No, I don't agree with the premise that you should bail your country because your man doesn't win the presidency that particular decade. I believe you should stay and represent your vision of what the USA is about, e.g. what the Founding Fathers thought it was about. This is an expat board so that is not the dominant opinion here, of course. It's a politically split country, down the middle. Our elections are coming down to hundreds of votes. That's the time to bail? What you believe in doesn't mean squat: what you DO means squat. So if you think things are sucking up there, why not DO something about it. Abandoning your country is in actual fact the opposite of doing something. If you see it as an effective act of protest, think again. IMHO.
American Expats in BA - Look at the Bright Side
- Thread starter Dudester
- Start date
Well said, Blake. I strongly suspect that many -- none on this board, of course -- are of recent immigrant stock who came to the States chiefly for economic advantage. To go elsewhere, especially to a "cheap" country, when an economy sours is easy, as little other than money bound them to their native land in the first place.
bigbadwolf
Registered
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Messages
- 1,210
- Likes
- 189
I agree. But the road to change isn't through electoral politics. The game is rigged from the get-go. The electorate is given a choice between two equally repugnant candidates, each of whom represents the same vested interests. Look at the three still standing -- McCain, Obama, and Clinton -- and see what a dismal trio they make. As Ken Livingstone once famously remarked, if the ballot box could change anything, they'd have abolished it a long time ago. Might as well tell a Soviet dissident in the Brezhnev era to stay in the Soviet Union and try to change it from within. Ain't going to happen. IMHO."Blake" said:
kenmtraveller
Registered
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2007
- Messages
- 51
- Likes
- 0
First of all Blake, Americans who live abroad can vote in American elections and donate money to the political parties of their choice. I do both. I think it's a little ridiculous to say that people who don't agree with the majority in their countries of birth shouldn't vote with their feet. By that rationale , all of the irish and germans and italians who came to Argentina should have stayed home. By the way RWS, my roots in America run at least as deep as yours -- my first ancestor came to Virginia around 1620, as an indentured servant. I suppose he should have stayed in Yorkshire , instead of bailing when things got rough? Ken
Yeah, I know you can vote. I understand your viewpoint, just don't agree with it's basis: that if you don't like what your country seems to represent in it's 50.1% majority, that you should bail it to increase that majority.I don't think the Italians etc. coming over here to wipe out the indiginous peoples is super proof to the contrary, either. I reckon they were coming for economic reasons, whereas this guy's question pertained to political motives; specifically that he is upset that we have a right-wing administratration at this time and that in his mind the whole country is somehow leaning that way; despite the fact that currently Bush's poll rankings are total crap and most liberal of all the Republican candidates won his party's primary.
It seems to me that people on the left are more prone to wanting to bail when they lose an election, and people on the right are more prone to working harder to get out the vote. I'm sure this is down to the greater degree of multiculturalism in the left, but obviously the ultimate theoretical result is the USA moving further and further right.
So based on that idea, philosophically I see it as a better thing to stay and try to affect change right there on the ground rather than with a remote vote.Just my thoughts on it.
It seems to me that people on the left are more prone to wanting to bail when they lose an election, and people on the right are more prone to working harder to get out the vote. I'm sure this is down to the greater degree of multiculturalism in the left, but obviously the ultimate theoretical result is the USA moving further and further right.
So based on that idea, philosophically I see it as a better thing to stay and try to affect change right there on the ground rather than with a remote vote.Just my thoughts on it.
Quoting "kenmtraveller":
". . . . By the way RWS, my roots in America run at least as deep as yours -- my first ancestor came to Virginia around 1620, as an indentured servant. I suppose he should have stayed in Yorkshire , instead of bailing when things got rough?"
Mine are rather deeper.
I continue to struggle with the idea of emigration. I've no problem with frequent visits and, indeed, have Argentine cousins who descend from one who in fact did emigrate, a century and a half ago.
". . . . By the way RWS, my roots in America run at least as deep as yours -- my first ancestor came to Virginia around 1620, as an indentured servant. I suppose he should have stayed in Yorkshire , instead of bailing when things got rough?"
