Are we still pretending that not voting is going to solve our problems?

[Matt504]

This idea that not voting will make politicians wake up and say "we need to do more to earn their votes" is ludicrous.

 

[FeverPitch2]

...political parties will not take your vote for granted and it will force classism to be addressed

You think so?
The GOP lost the Black vote and just adapted.
Aint looked back since.
How sure are we that the DNC is going to come groveling to us on their knees willing to fulfill any request we demand?

 

[Eclipser]

How do we as a people benefit from that?

You want to continue kicking the can down the road to avoid a political loss in the near future.
I want black people to demand SOMETHING, ANYTHING for their vote, even if it means a political loss in the near term because the long term benefits are worth it. Kicking the can down the road is not sustainable.
We both want the same thing, ultimately. Only, our strategies are different.
We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[FeverPitch2]

That's what I don't get. If you make less than $70,000 a year and the Democrat is going to make your life better and healthcare more affordable while providing the poor with housing assistance while the Republican is telling you that he's going to make your harder by making healthcare more expensive while taking away from affordable housing as well as taking away financial aid and Pell Grants from college students how are you helping black folk by making their lives harder?

This is a question that the "not voting" segment still has not answered.
GOP = DNC? How?
GOP > DNC? How in the hell?

 

[Nicole0416_718_929_646212]

*Grabs front row seat to the show*

I bet you do

 

[FeverPitch2]

You want to continue kicking the can down the road to avoid a political loss in the near future.
I want black people to demand SOMETHING, ANYTHING for their vote, even if it means a political loss in the near term because the long term benefits are worth it. Kicking the can down the road is not sustainable.
We both want the same thing, ultimately. Only, our strategies are different.
We will have to agree to disagree.

It's not that I disagree with the sentiment of getting tangibles in exchange for our vote.
I am 1000% in support of that.
However, a plan needs to have an endgame.
The endgame needs to be worth the effort.
After we withhold our vote, then what?
I get it. We're being defiant. Woo-hoo.
What's next?

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

You think so?
The GOP lost the Black vote and just adapted.
Aint looked back since.

How sure are we that the DNC is going to come groveling to us on their knees willing to fulfill any request we demand?

I know so because other groups are implementing that blueprint of no vote and no donation...proven by the recent Jewish funeral altercation in NYC and Roland Martin recently explaining how gay groups and latin groups forced Obama to change policies

 

[FeverPitch2]

I know so because other groups are implementing that blueprint of no vote and no donation...proven by the recent Jewish funeral altercation in NYC and Roland Martin recently explaining how gay groups and latin groups forced Obama to change policies

You're forgetting the main difference between those groups and us.

 

[Eclipser]

It's not that I disagree with the sentiment of getting tangibles in exchange for our vote.
I am 1000% in support of that.
However, a plan needs to have an endgame.
The endgame needs to be worth the effort.
After we withhold our vote, then what?
I get it. We're being defiant. Woo-hoo.
What's next?

I think you're simplifying things a bit with this talk of an "endgame".
The truth is that this is an active, ongoing process that doesn't stop.
It involves being self-interested and shrewd with our vote, running and vetting your OWN candidates, and holding those candidates accountable. At all levels. For perpetuity.

If you believe there is an "endgame", what then is the endgame of voting for candidates who pay us lip service but do nothing for us when they get into office? Where is the "endgame" in lesser of two evils voting strategy? It is a guaranteed race to the bottom.

 

[Won Won]

What does that mean?

An overused, cliched quote falsely attributed to Albert Einstein about the “definition” of insanity

 

[SunZoo]

I don't recommend not voting, the issue is having something to vote FOR. What we have with this two party system is a corporate dictatorship disguised as 'democracy'.

Until people en mass stop enabling these corporations NOBODY will be free, least of all black folk. Black folk/ADOS or whatever the fukk should stop telling people NOT to vote and give them something to vote for. Become an official party, run candidates, threaten to undermine the system, get people more interested in tearing the shyt down, many non-voters and independents (the largest 'voting' bloc) would be more motivated if they at least knew they could inflict some sort of damage and push an agenda to break the duoploy.

Same way a lot of these black churches point their followers in the direction of whoever gives them money...everybody start little pockets of movements, build on them and link up with those who have similar goals and interests so we can start doing some finger pointing of our own.

