Joe Biden is now POTUS

VAiz4hustlaz

Proud ADOS and not afraid to step to da mic!
BGOL Investor
No one is saying that a lack of Black voters is why Hillary lost. What we are saying is that there were a bunch of foolish " both sides are the same" people that thought they were being smarter than the rest and either voted third party or only voted down ballot. What then happened is that you posted the perfect example of that person in Eddie Glaude cause you thought Eddie was giving a message you agreed with. What you didn't factor in was the messenger himself and how completely wrong he was and that he admitting he was wrong.

Or to boil it down......

We think you're rather unsophisticated when it comes to your politics and you keep proving us right every time you post.

How's that ADOS, don't vote cause both sides are the same, narrative working for you lately??

Read what geechie wrote again. He inferred that a reduction in Black voter turnout in why Hillary lost.

I agreed with Glaude's original message then and I still agree with it, whether he does or not. Nothing he said about the Democratic Party and its exploitative relationship with Black voters was wrong. But I don't share the same overall "we should fall on the sword for the good of the nation" kumbaya worldview that he does. And I noticed that you're ignoring that Glaude and Obama were basically saying the same thing!

That ADOS narrative is alive and well. Nothing in the stimulus bill or the overall Democratic platform indicates that the racial wealth gap will actually be addressed by his administration.

I hope you see the stupidity of "non voters" now.

If we all abstain from voting, we are then FULLY depending on OTHERS to make important choices for us.

Then we end up saying retarded shit like "well, I overestimated white people".

Huh???

Where did I ever say to "not vote"? Where did I ever say to abstain from voting?
 

Darrkman

Hollis, Queens = Center of the Universe
BGOL Investor
Both sides are the same.

You need to withhold your vote

We need tangibles

Just vote down ballot

Socialism is the way

What have they done for Black people

Dems are weak and don't know what they're doing

All the people that have been those narratives are in here trying HARD to stay relevant and making a million excuses for why the real world is proving them wrong. Their desperation is HILARIOUS to watch.
 

Tito_Jackson

Truth Teller
Registered

Quotes and comments like these from Barkari shows a lack of understanding of economics.

This temporary supplementation of income will not and could never "lift people out of poverty." Until permanent solutions that impact employment, property and home ownership, education, and family structure a person's wealth or access to will not change and they will remain impoverished.

Lastly, both parties are playing all people regarding the idea of poverty. There will always be impoverished people.
 

VAiz4hustlaz

Proud ADOS and not afraid to step to da mic!
BGOL Investor
Dude can't seem to understand that posting Eddie Glaude the poster boy for "book smart but no fucking common sense" also says a lot about him as well.

If this is "book smart but no common sense" then I will embrace that any day over whatever Democratic ass-kissing ideology that you're promoting.

My Democratic Problem With Voting for Hillary Clinton

JULY 12, 2016 12:12 PM EDT

Iam not voting for Hillary Clinton, regardless of her endorsement by Bernie Sanders. My decision isn’t because of the scandal around her emails or because of some concern over her character. My reasons are pretty straightforward. I don’t agree with her ideologically.

Democratic values centered on economic and racial justice shape my own politics. I’m not convinced those values shape hers. Nothing Clinton says or intends to do if elected will fundamentally transform the circumstances of the most vulnerable in this countryeven with her concessions to the Sanders campaign. Like the majority of Democratic politicians these days, she is a corporate Democrat intent on maintaining the status quo. And I have had enough of all of them.

What has Clinton offered the American people as a substantive alternative to the status quo? How would her position on free trade, her view of foreign policy, on immigration, her call for “common sense policing” in the face of the murders of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge or Philando Castile in Minneapolis redirect our course as a nation? Transform the condition of black and brown communities?

Given the state of the country and of black and brown communities, these questions must be asked. But for many, especially for Clinton supporters, these questions reek of the unreasonableness of the American left or of people like me: that somehow to ask them reveals that we don’t understand the incremental nature of American politics or that we have crossed over into some forbidden realm of politics.

