Tariq breaks down The #Don'tVote Campaign ( "Obama ain't do shit for us!" )

[Dannyblueyes]

..... I dont care if you have to write in Jerome you best VOTE ...

Okay, I can roll with that. If enough people vote for a non existent candidate they don't support useless politicians, but still show the power of their numbers

 

[Dannyblueyes]

Cosign to the fullest.
This is one of the most dumbest movements ever. So you saying Romney would have been a better President? Of course not. Voting is essential to your survival and participation in this country. You may not like the choices, but you MUST vote for the BEST option for you. Not the PERFECT option, which won't exist. Its usually a choice between A or B. Which is better for you? Neither is going to be perfect, but NOT voting is supporting the worst option for you.

Years from now when Obama is out of office, you will miss him. He's far from perfect, but his is a good president. Which means he's a good president for black people.


Tariq is out of his lane here. He avoids the shae butter Hotep crowd, but embraces the blacker than black do nothings. While I'm at it, Boyce Watkins needs to stick to be an honest voice on finance, these other commentaries of arm chair pundits are farting in the tub and trying to pass it off as insightful commentary.

Obama would have won that election without black votes though

 

[gene cisco]

Two words: Supreme Court.

That's all this comes down to. None of these candidates are worth a damn, but it's better to have dems picking for the Supreme Court.

 

[CoTtOnMoUf]

we'll see.... I was there too fam. They just gave us Walmart. Robbed Peter (Foreign Labor) to pay Paul (us) while gutting your future salaries.

you trippin.

fuck how many criminals went to jail, we're talking about how well did black people do (that weren't criminals ) when clinton was president as opposed to reagan or bush!

we were fucked when reagan was in office, if you can remember?

remember reaganomics?

how can you even compare these 2 administrations?

 

[CoTtOnMoUf]

Obama would have won that election without black votes though

are you being serious right now or are you just trolling?

either way, you need to STFU because you really have no clue as to what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[ballscout1]

Nobody gets more benefits than white people. But as far as black people goes, relying on scraps will keep them in a ditch and passive. If you're self sufficient you won't have to worry them as much.

Right now most blacks rely on whites for every damn thing. When you rely on somebody for something they can easily take it away which they should since you won't do for self like a grown man is supposed to do!

That wealth that blacks created for whites how the hell is that helping black people??? Knowing you you probably think whites are gonna give it to you. But Whites are gonna suffer too and they're gonna somehow look at you as the cause.

What r u gonna do when whites close food stores in the hood, take jobs away from you that they gave you, and destroy social programs??? They may even put blacks in concentration camps when blacks if blacks riot over this.

Tariq said what I said years ago that the electoral college puts the president in office. So they decide if trump will get into office.

You ever think about that?

I don't think most black people rely on white people for anything.

In fact I don't think most black people give a fuck about white people or what they think except here on BGOL.

There are more crippled mofokrs posting on this board percentage wise than anywhere else..

You and Tariq both repeat dumb shit when it comes to the electoral college.

The reason the GOP wants to change the electoral college is because at present you win the state you get all the electoral votes which means the more populous a state the more electoral votes you get.

States with more cities and urban areas get more votes and since there are more black and brown in this states is why the Dems win even winning less states.

That is why the GOP wants to be able to split state votes instead of all or nothing because they win states with small populations or non urban areas of other states.

So you and he are wrong with that the electoral college selects the winner in the way you put it forth.

 

[mexico]

Obama would have won that election without black votes though

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/05/10-election-2012-minority-voter-turnout-frey

Minority Turnout Determined
the 2012 Election

...
With 2004 Turnout Levels: Republicans win in 2012 but not 2016

With 2004 Turnout Levels: Republicans win in 2012 but not 2016

To assess the impact of turnout alone on the 2012 election I assumed that the national electorate had the size and racial and ethnic composition of the new Census survey and applied to it the more “Republican favorable” turnout rates of 2004 for each racial and ethnic group, as shown in Figure 2. This of course resulted in more white voters and fewer minority voters than actually occurred in 2012. To these voter populations, I applied the actual 2012 voting margins as shown in Figure 3. The result of this exercise was a small 2012 Romney win of 9,000 votes—a virtual tossup. Thus it might be said that the high minority and low white turnout rates of 2012 were responsible for Obama taking the national vote, irrespective of the changing demography of the electorate.

To see how much difference the higher 2012 turnout of minorities alone made in the final outcome, I conducted the same exercise assuming the “low” 2004 turnout rates for blacks, Hispanics and Asians, but with the actual 2012 white turnout rates. Under this scenario, the 2012 election is close with Obama ahead, but barely. So we might say that the high turnout of minorities, and blacks especially, did make a difference in the outcome of the 2012 election.

What this tells me is that turnout will be less important for Democratic victory as demography changes in their favor, though they must maintain their strong voting margins among blacks, Hispanics and Asians. For Republicans, the latter projections show that they cannot count primarily on white support to take the White House. Even assuming high 2004 turnout rates and 2012 Republican voting margins for whites, they cannot win unless they also peel off more votes among minorities. In this regard, demography indeed becomes destiny.

 

[code_pirahna]

I think Tariq needs to rethink this.....

there is a difference between someone not doing something for us......and someone doing something against us.....

I understand we need folks to do something for us and withholding our vote will get their attention........but if you get a repug with the friends like "W" had.....we can t afford another 4 years of
subprime mortgage type schemes and false wars to make his friends rich.....

 

[code_pirahna]

Obama would have won that election without black votes though

dude wouldn t have even won the primary to even make it to a second term election.......

 

[cashwhisperer]

you trippin.

fuck how many criminals went to jail, we're talking about how well did black people do (that weren't criminals ) when clinton was president as opposed to reagan or bush!

we were fucked when reagan was in office, if you can remember?

remember reaganomics?

how can you even compare these 2 administrations?

You still think it's about an administration. You still think you have a choice. I suggest you study and listen to the info I provided.

All Bill Clinton had to do was play a fuckin saxophone and history was sealed.

Go Google "Carroll Quigley + Bill Clinton"

And may God bless your soul.

 

[Dannyblueyes]

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/05/10-election-2012-minority-voter-turnout-frey

Minority Turnout Determined
the 2012 Election

...
With 2004 Turnout Levels: Republicans win in 2012 but not 2016

With 2004 Turnout Levels: Republicans win in 2012 but not 2016

To assess the impact of turnout alone on the 2012 election I assumed that the national electorate had the size and racial and ethnic composition of the new Census survey and applied to it the more “Republican favorable” turnout rates of 2004 for each racial and ethnic group, as shown in Figure 2. This of course resulted in more white voters and fewer minority voters than actually occurred in 2012. To these voter populations, I applied the actual 2012 voting margins as shown in Figure 3. The result of this exercise was a small 2012 Romney win of 9,000 votes—a virtual tossup. Thus it might be said that the high minority and low white turnout rates of 2012 were responsible for Obama taking the national vote, irrespective of the changing demography of the electorate.

To see how much difference the higher 2012 turnout of minorities alone made in the final outcome, I conducted the same exercise assuming the “low” 2004 turnout rates for blacks, Hispanics and Asians, but with the actual 2012 white turnout rates. Under this scenario, the 2012 election is close with Obama ahead, but barely. So we might say that the high turnout of minorities, and blacks especially, did make a difference in the outcome of the 2012 election.

What this tells me is that turnout will be less important for Democratic victory as demography changes in their favor, though they must maintain their strong voting margins among blacks, Hispanics and Asians. For Republicans, the latter projections show that they cannot count primarily on white support to take the White House. Even assuming high 2004 turnout rates and 2012 Republican voting margins for whites, they cannot win unless they also peel off more votes among minorities. In this regard, demography indeed becomes destiny.

Minority turnout is not black turnout

 

[D Kline]

Minority turnout is not black turnout

Look here Jon B. Wall street put him on. You honestly cannot be this gullible.

 

[mexico]

Minority turnout is not black turnout

This dude can't be serious.

 

[BlkStrength]

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/05/10-election-2012-minority-voter-turnout-frey

Minority Turnout Determined
the 2012 Election

...
With 2004 Turnout Levels: Republicans win in 2012 but not 2016

With 2004 Turnout Levels: Republicans win in 2012 but not 2016

To assess the impact of turnout alone on the 2012 election I assumed that the national electorate had the size and racial and ethnic composition of the new Census survey and applied to it the more “Republican favorable” turnout rates of 2004 for each racial and ethnic group, as shown in Figure 2. This of course resulted in more white voters and fewer minority voters than actually occurred in 2012. To these voter populations, I applied the actual 2012 voting margins as shown in Figure 3. The result of this exercise was a small 2012 Romney win of 9,000 votes—a virtual tossup. Thus it might be said that the high minority and low white turnout rates of 2012 were responsible for Obama taking the national vote, irrespective of the changing demography of the electorate.

To see how much difference the higher 2012 turnout of minorities alone made in the final outcome, I conducted the same exercise assuming the “low” 2004 turnout rates for blacks, Hispanics and Asians, but with the actual 2012 white turnout rates. Under this scenario, the 2012 election is close with Obama ahead, but barely. So we might say that the high turnout of minorities, and blacks especially, did make a difference in the outcome of the 2012 election.

What this tells me is that turnout will be less important for Democratic victory as demography changes in their favor, though they must maintain their strong voting margins among blacks, Hispanics and Asians. For Republicans, the latter projections show that they cannot count primarily on white support to take the White House. Even assuming high 2004 turnout rates and 2012 Republican voting margins for whites, they cannot win unless they also peel off more votes among minorities. In this regard, demography indeed becomes destiny.

Ironically, concerning the 2012 election:
In 2012, the first congressional election after the last round of gerrymandering, Democratic House candidates won 50.59 percent of the vote — or 1.37 million more votes than Republican candidates — yet secured only 201 seats in Congress, compared to 234 seats for Republicans. The House of Representatives, the “people’s house,” no longer requires the most votes for power.

As the results from this year roll in, we see a similar dynamic. Republican gerrymandering means Democratic voters are packed tightly into single districts, while Republicans are spread out in such a way to translate into the most congressional seats for the GOP.

There are a lot of structural issues that influence congressional elections, from voter ID requirements to early voting access. But what does it matter if you’ve been packed into a district in which your vote can’t change the composition of Congress.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/05/gerrymandering-rigged-2014-elections-republican-advantage/

Meaning, if we don't vote now. And get someone in to put in favorable judges who will outlaw some of this stuff, including voter suppression, our votes could pretty much lose the little power it has for the rest of our lifetimes.

 

[cashwhisperer]

This dude can't be serious.

How can he not be serious?

That's a factual statement.

Mexicans, Latinos, Asians, Jews, Natives, Arabs, etc.

Minority doesn't mean black.

 

[mexico]

How can he not be serious?

That's a factual statement.

Mexicans, Latinos, Asians, Jews, Natives, Arabs, etc.

Minority doesn't mean black.

So black does not comprise part of that minority in this country?

 

[cashwhisperer]

So black does not comprise part of that minority in this country?

Of course it does, but not solely.

 

[CoTtOnMoUf]

You still think it's about an administration. You still think you have a choice. I suggest you study and listen to the info I provided.

All Bill Clinton had to do was play a fuckin saxophone and history was sealed.

Go Google "Carroll Quigley + Bill Clinton"

And may God bless your soul.

i'm going to ask you the same question as i asked someone else in this thread...

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS, OR ARE YOU JUST TROLLING????

either way, i'm done here.

i want to debate someone who has a clue and not just reciting some bullshit rhetoric you heard from this asshole in the video.

I'M OUT.

 

[mexico]

Of course it does, but not solely.

Romeny ran up the margin among whites 59-39.

Obama won re-election because he blew the doors off with the minority vote by winning 80% of it...

...of which black votes comprised a record share. In fact blacks voted at a higher percentage in 2012 than whites did for the first time in history.

The article clearly states that if black people had voted at the same rates they voted at in 2004 Romney would have won narrowly.

So I say again, that dude can't be serious.

 

[ballscout1]

It's clear that the black vote can be and has been the deciding factor in many elections.

That doesn't mean that it is the only reason for the win.

Let's make it easy for some to understand.

In a basketball game the home team is down 2 points with 5 seconds remaining in the game. A substitute comes in who has not played at all in the game previously and hits a three pointer from the corner to win the game.

It is clear that the player hit the winning shot and without that shot the home team would not have won. BUT that shot isn't the only reason they won

 

[mexico]

It's clear that the black vote can be and has been the deciding factor in many elections.

That doesn't mean that it is the only reason for the win.

Let's make it easy for some to understand.

In a basketball game the home team is down 2 points with 5 seconds remaining in the game. A substitute comes in who has not played at all in the game previously and hits a three pointer from the corner to win the game.

It is clear that the player hit the winning shot and without that shot the home team would not have won. BUT that shot isn't the only reason they won

Appreciate the metaphor and not trying to get into sematical argument but to say that Obama would have won re-election in 2012 without the record black turnout is patently false.

 

[CoTtOnMoUf]

It's clear that the black vote can be and has been the deciding factor in many elections.

That doesn't mean that it is the only reason for the win.

Let's make it easy for some to understand.

In a basketball game the home team is down 2 points with 5 seconds remaining in the game. A substitute comes in who has not played at all in the game previously and hits a three pointer from the corner to win the game.

It is clear that the player hit the winning shot and without that shot the home team would not have won. BUT that shot isn't the only reason they won

in your analogy, the guy hitting the winning shot is not the only reason that they won, but that one shot, by that one player, did allow them to win that game!

 

[Dannyblueyes]

It's clear that the black vote can be and has been the deciding factor in many elections.

That doesn't mean that it is the only reason for the win.

Let's make it easy for some to understand.

In a basketball game the home team is down 2 points with 5 seconds remaining in the game. A substitute comes in who has not played at all in the game previously and hits a three pointer from the corner to win the game.

It is clear that the player hit the winning shot and without that shot the home team would not have won. BUT that shot isn't the only reason they won

This metaphor is almost exactly how the 2000 Bush/Gore Campaign ended. The only difference is that Gore gave up the presidency rather than let Black Florida voters cinch the results. The Democrats didn't care then and had to pull a relatively unknown and inexperienced black politician out of their ass to convince people they care now.

 

[ballscout1]

This metaphor is almost exactly how the 2000 Bush/Gore Campaign ended. The only difference is that Gore gave up the presidency rather than let Black Florida voters cinch the results. The Democrats didn't care then and had to pull a relatively unknown and inexperienced black politician out of their ass to convince people they care now.

Well the court actually stopped the recount that saw Gore picking up votes....

 

[cashwhisperer]

i'm going to ask you the same question as i asked someone else in this thread...

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS, OR ARE YOU JUST TROLLING????

either way, i'm done here.

i want to debate someone who has a clue and not just reciting some bullshit rhetoric you heard from this asshole in the video.

I'M OUT.

bet.

Romeny ran up the margin among whites 59-39.

Obama won re-election because he blew the doors off with the minority vote by winning 80% of it...

...of which black votes comprised a record share. In fact blacks voted at a higher percentage in 2012 than whites did for the first time in history.

The article clearly states that if black people had voted at the same rates they voted at in 2004 Romney would have won narrowly.

So I say again, that dude can't be serious.

Which shows the power of the black vote. If we were smart, we would be pitting those cacs against each other like they do us.

We are hoeing ourselves out to the Democrats....and therefore the Republicans.

 

[Hey Julian!]

I get what he's saying ,but his reasoning is weak here. Don't vote so you can basically have a reason say ,"I told you so" ? That's a weak stance and won't do shit. What will happen in reality if we don't collectively vote is the party that we support without question will be scrambling to get shit done. We have enough of an impact with the margin to sway an election. Democrats would have to implement all the shit they campaign for if they start losing because we don't show up. That's power. We get disenfranchised either way, so don't show up until they start getting shit done. That's how he should've gotten behind this.

 

[Dannyblueyes]

Well the court actually stopped the recount that saw Gore picking up votes....

And the democrats did little to fight back. No attempt to rally their base, no senate or congressional walkouts. Bill Clinton didn't try to use any of his executive powers, whatever they may be in that situation, to help out. No attempt to charge republicans with voter fraud. Republicans will fight tooth and nail to curtail Obama's policies, but the democrats won't do shit with the White House on the line?

The democratic party will never allow black votes to be the deciding factor in a presidential election. It would force them to say something other than "Vote for use because the republicans are worse."

 

[ballscout1]

And the democrats did little to fight back. No attempt to rally their base, no senate or congressional walkouts. Bill Clinton didn't try to use any of his executive powers, whatever they may be in that situation, to help out. No attempt to charge republicans with voter fraud. Republicans will fight tooth and nail to curtail Obama's policies, but the democrats won't do shit with the White House on the line?

The democratic party will never allow black votes to be the deciding factor in a presidential election. It would force them to say something other than "Vote for use because the republicans are worse."

GOP had the court and they also had Florida..

wasn't much that could be done once the court ordered the recount stopped.

Wasn't Scalia behind that too ?

 

[Chitownheadbusa]

Havnet listened to tariq in a while. But I like what he's said and done in the past...so imma check this out later and give my input.

all the people who lost their lives just make their mark on that piece of paper,

Now that we have a better understanding of how things have ALWAYS worked within this country (especially when it pertains to voting), would u agree that a lot of Black people died for something that wasnt worth dying for?


^^^ i honestly dont know how to word what im trying to say.....without offending people...but that question is in no way trying to shit on our ancestors. But the truth is a lot of our ancestors got a few things misconstrued. A lot were confused, but once they started having epiphanies, it was too late.


Voting is a small piece of a bigger puzzle. Black people going out to vote aint the issue, the issue is that Black folks dont know how to approaching the voting process (scratch my back Ill scratch yours type relationship with politicians) nor do we know how to follow up after we vote.

 

[mexico]

Now that we have a better understanding of how things have ALWAYS worked within this country (especially when it pertains to voting), would u agree that a lot of Black people died for something that wasnt worth dying for?


^^^ i honestly dont know how to word what im trying to say.....without offending people...but that question is in no way trying to shit on our ancestors. But the truth is a lot of our ancestors got a few things misconstrued. A lot were confused, but once they started having epiphanies, it was too late.

If I'm going to respond, I'd need a little more context about what you are talking about when you say -- "the way things have always worked" --

I don't wanna make any assumptions about where you're coming from.

 

[code_pirahna]

With Scalia dying...Tariq needs to chill with this....NOW AINT THE TIME

 

[code_pirahna]

If the c

And the democrats did little to fight back. No attempt to rally their base, no senate or congressional walkouts. Bill Clinton didn't try to use any of his executive powers, whatever they may be in that situation, to help out. No attempt to charge republicans with voter fraud. Republicans will fight tooth and nail to curtail Obama's policies, but the democrats won't do shit with the White House on the line?

The democratic party will never allow black votes to be the deciding factor in a presidential election. It would force them to say something other than "Vote for use because the republicans are worse."

If the court didn t stop the vote there wouldn t have been a W presidency....period

 

[HeathCliff]

With Scalia dying...Tariq needs to chill with this....NOW AINT THE TIME

I wonder if there will be any calibration to his message now

 

[code_pirahna]

I wonder if there will be any calibration to his message now

If he doesn t he is wrong

 

[darth frosty]

Voting is a small piece of a bigger puzzle. Black people going out to vote aint the issue, the issue is that Black folks dont know how to approaching the voting process (scratch my back Ill scratch yours type relationship with politicians) nor do we know how to follow up after we vote.

I fully get what you are saying. I think the problem is we still dont know what game we are playing.

We love to use the Chess not checkers analogy but what rules are we going by and how often are they changed.

I love the analogy of a monopoly game where we have started after the game has been in progress for 400+ yrs.

White supremacist are constantly and subtly changing the rules and the narrative while we are trying to best them based on these rules with out acknowledging 2 key factors:

1st and obviously the game is rigged against us
2nd and not so obvious until we learn the secret to securing real power we are just hamsters running in the wheel.