, has become the primary target for these disruptions.

Anyway, the Secret Service shouldn't offer Bernie a choice after this. When people are literally shoving a 70 year old candidate off of a stage, his personal safety is obviously in danger. That cannot be tolerated.

This group also likely has backing from the Anonymous-affiliated radicals who are grossly anti-semitic and infiltrated Occupy, the Gaza protests, and Ferguson to instigate violence. There's definitely an element of that here.

And yeah, Sanders should accept Secret Service protection. Ideally some well-trained black ex-marines who can form a brick wall that the protestors can't get through.

[Higgs]

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

What was he supposed to do? Shove them off the stage? He stood there respectfully for 20 minutes, the arguably best thing to do.

Calling security would have been the best coarse of action

[Yelnoc]

Historically there's a strain of anti-Semitism that's gone along with some elements of African American political activism. I don't think we can rule this out as an explanation for why Sanders, the only Jewish presidential candidate running in this cycle, has become the primary target for these disruptions.

Anyway, the Secret Service shouldn't offer Bernie a choice after this. When people are literally shoving a 70 year old candidate off of a stage, his personal safety is obviously in danger. That cannot be tolerated.

This group also likely has backing from the Anonymous-affiliated radicals who are grossly anti-semitic and infiltrated Occupy, the Gaza protests, and Ferguson to instigate violence. There's definitely an element of that here.

And yeah, Sanders should accept Secret Service protection. Ideally some well-trained black ex-marines who can form a brick wall that the protestors can't get through.

Teenage hackers and hacker wannabes?

[Famous Mortimer]

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

What was he supposed to do? Shove them off the stage? He stood there respectfully for 20 minutes, the arguably best thing to do.

Calling security would have been the best coarse of action

That's the problem. These people are protesting about police brutality so he can't do that. Even if it's a private security firm, it's still going to look very bad. These people are obviously not going to go down quietly, they will resist being taken away, they may even hurt themselves in the process. Say they do end up getting a twisted arm or a Black eye in the process of flailing around, in the current atmosphere of the left, even if it's apparent that they did it to themselves, you can't say anything negative about Black activists. The whole story will be "BLM activists injured by security at Bernie Sanders rally". He won't be able to refute it, he knows that, that's why he never criticizes these people, he just walks away and says nothing, that's all he can do.

[SWE]

I think I got whiter reading this thread

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

What was he supposed to do? Shove them off the stage? He stood there respectfully for 20 minutes, the arguably best thing to do.

Calling security would have been the best coarse of action

That's the problem. These people are protesting about police brutality so he can't do that. Even if it's a private security firm, it's still going to look very bad. These people are obviously not going to go down quietly, they will resist being taken away, they may even hurt themselves in the process. Say they do end up getting a twisted arm or a Black eye in the process of flailing around, in the current atmosphere of the left, even if it's apparent that they did it to themselves, you can't say anything negative about Black activists. The whole story will be "BLM activists injured by security at Bernie Sanders rally". He won't be able to refute it, he knows that, that's why he never criticizes these people, he just walks away and says nothing, that's all he can do.

This is unfortunately true. If the protesters were forcibly removed it would be a story plastered all over Vox in a heartbeat.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I think I got whiter reading this thread

That is such a white thing to say.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Ugh, this is so pathetic.

Hillary supporters are the worst.

[Xing]

It's because BLM doesn't want Sanders to be seen as a hero. If they ally themselves with an old white guy like Sanders, they believe it'll undermine their message. Also, they probably want attention. They probably think they're making a bigger statement by interrupting a progressive like Sanders, rather than predictably interrupting a conservative, who is obviously racist, like Trump.

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

Bernie shouldn't be giving up the podium so quickly!  If this happens again, he should try to stand his ground as long as possible while acknowledging their concerns.  As long as he doesn't say "white lives matter" he'll probably do better than O'Malley, and it would be fun to watch.

If only there was a stand your ground law in Seattle and George Zimmerman was Sanders' security guard.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Why protest "all lives matter?" Do you disagree with that statement?

You had a good post, but I just wanted to single out this one part, as I'd been thinking specifically about it.

The problem with "All lives matter" isn't that it's not true, or that the BLM people don't believe it. It's that answering "Black lives matter" with "all lives matter" comes across like a glib attempt to co-opt the issue, and to subtly cast aspersions on the people who weren't saying it in the first place. The reason people felt the need to say "Black lives matter" in the first place is that society has seemed to have policies that indicate black lives matter less than other types of lives.

It's the same as if you say rather than feminism, we should have humanism. All well and good and kumbayah-ish, but it feels like an attempt to distract that there are very real inequities between men and women that deserve to be called out separately, and not just lumped into the human condition.

[Crumpets]

Why protest "all lives matter?" Do you disagree with that statement?

You had a good post, but I just wanted to single out this one part, as I'd been thinking specifically about it.

The problem with "All lives matter" isn't that it's not true, or that the BLM people don't believe it. It's that answering "Black lives matter" with "all lives matter" comes across like a glib attempt to co-opt the issue, and to subtly cast aspersions on the people who weren't saying it in the first place. The reason people felt the need to say "Black lives matter" in the first place is that society has seemed to have policies that indicate black lives matter less than other types of lives.

It's the same as if you say rather than feminism, we should have humanism. All well and good and kumbayah-ish, but it feels like an attempt to distract that there are very real inequities between men and women that deserve to be called out separately, and not just lumped into the human condition.

This. Saying "All lives matter!" to a BLM activist is like going up to someone trying to raise money to cure cancer and saying "all diseases are bad!"

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

Why protest "all lives matter?" Do you disagree with that statement?

You had a good post, but I just wanted to single out this one part, as I'd been thinking specifically about it.

The problem with "All lives matter" isn't that it's not true, or that the BLM people don't believe it. It's that answering "Black lives matter" with "all lives matter" comes across like a glib attempt to co-opt the issue, and to subtly cast aspersions on the people who weren't saying it in the first place. The reason people felt the need to say "Black lives matter" in the first place is that society has seemed to have policies that indicate black lives matter less than other types of lives.

It's the same as if you say rather than feminism, we should have humanism. All well and good and kumbayah-ish, but it feels like an attempt to distract that there are very real inequities between men and women that deserve to be called out separately, and not just lumped into the human condition.

This. Saying "All lives matter!" to a BLM activist is like going up to someone trying to raise money to cure cancer and saying "all diseases are bad!"

Almost. It's like your analogy except the the people trying to cure cancer are only concerned with raising money to help cure cancer for individuals who happen to be black and completely ignoring the fact that, not only are the majority of people who die from cancer are white, but also that cancer, like police killings, is a tragedy no matter who it affects and that everyone deserves sympathy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/?page=all


The BLM movement didn't care about Kelly Thomas or James Boyd because they were white men who were killed by police unjustly. Maybe if it had a more inclusive message, white people might start listening to their grievances.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

[/]

Bernie shouldn't be giving up the podium so quickly!  If this happens again, he should try to stand his ground as long as possible while acknowledging their concerns.  As long as he doesn't say "white lives matter" he'll probably do better than O'Malley, and it would be fun to watch.

If only there was a stand your ground law in Seattle and George Zimmerman was Sanders' security guard.

OMG