-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
BLM Activists Interrupt Hillary at Private Event in South Carolina
- Thread starter Good Job Bob
- Start date
- Status
neurosyphilis
Definitely not an STD, as I'm a pure.
Ironic
ugaboga232
Member
Not everywhere agrees with you, scandanavia's criminal justice is much better. Their recidivism rates are very low and they do not throw people in jail forever even for heinous crimes. I don't think anything can make you lose your humanity (what does that even mean).
Battersea Power Station
Member
Hold on a second here. I'm not looking at KingKong's history because I want to just address these comments.
Are you guys really claiming that most if not all Americans vote for their interests? Are you saying that they voted in Bush because they knew tax cuts on the rich and financial deregulation would depress the middle class, and THAT'S what their best interests were? Are you saying they re-elected him because they knew the Iraq war would create a less stable world with more terror threats because THAT'S in their best interests?
I'm sure you guys are getting ready to respond with "nice strawman" memes or whatever, because you're not getting it.
It's PERFECTLY OK to say people vote against their interests. This is not controversial. It is, I'm fairly certain, able to be documented.
It is NOT OK to say minorities vote against their best interests because you are reducing them to a monolith and claiming to know how to fix complex civil rights issues.
I can't believe y'all would start out on this libertarian "every person chooses his own destiny" nonsense path just to deflect a valid criticism of HUMANS in general.
Splash Wave
Member
edit: ^thank you for saying this. The original poster, whatever his intentions, worded his statement poorly. But to claim that any person invested in politics doesn't agree to some extent is lying to to his or herself.
And this is why it's absurd to take for granted that Hillary will have "evolved" this time around. Maybe she has (who can say?), but why would we give her the benefit of the doubt? She doesn't deserve anyone's trust.
And this is why it's absurd to take for granted that Hillary will have "evolved" this time around. Maybe she has (who can say?), but why would we give her the benefit of the doubt? She doesn't deserve anyone's trust.
nitekrawlwer
Member
I wouldn't describe this as a blind ride. There are many sources old and new for Hillary's many failures as you've been so kind to link us in so many of these threads. I would think her favorables would be much higher if people were blind to her past.
You aren't attacking candidates but you are characterizing her voters in the same fashion that people who often don't feel the bern get attacked. It makes lines like this isn't about attacking seem disingenuous or downright untruthful.
The fact of the matter is, Hillary Clinton not good at all in the racial justice department.
When the black establishment in the media and in the congress are trying to dupe my brothers and sisters into voting against their economic interest, not necessarily against Bernie Sanders, but for a candidate who's political career arguably consisted of far worse for them as a society economically than most GOP administrations in recent memory and basically trumpeting her as a swiftboat staunch advocate for civil rights for the past 30 years, yes i am going to be very much against that.
Yes, i am going to call her out on her bullshit, and i am going to do exactly what this BLM protester did and really challenge my people on voting because she is the wife of 'the first black president' and people tell you you to, and to really start researching her and her positions and where she's been and get to thinking critically about how you want to be represented.
No, your misquote completely misrepresents what she said. The inference in your original quote is that she's dismissing BLM as an issue that doesn't matter.
You're being obtuse about this.
DR2K
Banned
She actually does care as it fits her narrative. BLM activists want to be as toxic as possible as to get the most amount of coverage possible. This happened with Bernie when they wouldn't even let him speak and it happens here. Which I can understand as there's only one party attempting to get the black vote.
So...you dislike a person because his supporters sometimes say that people are stupid and vote against their economic and political best interests? We say that about the GOP and the tea party all the time, and its no less true then.
It seems like supporters of the opposite field only can grasp the weakest of straws at any point.
When people bring up campaign finance reform, "there's no problem!"
When people bring up money in politics in general, "there's no problem!"
When people bring up Hillary Clinton's various severe conflicts of interest regarding both her moral compass and her polices in regards to who she has in her campaign staff, there's silence.
When we bring up her racial and neoliberal past, there's silence.
Do you not understand why people like these activists interrupted her speech? Because they are some of the very few in a sea of faces willing to challenge her power and ateast attempt to take her to task on what she claims when no one else wants to rock the boat.
When for example, Hillary Clinton doesn't want transparency on her groveling to bankers singing their praises and implicitly promising a tap on the wrist in her corporate speech transcripts, of course we're going to say that people who don't see that as a major issue to her acting in the best interest of her potential constituents are not thinking clearly.
There is a severe danger of the democratic base who supports Clinton going off the cliff and essentially destroying any arguments they may have against the GOP in regards to how they are corrupt in all the ways we are trying to highlight in a fair manner on the Democratic side here.
Wow, this thread was on page 5 last time I checked it this morning.
So surely the question has been asked of Bernie supporters slamming Hillary Clinton for her role in mass incarceration what they think of the the fact that Bernie used the power of his vote to usher in this damning Clinton legislation? I mean, Hillary just had her voice. Bernie had a vote.
