Lupe Fiasco Goes On Twitter Rant Against "Uppity Black Ni--as,"

[Type Username Here]

Look, I myself have voted for third party candidates at the local level, but rooting for them at the presidential level right now is just not a good idea.

Why isn't it a good idea?

Particularly, during an election like this.

What makes this different?

Like I said, I can see having this mentality in 2000, but right now there is a clear distinction between the two parties on MAJOR issues.

I hear this EVERY 2 years since I could remember.

I will be voting for third party candidates at the local level and I would even do it at the state-wide level if legitimate representatives popped up, but at the presidential level? No, you take what is going to best suit your interests. If you truly believe that there won't be significant change from either party, but you know that there are certain issues one party supports that more clearly match your interests, I think it's clear who you should vote for.

Why does it matter who I vote for?

I prioritize my "interests":

1) Get Business/Corporate influence out of government
2) Put a halt to the Military Industrial Complex
3) Keep and Restore Constitutional values

This won't change no matter if the President is Romney or Obama.

Otherwise, you're essentially throwing a hissy fit and voting against your own interests at the national level because your third party candidate is not going to get enough traction to mean anything

.

This isn't for now. For us. It's for down the line. Some people will eventually have to take a stance and educate and mobilize others to break the shackles of this 2 party system. I feel voting for lesser of two evils is not in my interest as a voter.

As far as what TUH is saying, I really do hate how you post in generalities and sit on abstract principles. It's admirable in a way, but naive in practice. It's like when Gibbs talked about the "professional left" that is all or nothing. You have a guy in TUH that clearly supports more democratic policies than he doesn't but based on a handful of issues (which the other party would be worse on) he's telling you to go vote for a 3rd party.

The only one telling people how to vote is you.

If you left it up to guys like TUH, black people should not have voted for the Democratic Party because of their role in the Vietnam war.

I understand that voting Democratic has been a staple in your life due to your race. I know that the Republican party makes it easier for you to seek the way to defeat that you feel will be your best bet. I'm not in your shoes. Plenty of people in this country are not in your shoes.

MLK told people to go vote, WHILE protesting the Vietnam War.

I'm telling people to go vote. Where did I tell people not to vote?

You cannot take an absolutist notion to politics in a pluralist society. Moreover, all these "disillusioned" people are not necessarily a coherent mass nor would they make up a coherent party. The seeds aren't even there for a legitimate third party right now because there isn't a clear group to draw it from. This isn't the populist movements of the past, this isn't William Jennings.

Hey genius, populist movements need to begin somewhere. Someone or a group of people need to make a stand. Why can't the stand begin with OUR generation? Why do we always pass the buck to the next generation? I find this to be extremely weak-minded.

His idealism seldom tempers itself with pragmatism and efficacy. The Tea Party just showed you how to change the debate within your party, you don't take your ball and go home.

One day in the future, when we have multiple parties in this country, just realize that you were a part of the establishment that kept this system in place, and it was because of people who weren't like you that our children will have a real chance at true choice.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I just don't see how we'll ever break the 2 party system like this. the way you frame things, it'll never be 'the time'. how were things different in 2000? there wasn't a "clear distinction" between Bush and Gore?

how will there ever be "seeds" for a "legitimate third party" if no one supports? it's not magic. no amount of pessimism and appeals to conformity is gonna make it happen

and what would this topic be without bringing up non-voters. now sure many of them are just lazy and don't vote because it involves actually doing something. but many are truly disenfranchised with the shytstem. it's easy to write these people off as a bunch of dirty hippies, alex jones listeners, or whatever, but they represent a large portion of the population

I'm not sure why you brought up Kucinich, but I don't believe in the "Nader Effect"

in closing, I understand appeals to pragmatism (I will point out that framing your views as being more "pragmatic" is a form of 'poisoning the well'), but at the same time I don't think it's fair to shoot down those that want real change (I can poison the well too). it's also something where you assume a lot about another person when saying that you see them as leaning a particular way, and therefor tell them how they should vote. not to mention how this thread is about Lupe talking about not voting at all, then we find a compromise that could get many of the disenfranchised involved in the process, but then you want to shoot that down. it seems that could encourage a lot of people to just default back to not voting at all

Here's how I see it...and as someone who in 2000 just recently having moved to Florida, as a first-time voter, voted for Ralph Nader against my better judgment because of selfish reasons and then went on to watch the most disastrous administration in history for 8 years, this is very personal to me.

