heydaralon wrote:Most of this board is conservative, and they have pointed out that an uneducated electorate can have disastrous consequences. Interestingly though, people who are more Liberal on either side of the Atlantic are saying the same thing. They think that the masses of people who voted for Trump, Brexit, and possibly Le Penn show that the electorate can no longer be trusted.
I lean more to the right, and some of the trends especially ones that attempt to bribe illegals with Democratic votes are alarming to me, but I feel like suffrage restriction could be a double edged sword in the long run. Initially, restricted suffrage might benefit conservatives, but eventually the Democrats would up their game and figure out how to even out the advantage. Once that happens, you might end up with the same conservative liberal stalemate we saw with Congress and Obama, except it might end up being worse for the American people, since most of could no longer vote and would be even more sidelined as we watched our government bicker about inconsequential debt ceiling type theater at the expense of solving bigger problems.
Mandatory military service for all federal voters. You vote for a war, you fight that war.
Mandatory property ownership for all other voters. You vote for a tax, you pay that tax.
I find it asinine that people can't see that people on the dole have no ability to oppose the wishes of the people that assign that dole. The idea that you should expect a person to go against the wishes of the person that puts food on their table is fucking mind boggling.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
heydaralon wrote:Most of this board is conservative, and they have pointed out that an uneducated electorate can have disastrous consequences. Interestingly though, people who are more Liberal on either side of the Atlantic are saying the same thing. They think that the masses of people who voted for Trump, Brexit, and possibly Le Penn show that the electorate can no longer be trusted.
I lean more to the right, and some of the trends especially ones that attempt to bribe illegals with Democratic votes are alarming to me, but I feel like suffrage restriction could be a double edged sword in the long run. Initially, restricted suffrage might benefit conservatives, but eventually the Democrats would up their game and figure out how to even out the advantage. Once that happens, you might end up with the same conservative liberal stalemate we saw with Congress and Obama, except it might end up being worse for the American people, since most of could no longer vote and would be even more sidelined as we watched our government bicker about inconsequential debt ceiling type theater at the expense of solving bigger problems.
Mandatory military service for all federal voters. You vote for a war, you fight that war.
Mandatory property ownership for all other voters. You vote for a tax, you pay that tax.
I find it asinine that people can't see that people on the dole have no ability to oppose the wishes of the people that assign that dole. The idea that you should expect a person to go against the wishes of the person that puts food on their table is fucking mind boggling.
Would be a practical policy, I don't know that it's efficient, but interesting none the less.
"just realize that our Welfare states are also propped up by your Warfare. You're not actually defending us from threats, but you are propping us up by fabricating threats to maintain the Perpetual War." - Smitty
Other people should pay, not me, but other people.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
As far as wars go, when he had the draft it didn't really keep Americans out of the questionable ones like Korea and Vietnam. Its like that Herman Goering quote where he talks about how you get people eager for war the same way in any type of system. In some ways, the draft would sober people up, but long term I don't think it would fix the war fever that seems to be endemic to the American experience. Maybe it would be better if America saw where their meat comes from so to speak. I don't know.
Okeefenokee wrote:Other people should pay, not me, but other people.
This is what happens when princess lives in an academic world where her batshit ideas are never challenged (and not allowed to be challenged for that matter).
heydaralon wrote:As far as wars go, when he had the draft it didn't really keep Americans out of the questionable ones like Korea and Vietnam. Its like that Herman Goering quote where he talks about how you get people eager for war the same way in any type of system. In some ways, the draft would sober people up, but long term I don't think it would fix the war fever that seems to be endemic to the American experience. Maybe it would be better if America saw where their meat comes from so to speak. I don't know.
Name one time in American history when we sent young people to fight a war for sixteen years straight when there was a draft.
Name one time in American history when we carried on a sixteen war with no tax to fund the war.
Name one time in American history when we carried on a sixteen year war, without any rationing whatsoever, so that the American people would feel the impact of their war.
Name one.
