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

[daze23]

The same way Chief Keef got a buzz...

 

[No1]

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

Oh, now I follow you. Most people do have leanings though. They just don't want to admit them. Not being registered with a party does not mean you're a non-voter. But the thing is, not votng could very well be rational for a lot of people, I mean, if they truly believe that nothing changes, then why vote? And if things do change for the better, they receive the benefits without putting in the effort.

Furthermore, most studies show that most voters are not informed about the issues so it's unlikely that they were are making a rational decision based on a concrete understanding of the issues. I mean shyt, even I don't know everything about that healthcare bill. A lot of things aren't communicated well. I never said non-voters are lazy. Non-voters are some of the most hard-working people in the country. There's an article that my friend posted up this week from Salon I think and it has one of the greatest quotes from an article I've seen all year breaking down the middle class struggle and juggling act of the 47%. I'll post that up later. It was just

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

I brought up Kucinich for exactly the reason you just mentioned. It's not about just voting for who is most likely to win, it's about voting for who is most likely to have the platform to change anything in your favor. If you truly backed Ron Paul and he loses, it makes more sense to back Romney than Obama.

Especially if you're looking out for the poor and middle class where the federal government has always had to step in to protect the most vulnerable because the states wouldn't. I just think if people REALLY looked at the candidate's stances, and were real with themselves then they would see that there are stark differences on major issues. Everyone has a preference on major issues.

Furthermore, the president nominated Supreme Court members and the Senate confirms. If Democrats would have beaten Reagan and Bush then you can get another leftist on the court when Thurgood steps down. Then, when the court would have decided that education IS a fundamental right, so disparities in spending amongst districts probably wouldn't exist. You wouldn't have a court ruling that corporations are people, etc.

It's those things people don't take into account.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

My basic point is it should be much easier for a 3rd party candidate to garner significant support now than it was during most of the time in last century. The people are dissatisfied with the two parties, and we live in an information age where nobodies can become celebrities overnight via social media.

 

[theworldismine13]

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

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

It's irrelevant what weight they hold, the point is you should vote for whoever you agree with, that is the way it works

Lupe is not mentioning third parties and local elections therefore he is giving distorted information about the political process and making it seem like elections are just about voting for president every 4 years

 

[OsO]

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

well i happen to think voting but not holding politicians accountable on the back end is counterproductive.

and at this point in history im saying we need to skip this whole "democratic" process altogether because it seems no matter who we vote into office the same shyt happens and continually gets worse. so maybe after 200 or so years of the same political stagnation, perhaps we should adjust our strategy yes?

or do we want to keep banging our heads against a brick wall and hoping for "change" with every election

 

[OsO]

It's irrelevant what weight they hold, the point is you should vote for whoever you agree with, that is the way it works

but what if you dont agree with any of them, should you still vote?

Lupe is not mentioning third parties and local elections therefore he is giving distorted information about the political process and making it seem like elections are just about voting for president every 4 years

i think that is an assumption you are making, not a fact.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

The biggest problem is not the two party system. The biggest problem is ignorant ass low information voters and non-voters who refuse to educate themselves on the issues but still feel entitled to speak on it.

In TUH's defense, he knows the issues pretty well. But HHL4E didn't know that civil rights leaders encouraged and registered people to vote, Onedeen went on that ignorant fact and context-devoid rant about Clinton vs. Obama's economies. Leyet just rambles about Fed conspiracies and the loss of the manufacturing base and calls robust policy discussion "bullshyt." HHL4E, Sly, and Gundam all exposed themselves on podcasts as not knowing the basics of Senate function.

Until we have a more educated citizenry that take the time to learn the issues and self-educate, we're going to be stuck with shytty policy. If you had an informed and active electorate that could put pressure on politicians to serve as a counterbalance to the special interest money, things would be a lot better.

As long as we have a bunch of dumb motherfukkers who don't know anything, but just sit there complaining about why things are they way they, oblivious to the fact that the ignorance and apathy they exhibit on a macro level is a large part of the very reason thing are the way they are, things will never change.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcCPlkw6dO0"]Don't Blame the Politicians: George Carlin - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daze23]

My basic point is it should be much easier for a 3rd party candidate to garner significant support now than it was during most of the time in last century. The people are dissatisfied with the two parties, and we live in an information age where nobodies can become celebrities overnight via social media.

it's true, but internet support can only go so far. ask Ron Paul. people need a little more to get a sense of legitimacy. that's why I bring up Ro$$ Perot actually making it on televised debates. and he was just an 'inderpendent' (I like that typo, so I'll keep it), and not the representative of an established party like the Green Party, or the Libertarian Party

I guess this is an issue that goes back to issues with campaign finance and whatnot. as it is, the game is rigged for those parties (or individuals) with access to big money. and I don't see any amount of internet buzz trumping that

 

[daze23]

i think that is an assumption you are making, not a fact.

of course, but Lupe didn't give us any reason to think differently

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

it's true, but internet support can only go so far. ask Ron Paul. people need a little more to get a sense of legitimacy. that's why I bring up Ro$$ Perot actually making it on televised debates. and he was just an 'inderpendent' (I like that typo, so I'll keep it), and not the representative of an established party like the Green Party, or the Libertarian Party

I guess this is an issue that goes back to issues with campaign finance and whatnot. as it is, the game is rigged for those parties (or individuals) with access to big money. and I don't see any amount of internet buzz trumping that

Yeah, but Ron Paul never really had any significant non-statistical outlier support. He just had a small legion of devoted online stans.