The two parties are always going to try and block out any 3rd party candidate for obvious reasons. But they cannot stop a movement, if that movement is real and has tangible support from the public. Ross Perot had that. So basically what I'm saying is, when a 3rd party candidate comes along and does have the capacity to garner enough support to or at least shatter the Dem-Repub two party paradigm, you will know. They strike a chord with voters that will not be able to be suppressed. You will be able to see it in the polls. People will respond to polls and says "I'm voting for ____."

Ralph Nader is not that dude. Gary Johnson is not that dude. Pat Buchanan is not that dude. Ron Paul, despite what his small legions of internet stans would have you believe, is not that dude. Two party obstruction or no, none of them would garner more than about 1-2% of the vote. People can vote for whoever they want, but imo it's basically of no consequence to vote for any of them and more of a futile exercise in asserting your independence for an imaginary audience to vote for any of those guys.

Now if someone like say, Jesse Ventura, who I think has a real chance of making some noise in 2016, comes along is polling significantly and you like his platform better than the other two, then go ahead and vote for I say. Right now, a 3rd party vote is useless though. A vote for Gary Johnson ain't changing the system. We'll see if Ventura can do anything in 2016.

 

[daze23]

Yeah I don't see how it can logically happen either. I mean hypothetically you can vote a "3rd party candidate" into office but more then likely, they will face ∞ times, the opposition in congress, that is currently under.

change is never gonna be easy. it's like people that point at the current situation in Libya and say "see they would have been better off with Gaddafi"

also it just seems like a self-fulfilling-prophecy to say you won't support a third party until they gain more traction. it's similar to non-voting

"nothings gonna change"

*doesn't vote*

*nothing changes*

"see, I told you..."

 

[No1]

I just don't see how we'll ever break the 2 party system like this. the way you frame things, it'll never be 'the time'. how were things different in 2000? there wasn't a "clear distinction" between Bush and Gore?

It was different because we were in a period of unprecedented prosperity and I could understand wanting to vote for a 3rd party more catered to your specific interests only. I could understand the vote for Nader.

how will there ever be "seeds" for a "legitimate third party" if no one supports? it's not magic. no amount of pessimism and appeals to conformity is gonna make it happen

By seeds I mean there isn't a coherent complaint or group of people with the same complaints or people that realize the similarities of their situation. Basically, you have people more stratified than ever before. It's not like you can get farmers up in arms like you used to be able to do. They don't recognize a common enemy. Poor white people see poor minorities as the problem. It's like Senator Webb once said, "One of the tragedies is that poor urban people and poor rural people don't realize just how much they have in common." That is what I mean. That appeal has failed and until it is successful I do not see a third party sprouting up.

Unless of course you mean a party like a social liberal and fiscally conservative party. That could happen.

and what would this topic be without bringing up non-voters. now sure many of them are just lazy and don't vote because it involves actually doing something. but many are truly disenfranchised with the shytstem. it's easy to write these people off as a bunch of dirty hippies, alex jones listeners, or whatever, but they represent a large portion of the population

I'm not following you here.

I'm not sure why you brought up Kucinich, but I don't believe in the "Nader Effect"

Kucinich was brought up because he's a super-liberal's went dream. But I'm still not following you right now, at all. I really have no idea where you're going with this.

in closing, I understand appeals to pragmatism (I will point out that framing your views as being more "pragmatic" is a form of 'poisoning the well'), but at the same time I don't think it's fair to shoot down those that want real change (I can poison the well too).

First and foremost, real change isn't magic. It doesn't happen overnight. Working within the system and achieving victories is how most change has come about. This idea that you're advocating (shyt, I don't know what you're advocating) has never effectively brought about a result in the history of this country. What we have seen, is people change an entire party's platform and agenda.

What we have seen is that greatest legislation the 20th century the Civil Rights Movement was the result of careful balancing and it didn't even go as far as MLK wanted. But otherwise it would not have been passed. Heck, women were only included in that bill by Republicans as a means to sabotage it because they didn't think men would vote for it. The problem with Leyet, TUH and I'm assuming you is that you think we live in 1805. Your ideas have not adapted to the society we live in. It's quite simple and this is why I've always registered as an independent. My thinking is as such:

Decide what you want --> think of the most pragmatic way to get it done ---> temper it by certain moral concerns ---> execute plan.