I'll wait.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
heydaralon wrote:As far as wars go, when he had the draft it didn't really keep Americans out of the questionable ones like Korea and Vietnam. Its like that Herman Goering quote where he talks about how you get people eager for war the same way in any type of system. In some ways, the draft would sober people up, but long term I don't think it would fix the war fever that seems to be endemic to the American experience. Maybe it would be better if America saw where their meat comes from so to speak. I don't know.
Name one time in American history when we sent young people to fight a war for sixteen years straight when there was a draft.
Name one time in American history when we carried on a sixteen war with no tax to fund the war.
Name one time in American history when we carried on a sixteen year war, without any rationing whatsoever, so that the American people would feel the impact of their war.
Name one.
I'll wait.
You might be onto something when you say that volunteer force wars last longer than draft wars. We didn't even stay in Vietnam 16 years. All I'm saying is that the draft didn't keep us out of Vietnam or any other conflict we fought in. One thing that drives me nuts about the American public is when they are all for a war, but then they quickly change their mind within a year or two which has happened in every post WW2 war. A draft might be a step in the right direction to reducing the length of our conflicts, I'm just not convinced it will keep us out of them. There is a deeper underlying issue that needs to be looked at.
heydaralon wrote:As far as wars go, when he had the draft it didn't really keep Americans out of the questionable ones like Korea and Vietnam. Its like that Herman Goering quote where he talks about how you get people eager for war the same way in any type of system. In some ways, the draft would sober people up, but long term I don't think it would fix the war fever that seems to be endemic to the American experience. Maybe it would be better if America saw where their meat comes from so to speak. I don't know.
Name one time in American history when we sent young people to fight a war for sixteen years straight when there was a draft.
Name one time in American history when we carried on a sixteen war with no tax to fund the war.
Name one time in American history when we carried on a sixteen year war, without any rationing whatsoever, so that the American people would feel the impact of their war.
Name one.
I'll wait.
You might be onto something when you say that volunteer force wars last longer than draft wars. We didn't even stay in Vietnam 16 years. All I'm saying is that the draft didn't keep us out of Vietnam or any other conflict we fought in. One thing that drives me nuts about the American public is when they are all for a war, but then they quickly change their mind within a year or two which has happened in every post WW2 war. A draft might be a step in the right direction to reducing the length of our conflicts, I'm just not convinced it will keep us out of them. There is a deeper underlying issue that needs to be looked at.
The opposition to vietnam evaporated after the draft went away. the hippies went on to earth day the second the draft went away. it wasn't by accident.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
Okeefenokee wrote:
Negatorry. The problem exists in both places. Uneducated masses voting in their own immediate interests are just as damaging as wealthy contributors lobbying in their own immediate interests.
You have a duty to vote for your own interests. Otherwise what's the point?
I see that as a copout. It implies that everyone's view of what they need is equal. Similar to the idea that every idea about how society should function is equal. There is such a thing as a bad idea coming from an unqualified voter.
Also, hell yes the uneducated vote. What are you smoking?
There is definitely such a thing as a bad idea coming from an uneducated voter, but bad ideas coming from voted-in representatives is just as common.
See the CA gas tax hike and HI removal of lifeguard protections for example.
No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session
Another point to make is that the body count has become a lot lower in post Vietnam conflicts. I don't know why this is. It might be the nature of the conflicts we have been fighting, which is urban vs. the open warfare you see in Korea and Vietnam. Maybe the Taliban and Sunni militias aren't the same level of fighters as the VC and North Koreans. Combat medicine has improved too, although I don't think that alone would account for the disparity in casualties.
Since the body count is lower, and the media's coverage is less aggressive, I think civilians have an easier time putting these conflicts in the back of their minds. Sure they will see the moving text on the bottom of CNN about an IED on American soldiers, and they will wear a breast cancer camo pin, but they are not really bombarded with it the way they were during Vietnam or WW2. Politicians and generals also know that high body counts will cause the public to turn on them, so they are more reluctant to put troops in harms way. In m opinion, these factors, coupled with fewer deaths have led to these wars dragging on for as long as they have. I'm not defending it, that just seems to be how it is now.