Black Lives Matter is a new movement based on longstanding grievances. For sure, in this social

[applegrove]

networking age, so much about how and when and why people gather has changed. Things are much more fluid. So events are much more fluid. I'm sure organizational structure will develop. But for now we need to urge BLM on. As their friends. Because African Americans have not had the luxury of negotiating with government and/or the powers that be for long. And in a authentically fair way...maybe never. White people have been negotiation with government and/or the powers that be for 500 years in one way or another. We should understand the GOP has been baiting Black Lives Matter with the words "All Lives Matter" to take the wind out of their sails. So we should not use those words. We should understand that a good, clear, new relationship between African Americans and the multicultural police is the last thing the GOP want. Then they will not be able to use fear of the wild inner cities to scare their base. So we should not fall for this manufactured outrage between Bernie fans and BLM people tonight on the DU. Bernie went to an event. Things happened. His security whisked him away. That happens. Especially when some new movement is born. This is an old story of almost any social movement. And since when have Bernie supporters been against social movements?

[notadmblnd]

1. I'm not convinced that the people who acted tonight claiming to be BLM was indeed BLM

As I compare BLM's official goals against Marissa Johnson's admittedly radical "by any means necessary" statements, I become more convinced that she is exploiting the BLM movement for her own group's agenda. Her own group? Outside Agitators 206. I hope that the official BLM group issues a statement in regards to whether they support her actions and statements tonight- in the near future.

[Suich]

3. I agree with you.

Time will tell, I guess.

Their biggest mistake was not turning the mic over to Sanders. I don't think you'll find too many BLM supporters in the crowd after that stunt.

[notadmblnd]

5. I think someone is trying to kill two birds with one stone

Smear Sanders and discredit BLM. Kinda Rovian, I know, but I have seen him showing his fat round crooked face in public recently.

[Suich]

6. Yeah, I've seen him on faux a couple of times.

Whose side is he on for POTUS?

[notadmblnd]

7. he is going to be for whoever is going to maintan the status quo

And he knows very well that there is not currently one viable republican candidate in the entire race.

[Vincardog]

31. You think HRC is the only viable republican candidate?

[notadmblnd]

32. My statement was about Karl Rove, not myself.

Maybe you wan to give him a call?

[JHB]

15. Or... she became more radical over the last several months

What's BLM's structure? Does it have one? Or is it a network of people who decided to pitch in and do the work to stop police violence -- and have differing views on what is required to do that? Is there an "official BLM group" to issue such a statement? And would they? She's been an organizer at BLM protest since last November.

It's not as if it's unusual for people to belong to more than one group who -- in their view -- have related goals.

[notadmblnd]

24. That is something that is not clear yet. At least to me it's not.

last night I was googling and looking at other -what do we call them- chapters? I looked at the official BLM website along with BLM Detroit and Cleveland Facebook pages. There was absolutely nothing on any of those sites mentioning anything about what BLM Seattle was doing or had done. There was nothing supporting them, nor was there anything condemning them. When I look at the official BLM site's goals and demands, I found nothing written the remotely resembled the statements that Marissa Johnson made and posted as BLM Seattle and Outside Agitators 206 demands and goals. There was a poster here though that was claiming that BLM Portland was endorsing them whole heartedly. When I looked at Portlands FB page there was mention of Seattle, however, I did not see the comments as supporting Seattle whole heartedly.

Yes, I understand that it is not unusual for people to belong to more than one group who have related goals. However, I found the stated avenues to obtain those goals to be entirely different. The official BLM pages goals listing specific and reasonable actions while BLM Seattle's goal to be rather vague and threatening. I certainly got the impression that Ms Johnson claimed to be speaking for the entire BLM organization with her statement.

Perhaps BLM has indeed decided to use more extreme methods to obtain their goals? I don't know What I do believe I know is that if they have decided to go that route, nothing good is going to come out of it for anyone

[Travis_0004]

27. The Seattle BLM said it was them

They may not represent the national BLM group, but they represent the local BLM group

[notadmblnd]

29. I am aware of that

However, why would anyone claim to be a chapter of a national group with specific demands and goals- while stating demands and goals that are completely different than the group's that they are claiming to be part of?

[KeepItReal]

2. MLK got to negotiate with the Govt. by protesting the ACTUAL GOVERNMENT

...not people on the campaign trail hoping to take office in 2017.

My Black Life Matters today, not when some new person takes the White House and starts fulfilling campaign promises.