The point is, telling individuals NOT to vote, in a system that decides one's importance by money and political efficacy is telling them to go to war without one of their best weapons. It is diametrically opposed to what I just outlined in the bolded.

it's also something where you assume a lot about another person when saying that you see them as leaning a particular way, and therefor tell them how they should vote.

What exactly am I assuming? I've seen his stances and where he line sup politically. I'm making an indictment on him refusing to vote when not doing so will put what he values in greater jeopardy just because what he values will not be done the way he wants it to be. I'm well aware about the stances people take, one of the best articles I read in the past 6 months is how liberals fail to realize that poor white people aren't necessarily voting against their interests because they adhere to party and certain stances almost like religion. They value that greater than other things.

I'm not affording TUH that same privilege. He's a more philosophical thinker than that.

not to mention how this thread is about Lupe talking about not voting at all, then we find a compromise that could get many of the disenfranchised involved in the process, but then you want to shoot that down. it seems that could encourage a lot of people to just default back to not voting at all

Who is "we"? Are you and TUH the same person? I'm talking to him specifically and to that individual. You're entire steeze is basically, "but but but he was at least going to vote someone, and you telling him how he's not being rational (assuming rationality is looking out for one's self-interest) is going to dissuade him from voting."

NO. I gave him an even BIGGER reason to go out and vote. I'm not shooting down the guy. I'm shooting down what TUH is positing. I'm trying to make the guy an INFORMED voter. It will not encourage anyone not to vote at all because I raised the stakes. Most people just vote straight ticket anyway.

I think I attacked everything in that crazy run-on.

 

[theworldismine13]

Third Parties don't get any lee way in elections period even If I vote third party.

no one said anything about local issues but again if the people are divided on issues nothing gets solved.

if you think voting for third parties is waste then thats fine, then dont vote, and thats the end of the story, but its a lie to suggest that the 2 major parties are your only choices or that this election is simply about electing a president

democracy just means that people get a voice, it doesnt mean everything is gonna be all right, democracy isnt just waking up every fours years to vote for president, for democracy to work properly you have to have civic engagement and thats why i brought up local issues

people dont bring up local issues because people have a fundamental misunderstanding of how government works and are completely disengaged from political issues in their own cities and their own neighborhoods, people do stupid shyt like bringing up chicago murders as a reason not to vote for president

 

[daze23]

Here's how I see it...and as someone who in 2000 just recently having moved to Florida, as a first-time voter, voted for Ralph Nader against my better judgment because of selfish reasons and then went on to watch the most disastrous administration in history for 8 years, this is very personal to me.

The two parties are always going to try and block out any 3rd party candidate for obvious reasons. But they cannot stop a movement, if that movement is real and has tangible support from the public. Ross Perot had that. So basically what I'm saying is, when a 3rd party candidate comes along and does have the capacity to garner enough support to or at least shatter the Dem-Repub two party paradigm, you will know. They strike a chord with voters that will not be able to be suppressed. You will be able to see it in the polls. People will respond to polls and says "I'm voting for ____."

Ralph Nader is not that dude. Gary Johnson is not that dude. Pat Buchanan is not that dude. Ron Paul, despite what his small legions of internet stans would have you believe, is not that dude. Two party obstruction or no, none of them would garner more than about 1-2% of the vote. People can vote for whoever they want, but imo it's basically of no consequence to vote for any of them and more of a futile exercise in asserting your independence for an imaginary audience to vote for any of those guys.

Now if someone like say, Jesse Ventura, who I think has a real chance of making some noise in 2016, comes along is polling significantly and you like his platform better than the other two, then go ahead and vote for I say. Right now, a 3rd party vote is useless though. A vote for Gary Johnson ain't changing the system. We'll see if Ventura can do anything in 2016.

I just don't see how these third parties are gonna ever find "that dude" with no support. one thing Ross Perot had was a ton of money. now sure that shouldn't matter, but he was actually able to get into the debates and whatnot. he got exposure, and then he got votes. people here saw their views were inline with Jill Stein and it was just a bunch of "who? "

I don't expect a third party candidate to go anywhere this election cycle. but if they can get some significant support, maybe they can be more viable next time around. I'm pretty sure that if they get little to no support, then they won't be any more viable next time around, or anytime soon. you gotta crawl before you walk, and blah blah blah

 

[No1]

I couldn't see properly respond to everything due to quotes, but real talk you just pissed me off for the first time that I've been on this board. You just had the audacity to diminish my stances to race Listen up TUH.

