I appreciate the comparison, but I don’t think that this is a good example.
His Muslim name and ethnicity probably had a much bigger impact on certain voters than policies.
That same aspect of his identity certainly is a negative for certain Jewish voters that would otherwise be all in for Democrats.
I don’t know how many Jews are in Michigan, but I do know that plenty of racists/islamophobes are aplenty.
A big problem that I have with the discourse when political races are covered is that the press calls it as if it is a contest between candidates and not one where the voters are the actual active element.
In a football game, fans watch and cheer.
In an election citizens vote. When their will is not respected and they are forced to accept compromised representation, this is essentially a loss for the only team that matters.
Voters, citizens… people, not parties are what should be getting lauded for this immense expression of public will. The people said “no” to Trump and to Republicans.
Now, what politicians need to do is figure out what people actually want and figure out how to communicate it in a way that gets them elected next time.
This sounds generic, but it isn’t. The Democratic Party establishment NEEDS to have a full and active debate within itself about what the people actually want.
If the progressives prevail and what gets presented to various constituencies are things in line with AOC and Bernie and if it is legitimate appealing to the majority of voters, then great.
If they do their typical bullshit thing of trying to appeal to Boomers that don’t can’t about politics to have real opinions (and barely bother to vote) then they might get lucky and the Republicans will just put out more slinky turds in ties for the next election, or someone will figure out that charismatically complaining and making empty promises (the Trump formula) will work again and again to draw morons and frustrated people out to vote.
Legal residents (but not citizens) in most countries do have to pay taxes.
Most places make you pay income tax if you’ve stayed more than 6 months a year while earning money.
The benefits of being a “resident” and paying taxes include living in a place that has “the rule of law” and borders that are defended, so that the next country over can’t come over and seize everything and everyone occasionally. If this all sounds medieval, it is because it is. It’s like being “under the protection of” the local noble/warlord.
Citizenship itself, in more abstract terms is interesting. It is a “club” that individuals can shoes to join and/or change per will? Or is it more like the state “owns” you and they don’t care enough to prevent you from moving around.
Remember, the US requires you to file/pay taxes if are a US citizen but live abroad. Most other countries do not require you to pay taxes if you’ve live/work outside of their country. Does it feel “medieval” yet…, where the most powerful “lord” can make his people pay tax even though they are living in another “lord’s” domain?
This isn’t specifically about the Pope, or dual or triple citizenship, but I have long ordered how it is ethical for a dual citizen to actually vote in more than one place.
I mean, I am personally a dual citizen and pay taxes in both countries, but I really don’t feel right voting in elections effecting the place that I do not live in.
The one person, one vote thing - as idealistic as it is - sort of matters to me… either that or I’m justifying my laziness.
Indeed.
The conversation has many gray areas, nuances and compromises… black and white, is-vs-them reduces the thing to something that favors “base” (dumb) knee-jerk reactions… right wing views in other words.
I consider myself a fully committed progressive and liberal. I will happily give up some material advantage to help those that need it. I don’t think that there is anything special in this.
Some is doing lots of work. But also I think this is also quite typical.
We, as American or Developed Western World citizens, have to homely acknowledge that we can’t really speak on absolutes about “capitalism.”
European political discourse is more nuanced for many reasons, but here in America we are talking about things like there are good and bad comic-book guys and stuff.
We all benefit from a society that utilizes capitalistic structures. It is totally off the rails (and has been since the 80s), and absolutely is holding our own societies back (so that a relative handful of people can benefit within their lifetimes).
We can’t have that conversation in America because it’s easier mentally to use charities, and most people we interact with are also intellectually infantile and can’t even give you a decent explanation of what is different about socialism and communism, much less what fascism means.
The reality is they “China” is dog-walking us, but not because they are an evil autocracy with brainwashed and subjugated masses of people, but because we have been self-sabotaging for decades now.
If “America” was more egalitarian it would still be the most desirable place to be. The smartest and most capable people would be beating the doors down to be here, every other major country would be trying hard to follow our leaked, etc.
As a counter to China we can talk about India. A county with just as many people and lots of economic development that could happen organically, and no lack of brainpower and human energy and ingenuity, but it’s an absolute shitshow.
A country that has deeply routed social inequalities wired into it, with a healthy dose of British imperialist mindset and infrastructure… a very few rich people and empowered classes (castes) and everyone else living in shit. And still, the smartest people want to flee to greener pastures.
America is becoming (regressing) toward what India and other chaotic third world counties and societies are instead of charting the path that “modern/secular/western” society has more of less been charting for the last two or three hundred years.
Talarico is the guy Vance WISHES he could be.
JD is more ambition-driven than ideological, and so are many, many people that support trump “eagerly” in public.
They are carrerist-first, not ideological. They are just as “evil” and should be disqualified from public service and shunned by society just the same if not more. They have the facilities to fully asses the implications of their actions and chose to support the amoral and destructive pursuits of the American right.
A big problem that I have with the discourse when political races are covered is that the press calls it as if it is a contest between candidates and not one where the voters are the actual active element.
In a football game, fans watch and cheer.
In an election citizens vote. When their will is not respected and they are forced to accept compromised representation, this is essentially a loss for the only team that matters.
Voters, citizens… people, not parties are what should be getting lauded for this immense expression of public will. The people said “no” to Trump and to Republicans.
Now, what politicians need to do is figure out what people actually want and figure out how to communicate it in a way that gets them elected next time.
This sounds generic, but it isn’t. The Democratic Party establishment NEEDS to have a full and active debate within itself about what the people actually want.
If the progressives prevail and what gets presented to various constituencies are things in line with AOC and Bernie and if it is legitimate appealing to the majority of voters, then great.
If they do their typical bullshit thing of trying to appeal to Boomers that don’t can’t about politics to have real opinions (and barely bother to vote) then they might get lucky and the Republicans will just put out more slinky turds in ties for the next election, or someone will figure out that charismatically complaining and making empty promises (the Trump formula) will work again and again to draw morons and frustrated people out to vote.