Mine are rather deeper.
I continue to struggle with the idea of emigration. I've no problem with frequent visits and, indeed, have Argentine cousins who descend from one who in fact did emigrate, a century and a half ago.
kenmtraveller
Registered
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2007
- Messages
- 51
- Likes
- 0
Ah, I see, you're Argentine. I thought for some reason I was talking with another American.
I do have some Native American ancestry, like most Americans whose ancestors came over so long ago. But I don't know much about it, save that it was Comanche on my mother's side, and Cherokee on my father's. By the way, McCain was not the most liberal of the Republicans; Guiliani is considerably more liberal. And you shouldn't take Bush's approval ratings as evidence of any great change of heart on the part of the American right wing; I think McCain has a greater than 50/50 chance of winning the election. Ken
I do have some Native American ancestry, like most Americans whose ancestors came over so long ago. But I don't know much about it, save that it was Comanche on my mother's side, and Cherokee on my father's. By the way, McCain was not the most liberal of the Republicans; Guiliani is considerably more liberal. And you shouldn't take Bush's approval ratings as evidence of any great change of heart on the part of the American right wing; I think McCain has a greater than 50/50 chance of winning the election. Ken
Quoting "kenmtraveller":
"Ah, I see, you're Argentine. I thought for some reason I was talking with another American. . . ."
Hmm . . . I don't know whether this refers to me or to another poster. I am an American, with Argentine cousins and friends, whose ancestry in the present United States, both native and settler, goes back before 1620. It's partly this rootedness of blood, partly strong affection for land and people, that makes permanently leaving the States (save for occasional visits, of course) so difficult. Other posters have recently sketched some of the reasons for that internal conflict.
"Ah, I see, you're Argentine. I thought for some reason I was talking with another American. . . ."
Hmm . . . I don't know whether this refers to me or to another poster. I am an American, with Argentine cousins and friends, whose ancestry in the present United States, both native and settler, goes back before 1620. It's partly this rootedness of blood, partly strong affection for land and people, that makes permanently leaving the States (save for occasional visits, of course) so difficult. Other posters have recently sketched some of the reasons for that internal conflict.
Well, I was a bit nervous about putting up this topic because I thought it would turn into the usual uncivilized mud throwing shouting match. I'm very glad to see there's a lot of very intelligent , thoughtful back and forth dialogue going on here. First would like to thank HDM for the support and agree with martin 100% on the War Crimes trial. AAFA (AA Flight At.) really hit the nail on the head with the lack of interest SO MANY Americans show in the important issues in life. I see it all the time in my business. Lately I've heard - "I'm voting for Hillary because she's a woman" OR "I can't vote for Obama because he's black" WTF does this have to do with ANYTHING!?!?!? Let's look at their policies, at their records, at their past actions/behavior, do they walk the walk or just talk the talk ?? There's SO MUCH diversion/distraction going on and, as usual, PEOPLE ARE FALLING FOR IT ALL. GWB would make a good president because "I feel like we could sit and talk over a few beers" (never mind that he's an Alcoholic and DOESN'T DRINK, I get what they were trying to say - he's just another regular guy, just like us. Yeah Right) END OF PART ONE (I'm writing these in sections because somehow the system doesn't accept long comments) Dudester
Quoting "Fishface":
"RWS, please explain how you are tied to the 'land and people'.
I often hear English people say the same about England and moreover Yorkshire people about Yorkshire.
I do not or cannot feel a tie to 'land or people' - a heritage."
I fear that words might fail (I'm minded of what someone once wrote of jazz: impossible to explain but, once felt, impossible to forget); certainly time would. Perhaps I could try, face to face, when back down this July or August.
"RWS, please explain how you are tied to the 'land and people'.
I often hear English people say the same about England and moreover Yorkshire people about Yorkshire.
I do not or cannot feel a tie to 'land or people' - a heritage."
I fear that words might fail (I'm minded of what someone once wrote of jazz: impossible to explain but, once felt, impossible to forget); certainly time would. Perhaps I could try, face to face, when back down this July or August.