I prioritize my "interests":

1) Get Business/Corporate influence out of government
2) Put a halt to the Military Industrial Complex
3) Keep and Restore Constitutional values

This won't change no matter if the President is Romney or Obama.

Actually, this will change because Obama has stopped creating certain costly weapons and has rolled back many operations. Part of his plan has been to decrease the cost of military and military expenses. That's part of his whole "tell the rest of the world to handle their own shyt steeze." Yet, he's "alienating out allies" when he does that. Or he's "making America less safe." Do you hear the bullshyt you post? Like I said, in another life you make a great Islamic Militant, it's all or nothing with you.

What did you want, for Obama to roll back every military operation overnight? When every legitimate barometer shows that he's rolling back on military expenditures? Out of necessity? Or would you have rather have McCain as President who wanted to bomb the shyt out of Iran? Do you see how you're against your own interests?

You're that guy who says fukk making some progress in the mean time, nope let's let things get worse or REALLY bad and then change everything all at once later.

Further, you're "constitutional values" stance is bullshyt because if we followed the constitution the way the creators envisioned then I would not be typing on my keyboard right now. The US Constitution is flawed and that's why it always has to be interpreted and why it's meaning seesaws depending on who controls office and the courts. The Warren Court is why I'm typing this message.

And how did that happen? By operating within the existing system to bring about the result they wanted.
.

This isn't for now. For us. It's for down the line. Some people will eventually have to take a stance and educate and mobilize others to break the shackles of this 2 party system. I feel voting for lesser of two evils is not in my interest as a voter.

This is for us and this IS for now. What we do right now, will effect the future. You have student loan debt growing faster than anything else, you have the middle class shrinking and all your selfish ass can think about is "well fukk it, Obama signed that one bill I don't like." Ignoring the fact that the very people that I assume you want to help (I.E. you liking FDR) will be in an incredibly worse situation in the mean time. What you're saying is that it is not in your self-interest for the country to be in stable enough health for the shyt you're talking about to even matter.

I agree with a lot of what you say in principle and you know that, but it's obvious that you can never be a leader or a policy-maker because you fail to want to interact with the world as it is.

The only one telling people how to vote is you.

No, I'm telling people to vote rationally. Some of my best friends are center right and some straight up conservatives. I understand their vote and the rationale behind it. You're encouraging cognitive dissonance.[/QUOTE]

I understand that voting Democratic has been a staple in your life due to your race. I know that the Republican party makes it easier for you to seek the way to defeat that you feel will be your best bet. I'm not in your shoes. Plenty of people in this country are not in your shoes.

Don't ever say some shyt this stupid to me again in your life. The Democratic Party is not a staple in my life. I'm not even a registered Democrat. The first campaign I was on in my life was for a socially liberal republican. You essentially just did what every racist Republican has always done and tried to diminish AAs preferences to voting for Democrats as irrational, dependent and against their interests. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that. But just know What way to defeat am I moving towards? I'm looking at ways to victory, you're looking at ways to claim you took a principled stance and effectively achieved nothing. Like I said, you are an ALL or NOTHING individual. Society will never be EXACTLY like how you want it to be.

Like I said, all you do is write eloquent hissy fits. Most people in this country are in my shoes. They have middle class backgrounds and one party is better for them in the short-term than the other. It's really that simple. You take smaller victories while aiming towards larger goals. Most people aren't in YOUR shoes. They don't have the luxury of sitting back and arguing about abstract philosophical notions why the people around them struggle to get by.

The people Lupe professes to be for, are exactly the type of people I'm talking about.

I'm telling people to go vote. Where did I tell people not to vote?

Typo.

Hey genius, populist movements need to begin somewhere. Someone or a group of people need to make a stand. Why can't the stand begin with OUR generation? Why do we always pass the buck to the next generation? I find this to be extremely weak-minded.

Hey non-genius, populist movements begin from shared-struggle. I just broke down why it's harder for that type of movement to occur these days.

More importantly, what's weak-minded is your stubborness. Cutting off your nose to spite your face. Sure, let's not vote for a major party in the general election and allow the party to stay in power that is passing laws to limit voter turnout. Sure, let's ignore the fact that money coincides with who wins elections and voting for that 3rd party won't mean shyt without the money to back them at the national level. Who the hell is talking about passing the buck to the next generation? WHY DO YOU LEYET, and HHL4E engage in this dishonest form of debate? I just told you that you have no idea how to get change to happen.