This "new movement", if all it is gonna do is accost 2016 candidates, isn't doing anything to prevent the next Sandra Bland or Mike Brown or Tamir Rice or <insert the next brotha or sista or poor person or person of color> from happening between now and 2017.

[loyalsister]

4. White people have been negotiation and/or the powers that be for 500 years in one way or another

I tried to get at this in another thread, but you opened it better. Politicians regularly seek endorsements from civic organizations and groups that represent various social movements led by white people. They look for endorsements from the NAACP, but BLM is focused and very different.
BLM should be heard and respected in the way Democrats respect and seek input from the Sierra Club. The movement is still young and developing, but being heard can help them develop a stronger coalition and influence. They deserve our backing and supportive responses to some expressions that communicate the level of frustration people are feeling.

Obama handled his critics, naysayers, and hecklers beautifully. I think there is a way to reject the style and maintain respect for the people.

[Le Taz Hot]

8. May I just say, respect is earned, not demanded.

And BLM didn't heckle Obama or Hillary or the Republicans or anyone else (except O'Malley by default at NN15) except Sanders. Justify, defend, use whatever pretzel logic you choose but nothing can get past that fact. It does make one go, "Hmmmmmm."

[loyalsister]

16. Yeah you may

but you would be wrong to claim this is about respect in a context of a society where all people have an equal opportunity to "earn" respect. This is about respecting people's lives and humanity. Asking for respect from who people feel entitled to decide whose lives matter based on a structure that supports their superiority is a non starter. White people like it this way, and it will not change until white people take some risks and make demands to not be considered superior.

[Skidmore]

33. This.

[Le Taz Hot]

34. "White people like it this way."

Wow! And some people are so busy manufacturing racism in others they don't see their own. And I don't allow racists on my screen.

[loyalsister]

35. Why wouldn't they??

Things are easier and life is less risky. A person who is comfortable with superior status is not necessarily ready to lynch Black citizens. There are interpretations of nature and human invention to promote a sense of superiority. But knowing and not rejecting it is embracing white supremacy.

[KeepItReal]

9. Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Susan Rice, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch

...Barack Obama.

I'm pretty sure those people I named would acknowledge Black Lives Matter.

I'm definitely sure they have or had actual power to affect change.

Until BLM demands justice from President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, no one in actual power will take them seriously, since they do not ask anything of the people in office right now who can make shit happen.

Demand respect from people that can actually give you what you demand and deserve. Don't ask for campaign promises tied to an uncertain future.

[loyalsister]

12. The justice department investigated

What exactly can Obama do other than talk about it as he has?
The conservatives you mentioned enable white supremacy. Colin Powell less so now, but neither he nor Condi has any power to do anything about it. If you think Thomas' voice among 12 could have a serious impact on his own, it might be worth your time to review the math and civics. Of course the implication that a justice who consistently distances himself from black people in this country would do something if he could defies his judicial history.
As with rape, only those who benefit from white supremacy can do anything about it. Most of the people you mentioned who have or have had or currently have power in government were not policy makers, and the one who is has been thwarted at every turn revealing the truth about the extent of the racism that has been dormant until the myriad of expected and unexpected defenders of white supremacy rose up and to show their disrespect either with vocal support for the system as it stands or with naive condescending lectures.

[KeepItReal]

13. Wow. You just said the President of the United States and his Attorney General have no power.

With one order he can have the Justice Department monitor the criminal justice practices of EVERY police department in this country. Loretta Lynch can do the same as Attorney General.

They instruct the Department of Justice to intervene in cases in response to police actions whenever they wish. Why not make them proactive?

My post was in response to your claim that Black folks never get to operate in positions of authority in the US Government. We no longer are just sitting on the sidelines and actually obtain positions with direct influence on (or actually are) decision makers.

If you think President Obama is powerless to do anything other than speeches, what power is a candidate for his job gonna have that supersedes a sitting Cabinet?

[loyalsister]

14. wow

Are you arguing that the individuals you named who have taken on those roles with the specific goal to represent black people in America? Seriously two people appointed to represent an administration that represented the interests of the top 1% in which white people dominate. One has made it clear that he wants as much distance between himself and black Americans. Or, a president who represents a country that is majority white. Are you seriously claiming that a representative of a collective of black citizens has consistently had a seat at the table outside of times when they were making demands for rights and policy changes under conditions that did not involve unrest that cost people their lives? The only time that has happened is when white people cared about the lives lost.