 

[analog]

It's not that I disagree with the sentiment of getting tangibles in exchange for our vote.
I am 1000% in support of that.
However, a plan needs to have an endgame.
The endgame needs to be worth the effort.
After we withhold our vote, then what?
I get it. We're being defiant. Woo-hoo.
What's next?

It has to start with better organization.

If we as a whole can identify a few key items (reparation, criminal justice reform, healthcare, etc) then we can put our money into a pool that would lobby candidates (regardless of party) that support these initiatives whom we can vote into office. That can start the local level, then build on upwards to the state, and federal levels.

Once legislation is passed based on our ask, then we can move on to other points.

Pretty much how every other group gets shyt done. I think we just need some genuine, charismatic figures that can unify black voters. Now, the FBI trying to shut down/kill folks would be a whole different concern that would need to be addressed.

Edit:
Been posted before, but here's a great read on how AIPAC grew to become so powerful.

Friends of Israel

Jews made up less than three per cent of the American population, concentrated in nine states, and they voted overwhelmingly Democratic. How could AIPAC, with such a small base, become a political force in both parties and in every state?

Dine launched a grass-roots campaign, sending young staff members around the country to search for Jews in states where there were few. In Lubbock, Texas, for instance, they found nine who were willing to meet—a tiny group who cared deeply about Israel but never thought that they could play a political role. The lobby created four hundred and thirty-five “congressional caucuses,” groups of activists who would meet with their member of Congress to talk about the pro-Israel agenda.

Dine decided that “if you wanted to have influence you had to be a fund-raiser.” Despite its name, AIPAC is not a political-action committee, and therefore cannot contribute to campaigns. But in the eighties, as campaign-finance laws changed and PACs proliferated, AIPAC helped form pro-Israel PACs. By the end of the decade, there were dozens. Most had generic-sounding names, like Heartland Political Action Committee, and they formed a loose constellation around AIPAC. Though there was no formal relationship, in many cases the leader was an AIPAC member, and as the PACs raised funds they looked to the broader organization for direction.

Members’ contributions were often bundled. “AIPAC will select some dentist in Boise, say, to be the bundler,” a former longtime AIPAC member said. “They tell people in New York and other cities to send their five-thousand-dollar checks to him. But AIPAC has to teach people discipline—because all those people who are giving five thousand dollars would ordinarily want recognition. The purpose is to make the dentist into a big shot—he’s the one who has all this money to give to the congressman’s campaign.” AIPAC representatives tried to match each member of Congress with a contact who shared the congressman’s interests. If a member of Congress rode a Harley-Davidson, AIPAC found a contact who did, too. The goal was to develop people who could get a member of Congress on the phone at a moment’s notice.

That persistence and persuasion paid off. Howard Berman, a former congressman from California, recalled that Bubba Mitchell became friends with Sonny Callahan, a fellow-resident of Mobile, Alabama, when Callahan ran for Congress in 1984. Eventually, Callahan became chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. “Sonny had always been against foreign aid,” Berman said. “Then he voted for it!”

Republicans knew that they would never get more than a minority of the Jewish electorate, but AIPAC members convinced them that voting the right way would lead to campaign contributions. It was a winning argument. In 1984, Mitch McConnell narrowly beat AIPAC supporters’ preferred candidate, the incumbent Democrat Walter Huddleston. Afterward, McConnell met with two AIPAC officials and said to them, “Let me be very clear. What do I need to do to make sure that the next time around I get the community support?” AIPAC members let Republicans know that, if they supported AIPAC positions, the lobby would view them as “friendly incumbents,” and would not abandon them for a Democratic challenger. The Connecticut Republican senator Lowell Weicker voted consistently with AIPAC; in 1988, he was challenged by the Democrat Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew. Lieberman won, but Weicker got the majority of funding from Jewish donors.

 

[AAKing23]

Democrats regardless are gonna win 90 percent of the black vote no matter what so does it really matter

 

[thekingsmen]

What does that mean?

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

You're forgetting the main difference between those groups and us.

...the main difference between groups is they have more folks willing to weaponize their plight/cause to benefit a sub-group, rather than certain group members