So surely the question has been asked of Bernie supporters slamming Hillary Clinton for her role in mass incarceration what they think of the the fact that Bernie used the power of his vote to usher in this damning Clinton legislation? I mean, Hillary just had her voice. Bernie had a vote.
nitekrawlwer
Member
You don't need to build narratives about voters being duped, ignorant or establishment to call Hillary out on her bullshit. I have never once asked you to stop doing so. I don't intend to. I think you're right to do so.
I think if you're gonna claim it's not about attacking her then none of the other stuff is necessary. It kinda makes it seem like your goal is to attack. Don't cast doubt on someone else's motive while providing reason to doubt yours.
ugaboga232
Member
He criticized it and only voted because of the violence against women act.
It was a omnibus bill, there was a lot things in the bill and he argued against those he didn't wanted, but ultimately he voted yes, because of the other things that were in it.
It's weird, on one hand, I get and for the most part agree with the BLM movement. Even these crashing fundraisers/rallies thing I can kind of get with. Black people have been dealt a horrible hand for far too long in the U.S.
On the other hand, I don't really understand what the BLM movement hopes to achieve by trying to get blacks (and other minorities) not to just vote democrat. I mean, yeah, you should vote based on policies and politicians who help out everyone, but is getting blacks and other minorities mad at democrats and potentially not voting for them (or at all) really beneficial. It's like they don't understand that the alternative to democrats are republicans. And republicans actively set out to destroy blacks and any possible oppurtunity.
To the BLM protestors and activists. Be careful what you wish for. You may not like Hillary or Bernie but something tells me that you'll really be kicking yourself if Rubio, Cruz, or trump become president. Then you'll really really be kicking yourself when republicans retake the Supreme Court and congress starts passing laws to make black and minorities lives a whole lot harder than they already are.
On the other hand, I don't really understand what the BLM movement hopes to achieve by trying to get blacks (and other minorities) not to just vote democrat. I mean, yeah, you should vote based on policies and politicians who help out everyone, but is getting blacks and other minorities mad at democrats and potentially not voting for them (or at all) really beneficial. It's like they don't understand that the alternative to democrats are republicans. And republicans actively set out to destroy blacks and any possible oppurtunity.
To the BLM protestors and activists. Be careful what you wish for. You may not like Hillary or Bernie but something tells me that you'll really be kicking yourself if Rubio, Cruz, or trump become president. Then you'll really really be kicking yourself when republicans retake the Supreme Court and congress starts passing laws to make black and minorities lives a whole lot harder than they already are.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
The idea is political revolution. We're not married permanently to a two-party system that fucks everyone. I think we're so deep in right now that many people can't even visualize a political system different than what we've been doing through our lifetimes, despite just about everyone agreeing on some level that the two-party system and American capitalism sucks.
excelsiorlef
Member
It worked. She was put on the spot and released an excellent statement the very next day.
Sheriff_Battlesnake
Banned
Does being confrontational yield results historically? I'm curious. I live in Texas and I can just imagine people feeling very validated in their racism because the conduct was "disorderly."
excelsiorlef
Member
Absolutely. As long as the fear of the greater evil runs throughout this country and social issues are used to divide and distract, this system will continue to be used to keep control.
excelsiorlef
Member
I mean though it's not a fear. It's reality.
Sure, but we can either work on changing that reality or we can keep on trying to minimize the damage while we kick the can down the road.
I wish it was that simple or even realistic. I'm not saying give up hope, I'm saying change is very very very slow to come. Getting blacks to get angry at democrats will only lead to them not voting for them thinking the are just as bad as republicans. The harsh reality is that republicans are literally the worse possible politicians to be in power if blacks or any minority wants a fair shake at things. At the national level it's frightening, but when republicans run things in states and locally, that's when things get really terrifying. (Walker has done a great job at decimating Wisconsin and especially milwaukee which is a minority majority city).
Democrats should maybe stop taking the black vote for granted.
I completely agree. One thing that BLM is reminding us of is that disruption can be more effective than conversation. Staying in our lane and voting within the system is just joining a rigged conversation. Just as BLM is saying that a slow crawl to equality is no longer acceptable, we as Americans need to reject the choices we are forced to swallow.
The ESTABLISHMENT is real. The Democratic party is an establishment that has rallied behind Clinton by and large and have many well monied connections to perpetuate that cause. The black establishment is well off media and political figures with ties to those same connections and ride her affluence the same way they did Obama.
Its not a narrative when it is the truth. I am not generally a conspiracy theorist type of person, but it is just a fact that there is as much a GOP establishment as there is a Dem one trying to control the democratic process through manipulation, with the special interests that largely control both of them fully at play.
When every major institution endorsing Hillary wont even let their members have an individual vote and instead vote by small committee, largely made up of corporate donors of hers, that is a conflict of interest. Just because they do public goods doesn't mean anything less to their monopoly on the status quo and their fight to protect that.
Why is Planned Parenthood dismissing Hillary Clinton's Goldman Sach's emails and basically shutting all debate down about the candidate if they are so much on the side of justice?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._cares_about_hillarys_speech_transcripts.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ut_issues_that_matter_to_american_people.html
I don't think you can claim that he is trash for that. Yeah it was a shitty vote in retrospect, but i think with literally every other aspect of his career and record to show for it, he has the right to have a benefit of a doubt on those issues.