More change has happened in this country from intra-party debate. Woodrow Wilson had to make William Jennings Bryan his secretary of state. The entire platforms of parties have changed as have power structures. Clinton shifted the democratic party to the center. Reagan shifted Republicans to the right. You're sitting here acting like these parties have been the same throughout history. I do want corporations out of politics, etc. I also understand where the best place to get that done is.

One day in the future, when we have multiple parties in this country, just realize that you were a part of the establishment that kept this system in place, and it was because of people who weren't like you that our children will have a real chance at true choice.

No, my kids will look at me and say thanks for not sacrificing our future so that I could score some principle points. I'm here talking about GENERAL presidential elections. I've voted for 3rd parties at every other level but US Senator. You can miss me with this nonsense.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I just don't see how these third parties are gonna ever find "that dude" with no support. one thing Ross Perot had was a ton of money. now sure that shouldn't matter, but he was actually able to get into the debates and whatnot. he got exposure, and then he got votes. people here saw their views were inline with Jill Stein and it was just a bunch of "who? "

I don't expect a third party candidate to go anywhere this election cycle. but if they can get some significant support, maybe they can be more viable next time around. I'm pretty sure that if they get little to no support, then they won't be any more viable next time around, or anytime soon. you gotta crawl before you walk, and blah blah blah

The same way Chief Keef got a buzz, millions of hits, and an Interscope deal...social media. This is the Information Age, so it should be much easier for a 3rd party candidate to garner support now than it was in the past.

I could see Jesse Ventura possibly catching a fire. Gary Johnson or Jill Stein or none of the people out there right now won't because they simply don't resonate with people.

 

[No1]

One last note on third parties, like I said, I'm all for supporting them at the local and national level, but I make votes partly based on where I am. If me voting for this third party candidate I like this time around means that the Tea party dude wins then, fukk that.

If me doing that means I get a neo-con US Senator then that's not happening. Besides, I can vote for representatives again in 2 years. I just don't want the idea out there that I don't support them. I think most of my generation does. If this was 1998, I'd vote for the third party. Right now, I'm voting for the party that is capable of getting something done.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I couldn't see properly respond to everything due to quotes, but real talk you just pissed me off for the first time that I've been on this board. You just had the audacity to diminish my stances to race Listen up TUH.



Actually, this will change because Obama has stopped creating certain costly weapons and has rolled back many operations. Part of his plan has been to decrease the cost of military and military expenses. That's part of his whole "tell the rest of the world to handle their own shyt steeze." Yet, he's "alienating out allies" when he does that. Or he's "making America less safe." Do you hear the bullshyt you post? Like I said, in another life you make a great Islamic Militant, it's all or nothing with you.

What did you want, for Obama to roll back every military operation overnight? When every legitimate barometer shows that he's rolling back on military expenditures? Out of necessity? Or would you have rather have McCain as President who wanted to bomb the shyt out of Iran? Do you see how you're against your own interests?

You're that guy who says fukk making some progress in the mean time, nope let's let things get worse or REALLY bad and then change everything all at once later.

Further, you're "constitutional values" stance is bullshyt because if we followed the constitution the way the creators envisioned then I would not be typing on my keyboard right now. The US Constitution is flawed and that's why it always has to be interpreted and why it's meaning seesaws depending on who controls office and the courts. The Warren Court is why I'm typing this message.

And how did that happen? By operating within the existing system to bring about the result they wanted.
.

This is for us and this IS for now. What we do right now, will effect the future. You have student loan debt growing faster than anything else, you have the middle class shrinking and all your selfish ass can think about is "well fukk it, Obama signed that one bill I don't like." Ignoring the fact that the very people that I assume you want to help (I.E. you liking FDR) will be in an incredibly worse situation in the mean time. What you're saying is that it is not in your self-interest for the country to be in stable enough health for the shyt you're talking about to even matter.

I agree with a lot of what you say in principle and you know that, but it's obvious that you can never be a leader or a policy-maker because you fail to want to interact with the world as it is.


Don't ever say some shyt this stupid to me again in your life. The Democratic Party is not a staple in my life. I'm not even a registered Democrat. The first campaign I was on in my life was for a socially liberal republican. You essentially just did what every racist Republican has always done and tried to diminish AAs preferences to voting for Democrats as irrational, dependent and against their interests. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that. But just know What way to defeat am I moving towards? I'm looking at ways to victory, you're looking at ways to claim you took a principled stance and effectively achieved nothing. Like I said, you are an ALL or NOTHING individual. Society will never be EXACTLY like how you want it to be.

