Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-democratic-national-convention
Clinton Emphasizes Racial Justice, But Some Black Activists Are Unconvinced

McKesson joined other leading figures in the Black Lives Matter movement in Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention, but the activists have resisted openly supporting the party's nominee. In June, Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza told Elle magazine that although she would probably cast her vote for Clinton in November, she would "absolutely not" endorse her publicly, citing the former first lady's public support of the 1994 crime bill and the tough-on-crime policies it instituted.

If BLM wishes to move forward, Clinton would be their only hope, but she's clearly not trusted by some BLM leaders.

If BLM wants to move forward, they need to get a grip with their "demands." The OP said that the document doesn't blame white people, but then who are they blaming this "War on Blacks" on? Themselves? Certainly not. The animosity toward whites rings and loud and clear throughout.

They are not going to win any support with that attitude, and in fact will start to lose support unless they moderate their "demands." As a start, how about reframing their wants as "policy goals" rather than demands - and then throw a little realism into the mix. The thing that struck me as the most asinine is the DEMAND that every black in this country (illegals included!) get automatic admission to a four-year college and have it paid for by tax-payers.

I agree with you completely. These demands are simplistic and unrealistic, and this movement ironically labels whites as monolithic, a term against which many African Americans/blacks have fought.

I posted, however, to show the hypocrisy in Clinton's role as one who coined the term "super predator" in the 90s but has since pledged support of BLM. Of course, the support came before this platform was designed.

I am eager to see how she addresses this platform in an effort to keep the minority votes coming in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had relatives gassed to death in concentration camps (before I was born), so can I and the rest of my family get reparations from Germany? It will be easy to prove the lineage - they were aunts, uncle, and first cousins of my parents.

I can give you the name of my great uncle who was in an internment camp b/c he was Italian. I'd like reparations, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-democratic-national-convention
Clinton Emphasizes Racial Justice, But Some Black Activists Are Unconvinced

McKesson joined other leading figures in the Black Lives Matter movement in Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention, but the activists have resisted openly supporting the party's nominee. In June, Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza told Elle magazine that although she would probably cast her vote for Clinton in November, she would "absolutely not" endorse her publicly, citing the former first lady's public support of the 1994 crime bill and the tough-on-crime policies it instituted.

If BLM wishes to move forward, Clinton would be their only hope, but she's clearly not trusted by some BLM leaders.

If BLM wants to move forward, they need to get a grip with their "demands." The OP said that the document doesn't blame white people, but then who are they blaming this "War on Blacks" on? Themselves? Certainly not. The animosity toward whites rings and loud and clear throughout.

They are not going to win any support with that attitude, and in fact will start to lose support unless they moderate their "demands." As a start, how about reframing their wants as "policy goals" rather than demands - and then throw a little realism into the mix. The thing that struck me as the most asinine is the DEMAND that every black in this country (illegals included!) get automatic admission to a four-year college and have it paid for by tax-payers.

I agree with you completely. These demands are simplistic and unrealistic, and this movement ironically labels whites as monolithic, a term against which many African Americans/blacks have fought.

I posted, however, to show the hypocrisy in Clinton's role as one who coined the term "super predator" in the 90s but has since pledged support of BLM. Of course, the support came before this platform was designed.

I am eager to see how she addresses this platform in an effort to keep the minority votes coming in.

You say this as if politicians should not change and evolve over time. The 90s a LONG time ago, and the problems of today are different than the problems then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-democratic-national-convention
Clinton Emphasizes Racial Justice, But Some Black Activists Are Unconvinced

McKesson joined other leading figures in the Black Lives Matter movement in Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention, but the activists have resisted openly supporting the party's nominee. In June, Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza told Elle magazine that although she would probably cast her vote for Clinton in November, she would "absolutely not" endorse her publicly, citing the former first lady's public support of the 1994 crime bill and the tough-on-crime policies it instituted.

If BLM wishes to move forward, Clinton would be their only hope, but she's clearly not trusted by some BLM leaders.

