celeb news Chappell Roan didn't vote in previous elections; unreliable records show

[Malkuth]

2 hours ago, Sheep said:

Civic disengagement isn't the flex you think it is and this is exactly how we ended up in the lesser of two evils system

No, if everybody boycotted elections then you'd have a President who got only 100,000 votes, they'd be a laughing stock and have no authority wwhatsoever.

 

The other option is to vote Democrats who do a load of terrible things you disagree with for the rest of your life because you think Republicans are a tiny bit worse.

[dussel_06]

11 minutes ago, Cain said:

This is a weird take because, the people who are MOST vulnerable generally don't vote because… it truly doesn't matter who wins, their life won't be made better anyway

 

Y'all talk about this 'lesser of two evils' system as if the US government under Kamala won't deport, oppress, or take rights away. It will. It's called 'lesser or two evil" for a reason. The homeless, the undocumented and the poor will not have a better life regardless of whether the loud evil president or the 'polite' evil president wins

My brother is an immigrant in the US and is currently petitioning my parents to live with him. You're saying it doesn't matter who will win when Trump himself said he will make sure to stop immigration processes from countries he doesn't like.

 

You're speaking as if only Kamala or Trump are the only people that matters but it's actually the ideals that they represent. When the loud evil president wins, it's not just him ruling the country but the people he represents -homophobes, racists, misogynists, gun lovers, etc. The thought of these people getting brave under presidency is actually scary. But of course….previlege

[AlbumOfTheYear]

The way I did vote the past 3 elections. Take notes, Chappel!

[shark_heather]

So do i.  So what 

 

This forum is so toxic 

[Sheep]

17 minutes ago, Malkuth said:

No, if everybody boycotted elections then you'd have a President who got only 100,000 votes, they'd be a laughing stock and have no authority wwhatsoever.

They would legally have all the authority. This is literally the strategy Turnip wants to ride into office again with and then repeal democracy. 

 

 

If people become involved before november on election year the public has the power to steer the parties in the right direction. We're stuck with woke trump except she's a woman because democrats weren't loud enough in their opposition of genocide joe. 

[Braz]

Terrible person all around, oh wow.

[Arthoe]

A random Twitter user posting screenshots of sites NOBODY knows about, that conveniently show negative information about a person that has a hate train going on?

 

The imbeciles of ATRL eating it up because they can't be bothered to even spend ONE singular minute trying to verify that information that was presented to them?

 

Color me surprised.

 

[Communion]

2 minutes ago, Sheep said:

If people become involved before november on election year the public has the power to steer the parties in the right direction.

How could people steer a candidate in a specific direction when the candidate on the ballot did not participate in a political primary?

[AlbumOfTheYear]

2 hours ago, State of Grace. said:

Not sure how accurate that website is, but this is geneiunly so ******* creepy and disturbing. And you wonder why she's been snapping at the losers stalking her.

 

Also, why would anyone even be surprised that a girl with her views did not vote for Killary and Genocide Joe? The coconuts are SO desperate to paint her as an undercover MAGA and it's just so funny to witness. What a cult.

"Coconuts", as in the slur? @ATRL Administration

[Sheep]

14 minutes ago, Communion said:

How could people steer a candidate in a specific direction when the candidate on the ballot did not participate in a political primary?

Because the unfortunate truth is that other than partisan zealots, nobody cares about primaries in this country and this is how the Dems have stolen our only chance at a truly progressive president several times in a row at this point. Polls don't lie, people on all sides support key leftist agendas when you don't use dogmatic cable news reactionary language. More involvement is the answer, not throwing away the little power we have.

 

I'm not about to derail another Chappell thread for 4 pages arguing with you though. Last time I dogwalked you so hard that it encouraged insane harassers to come out of the woodwork and slide hate comments in unchecked, she threw away a vote she didn't storm the capitol. Agree to disagree I guess. Leftist Arianators somehow being opps says a lot about the rampant infighting issue both those bases have.

Edited 1 hour ago by Sheep

[Rep2000]

1 hour ago, dumbsparce said:

Is this supposed to end her? If anything, it's extremely on brand.

Seriously, this doesn't surprise anyone tbh. She's a queer person who probably moved away from this red state ages ago.

However, doesn't she also lecture people about vote down ballots on her Tiktoks? Let's give her some grace and the benefit of the doubt that she did grow and learn how important it is to vote.

[Sheep]

10 minutes ago, AlbumOfTheYear said:

"Coconuts", as in the slur? @ATRL Administration

Coconuts as in the Kamala supporters. That user is messy and I hate their political takes almost all of the time but let's not jump the gun. We need to learn how to disagree with people without falsely trying to make them out to be the worst person alive. 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Sheep

[Communion]

2 minutes ago, Sheep said:

Because the unfortunate truth is that other than partisan zealots, nobody cares about primaries in this country

....but isn't the original tweet attacking her for not voting in primaries? 

[Arthoe]

1 minute ago, AlbumOfTheYear said:

"Coconuts", as in the slur? @ATRL Administration

This is so obtuse and disingenious.

 

As if it wasn't Kamala's coconut tree quote that actually endeared her and went viral. What a gross and opportunistic way to talk to somebody else.

[Sheep]

7 minutes ago, Communion said:

....but isn't the original tweet attacking her for not voting in primaries? 

