The article later says that this isn’t the first time BLM activists have done this; somehow I missed the stream of articles noting it happening last month during an event in Phoenix, AZ. Cite & better cite, for instance.
Why has Mr. Sanders been singled out for this and what do the BLM folks hope to accomplish with their actions?
Oh, okay, I see in the Time article that they want race to be front and center of people’s political campaign’s (and I assume policies enacted once in office).
I’m still not sure what exactly that means in practical terms, and I have no idea how disrupting these events is going to help their cause.
Bernie hasn’t been singled out, he’s the Democratic candidate holding events that people show up to. Why they’re doing this is that they want publicity and this is how they can get it. It’s a peculiar habit of some ‘activists’ to disrupt the very events where people would be most receptive to their message.
I think they feel sure that Bernie won’t hit them with his guitar and drive them off the stage. Which he should. It’s absolutely inappropriate to hijack someone else’s public gathering. Make your own public gathering.
So anybody can come up and speak? Tea Party people are welcome to speak at Sander’s events? Republicans should be offered the stage at Chafee’s or Webb’s public speeches? Nazis are allowed to refuse O’Malley to speak at his campaign appearances?
If Sanders doesn’t want Tea Partiers, Chafee, Webb, or Nazis at his event he shouldn’t invite them. Do you really think that political rallies are open to the public?
More like “ally.” Bernie thinks the problem can be solved with socialist economics making black communities less impoverished. BLM thinks it can be solved by…well, I’m not sure exactly. Making the cops less racist somehow. Prosecuting the bad ones, at least. They don’t exactly see eye to eye, is the point.
You still haven’t thought this through. According to your lights, there is absolutely no reason that the Communist Party cannot seize the microphone at a Clinton rally because it is a public gathering.
I’ve got no problem, no problem at all with heckling, with disagreement from the public gathering to the speaker. I do have a problem with any random faction seizing the platform from the speaker, who has, in general, paid for the microphone, the grounds, and the audience.
My guess would be they are doing this at Bernie’s appearances because they have figured they have a chance of being given the opportunity to speak and get their point across.
I’m not sure why they haven’t done this with Hillary but I would think getting access to her microphone is a bit more difficult. Plus it doesn’t seem she has been having that many “town hall” type meet ups.
As for the other Dems, well I suppose they don’t see much point pulling this stunt in an empty hall.
The reason they haven’t tried this at a GOP event is most likely because they know they would be forcibly ejected, maybe thrown in jail at best and get the crap kicked out of them and possibly killed at worst.
Sanders is the economics guy. He isn’t the foreign policy guy, the social issues guy, etc.
Also that pisses me off that they demanded 4 minutes of silence. Michael Brown attacked a cop, tried to take his gun and got shot after ignoring many efforts by the officer in question to tell him to give up. If you want to put up a black person as a victim of out of control cops use Eric garner or Tamir Rice (not that police abuse is limited to blacks, cops abuse lots of people however blacks get a disproportionate amount of it). Those people were victims of out of control cops. Michael brown doesn’t deserve 4 minutes of silence, and anyone demanding that for him is a douche.
If Sanders lets himself be pushed around by these douchebags he is going to make it hard for anyone to think he would have the backbone to be president.
Yup. If Clinton ever deigns to meet the public, or the public ever deigns to bother to go see Clinton, they’ll show up at her events too.
But yes, shades of 1968. The only way these tactics make sense is if there is an implicit threat to actually vote differently, which there isn’t and won’t be.