As we all know by now, two members of Black Lives Matter recently prevented Bernie Sanders from speaking at a rally in Seattle in support of Social Security and Medicare. A number of Facebook friends of mine have tried to defend what they with the following argument: they forced Sanders to take more substantive positions on race issues. I can’t agree with this argument for two reasons. First, this tactic has clearly alienated many people who would otherwise be sympathetic towards Black Lives Matter. Was it really worth doing that just to get Sanders to take slightly better positions? Second, if you say that Sanders takes good positions just because two people forced him off the stage, that makes him look weak, doesn’t it? What good does that do?
The Spanish Prisoner 
August 10, 2015 at 2:01 pm |
I hope people will begin to dig deeper into where the funding for the BLM movement comes from (George Soros) and to learn of his intent. He has funneled large amounts of money into Hillary’s campaign and he is waiting for a major return on his investment. Her polling numbers however are falling at an alarming rate and the protests and attack’s towards the only candidate who actually gives a dang about civil rights is being ramped up. Is there a correlation? I would think that line was clear. Bernie has spoken out against the billionaire class. They are afraid of him, which means they are afraid of us. We have way more power in this country than the super wealthy want us to know. We can take this country back, if We Stand Together. #FeelTheBern #Bernie2016