Chappell Roan Says She’s “Voting For F@cking Kamala,” But No VP Endorsement & “F@ck Trump, For F@cking Real”
Chappell Roan Says She’s “Voting For F@cking Kamala,” But No VP Endorsement & “F@ck Trump, For F@cking Real”
Chappell Roan took to TikTok against to talk presidential politics & reveal she's voting for VP Kamala Harris
She says it in this new video: https://x.com/SaeedDiCaprio/status/1838960476199211454
You're viewing a single thread.
Did anyone actually watch the video? She's upset that neither side represent what she deems acceptable.
She's young and doesn't understand that government doesn't get fixed in a day. Where we are is the result of influence from corporate stooges since Reagan. It's come to a boiling point and I understand her frustration. A vote for Harris is a vote for steering the ship towards what she deems is acceptable, but that ship sails slower than a lot people can understand.
She's not that young, she's been doing music for a decade and working service jobs till now. And you can understand something and still feel it is unacceptable.
She's 26. That's fairly young for a voter. Not really sure what her cv has to do with being considered old.
Service industry work can build wisdom.
Idk about wisdom but I can attest to a speedy loss in faith of the human population.
Some would say that can be the same thing.
You're so young that you think doing something for a decade is a long time.
Doing anything for a decade is a long time. That's 1/7th of an American's life span and 1/8th of a developed humans life span.
UN life expectancy at birth in USA: 79.30 years
UN life expectancy at birth in EU: 81.50 years
UN life expectancy at birth in Hong Kong (world #1): 85.51 years
Doing something for a decade IS a long time, but that isn't your point. She has plenty experience in singing and being a pop star. She is still young. 26 is young.
It doesn't mean you should dismiss their opinion about everything, but don't let perfect be the enemy of good. She seems to be fixated on perfect and missing the march toward good.
After what she pulled today in NY, it's clearly not about age. It's about maturity. She's clearly not ready to handle the spotlight and isn't emotionally very mature.
I would agree with you. I don't have any knowledge about it, but you seem like you know who she is.
It's what you do with your life, not how long you lived it, that matters when it comes to life experience. I've lived enough to draw a parallel to the following quote:
Men like this infantilize women, so women (they believe) will not have the confidence to leave them. They want to keep their wives, if not barefoot and pregnant, at least without the skills and confidence needed to have a career that could support them well. Similarly, at work, they define their secretary's role as part mother, part wife, so they always will be taken care of. Finally, they are so dependent upon the regard of their male colleagues, bosses, and oftentimes even their subordinates, that they will violate their own sense of ethics rather than face the possibility of not being one of "the boys."
- Ursula K Le Guin
As I argue that voting for the woman candidate for PRESIDENT of the United States is the right choice. I also said she wasn't wrong, just misguided. Your quote doesn't apply here.
I agree with the core of what you’re saying except I disagree that she “doesn’t understand” how slowly politics works. I think her decision to vote for Harris anyway speaks to that kind of understanding, else she’d endorse a third-party candidate/write-in in a poor attempt to speed-run democracy.
She’s young and doesn’t understand that government doesn’t get fixed in a day.
I'm old and I'm still waiting for the government to be fixed.
Abortion was illegal for 70-120 years depending on the state. It was 50ish years from the progressive era and the beginning of birth control to the ruling of Roe. Overturning roe was a 50 year political project by the right.
Sometimes it takes a lifetime.
We keep breaking it by voting for Republicans every now and then.
If Democrats ran every branch of the government at every level I still doubt it would get fixed.
California is doing pretty damn good. Not perfect, but head and shoulders above the rest of the country.
Exactly: Even if they ran everything they'd do stupid shit.
"Nothing is perfect, therefore everything is equally shit."
What a stupid philosophy. Like all "bothsides" bullshit.
That's not what I'm saying at all but don't let that stop you from punching left.
Is the stupid shit Democrats do significantly less stupid than the stupid shit Republicans do?
If you keep getting punched everywhere you go, it's time for some introspection my friend.
In what way is CA doing 'pretty damn good'..?
By bulldozing homeless camps I guess.
Income, life expectancy, healthcare access. Union membership. Cali home prices are unaffordable because people want to live there and are willing to pay for it.
By being richer than most other countries in the world.
That's really what it's about anyways. Identity politics are just icing for wealth generation for the upper class.
You live under a rock or something?
I mean it guess they're not banning books or switching to school vouchers but I'm pretty sure low income households are doing just as bad if not worse over there
Aren't they, like, tearing down homeless encampments on a monthly basis?
edit: spelling
Guess you have been living under a rock. Strong economy AND strong worker protections, lots of unions, high minimum wage, robust anti-discrimination laws, there's countless things that make life in California better for low income households.
She's been getting a lot of hate for not endorsing Harris and people fail to realize the difference between endorsing and voting. Her entire point is that the government can't be fixed in a day. Voting for Harris is the obvious choice but her being in office isn't going to magically solve all our problems.