Nothing of the sort is said when Republicans reject Trump on ideological grounds. Many, like Jeb Bush, argue that Trump isn’t a true conservative, and that they will not vote for him or Clinton. This is seen as reasonable, and pundits rarely question the integrity of those who hold such views. But to argue something similar about Clinton is immediately dismissed. We are labeled electoral nihilists.

That difference reveals the spectrum of American politics: that it moves from the center to the far right. There seems to be little room for genuinely progressive politics left of center in this country. (The legacy of the Democratic Leadership Council ensured that.) We are told that our only viable option is Clinton. Get behind her or risk the future of the nation, they say. Political hokum.

This narrowing of the political field joins with a celebration of an easy form of identity politics. Many laud the fact that Hillary Clinton would be our first woman president. But, beyond the symbolism, what would that mean for women at home and abroad?

We have seen a version of this movie before, right? In 2008, the country celebrated the election of Barack Obama as the nation’s first black president. But that celebration did not come with a demand for actual policies that might substantively affect the lives of African Americans in this country. Many just felt good about the idea of a black president. Now, as Obama prepares to leave office after eight years, African American communities lay in ruins, and we continue to find ourselves engaged in this haunting ritual of grieving in public for another black life killed by the police.

It is not enough that Hillary Clinton might be our first woman president. Symbolically that would be significant, but the more important question rests with how her economic policies would affect the lives of working, poor women and children here in the United States and around the globe. How would she shift the frame of US aid policy and its impact on developing countries? How might her hawkishness affect the lives of vulnerable women and children? If none of that matters, then we might as well celebrate Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady, because she was a woman.

Anti-racism and anti-sexism have become easy positions for Democratic political elites. We hear politicians talk about voting rights or Roe v. Wade, or stand in the pulpit with black preachers or express solidarity with women around the world, and we assume that their policies reflect their rhetoric. On closer examination, nothing could be farther from the truth. It’s just the latest instance of a puerile multiculturalism that changes little and allows a few people to feel good about themselves.

I am not suggesting that anti-racism or anti-sexism (or identity politics generally) don’t matter. But they can’t provide cover for business as usual—a version of neoliberalism dressed in multicultural Chanel.

Perhaps the most persuasive reason to vote for Hillary Clinton is Donald Trump. Trump is worse. I know that. The prospects of a Trump presidency—what would be a deadly combination of arrogance and ignorance—ought to frighten anyone. It frightens me. But my daddy, a gruff man who has lived all of his life on the coast of Mississippi, taught me that fear should never be the primary motivation of my actions. It clouds your thinking, and all too often sends you running to either safe ground when something more daring is required, or smack into the danger itself. (I learned a similar lesson after reading William Faulkner’s “The Bear” in Go Down Moses.)

The real danger goes beyond the demagoguery of Trump and the racist bile of some of his supporters. The danger is that the way we live our lives as Americans, no matter our optimism about the future, is no longer sustainable.

We can’t continue to live with the current level of income inequality. Hard working people are working longer hours for less pay. And politicians and their benefactors continue to argue for trade policies that have decimated the working class in this country. We can’t continue to lock up black and brown people or watch them killed in cold blood by people sworn to protect us or fail to publicly educate all of our children. We can’t continue to bomb people around the world into oblivion.

We can’t even approximate a robust idea of the public good when filthy rich people believe that the only role of government is to facilitate the transfer of public dollars into private hands, and the function of politicians is to make us believe that it is in our best interest that we allow such a thing to happen.

In the end, Donald Trump is just an exaggerated indication of the rot that is at the heart of this country. That fact of Trump alone, and the democratic anguish that goes with it, cannot be the only rationale to support Hillary Clinton. Something more substantive is required of us—of her.
Many, despite what I’ve written, will still vote for Clinton. I do not fault them—especially if they live in a hotly contested state like Ohio or Florida. Vote for Clinton to keep Trump out of office. I completely understand that. But I can’t vote for her.

I will vote down ballot, focusing my attention on congressional, state, and local elections. And I will leave the presidential ballot blank. I have to turn my back on the Democratic Party that repeatedly turns its back on the most vulnerable in this country, because the Party believes they have nowhere else to go. That false belief betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of this period of democratic awakening.

We find ourselves in a peculiar moment in American history, crystallized by profound grief and the hard, pressing work of imagining a future under siege by the callousness and greed of the present. A renewed democratic faith in each other is required to change our course. Thin imaginations will seal our fate. But, I see that faith blossoming throughout the country (even with all the tears and anguish). The Sanders’ campaign was just one bloom. Everyday people are standing in democratic opposition, shouting with Melville’s Bartleby Scrivener, “I prefer not…”
I will say the same to Hillary Clinton come election time.

 

VAiz4hustlaz

Proud ADOS and not afraid to step to da mic!
BGOL Investor
Quotes and comments like these from Barkari shows a lack of understanding of economics.

This temporary supplementation of income will not and could never "lift people out of poverty." Until permanent solutions that impact employment, property and home ownership, education, and family structure a person's wealth or access to will not change and they will remain impoverished.

Lastly, both parties are playing all people regarding the idea of poverty. There will always be impoverished people.

Man, I've told you this before. This is BGOL. Stop trying to bring any kind of substantive analysis of economic data in here. It's not allowed or tolerated. And it means you're a MAGA-hat wearing Russian bot!!
 

BKF

Rising Star
Registered
Also, it needs to be said, I’m so glad adults are back in the room. I have a lot of problems with establishment Dems but goddamn... listening to Republicans go on and on about Dr Seuss, trans ppl in sports and Mr Potatohead in the midst of all the very serious and REAL issues facing this country/planet is beyond exhausting. Stunning that this fake outrage/culture war bullshit finds any traction at all but glad this admin is just pushing through it so far. Lots of srs work to do and they need to be held accountable as well but the daily circus clown show on the right is a good reminder why there’s only one viable party in this country
The answer is no and I never made that argument. I said I have no problem with having to show ID.
The reality is that these laws are on the books. So are you going to adjust to the situation or sit on the sidelines complaining. That only works to Republicans advantage.
 

Tito_Jackson

Truth Teller
Registered
Both sides are the same.

You need to withhold your vote

We need tangibles

Just vote down ballot

Socialism is the way

What have they done for Black people

Dems are weak and don't know what they're doing

All the people that have been those narratives are in here trying HARD to stay relevant and making a million excuses for why the real world is proving them wrong. Their desperation is HILARIOUS to watch.
The dems are definitely using their majority to pass what they deem to be necessary and what matters to them. Passing the stimulus package was a success and failure.


However, to answer your questions:
Both sides are the same.
Neither have the best interest of black folk at heart.
You need to withhold your vote
If we don't get what we deserve......yes.
Just vote down ballot
If there are others who have shown a commitment to resolving our plight.......yes
Socialism is the way
We are currently a socialist democratic republic.
What have they done for Black people
As if day 51......nothing specifically for us of substance.
Dems are weak and don't know what they're doing
They know exactly what they are doing
All the people that have been those narratives are in here trying HARD to stay relevant and making a million excuses for why the real world is proving them wrong. Their desperation is HILARIOUS to watch.
You are incorrectly taking the victories of others as our own. The LGBTQ have policies that specifically name them. Immigrants have policies that specifically name them. Even in the recent stimulus bill Native Americans have 5 billion specifically naming them as recipients. There was 100K immigrant who crossed our southern border last month. In February. This is a 97% increase from last year. Why, because of policies specifically for them. Do you think that any of them have any kinship or bond with black Americans?? No. Why would they?

I'm not congratulating anyone until policy that specifically targets black folks.
 

BKF

Rising Star
Registered

It was the same thing with people receiving an extra $600 a week for unemployment and now I believe it's an extra $300 a week. Those folks were the people being affected by covid and people were saying people should get a stimulus check every month and comparing it to other nations. While they were already receiving stimulus checks every week.
 
Last edited:

AllUniverse17

Rising Star
Registered
The dems are definitely using their majority to pass what they deem to be necessary and what matters to them. Passing the stimulus package was a success and failure.


However, to answer your questions:

Neither have the best interest of black folk at heart.

If we don't get what we deserve......yes.

If there are others who have shown a commitment to resolving our plight.......yes

We are currently a socialist democratic republic.

As if day 51......nothing specifically for us of substance.

They know exactly what they are doing

You are incorrectly taking the victories of others as our own. The LGBTQ have policies that specifically name them. Immigrants have policies that specifically name them. Even in the recent stimulus bill Native Americans have 5 billion specifically naming them as recipients. There was 100K immigrant who crossed our southern border last month. In February. This is a 97% increase from last year. Why, because of policies specifically for them. Do you think that any of them have any kinship or bond with black Americans?? No. Why would they?

I'm not congratulating anyone until policy that specifically targets black folks.


You didnt quote me but someone asked that I answer you.

1st ill say that you posted some alt-right cac propaganda, for example your numbers of how many illegals crossed the border and why they crossed the border. I am against illegal immigration but I dont play the cac propaganda game.

2nd since when does policy that positively affects black folk doesnt "count" if that policy doesnt only help black folk? How does that work exactly? Wheres the logic behind that? Good policy is good policy. A positive impact is a positive impact. We should vote for those who create more of these good policies.

3rd, should black farmers and black parents reject these funds? After all, its the victory of others.

4th, you've never explained how not voting and letting republicans decide everything for us improves the situation at all. So neighter party has our best interest at heart. Ok cool. Dont vote for either one. Whats next?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BKF

Tito_Jackson

Truth Teller
Registered
1st ill says that you posted some alt-right CAC propaganda, for example, your numbers of how many illegals crossed the border and why they crossed the border. I am against illegal immigration but I don't play the CAC propaganda game.
Since when is CNN alt-right propaganda? My brother, we have to stop dismissing factual data that we may not like as alt-right propaganda.
2nd since when does a policy that positively affects black folk doesn't "count" if that policy doesn't only help black folk? How does that work exactly? Where the logic behind that?
So??? A high tide raises all boats. Gotcha. Sounds a lot like the alt-right you speak of.
3rd, you've never explained how not voting and letting republicans decide everything for us improve the situation at all. So neither party has our best interest at heart. Ok cool. Don't vote for either one. What's next?
By giving away our vote and not demanding anything, there is zero incentive for anyone to earn our vote. In science, we refer to this as operant conditioning.
 

ghoststrike

Rising Star
Platinum Member
Why hasn't Biden ended racism, police brutality and cured cancer yet. Its day 51, what's the hold up
Black parents should refuse these crumbs.
Yes they should, its insulting. They should wait until a real 3rd party comes into office and writes every black baby a 50k check on day one
#refusestimuluscrumbs
That slow wave of realization that you're a jackass has got to sting

Then you gotta stick to your dumbass guns because you been talking greasy for so long

Lmaaao
Both sides are the same.

You need to withhold your vote

We need tangibles

Just vote down ballot

Socialism is the way

What have they done for Black people

Dems are weak and don't know what they're doing

All the people that have been those narratives are in here trying HARD to stay relevant and making a million excuses for why the real world is proving them wrong. Their desperation is HILARIOUS to watch.

:lol: :roflmao::roflmao2::roflmao3::lol2::giggle:

Biden hasn't created black generational wealth or solved the Biggie and 2Pac murders by day 51
He's a disaster.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::roflmao2:

Ya'll killiing me
 

Supersav

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Nope.

Here we go again.

Forming a black socialist party that will lose every time gets us what exactly?

Where did you get the idea that being a socialist country would be beneficial for us at all?
I have answered this three times in this thread. Here is the fourth and last

Forming a black socialist party that serves our needs is a better option then voting democrat every time and hoping for things to benefit us after it trickles down from the other minorities. Other groups get bills and laws that are directly for them. Why dont we? Im not expecting an answer to that because you don't know nor will your brain allow you to attempt to wonder. As far as losing every time...Do you think we are winning now? seriously the democrats winning doesn't equate to us winning. When has it ever? Are you looking at things from a micro or macro level? Did we win under Obama?

As far as socialism is concerned I think its a much better policy overall than capitalism which exploits the poor. I think thats quite simple for you to grasp. The redistribution of wealth would be a tremendous benefit to black people. In our current system wealth is redistributed up to the wealthy and not to the people who really need it. I know I know you think this stimulus and tax credit is wealth distribution. It's not...Its akin to giving ya child that toy he wanted so he can shut up and leave you alone. True wealth distribution doesn't come in one time measures. Do you see how many bailouts the airline industry has received since covid? That sir is socialism or rather kelptocracy...Look it up.

I know you wont understand and thats fine.
 

BKF

Rising Star
Registered
I have answered this three times in this thread. Here is the fourth and last

Forming a black socialist party that serves our needs is a better option then voting democrat every time and hoping for things to benefit us after it trickles down from the other minorities. Other groups get bills and laws that are directly for them. Why dont we? Im not expecting an answer to that because you don't know nor will your brain allow you to attempt to wonder. As far as losing every time...Do you think we are winning now? seriously the democrats winning doesn't equate to us winning. When has it ever? Are you looking at things from a micro or macro level? Did we win under Obama?

As far as socialism is concerned I think its a much better policy overall than capitalism which exploits the poor. I think thats quite simple for you to grasp. The redistribution of wealth would be a tremendous benefit to black people. In our current system wealth is redistributed up to the wealthy and not to the people who really need it. I know I know you think this stimulus and tax credit is wealth distribution. It's not...Its akin to giving ya child that toy he wanted so he can shut up and leave you alone. True wealth distribution doesn't come in one time measures. Do you see how many bailouts the airline industry has received since covid? That sir is socialism or rather kelptocracy...Look it up.

I know you wont understand and thats fine.
So what are you waiting for? Get going on forming the black socialist party.
 

VAiz4hustlaz

Proud ADOS and not afraid to step to da mic!
BGOL Investor
Dude...

You have stated repeatedly that you personally support the stance Glaude presents in his video which is for black people to collectively NOT VOTE for a presidential candidate.

Are you now distancing yourself for this?

No, I still embrace it as he articulates it below. This is a far cry from the "not vote" narrative that you're trying to push:

We see one way to loosen the hold Democrats have on the black electorate: for African Americans to become strategic voters. We call it the Blank-Out Campaign.
As both pressure voters and pivotal voters, African Americans can simultaneously deliver a victory for the Democratic nominee in swing states and keep the Democrats’ feet to the fire. Casting ballots as pressure voters would not merely be a symbolic act. Depending on the Blank-Out campaign’s success, it could have consequences for Democratic Party leaders down the line. Lower vote totals for the party’s standard bearer in red states could reduce representation of delegates at the 2020 convention, under formulas the party uses to estimate the number of delegates for each state. How well the party’s presidential nominees performed in the preceding two elections is one factor used to calculate the number of delegates for each state. We think the threat of losing delegate representation should incentivize red-state Democrats—and other Democratic leaders—to prioritize issues that directly affect black communities on the state and federal levels.
But at the symbolic level, the Blank-Out Campaign would announce that African Americans are done with business as usual. Party leaders, black and white, would be served notice that black voters are more than cattle chewing cud, to be herded to the polls every two and four years. So how does it work?
Black voters in red states should vote as they usually do for candidates, down the ballot—and leave their choice for President blank. Or they should vote for a third-party candidate of their choice. Either way, red-state black voters—and allies in those states who are committed to social justice—should put their presidential votes to better use than as wasted votes for the Democratic Party. These are pressure voters.
Consider, for instance, the value of voting for a Democratic presidential candidate in Alabama. According to estimates by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, black voters contributed roughly 70% of Obama’s share of the vote in the state, both in 2008 and 2012. But black votes for Obama were inconsequential in preventing Alabama’s nine electoral votes from being delivered to John McCain and Mitt Romney, both of whom defeated Obama in that state with 60% of the vote. By converting “wasted” presidential votes into “none of the above” or support for third-party candidates in Oklahoma, Arizona and other deep red states in the South—the Confederacy, essentially—black voters would exert pressure on party leaders to not take black voters and their issues for granted.

I have answered this three times in this thread. Here is the fourth and last

Forming a black socialist party that serves our needs is a better option then voting democrat every time and hoping for things to benefit us after it trickles down from the other minorities. Other groups get bills and laws that are directly for them. Why dont we? Im not expecting an answer to that because you don't know nor will your brain allow you to attempt to wonder. As far as losing every time...Do you think we are winning now? seriously the democrats winning doesn't equate to us winning. When has it ever? Are you looking at things from a micro or macro level? Did we win under Obama?

As far as socialism is concerned I think its a much better policy overall than capitalism which exploits the poor. I think thats quite simple for you to grasp. The redistribution of wealth would be a tremendous benefit to black people. In our current system wealth is redistributed up to the wealthy and not to the people who really need it. I know I know you think this stimulus and tax credit is wealth distribution. It's not...Its akin to giving ya child that toy he wanted so he can shut up and leave you alone. True wealth distribution doesn't come in one time measures. Do you see how many bailouts the airline industry has received since covid? That sir is socialism or rather kelptocracy...Look it up.

I know you wont understand and thats fine.

I believe he understands it but he fundamentally rejects it. He's basically a corporate Democrat who thinks Wall Street and the banks should run the economy and everything should be geared in their favor. I had a prior discussion with him about why the distressed homeowners should have received a bailout under Obama and he wholeheartedly rejected that. And my general attitude towards that is, why not just be a fiscally conservative Republican?
 
Last edited:

Supersav

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
No, I still embrace it as he articulates it below. This is a far cry from the "not vote" narrative that you're trying to push:

We see one way to loosen the hold Democrats have on the black electorate: for African Americans to become strategic voters. We call it the Blank-Out Campaign.
As both pressure voters and pivotal voters, African Americans can simultaneously deliver a victory for the Democratic nominee in swing states and keep the Democrats’ feet to the fire. Casting ballots as pressure voters would not merely be a symbolic act. Depending on the Blank-Out campaign’s success, it could have consequences for Democratic Party leaders down the line. Lower vote totals for the party’s standard bearer in red states could reduce representation of delegates at the 2020 convention, under formulas the party uses to estimate the number of delegates for each state. How well the party’s presidential nominees performed in the preceding two elections is one factor used to calculate the number of delegates for each state. We think the threat of losing delegate representation should incentivize red-state Democrats—and other Democratic leaders—to prioritize issues that directly affect black communities on the state and federal levels.
But at the symbolic level, the Blank-Out Campaign would announce that African Americans are done with business as usual. Party leaders, black and white, would be served notice that black voters are more than cattle chewing cud, to be herded to the polls every two and four years. So how does it work?
Black voters in red states should vote as they usually do for candidates, down the ballot—and leave their choice for President blank. Or they should vote for a third-party candidate of their choice. Either way, red-state black voters—and allies in those states who are committed to social justice—should put their presidential votes to better use than as wasted votes for the Democratic Party. These are pressure voters.
Consider, for instance, the value of voting for a Democratic presidential candidate in Alabama. According to estimates by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, black voters contributed roughly 70% of Obama’s share of the vote in the state, both in 2008 and 2012. But black votes for Obama were inconsequential in preventing Alabama’s nine electoral votes from being delivered to John McCain and Mitt Romney, both of whom defeated Obama in that state with 60% of the vote. By converting “wasted” presidential votes into “none of the above” or support for third-party candidates in Oklahoma, Arizona and other deep red states in the South—the Confederacy, essentially—black voters would exert pressure on party leaders to not take black voters and their issues for granted.