In this movement there is doubt as to whether or not there are enough white people who care enough to acknowledge that they have no clue about the black experience and that we need to listen to people in the trenches who are themselves or have family who live their lives with risks white people can't relate to.
It is ordinary black citizens who are being ignored and derided by white people who claim to have all the answers based on the fact that there have been some people of color who have taken on governmental roles. Pointing out the great gains of black America only supports the argument that white people don't give a damn.

As far as Obama going around taking control of police departments, any president who did that would be considered tyrannical. Our federal governmental arrangement allows for a certain amount of local control. Imagine the Reagan and Bush administration without some kind of restraint. Our state and local governments were the only thing between us and a much more comprehensive power grab by the Bush administration.

[KeepItReal]

18. It has *ALWAYS* been the purpose of the Federal Govt. to intercede when rights are trampled

at the state and local level. President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch should not need riots in the street after another tragic event or sustained mass demonstrations to spur them into taking more comprehensive action.

I never said "Obama going around taking control of police departments"

I never said "individuals you named who have taken on those roles with the specific goal to represent black people in America"

I also never said "a representative of a collective of black citizens has consistently had a seat at the table outside of times when they were making demands for rights and policy changes under conditions that did not involve unrest that cost people their lives"

Either you are not comprehending what I am stating very plainly or you're about the business of creating strawmen.

YOU are saying:

"In this movement there is doubt as to whether or not there are enough white people who care enough to acknowledge that they have no clue about the black experience and that we need to listen to people in the trenches who are themselves or have family who live their lives with risks white people can't relate to."

You're worried about getting true and honest White support when we have a Black man as President and a Black woman as the US Attorney General. My Black Life Matters movement starts with them - because they HAVE POWER TODAY.

[loyalsister]

20. First

My original reference to negotiators was to grassroots organizations at the table. ie, the Sierra Club and other climate science negotiators, ADAPT for disability rights, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc..... There is no organization that represents black citizens and operates without large scale approval of white people. White people dominate even the groups acting on behalf of liberal causes.

And, there is a world of difference between the existence of government officials who happen to be Black and by definition work on behalf of a white supremacist nation and, your far-fetched notion of subversive government officials who are working to overthrow that system from a position of power by ignoring laws, and longstanding constitutional understandings of the ability of locales to observe and pass laws and policies that have not been constitutionally challenged and rejected.

Only the ones who benefit from this system can really change it. And it can only happen under a future administration willing to work towards enacting and changing future laws\policies. Ordinary white citizens are the ones who have power to facilitate the necessary cultural shifts.

Rejecting what the citizens of BLM have to say, and claiming to have all the answers. A dominant majority that generously offers to be allies and provide commanding leadership is a manifestation of white supremacy.
Deferring to the expertise of those who are disadvantaged by this system that benefits me is something I hope will be an honest act of rejection of white supremacy. I am certain that the ordinary citizens who live with the possibility that their lives will be destroyed or ended at the hands of the dominant beneficiaries know what this is about.

[KeepItReal]

22. It is ludicrous for a Civil Rights movement to not ask anything of the Administration in power

Your statement:

Only the ones who benefit from this system can really change it. And it can only happen under a future administration willing to work towards enacting and changing future laws\policies. Ordinary white citizens are the ones who have power to facilitate the necessary cultural shifts.

You've given up (or never had?) any pretense of fighting for change from the folks running things today.

I hope you get what you want come 2017. Wonder how many more of us will suffer at the hands of police by then.

[Lee-Lee]

17. You seriously overestimate the authority and ability of the DOJ

Do you have any idea how many police agencies there are in the country, and how many employees of the DOJ?

They couldn't monitor 10% of LE like you describe, much less all.

And they can't just intervene when and where they wish- there has to be an actual legal cause for them to do so. It's not like a police state where the next higher level comes in, flashes a badge and starts barking orders. If the DOJ doesn't have proper reason to step into the day to day operations of a local LE agnency, usually requiring a judges order, they can't.

Neither the President or Attorney General can issue an order that creates new law. What you describe would require both new laws and a lot of new funding.

What your demanding happen is neither realistic, physically possible with resources at hand, nor in most cases legal under U.S. Law as it stands.