As far as the debates go, there's a debate commission that decides who gets to be on them. People like Ralph Nader complain about not being allowed in the debates, and that the debate commission is rigged by the two parties. That could be, but the fact remains that Nader or no other recent 3rd party candidate since Perot has been able to poll at above 1%. I can't really blame the debate commission for not including dudes that poll at 1% and putting on an even platform with dudes polling in the high 40's and low 50's. Someone would have to garner support that could be demonstrated via polls before they be allowed in debates imo.

There is enough media access outside of the big TV networks nowadays for a 3rd party candidate to get exposure and garner support if it's there moving forward. Johnson, Stein, Paul, etc. just haven't resonated. We'll see what Ventura can do if he runs.

 

[Type Username Here]

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.

YOU were the one linking blacks to voting for Democrats. You did it multiple times in this thread.

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.

I mean, you can't expect me to take you serious when you are making stupid statements such as this? Islamic Militant.

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?

Doggie, you keep bringing up the Republicans and what they would hypothetically do. I don't give a fukk. I already made it clear that the Democratic candidate is the better alternative between the two. That's is not ENOUGH for me to vote for him. For you it might be. Not me.

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.

The man made clearly violated the constitution on his OWN accord. It had nothing to do with Republican opposition.

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.

Did Thurgood Marshall and the rest of the civil rights lawyers NOT use the constitution in their arguments to the court? They did not show how the government was acting in an unconstitutional manner?

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.

But I have been a leader. I've actually lead. At a very young age. I've made decisions that had affects on not only my subordinates, but the locals as well. I've gone on missions where it was my responsibility to foster a relationship with the locals.

This "interact with the world as it is" argument is the same one OneDeen makes when I talk about 1st Amendment rights: "Well, if you go around making insulting statements, people are going to punch or kill you. That's how the world is".

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.

Voting rationally? You mean voting for the candidate you support? I asked people here and in other places to do their research and vote. I don't care if they vote for Romney, Obama, Stein, Johnson, David Duke, Hebrew Israelites....I don't care. YOU are the only one who cares.

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

Bro, you were the one in here equating blacks voting for Democrats regardless of their treatment. I assumed that's what you supported since you keep bringing it up as some noble thing. I didn't mean to offend you in anyway.

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.

I'm looking for victory. Your victory comes every 2 years voting for Democrats. My victory will come at a later time.

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.

That's the problem. No one wants to approach things from a philosophical aspect. It's all machine-social-programming thinking.

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.

There is a shared-struggle building up. For example, Americans are overwhelmingly NOT in favor of the TSA's searching procedures. People are fed up with these machines, abuses, and humiliation. This was expanded and sanctioned by the Obama Administration. People are getting pissed of at these things. Little by little.

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.

Dishonest debate? You are the one coming here and saying "this is the most important election of our times. The distinction between the parties are MAJOR". I hear this every 2 years. That's being dishonest.

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.

With the man who's first economic cabinet/adviser members were the ones responsible for engineering the financial collapse? I'm sure.

 

[Type Username Here]

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.

Friend, I'll keep that in mind when you are lecturing OneDeen on the principles of free speech, and he brings up "but we live in the real world" shyt that you despise to hear.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Friend, I'll keep that in mind when you are lecturing OneDeen on the principles of free speech, and he brings up "but we live in the real world" shyt that you despise to hear.

Entirely different. We're talking about people in charge of running institutions here...the executive branch and the State Department. I can defend dude's right to make an anti-Muhammad video on moral principle all day in HL. I cannot say what I say here if I'm the President of the United States because my actions have consequences that affect millions. So therefore, I understand that I cannot hold elected officials in charge of running government with the same lofty conceptual principles of message board debates when I make a decision in the voting booth. That's the point...you're proving it for me.

 

[theworldismine13]

well i happen to think voting but not holding politicians accountable on the back end is counterproductive.

and at this point in history im saying we need to skip this whole "democratic" process altogether because it seems no matter who we vote into office the same shyt happens and continually gets worse. so maybe after 200 or so years of the same political stagnation, perhaps we should adjust our strategy yes?

or do we want to keep banging our heads against a brick wall and hoping for "change" with every election

well like I said democracy doesn't mean everything is gonna be all right, it just means you get to choose your leaders, after 200 years I'm pretty sure democracy is the best way to choose leaders

 

[Type Username Here]

Entirely different. We're talking about people in charge of running institutions here...the executive branch and the State Department. I can defend dude's right to make an anti-Muhammad video all day in HL. I cannot say what I say here if I'm the President of the United States. So therefore, I understand that I cannot hold elected officials in charge of running government with the same lofty conceptual principles of message board debates when I make a decision in the voting booth. That's the point...you're proving it for me.

Why can't I hold elected officials to my philosophical ideals?

Why is that wrong? Where does it say I can't do that?