6 ms·

The vote and free speech remain powerful tools for meaningful expression. And they do have an impact. Even if it seems like you're being ignored, each voice r

The vote and free speech remain powerful tools for meaningful expression. And they do have an impact. Even if it seems like you're being ignored, each voice really does matter, and policy does change in response. But that policy flows from the civilian political realm. Military leadership doesn't decide which missions to take on. Congress and the President do. The military won't decide the fate of this election, no matter how contentious it gets. The civilian bodies will.

mindslight 6y ago
Voting between candidates that all support ongoing military actions is not meaningful. It's similar to the treasonous NSA - discussing it is simply outside of the mainstream Overton window, primary candidates who dare touch it are branded "unelectable" etc. Speech gets swamped by mass propaganda. I don't see how it's possible to look at say the run up to the Iraq war and think that antiwar had a meaningful voice. When it comes down to it, the warmongers are just better funded, better connected, and take advantage of basic human nature. Since it seems impossible to prevent the military from being used for elective wars, or even to simply downsize it, discouraging general support for the military makes sense (when voice fails, try exit). I'm not asking you to agree with my arguments above, but you don't get to make a unilateral call that this isn't a political viewpoint.
- rayiner 6y ago
  If there was any political support for changing the approach to the NSA one of the candidates would back it.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    That's tautological. If one of the candidates backed it, there would be more political support for holding the NSA accountable. Democracy is a closed feedback loop, and thus causality works in both directions. Given the very few bits of input a person has into decisions, it's likely that most influence flows the opposite direction.
- knaq 6y ago
  It is "impossible to prevent the military from being used for elective wars" because most people disagree with that goal. (according to observed preference, not stated preference) We just tossed out the only president in many decades to refrain from starting a new war, instead choosing one who voted for the Iraq war. The people have spoken, and they want war.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    I find the narrative that Trump hasn't started a new war interesting, but not particularly compelling given his actions with Iran and ongoing incitement of civil unrest. > The people have spoken, and they want war I see where you're coming from, as usually I vote third party or abstain to avoid thinking I support one candidate that differs only by an epsilon of cultural preferences. But when one of the choices is responsible for the deaths of a quarter million Americans, it's a little different.
    - panzagl 6y ago
      So you're saying no one would have died from CoVid-19 if Trump weren't in office? Citation needed.
      - mindslight 6y ago
        No, but fewer people would have. By contributing to it he's responsible for the entire outcome. It's similar to how two people can both be charged for one instance of murder.
      - newacct583 6y ago
        It seems likely that if the national response to covid had tracked with, say, the NY State response, that yes: we'd have seen far fewer deaths. The first 60-100k, mostly in the northeast, probably couldn't have been saved. The initial outbreak happened too fast and too hard. But after that, NY has been flat. They controlled it. The same could have been true for the rest of the country, yet we collectively chose not to. And yeah, that national response is the job of the executive branch. So very roughly 150k americans are dead now because Trump was in office. Somewhere around there.

mindslight 6y ago

Voting between candidates that all support ongoing military actions is not meaningful. It's similar to the treasonous NSA - discussing it is simply outside of the mainstream Overton window, primary candidates who dare touch it are branded "unelectable" etc. Speech gets swamped by mass propaganda. I don't see how it's possible to look at say the run up to the Iraq war and think that antiwar had a meaningful voice. When it comes down to it, the warmongers are just better funded, better connected, and take advantage of basic human nature. Since it seems impossible to prevent the military from being used for elective wars, or even to simply downsize it, discouraging general support for the military makes sense (when voice fails, try exit). I'm not asking you to agree with my arguments above, but you don't get to make a unilateral call that this isn't a political viewpoint.

rayiner 6y ago
If there was any political support for changing the approach to the NSA one of the candidates would back it.
- mindslight 6y ago
  That's tautological. If one of the candidates backed it, there would be more political support for holding the NSA accountable. Democracy is a closed feedback loop, and thus causality works in both directions. Given the very few bits of input a person has into decisions, it's likely that most influence flows the opposite direction.
knaq 6y ago
It is "impossible to prevent the military from being used for elective wars" because most people disagree with that goal. (according to observed preference, not stated preference) We just tossed out the only president in many decades to refrain from starting a new war, instead choosing one who voted for the Iraq war. The people have spoken, and they want war.
- mindslight 6y ago
  I find the narrative that Trump hasn't started a new war interesting, but not particularly compelling given his actions with Iran and ongoing incitement of civil unrest. > The people have spoken, and they want war I see where you're coming from, as usually I vote third party or abstain to avoid thinking I support one candidate that differs only by an epsilon of cultural preferences. But when one of the choices is responsible for the deaths of a quarter million Americans, it's a little different.
  - panzagl 6y ago
    So you're saying no one would have died from CoVid-19 if Trump weren't in office? Citation needed.
    - mindslight 6y ago
      No, but fewer people would have. By contributing to it he's responsible for the entire outcome. It's similar to how two people can both be charged for one instance of murder.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      It seems likely that if the national response to covid had tracked with, say, the NY State response, that yes: we'd have seen far fewer deaths. The first 60-100k, mostly in the northeast, probably couldn't have been saved. The initial outbreak happened too fast and too hard. But after that, NY has been flat. They controlled it. The same could have been true for the rest of the country, yet we collectively chose not to. And yeah, that national response is the job of the executive branch. So very roughly 150k americans are dead now because Trump was in office. Somewhere around there.