He has voted no on every other piece of legislation centered around the economic and social injustice pushed by the Clinton family including 3 strikes, welfare 'reform' and many others.. He argued specifically against what the 94 crime bill represented for years before it passed, and he did so as he was voting for it because of certain provisions in the bill that were positive.
I think that is a far cry from a full Clinton vote of confidence that she can only claim was a mistake many years after she saw the effects of it and the public opinion shifted, just like Iraq.
Hillary Clinton folks always make a stink about perfect being the enemy of the good, and in Bernie Sanders like every other politician, he obviously is not perfect, he's made votes i disagree with, and many i think were bad calls.
But i don't think that means he's trash. He is the only one of the candidates for President that has a fully fleshed out criminal justice and economic justice platform and walks the walk to the best of his ability, and is the only real senator in the senate trying to make these issues a nationally regarded issue.
Certainly, i think this guy would have the potential to have the best policies of any President certainly in the past 30 years atleast. That's why its so important and why many of his supporters are so desperate to push back against Clinton's machine.
The NYT has a video+article from 2 years ago looking back on the failure of the Super-predator prediction
Also, spent way too much time looking watching video of Obama handling protesters. Both candidates should watch and learn.
Also, spent way too much time looking watching video of Obama handling protesters. Both candidates should watch and learn.
Sheriff_Battlesnake
Banned
You're right. In my head since MLK was a preacher of peaceful protest I categorized "disorderly" in my head. But I ask so people more knowledgeable on the subject can help me grow as a person and a world community member. I am aware of my ignorance and doing what I can to learn more. I know it's not anybody's responsibility to teach me, but I figure I can ask and try. Heh
I always got the impression that BLM are targetting the Democrats not out of a goal to turn black voters against them but rather to incentivise the party into actually taking the issues african americans face more seriously. To stop them from taking black votes for granted, as has been mentioned already.
If you only have two effective choices, with none of them being great, and you had a chance of actually improving one of them slightly by directly confronting them about areas they're weak in I'd definitely be confrontational as well. Because unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have showed that they're actually willing to listen and change, even though that change is often slower than it should be.
If you only have two effective choices, with none of them being great, and you had a chance of actually improving one of them slightly by directly confronting them about areas they're weak in I'd definitely be confrontational as well. Because unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have showed that they're actually willing to listen and change, even though that change is often slower than it should be.
No?
Like, you're conflating a bunch of stuff here. One part of this is "do people vote on what presidents will do in response to indeterminate future events," which obviously they don't, that is impossible.
The other part is, do people vote for politicians that advocate for policies they don't like? For individual policies, like, maybe. On balance, no.
A simple dumb model of an American voter is that they take all their policy preferences, rate them by how much they care about those policies, multiply them by how likely each candidate is to act on those policy goals, and then vote for whoever gets the highest score.
So definitionally that voter is voting for their interests. They maybe didn't vote for their interests on every conceivable policy question, because that is probably impossible. People have a wide and often inconsistent bundle of policy goals. But they chose the policy goals they cared the most about and voted for the candidate they thought would do the best job of achieving those policy goals. You might disagree with which policy goals they SHOULD care about, but that doesn't constitute proof that they're irrational.
Frankly, the idea of the irrational voter is a classic liberal fallacy. Most people are not stupid. They're not necessarily deeply informed about every issue, but they're doing their best to use their vote to get the things they want, just like you and I do. The issue isn't that they don't know how to vote, the issue is that their priorities are their own.
Battersea Power Station
Member
Ultimately this is a debate on semantics then, because I see your argument as saying "people vote for the candidate they like best." ...yes, that's true, but it's also meaningless. The way I see it is that many people claim to care about the economic health of the middle class, and that it's the number one issue for them, but they continually vote against that interest. I suppose that makes me an elitist or whatever, but I don't see how we can have a discussion on economic policy without that. There has to be some disagreement on what method works better.
nitekrawlwer
Member
I don't deny the establishment and it's existence. Just it being a wholly negative thing.
Probably because the American people don't care about what's probably little more than corporate rah-rah. I swear this is just as silly as the email controversy as far as I'm concerned.
theignoramus
Member
This is bang on and exactly what BLM's agenda is about. And it's worked extremely well this election cycle. Even GOP candidates like Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and John Kasich are being forced to address issues of racial profiling. Sure, they just paid a kind of perfunctory lip service to the need for "improved relations" but it's better than the typical GOP Chris Christie/Trump style of unfaltering "cops do no wrong" bias.
Chie Satonaka
Member
I guess I was posting in the wrong thread. This is the active one!
My opinion on the matter can be summed up as BLM wins. Again.
My opinion on the matter can be summed up as BLM wins. Again.
excelsiorlef
Member
So now PP is against justice? Fantastic.
ModBot
Not a mod, just a bot.
Let's move it here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1190354
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll