Discussion: Activists Call On Democrats To Hold Black Lives Matter-Themed Debate

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #241957

2

I completely support the movements goals, but this is too much. We don’t need a Democratic debate dedicated to each Democratic demographic.We don’t need separate debates dedicated to immigrants and Latinos, one for LGBTs, and so on. All it would serve to do to have a BLM debate would be to scare the shit out of some white people whose confirmation bias would tell them that Democrats only care about helping black people. We don’t need that. The candidates addressed the issues most important to BLM and Sanders, Clinton, and O’Malley did so quite eloquently. BLM should continue to keep these issues at the forefront as they’ve been doing so successfully, and they should continue to make our issues part of the Democratic debate/discussion, but the Democratic candidates need to also focus on issues that effect all of us, white, black, brown, etc.

10 Likes
3

That individual media venues now control what are laughingly referred to as ‘debates’ is, as we’ve all witnessed, a large part of the dark-money-soaked, clichĂ©-riddled ‘problem’, a ‘problem’ only very recently and not completely drained of a large dog whistle abscess. Pols will do what pols do, activists should start by making demands of the more powerful old media


2 Likes
4

What about a “summit” or conference or something like that? I know the Christian fundies like to have the presidential candidates over to that BareBack MegaChurch in CA at some point in the cycle to ask them how much they love god and all that BS. Why can’t BLM do something similar? Create a venue and make it uncomfortable for candidates to ignore them? Maybe they tried that already?

2 Likes
5

Wow, 540 whole signatures


2 Likes
6

“Activists Call On Democrats To Hold BLM-Themed Debate.”

Seems only fair, given the GOP debates focus exclusively on BLM (i.e. “Billionaire Lives Matter”).

4 Likes
7

I would charge that BOTH Republicans and Democrats get the equal challenge.

Let FOX and the MSM get the equal challenge

Let FOX and the MSM debate THAT

3 Likes
8

As someone who remembers well the 1968 and 1972 conventions, the giving in to small groups who talked loudly but had few voting members almost destroyed the Democratic Party and gave us Nixon. Do not be held hostage by so called “activists”. The Party stands for equal rights and supports any American who suffers an injustice. That is on the record.

3 Likes
9

In June, Sanders was forced offstage at his own rally by the co-founders of the Seattle chapter, who decried his “white supremacist liberalism.”

Can we please stop legitimizing those two? Perhaps by calling them what they really are? Sarah Palin fan-girl Jesus freaks? Anyone who thinks that Sarah Palin will solve all of the problems facing the black community doesn’t deserve the time of day.

3 Likes
10

The debates should be put back under the sponsorship of the League of Women Voters and, more importantly, be aired commercial-free on satellite, cable and antenna TV stations.

I would also mention bringing back the equal-time rule but 


6 Likes
11

I remember when the debates did in fact cover a specific topic, rather than do the buckshot approach to topics that never get below the epidermis of the issues.

I would love to see topic-specific debates come back into vogue. This way, there are no platitudes, no sound bites. Candidates actually have to go deep into the topic to respond to the many facets of the specific issue.

I like it - I might even watch the debate, if they went this route. Otherwise, count me out.

1 Like
12

No, No, No, No, NO.
The Candidates can fully support the goal without turning one of only FIVE remaining debates over to such a narrowly defined issue.
This is a NATIONAL election, and we should not focus a precious debate on only ONE ISSUE (especially one that is racially-charged and inflames people on both sides of the issue.)
The Democrats need to show they support ALL LIVES, not just one narrow demographic.
Focus debates on broad issues:

  1. Domestic Policy (they can talk about it here.)
  2. Foreign Policy
  3. Economics (Domestic and Foreign)
  4. Role of Government in America (civics and goals, can touch on it here too)
  5. Open Debate on any issue (can cover it here too.)
1 Like
13

Focus debates on broad issues:

But that’s the problem: to me, that’s exactly what we’re getting now (when we’re not focused on hairstyles and insults). We never get substance because we’re dealing with too much of a high-level topic, rather than forcing the drill-down to the core of the issue.