Except, by definition, she is endorsing Harris by publicly supporting her candidacy. Endorse doesn't mean you agree with everything they stand for, but if you are publicly saying who you are voting for, that's an endorsement.
A: this isn't really an endorsement, more than it is an acknowledgement of how fucked the options are. If you'd like to know the difference, go look at what Swifts endorsement looked like
B: she wasn't even going to say who she was voting for, but libs decided to harass her until she did
example: I use windows for work but i'm sure as fuck not going to recommend it to other people. Saying that i'm forced to use windows for work is not an endorsement. I'd go so far as to say that in this context it's more of a complaint or indictment than a endorsement.
She is telling the world that she thinks Harris is the best choice to vote for in this election. It's 100% an endorsement. Literally by definition. People seem to be confusing endorsing someone to marrying yourself to all of their views.
declare one's public approval or support of.
Err, you working from a different dictionary?
This is why she resisted saying who she was voting for initially, and why she is explicitly saying she is not endorsing
What does voting for someone do if not show support for them? In a democracy it's the ultimate form of support.
Lmao, idk maybe go watch her videos, she is definitely not voicing support and certainly not approval
Just so I'm clear: you're saying that if I had a gun to my head and was forced to choose between getting shot or eating dogshit, and I chose dogshit, that would be considered an endorsement?
Just so I’m clear:
She is neither being forced to vote for anyone, nor forced to let us know who she voted for. So, no, you're not clear about it at all.
You really don't see the distinction? Being forced into making a choice you don't like, and voicing a public approval of someone's candidacy?
I mean think what you want i guess
Being forced into making a choice you don’t like, and voicing a public approval of someone’s candidacy?
? We don't have mandatory voting, she isn't forced to vote at all. Additionally, she isn't forced to publicly say who she is voting for. I see the distinction when it comes to being forced to do something, the question I have now is if you understand the word forced because it doesn't appear that way.
The problem is she's trying to bring nuance to a bumper sticker platform.
Yeah I get it. I was young once and I’ve even had to have the bitter realization that even Revolution neither happens in a day nor resolves anything quickly. I ask for the passion of the young to hold hands with the wisdom of us older folks. It’s easy to demand sudden change, and important too, but building bases of power are important.
Vote for Kamala then hold her feet to the fire. Vote in every primary. Discuss what you think with people around you when it comes up, I know I’m the annoying pro trains girl at work. Build the support and make those maga losers afraid to show their faces.
And entertainers can do so much. Cobain got people who wouldn’t otherwise thinking of homophobia as uncool for example
I know I’m the annoying pro trains girl at work.
Ugh, train people are the worst. WE GET IT, YOU LIKE TRAINS.
Edit: I genuinely thought this was a typo and they meant "pro-trans." But maybe they actually did mean "trains."
I’m not cis passing enough to be openly talking trans issues at work. Nah I talk public transit. Shit like replacing air travel with high speed rail.
I also misread your comment as pro-trans, but we DO need more trains! So keep bringing it up, you are doing good work.
Yeah I hope cis people will speak up for me. I’ll speak up for public transport, it’s what engineers should be doing.
If it makes it better I’m also annoying about other infrastructure. Dams are excellent
Are you significantly older than Chappell Roan? Because I'm imagining you're the one who doesn't understand something.
Kamala isn't in the correct direction at all though. The democratic party serves to delay progress in favor of the Republican party. There's a reason they lie so much and confuse and refuse to address issues progressive voters want to address. It's not gonna get better unless people stop voting for the same "lesser evil" presented to them and pushed to them in the media.
This is either some wild optimism or accelerationism.
Gay rights activists got started in the 1970's and in the 80's they got homosexuality taken off the list of mental disorders and in the 90's it looked like Hawaii was going to legalize same sex marriage and then the conservatives took notice and passed the defense of marriage act and Bill Clinton signed it (yes, a Democrat) and then Iowa and Massachusetts courts legalized it at the state level in the 00's and for 10 years we watched court cases and ballot measures go state by state and then in 2014 we got obergefell.
Republicans did not get us marriage equality, Democrats did. Republicans opposed it at every step. Even obergefel would not have happened if Clinton had not won and picked some SC justices. Clinton had a Republican house and Senate and he was more concerned with avoiding a government shutdown. Defense of marriage act was a Republican bill. Don't ask don't tell was a compromise with Republicans. Obama repealed don't ask don't tell after Dems took the white house and both houses of Congress.
It matters who is in charge, every year, every election. And the Republican hasn't been the progressive option since teddy Roosevelt left the Republicans to form the bull moose party.
So acting like we need to punish the Democrats for not opposing netanyahu by electing Republicans is literally throwing Palestinians and poc and queer people and poor people under the bus for your own self rightiousness.
It's not going to get better under Trump either, and your ballot has more choices than President on it. I'm sure you volunteered for local progressive campaigns, right?
In the American elections you can definitely vote in.