Anyone, and I mean ANYONE that doesn't think that #BLM will not disrupt Hillary is as stupid as they

[BumRushDaShow]

155. Basically but note this

I expect most groups in the social media era, will express their satisfaction or displeasure with these candidates via that social media FIRST. When the candidate (or their surrogates or anyone among their campaign staff) ignores these brief utterances, then they ratchet it up a notch... perhaps protesting outside of an event. Continue ignoring them and then they go up another notch and protest within the event.... and so on.

When Hillary (and later O'Malley) used the "All Lives Matter" response to BLM and got the twitterverse storm of feedback, they immediately pivoted. But Bernie has been slow to respond...

The hope is that perhaps his new AA Press Secretary and one of his campaign staff, who is Native American and was on MSNBC this evening @ 5 (with Michael Eric Dyson sitting in), can help bridge that gap.

But the problem with people like Bernie (and like Bill Clinton at one time) is this - there is a perception of a "taint" if you as a white candidate attempts to address black issues. It's an old old old sentiment from back in the day that references ""n****r lovers" and that generation knows all about that. So by using the tactic of pushing for "expediency", our issues are destined to be dropped.

I posted a historical blip in a couple threads about what happened 100 years ago regarding Ida B. Wells-Barnett. her involvement in the Suffragan movement (while spearheading an anti-lynching movement), and "expediency", and I'll do so here as it would be very much appreciated to see history repeating itself as a relative topic in this forum -

Perhaps one of Wells-Barnett's most important stands occurred at the March 3, 1913, National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) parade in the nation's capital. NAWSA was the national umbrella organization for state suffrage affiliates. Its history dated to 1890 when the National Woman Suffrage Association and the American Woman Suffrage Association merged their forces and resources. The primary goal was to enfranchise women. But, NAWSA did not always embrace all women. The southern white women encouraged to seek membership in NAWSA adhered to the same white supremacy ideology that their men championed. Dependence on southerners for the passage of full suffrage rights for women muffled any opposition that NAWSA might have harbored to the usurpation of the social, economic, and political rights that blacks gained during the Reconstruction years. NAWSA refused to publicly denounce racial segregation, adopted a policy of expediency, and accepted Jim Crow within its own ranks. This left the door open for state affiliates to discriminate against black women. But Illinois suffragists had always embraced African-American women like Wells-Barnett and encouraged their participation in the state movement. The Women's State Central Committee, for example, utilized Wells-Barnett's lecturing skills and enlisted her aid in canvassing the state to encourage women to organize and develop political knowledge.

Despite the progressive attitude of white female Illinois suffragists, they refused to support her in the historic suffrage march in Washington. Carrying banners representing almost every state in the Union, thousands of parade marchers underscored the demand for universal female enfranchisement. Wells-Barnett was one of sixty-five enthusiastic delegates from Illinois and one of many black women who participated in the march. But the African-American women were instructed to gather as one unit at the end of the procession because the NAWSA forbade the integration of state affiliates in the march. Wells-Barnett refused to comply with the NAWSA demand and instead lined up with her state contingent. Grace Wilbur Trout, president of the Illinois Equal Suffrage Association and chairperson of the group, initially sanctioned the integrated group. But after meeting with a NAWSA official, she told the delegation that Wells-Barnett could not march with the state contingent. Further, if they failed to follow the instructions set forth by the NAWSA, the entire delegation would be denied participation in the march.

Angry at the blatant disregard for her rights as a woman and as an Illinois resident, Wells-Barnett refused to comply. It was time to confront racism within the suffrage movement. Southern women, she argued, had evaded the issues of race, and the NAWSA and its state affiliates had allowed it. She wanted the Illinois group to show the nation that it was progressive enough to stand against NAWSA's hypocrisy of oppressing women because of their race while embracing the idea of equality for all women at the ballot box. Her pleas, however, fell on deaf ears. So did the pleas of two white colleagues, Belle Squire and Virginia Brooks.

http://www.lib.niu.edu/1996/iht319630.html

I think the problem is that often, when they try to talk with us, they do it so awkwardly that it becomes lip service and a "duty" rather than them expanding their agenda to encompass some things that we would like to see that would actually ALSO help ALL people.

See... that's been the argument - THEY define what would supposedly help "all people" but they don't see how some of the things that black folk are demanding, will ALSO help white people and brown people and red people and yellow people. The police issue is one such thing. And I expect many other issues that we have if addressed properly will help ALL people.

And regarding digging up some posts... lol All you have to do is search on "TPP", "TPA", and "Keystone Pipeline" and away we go!

For example - complete with video and 83 recs!!!!!111!!11

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026143878