I don’t know what any candidate, either side of the aisle, stands for on any of these issues you list. There isn’t enough time in the two hours for five or ten or fifteen people to adequately address not only what they stand for, but why they stand as they do. There’s no opportunity to get to their core understanding of the issue.

I don’t want what we have for these debates. I want something of substance.

14

Then you have not been paying attention.
Both Hillary and Bernie have stated, in clear terms, that they SUPPORT the Black Lives Matter agenda.
They have made this very, very clear for months now.
They cannot be seen as PANDERING to a single special-interest group like this by turning over an ENTIRE DEBATE to this subject.
How would you feel if the Republican Clown-Car spent an entire debate on the issue near and dear to them: Repealing the Estate Tax?

15

But I want to know specifics. I want to know exactly how they intend to incorporate the agenda into their platforms and into their administrations. And as I have said repeatedly since the summer, I also want to know how they intend to finance their actions.

I’m not asking either side of the aisle to take a smaller issue like the estate tax or BLM and talk to it for an entire debate. I am asking that they take your proposed list:

  1. Domestic Policy (they can talk about it here.)
  2. Foreign Policy
  3. Economics (Domestic and Foreign)
  4. Role of Government in America (civics and goals, can touch on it here too)
  5. Open Debate on any issue (can cover it here too.)

and take one of these and speak to it.

They can cover BLM as a part of #1; they can cover the repeal of the estate tax in #3. But in all cases, I want to know what, specifically, they intend to do about facets of the general topic and, then, how they intend to finance it.

You are absolutely correct that this is a NATIONAL election. In the case of BLM, multiple incidents have happened throughout the country in the last year. That qualifies as a National issue that should be covered by the candidates. We’re staying in Afghanistan beyond the original pull out date; we have Syria and Putin; we have the Middle East - all of those qualify for #2. I want to know what, specifically, these candidates want to see happen in their respective administrations AND how they intend to finance it.

I really, really, really, really, want an extensive two hour session on #4. I want to know if any of these numbskulls has any understanding of the Constitution - do they understand how government was designed to work, per the Constitution? Do they understand voting rights? equal opportunity and access? Reproductive rights with respect to PP and Rowe v Wade? Maybe along with #1, what do they understand about income inequality and what do they intend to do to right this ship?

I don’t want to hear any more platitudes or glittering generalities about makers and takers and the 47%. I don’t want to hear about botched up edited films, unless it’s part of #4 (then, maybe, ok).

It is a national election. These are national issues. The Liberals won big time in Canada yesterday because the electorate showed up. threw the Conservatives out of control, due to the managing of a fabulous campaign by Trudeau and the Liberals and the destructive policies of the Conservatives. The only way we have a prayer of this happening in the US a year from now is to take a lesson from Canada. Campaign on the issues; not the personalities.

2 Likes
16

Unfortunately, the Media in the US determines and controls the information coming FROM the candidates.
You had to dig awfully hard to even FIND the major policy speech Hillary gave on race relations, or the detailed policy statements Bernie has made on Tax Policy and Economics.
The MSM is in the pocket of the Oligarchs and only want to talk one thing: HORSE RACE (to drive ratings.)
They don’t care about policy, they don’t care about agendas, they don’t care about clear, concise statements of FACT.
All they want is TMZ “He said-She said” reporting about what a candidate WEARS, or how their HAIR LOOKS or “Oooo I heard a RUMOR he’s a COMMUNIST!” to grab the eyeballs and ears of the dimwits.
I don’t know how the candidates break through that, especially with the actual Election more than a year away


2 Likes
17

Agreed.

I think someone is going to have to break the mold and force the issue. The candidates themselves should be leading the way.

There is something to be said for the differences between the first two GOP debates and the first Democratic debate. People said the Dem debate was boring.

Sure it was: it wasn’t an episode of ‘The Apprentice’.

1 Like
18

But to paraphrase Stalin: How many divisions does the League of Women Voters have?

19

The horrors of Fairness


1 Like
20

Obviously BLM is pushing their luck. Just a little too much to ask and will put them in a position to be somewhat irrelevant and ignored. If that kind of so called debate were actually to happen every cause out there would ask for the same. What makes BLM so special? With the many things in America that need attention the debates should and will cover a little of all for everyone, not just one subject concerning a few.