[KeepItReal]

19. Loretta Lynch Confirms Department of Justice Review of Baltimore Police

The U.S. Department of Justice will conduct a review of the current practices of Baltimore police because of a "serious erosion of public trust," U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch confirmed on Friday. The news follows the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray last month after an arrest.

The investigation will examine whether the Baltimore Police Department has engaged in a pattern or practice of violations of the Constitution or of federal law.

The review took effect immediately, concentrating on allegations that the city's police officers use excessive force, including deadly force; conduct unlawful searches, seizures or arrests; and engage in discriminatory policing, Lynch said.

"If unconstitutional policies or practices are found, we will seek a court-enforceable agreement to address those issues​," said Lynch, adding that regardless of the outcome, authorities will continue to move forward to improve policing in Baltimore.

http://www.newsweek.com/loretta-lynch-confirms-department-justice-review-baltimore-police-329982

They *can* intervene because there are already laws on the books.

They only are intervening in a piecemeal, reactionary way to specific events that rise to a certain level of public awareness.

We have all the resources in the world to fling Divisions of troops and materiel across the globe, but can't afford to supervise criminal justice here at home? Not buying it.

[Lee-Lee]

21. Yes- one city after an event that gave them cause to act

That is within the scope of their authority and within their ability for what resources they have.

Your comment about flinging troops around the world is either deliberately obtuse because you don't have a real response, or shows you really don't have a clue how our system of government works.

You see, the DOJ isn't in charge of the military. The military budget isn't the DOJ budget. The military can't investigate how cities police, nor should it.

And the President has zero legal ability to take funding from the military and divert it to the DOJ for this kind of work. Only Congress can do that.

So, despite your pointing out it happened in one city and your irrelevant pithy about military spending it still holds true that what your demanding be done cannot be done with the resources available under the laws as they exist.

It can only be done if Congress changes the law and allocates funding.

If you want it, get to work winning back the House and Senate.

[KeepItReal]

23. Ok lets agree to do nothing until we control all 3 branches of government

Because I heard even when Dems controlled the White House and Congress, that *still* wasn't enough control and enough time to really get stuff done.

[ibegurpard]

10. I don't give a shit if people call me a racist

Or a white supremacist like the 2 women today did to entire population of Seattle. I will ALWAYS be outraged at racism and police brutality. My fear is that these tactics will cause others to stop listening.

[Eleanors38]

30. Your fears are justified. When discussing Any political issue...

I have to preface my remarks with: "Do you keep up with politics?" just so I can broach a question about a big event or issue. A lot of my responses are "I don't do (?) politics," or just quixotic expressions. There is an atmosphere of militant apathy and hand-held distraction in general, so when these (evidently) militant Republicans blare out, there may be a further turn-off.

I don't reject disruptive politics, having engaged in some myself. But there is a difference between support and actions aimed at specific causes, and just another ill-tempered and arrogant look-at-me type who in some way resonates with Trump. What all of us who have lived through the 60s & 70s have to realize what tactics and actions we grew up with may not work anymore. Frankly, when the kind of thing seen at the Sanders' rallys went down 40 or 50 yrs ago, it causd a few to go over to the side of the militants, others to feel always-immobilizing shame, and the rest to walk away. It was called guilt tripping. Today, that doesn't work very well. Most of us have read the script, and it looks like B & W newsreel. There will be pushback or active disassociation from those who use these tactics.

[daredtowork]

11. Netroots Nation

Raised people's suspicions since Hillary was exempted. To hit Bernie again is unfair. To now ask Bernie supporters to come out and support #BLM is going to be pretty difficult.

As a supporter of #BLM, however, I'm more than a bit suspicious that the movement you want people to support has actually been hijacked by political operators. I'd like to see #BLM cooperate in getting to the bottom of that first. Then with mutual trust reinforced, we can move forward with the criminal justice agenda that everyone wants.

[cali]

25. uh, no. Marissa Johnson demanded Sanders bow down, grovel

And publicly apologize for unspecified crimes against poc. This to a Jewish man who lost most of his paternal family to the gas chambers and execution squads from a fundy Palin supporter. She called him a white supremacist and says that white liberals are more racist and worse than white cons. And no, his security didn't whisk him away.

[onecaliberal]

26. ^^That^^

[MuseRider]

28. Not against social movements here

and I support BLM and Bernie and I am certainly not alone. Whether I think they are doing it correctly or not is none of my business. If the women from last night were not BLM then that is a different thing entirely. Still, I support BLM. I encourage them. How could they not be this angry?