If BLM wants to move forward, they need to get a grip with their "demands." The OP said that the document doesn't blame white people, but then who are they blaming this "War on Blacks" on? Themselves? Certainly not. The animosity toward whites rings and loud and clear throughout.

They are not going to win any support with that attitude, and in fact will start to lose support unless they moderate their "demands." As a start, how about reframing their wants as "policy goals" rather than demands - and then throw a little realism into the mix. The thing that struck me as the most asinine is the DEMAND that every black in this country (illegals included!) get automatic admission to a four-year college and have it paid for by tax-payers.

I agree with you completely. These demands are simplistic and unrealistic, and this movement ironically labels whites as monolithic, a term against which many African Americans/blacks have fought.

I posted, however, to show the hypocrisy in Clinton's role as one who coined the term "super predator" in the 90s but has since pledged support of BLM. Of course, the support came before this platform was designed.

I am eager to see how she addresses this platform in an effort to keep the minority votes coming in.

Anonymous wrote:I had relatives gassed to death in concentration camps (before I was born), so can I and the rest of my family get reparations from Germany? It will be easy to prove the lineage - they were aunts, uncle, and first cousins of my parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-democratic-national-convention
Clinton Emphasizes Racial Justice, But Some Black Activists Are Unconvinced

McKesson joined other leading figures in the Black Lives Matter movement in Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention, but the activists have resisted openly supporting the party's nominee. In June, Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza told Elle magazine that although she would probably cast her vote for Clinton in November, she would "absolutely not" endorse her publicly, citing the former first lady's public support of the 1994 crime bill and the tough-on-crime policies it instituted.

If BLM wishes to move forward, Clinton would be their only hope, but she's clearly not trusted by some BLM leaders.

If BLM wants to move forward, they need to get a grip with their "demands." The OP said that the document doesn't blame white people, but then who are they blaming this "War on Blacks" on? Themselves? Certainly not. The animosity toward whites rings and loud and clear throughout.

They are not going to win any support with that attitude, and in fact will start to lose support unless they moderate their "demands." As a start, how about reframing their wants as "policy goals" rather than demands - and then throw a little realism into the mix. The thing that struck me as the most asinine is the DEMAND that every black in this country (illegals included!) get automatic admission to a four-year college and have it paid for by tax-payers.

Anonymous wrote:Liberals who support reparations forget they don't have to wait for governmental regulation. They are free to start a private charitable fund and write their checks today!

Anonymous wrote:I don't 100% oppose the idea of reparations but it would be a logistical nightmare. Not every black person in the U.S. Is descended from former slaves. Who will do the work of finding out who is and isn't? Who decides how much any one family gets? Is it a set amount or does it change based on how many family members were in slavery? What about the states like Kansas that operates as Free States, do they have to pay? For that matter, should it be a state's rights thing where individual states pay vs the federal government?

Anonymous wrote:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-democratic-national-convention
Clinton Emphasizes Racial Justice, But Some Black Activists Are Unconvinced

McKesson joined other leading figures in the Black Lives Matter movement in Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention, but the activists have resisted openly supporting the party's nominee. In June, Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza told Elle magazine that although she would probably cast her vote for Clinton in November, she would "absolutely not" endorse her publicly, citing the former first lady's public support of the 1994 crime bill and the tough-on-crime policies it instituted.

If BLM wishes to move forward, Clinton would be their only hope, but she's clearly not trusted by some BLM leaders.

McKesson joined other leading figures in the Black Lives Matter movement in Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention, but the activists have resisted openly supporting the party's nominee. In June, Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza told Elle magazine that although she would probably cast her vote for Clinton in November, she would "absolutely not" endorse her publicly, citing the former first lady's public support of the 1994 crime bill and the tough-on-crime policies it instituted.

Anonymous wrote:Going along with the preference given to blacks in admissions in higher education, there are two different scales when it comes to acceptable test scores - and a score that would land a white applicant in the reject pile gets a black applicant a welcome letter. Isn't that a form of reparation?