This is, quite literally, a won battle at this point. The only way to fix it is for the ancient republican party to either collapse or iterate into something that serves America's interests instead of ultra-wealthy interests.
This is, quite literally, a won battle at this point. The only way to fix it is for the ancient republican party to either collapse or iterate into something that serves America's interests instead of ultra-wealthy interests.
Those views of mine were developed over years of observation and represent my true opinion of the Republican party. If you feel I'm misrepresenting anything feel free to get specific about your beliefs.
Also, the IRS is big, the commissioner does not decide cases, however it issues policy memos, which have a large influence on enforcement. And these are usually public and or can be FOIA-ed.
So all in all, their pick is very much a political ally, and that he/she happens to be a tax specialist is just a convenient factor. (So that the man is fit to deal with IRS stuff.)
Trump only got 46% of the popular vote.
The Republican Senate majority represents 18% of the population.
Can you name a Democrat who proudly proclaimed that not paying taxes made them "smart?" Or a Democratic equivalent to Grover Norquist saying he wanted to reduce the size of government enough to be able to "drown it in a bathtub?"
What ever else the Republican party might stand for, they obviously also stand for plutocracy, albeit with a veneer of libertarian and populist rhetoric that leads the rank and file to believe they're doing it for the sake of the common people.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist#Taxpayer_Prote...
Legitimate question, would it be viewed as "not extremist" if it came from another group such Libertarians, or SJWs?
So I agree Whataboutism isn't attractive.
I'll counter and say the only way to fix it is to either go to pre-1917 no income tax, and have a smaller government (do we really need $700BN/yr on defense around the world?), or move to a flat % wealth or income tax (if you are pro-progressive, set an offset that neutralizes to $0 at say $50k/year, but I am against).
We can do this without all the loopholes and misaligned incentives that causes finger pointing in all directions. And we won't need the CompSci majors from CalTech!
On either side of those "elitist liberals" are where I see the biggest concentration of conservative political views. There's the stoic >$50k crowd who preach personal responsibility between drags off a Pall Mall while Rosanne reruns play softly in the background but carry balances on all their debts and haven't had a raise or a job interview in 10 years. They think the world should be like them, content to stay near the bottom because they think they're still in the middle. Probably lower-mid level education with a proclivity to disdain any social spending at all with an emphasis on "WWJD?" These people are conservative because their own brand of low-effort thought aligns with typical knee-jerk conservative policies like "shut down the entire border" or "trickle down economics creates jobs (that aren't worth having)." They only know about the social conservative policies that (they believe) affect them. Like women's rights (or lack of), LBTQ rights, anti-discrimination, gun laws. Economically they have no idea what's going on and they just trust whoever tells them they get to keep their guns.
On the other side of the "elitist liberals" are the ultra-wealthy conservatives. They are the engines of the party and use their resources and influence to concoct the low-effort policies that rope in the lower-class conservatives. Then they focus their hoarde on how "amoral" the left is while these ultra-wealthy conservatives empty all of the social services the non-stoic poor people rely on to save themselves money and taxes. They use their lower-education counterparts as pawns and fodder to keep the liberals busy talking about non-issues while they dismantle safety nets and redirect government resources into the private sector. They don't believe half of the things their own party tells poor people, but they all rub each other off and that's what keeps the party going.
the simple idea of rich republicans vs. average to poor democrats has some truth, but there's also the pesky fact of a large number of liberal Democratic billionaires which complicates the picture.
i think it's because these ultra-wealthy folks can extract their needs from (aka corrupt) any politician. D vs R doesn't really matter much.
Actions speak louder than words. Endorsing a democratic candidate while paying your warehouse employees barely enough to survive without food stamps doesn't exactly quality you for "liberal of the year."
> i think it's because these ultra-wealthy folks can extract their needs from (aka corrupt) any politician. D vs R doesn't really matter much.
This is 100% true, and also why I did not/do not support Hilary Clinton for any elected office.
of course, even that idealism may evaporate if it means an intelligent, meritorious poor or disadvantaged student might take the place of a favored son at an elite university.
are the wealthy really "D" or "R" at all? it seems to me they're "W" first and foremost. also narcissistic. really narcissistic. presidentially narcissistic.
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-neighb...
The problem is a democratic party one -- they need to figure out a way to grow beyond their urban core to appeal to some subset of rural and other voters. You need a better message to control the Senate.
The GOP is the party of grievance. The democrats are a big tent, but smaller groups get lost in the crowd.
Trump said he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and not lose a single voter. And he's right.
If we can change our voting system, then maybe I can give you better advice. Until then, game theory suggests voting Democrat.
> proud white Americans
Better be careful here. Proud to be an American is okay. Proud to be white... why should anyone be proud of the color of their skin? Even if it should be okay (but honestly white people have an awful history, as do most skin colors if you look back far enough), it's so arbitrary. There's nothing to be proud of, you just have specific pigmentation.
I cannot argue with any of this, and highlights some of my flawed thinking. I guess I thought of "white americans" as an abstraction of Americans of European decent. So I guess, I don't know the proper way to convey "Someone who is proud of their European heritage, and proud of being an American."
You apparently do care about groups over individuals, using that classification.