...wasn't my first post agreeing with the tweet and dragging op for spinning the alleged voting records as a good thing? I like Chappell and disagree with her politics, the hate comments I was talking about were wishing harm on her. Not all criticism is hateful. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Sheep

[Rep2000]

35 minutes ago, Malkuth said:

No, if everybody boycotted elections then you'd have a President who got only 100,000 votes, they'd be a laughing stock and have no authority wwhatsoever.

 

The other option is to vote Democrats who do a load of terrible things you disagree with for the rest of your life because you think Republicans are a tiny bit worse.

In what universe is the Republicans "a tiny bit worse"?!

[Acuminatus]

Well Twitter users and ATRL users are jobless enough to look things like this up so that tracks. (assuming this is legit)

 

Not the person encouraging people to vote locally not even being registered to vote.  I hope she takes her own advice and votes this time at least.

 

 

[stjosephprey4us]

Ppl claiming stalker behavior and invasion of privacy, this is literally public info  (and I say this as a stan of Chappell and a supporter of most of her recent complaints against her status as a celeb). Didn't they also do this to Miley a few years back, and find out she's a registered republican or something?   It's time we do it to my fav, to prove for once and for all that Lana is not conservative leaning 

[Cloudy]

2 hours ago, Truth Teller said:

She is exactly that kind of person but it's WILD that you can have access to this information. 

Basically this

[Communion]

3 minutes ago, Sheep said:

...wasn't my first post agreeing with the tweet and dragging op for spinning the alleged voting records as a good thing? I like Chappell and disagree with her politics, the hate comments I was talking about were wishing harm on her. 

For context, I think OP is trolling and their comment is sarcastic, but I mean, yes to the bold, which is my confusion:

3 hours ago, Sheep said:

Civic disengagement isn't the flex you think it is

You're saying civic disengagement is bad but also say most people don't even have that kind of civic engagement to vote in primaries.

So isn't it then silly to hold over someone's head like the original tweet does?

 

She's not voting in primaries... but there's no primaries for her to vote in. Harris didn't face a primary. Biden didn't have a real primary.

She's not voting In elections... but these are the elections in question:

 

 

Even if she had, for example, voted in the 2020 Dem presidential primary, Harris is running to the right of the Top 2 vote getters in the 2020 Democratic primary. 

 

For what it's worth, I hate being on this side of the argument. I think voting's important! Voting is good! Even if you vote 3rd party! Just vote! But I think there's also just natural limits to the conversations we can have about engaging and steering and letting your voice be heard in primaries when.... there have been no primaries. 

[Elusive Chanteuse]

Why is anyone surprised?

[Sheep]

7 minutes ago, Communion said:

You're saying civic disengagement is bad but also say most people don't even have that kind of civic engagement to vote in primaries.

So isn't it then silly to hold over someone's head like the original tweet does?

I'm saying that this is an endemic issue and Chappell is part of the problem. It could be argued that Chappell has more sway than the average person but that's not even a point I'm making, like I said in the last thread the frustration I feel towards her is the same I would feel towards anybody else.

 

7 minutes ago, Communion said:

She's not voting in primaries... but there's no primaries for her to vote in. Harris didn't face a primary. Biden didn't have a real primary.

She's not voting In elections... but these are the elections in question:

and I'm arguing that any form of involvement is a good thing. It doesn't begin and end with voting, even becoming educated on these issues and having the platform to express dissenting views are both powers that we currently have and might not in a couple years because we've become so complacent as a society. The tools to create a better country are going away because we don't use them. It's very scary to me personally. In a healthy democracy votes would be driven by discourse and not spending.

Edited 1 hour ago by Sheep

[Taylor fanboy]

Non-voters who run their mouths are the worst. A non-voter benefits the oppressor.

[Cain]

43 minutes ago, dussel_06 said:

My brother is an immigrant in the US and is currently petitioning my parents to live with him. You're saying it doesn't matter who will win when Trump himself said he will make sure to stop immigration processes from countries he doesn't like.

 

You're speaking as if only Kamala or Trump are the only people that matters but it's actually the ideals that they represent. When the loud evil president wins, it's not just him ruling the country but the people he represents -homophobes, racists, misogynists, gun lovers, etc. The thought of these people getting brave under presidency is actually scary. But of course….previlege

I know what Trump represents and that him being elected would mean that people who follow his politics will feel ignited and brave, and that's horrible

 

What I'm disagreeing with is your point that not engaging with politics comes from a place of privilege when that is statistically and scientifically just untrue. Plenty of research has shown that those who can afford to be most politically active are the privileged. And I've seen firsthand how people have had hope election after election only for none of their circumstances to get better, no matter who was elected. And I cannot fault them for that

 

The two party system is broken, America has a rightwing party and an extreme-rightwing party. The fact y'all need to point towards a fascist and say 'well at least our candidate isn't a fascist' to give her credibility as if the standard Democratic presidential nominee wouldn't be labelled a rightwing war criminal if elected in any other developed nation 

 

You deserve better, and shielding the Democrats from any criticism is not going to make that happen

[san784]

1 hour ago, Cain said:

This is a weird take because, the people who are MOST vulnerable generally don't vote because… it truly doesn't matter who wins, their life won't be made better anyway

 

Y'all talk about this 'lesser of two evils' system as if the US government under Kamala won't deport, oppress, or take rights away. It will. It's called 'lesser or two evil" for a reason. The homeless, the undocumented and the poor will not have a better life regardless of whether the loud evil president or the 'polite' evil president wins

So you're saying it's a waste of time to vote then?