I believe he understands it but he fundamentally rejects it. He's basically a corporate Democrats who thinks Wall Street and the banks should run the economy and everything should be geared in their favor. I had a prior discussion with him about why the distressed homeowners should have received a bailout under Obama and he wholeheartedly rejected that. And my general attitude towards that is, why not just be a fiscally conservative Republican?
That explains alot.. thanks..I was thinking he was just slow
 

AllUniverse17

Rising Star
Registered
Since when is CNN alt-right propaganda? My brother, we have to stop dismissing factual data that we may not like as alt-right propaganda.

So??? A high tide raises all boats. Gotcha. Sounds a lot like the alt-right you speak of.

By giving away our vote and not demanding anything, there is zero incentive for anyone to earn our vote. In science, we refer to this as operant conditioning.

1. I didnt say high tide raises anything. That expression doesnt even apply here. I said those policies are beneficial to us directly. Not in a high tide kind of way. In a direct kind of way. If it doesn't prove me wrong.

2. Answer my question. Should the farmers and parents and the unemployed black peeps refuse the benefits since it isnt specifically for black peeps?

3. I didnt say to not demand anything for your vote. I said where does your not voting solution get you? Do you get to live an imaginary life where your community wont be affected by whoever OTHERS choose to govern?
 

AllUniverse17

Rising Star
Registered
No, I still embrace it as he articulates it below. This is a far cry from the "not vote" narrative that you're trying to push:

We see one way to loosen the hold Democrats have on the black electorate: for African Americans to become strategic voters. We call it the Blank-Out Campaign.
As both pressure voters and pivotal voters, African Americans can simultaneously deliver a victory for the Democratic nominee in swing states and keep the Democrats’ feet to the fire. Casting ballots as pressure voters would not merely be a symbolic act. Depending on the Blank-Out campaign’s success, it could have consequences for Democratic Party leaders down the line. Lower vote totals for the party’s standard bearer in red states could reduce representation of delegates at the 2020 convention, under formulas the party uses to estimate the number of delegates for each state. How well the party’s presidential nominees performed in the preceding two elections is one factor used to calculate the number of delegates for each state. We think the threat of losing delegate representation should incentivize red-state Democrats—and other Democratic leaders—to prioritize issues that directly affect black communities on the state and federal levels.
But at the symbolic level, the Blank-Out Campaign would announce that African Americans are done with business as usual. Party leaders, black and white, would be served notice that black voters are more than cattle chewing cud, to be herded to the polls every two and four years. So how does it work?
Black voters in red states should vote as they usually do for candidates, down the ballot—and leave their choice for President blank. Or they should vote for a third-party candidate of their choice. Either way, red-state black voters—and allies in those states who are committed to social justice—should put their presidential votes to better use than as wasted votes for the Democratic Party. These are pressure voters.
Consider, for instance, the value of voting for a Democratic presidential candidate in Alabama. According to estimates by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, black voters contributed roughly 70% of Obama’s share of the vote in the state, both in 2008 and 2012. But black votes for Obama were inconsequential in preventing Alabama’s nine electoral votes from being delivered to John McCain and Mitt Romney, both of whom defeated Obama in that state with 60% of the vote. By converting “wasted” presidential votes into “none of the above” or support for third-party candidates in Oklahoma, Arizona and other deep red states in the South—the Confederacy, essentially—black voters would exert pressure on party leaders to not take black voters and their issues for granted.