Like I said, all you do is write eloquent hissy fits. Most people in this country are in my shoes. They have middle class backgrounds and one party is better for them in the short-term than the other. It's really that simple. You take smaller victories while aiming towards larger goals. Most people aren't in YOUR shoes. They don't have the luxury of sitting back and arguing about abstract philosophical notions why the people around them struggle to get by.

The people Lupe professes to be for, are exactly the type of people I'm talking about.



Typo.



Hey non-genius, populist movements begin from shared-struggle. I just broke down why it's harder for that type of movement to occur these days.

More importantly, what's weak-minded is your stubborness. Cutting off your nose to spite your face. Sure, let's not vote for a major party in the general election and allow the party to stay in power that is passing laws to limit voter turnout. Sure, let's ignore the fact that money coincides with who wins elections and voting for that 3rd party won't mean shyt without the money to back them at the national level. Who the hell is talking about passing the buck to the next generation? WHY DO YOU LEYET, and HHL4E engage in this dishonest form of debate? I just told you that you have no idea how to get change to happen.

More change has happened in this country from intra-party debate. Woodrow Wilson had to make William Jennings Bryan his secretary of state. The entire platforms of parties have changed as have power structures. Clinton shifted the democratic party to the center. Reagan shifted Republicans to the right. You're sitting here acting like these parties have been the same throughout history. I do want corporations out of politics, etc. I also understand where the best place to get that done is.



No, my kids will look at me and say thanks for not sacrificing our future so that I could score some principle points. I'm here talking about GENERAL presidential elections. I've voted for 3rd parties at every other level but US Senator. You can miss me with this nonsense.

Excellent post. TUH, the problem with your perspective on everything, not just this topic is you always talk as if the world is a philosophical debate on principles. You could never lead or run anything with your mentality, yet you try to hold people who do have to to the same standard of somebody debating on a message board. ex.: You acting like it's some huge outrage that the State department made a PR effort to quell the backlash to the Muhammad film in Pakistan. You're doing that right now. The world is not some abstract debate.

 

[daze23]

I'm not following you here.

my point is the biggest block of eligible voters are the non-voters. it's easy to write them off as just being lazy or whatever, but I think you have to seriously consider that mainstream politics just don't connect with a lot of people. I mean it basically breaks down to 25% vote dem, 25% repub, and 50% not at all. that is a serious problem in a 'democracy' that needs addressing

again, it's easy to write these people off as 'part of the problem' or whatever. but at some point you have to address the issue, especially when 'part of the problem' is half the eligible voters

Kucinich was brought up because he's a super-liberal's went dream. But I'm still not following you right now, at all. I really have no idea where you're going with this.

I was trying to figure out why you brought him up. I guess you're saying he's further to the left and therefore would have got less mainstream support than Obama. I mean, is there any compromise in this idea of voting for who's most likely to win? it gets to the point where it's like, what's the point of a democracy? maybe we should just crunch the numbers, form probabilities, and pick our President that way

 

[OsO]

what i find stupid about the not voting thing is people acting like voting is just about voting for president, voting is way deeper than voting for president or obama, if you don't vote for the presidency you should at least find out about local issues and vote for your local city council and mayor, local officials can have a bigger impact than the president on a citizen

but how many citizens are actually engaged on that level?

not many...

 

[OsO]

You pointed them out as an example that of activists who did not advocate voting. If you want to say they didn't see voting as a primarily important tactic, you're right, but you did not say that.

You were wrong, no ifs, ands, and buts. You are unbelievable. Why can't you just admit you were wrong, or at least you mis-typed and said something you didn't mean instead of accusing me of lack of reading comprehension when all I did was take exactly what you said word for word for what it is?

fair enough.

the black panthers did not say "dont vote." but voting was not a priority nor a significant strategy in their efforts.

Black panther party 10 point program image by ProfessorofTruth on Photobucket

 

[OsO]

that's a bullshyt excuse because there are about a dozen third parties to choose from and also there are plenty of local issues and candidates to vote for

we all know third parties in prez elections hold no weight.

and did lupe say dont vote in local elections? i missed that part.

 

[theworldismine13]

but how many citizens are actually engaged on that level?

not many...

And that's the problem, but that problem is not solved by not voting, that's why what lupe is saying is counterproductive

The idea that you will start voting or being active civically once you find candidates that you find acceptable or once your problems have been solved is backwards, it's a complete misunderstanding of the democratic process