Bernie Sanders bullied off stage by black lives matter protesters

[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.

[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.

[Higgs]

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

[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

[Higgs]

It's not the job of activist groups to have fully detailed policy proposals laid out to accomplish every one of their goals. It'd be nice if they did, but almost no groups are held to this standard, nor should they be. I agree that refraining from endorsements of candidates is probably counterproductive, but that's a tactical disagreement. Their aim is largely to maintain the spotlight on this particular disparity, and they've done that quite well. These incidents are being covered far more than was ever the case in the past.

That's not racially divisive rhetoric. Releasing the names of police officers who've killed unarmed black men can't be construed as racially divisive by any reasonable person, unless they're looking to call something racially divisive in order to dismiss it.

There's plenty of talking on the media, no doubt about that, but not a whole lot of action as a result of the movement. President Obama is not currently focusing on any legislation regarding police brutality at the federal level. Few State and local governments have taken up this issue as well. BLM has made virtually no inroads with the Republican Party (except for some libertarians such as Rand Paul) and is ineffective at making inroads with the Democratic Party as well. Today Hillary Clinton held a hearing with some BLM protesters (source: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/black-lives-matter-protesters-attempt-disrupt-hillary-clinton-2016-event-121269.html) which the protesters claimed, "The activists said Clinton understood their problems, but that her answers were similar to what they’ve heard from other candidates." At this rate, the movement is unlikely to produce significant legislation for the next few years at most levels of government that effectively addresses their concerns.

Also their demand was not to release the names of unarmed killings of black people, but killings of black people in general. Killing is not murder, and to demand to bring to justice those police officers who have killed anybody irregardless if the victims of these police shootings themselves were armed and threatened the police before they were killed, is silly.

Let me also clarify the last part: releasing the names of ONLY black people killed by police in the past 5 years is also a horrible way to reach out to white families who had relatives killed, justly or unjustly, by the police. That's what I was referring to when I said they were racially divisive. The movement is not aimed at preventing police brutality as a whole, but specifically police brutality against black people. This explains in large part why their movement has failed to cross racial lines and be accepted by many Americans.

Well said.

Maybe if BLM was targeting police brutality in general they'd have more traction as a movement, but they're targeting police brutality only in cases when its supposedly a hate crime.