I believe he understands it but he fundamentally rejects it. He's basically a corporate Democrat who thinks Wall Street and the banks should run the economy and everything should be geared in their favor. I had a prior discussion with him about why the distressed homeowners should have received a bailout under Obama and he wholeheartedly rejected that. And my general attitude towards that is, why not just be a fiscally conservative Republican?

Symbolism.

Right.

That strategy would have worked out great in Georgia and Arizona. Really.

And Glaude would have looked around confused again saying "well i think i overestimated white people".
 

AllUniverse17

Rising Star
Registered
I have answered this three times in this thread. Here is the fourth and last

Forming a black socialist party that serves our needs is a better option then voting democrat every time and hoping for things to benefit us after it trickles down from the other minorities. Other groups get bills and laws that are directly for them. Why dont we? Im not expecting an answer to that because you don't know nor will your brain allow you to attempt to wonder. As far as losing every time...Do you think we are winning now? seriously the democrats winning doesn't equate to us winning. When has it ever? Are you looking at things from a micro or macro level? Did we win under Obama?

As far as socialism is concerned I think its a much better policy overall than capitalism which exploits the poor. I think thats quite simple for you to grasp. The redistribution of wealth would be a tremendous benefit to black people. In our current system wealth is redistributed up to the wealthy and not to the people who really need it. I know I know you think this stimulus and tax credit is wealth distribution. It's not...Its akin to giving ya child that toy he wanted so he can shut up and leave you alone. True wealth distribution doesn't come in one time measures. Do you see how many bailouts the airline industry has received since covid? That sir is socialism or rather kelptocracy...Look it up.

I know you wont understand and thats fine.

I understand now that you dont know how socialism works and how the US economy works.

Sorry to tell you but poor peeps been exploited in socialist countries to this day. You need to do more research on that.
 

Supersav

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
I understand now that you dont know how socialism works and how the US economy works.

Sorry to tell you but poor peeps been exploited in socialist countries to this day. You need to do more research on that.
Why do continue bring up other countries as a comparison? We don't follow other countries on health care (cuba) or education or the amount of people we imprison. I know what socialism is and that is better than capitalism which is what our current system is. You can't argue that capitalism is better. But @VAiz4hustlaz explained your position to me so I get it. You don't know any better
 

VAiz4hustlaz

Proud ADOS and not afraid to step to da mic!
BGOL Investor
Symbolism.

Right.

That strategy would have worked out great in Georgia and Arizona. Really.

And Glaude would have looked around confused again saying "well i think i overestimated white people".

Symbolism? It is a direct strategy. And it's not even applicable to the Georgia and Arizona examples. You obviously didn't read the article.

How is what I wrote an as hominem?
If he feel a black socialist party is the way, then he should get to work in starting such a party.

He asked several direct questions that you didn't answer. Specifically, he asked "Other groups get bills and laws that are directly for them. Why dont we?.......Do you think we are winning now? seriously the democrats winning doesn't equate to us winning. When has it ever? Are you looking at things from a micro or macro level? Did we win under Obama?"

Your response was "go form a black socialist party." Do you have any answers for his direct questions?

And for the record, Black leftists and socialist organizations already exist:

 

AllUniverse17

Rising Star
Registered
Why do continue bring up other countries as a comparison? We don't follow other countries on health care (cuba) or education or the amount of people we imprison. I know what socialism is and that is better than capitalism which is what our current system is. You can't argue that capitalism is better. But @VAiz4hustlaz explained your position to me so I get it. You don't know any better

I bring up other countries because socialism isnt something you invented, its a system that already exists. So we have examples to base ourselves on.

The problem is that the bad things you named about capitalism are also things that happen in socialist countries. So just saying you want socialism doesnt solve anything.

A party that loses every election also doesnt solve shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BKF
Top