Draft

[davinxtk]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

The military tends to vote Republican. They're already involved in service, do they vote on media contrived issues, rather than "real" ones? Or was this in reference simply to those who don't vote?

I would venture to guess that many of them have, in recent years, voted based on "media contrived" issues. I think with all of the activity that our armed services have had abroad lately that many of our soldiers have quite the unique perspective on how Americans are seen globally and why.


I'm apparently going to have to remind you that I'm not just talking military service, either. If America were to conscript every 18 year old who wasn't in school for even just a single year of service we would have more man-power than we'd know what to do with. We'd have the numbers it would take to control a hotbed like Iraq with our eyes closed, and without a back-door draft. We'd have the numbers to send real aid to places like Rwanda. The Army Corps of Engineers would be massive, not some dinky 35,000-member troupe. And when those who were in school finished -- like Helm said -- we'd have a volume of educated individuals getting real-life experience working for the government before entering the workforce.

This is without mentioning those who are already part of our all-volunteer army, career military or not, and the amount of people exposed to this sort of thing who would opt to continue their service.

I honestly don't see much of a downside to this, except someone might claim that it's the government trying to control its citizens. Our title as "land of the free" might be in slight jeopardy if we all actually have to do something for our nation to live here.


And before you mention it: no, paying taxes doesn't count for shit compared to the life that many of our citizens have chosen.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by GAsux

What I was getting at is that being an actual member of said occupation, I can tell you from first hand experience that the military is not choked full of impoverished, uneducated folks who had no other way out of destitution. As I also stated, I believe you'll find the majority of military folks to be relatively average middle class Americans.

The middle-class demographic is what I experienced as well. What doesn't work is the fact that there is still no an equal social distribution in the military and there isn't enough of a military population to do the thing our current president wants to do (Let's be thankful for that.). I believe what Kahl (I think) said in the beginning about our government representatives and upper class individuals may think twice about being militarily aggressive because their children MAY have to suffer the consequences. In addition, I can guarantee you that the demographic of those that serve in a draft army era will be decidedly lower class. It's been that way through history. I don't have any feasible anwers to solve that. It's just the way it is, I guess.

[GAsux]

For the record, while statistically I suppose you might be able to demonstrate that military members generally vote Republican, I believe the divide is far smaller than you think. Again, I can't back it with numbers, just my experience.

Additionally, while perhaps during the Reagan era the "republican President=better pay and benefits for the military" theory might have rung true. I don't find so many active military folks stating that anymore. The only people you hear that from are the older retiree types.

In fact, statistically, some of the biggest pay/benefit increases in 20+ years came under the Clinton Presidency. I believe in spite of the rhetoric you'll find that the current Republican administration has been far less military friendly than it would seem on the surface.

[ziggytrix]

And they seem to love to cut veterans' benefits too!

I was primarily quoting a then 27 year old airman who'd just got back from the 'sandbox' during the 04 elections, so I'm talking about at least one current, active military folk, and I'm pretty sure he was just repeating something he heard a thousand times, since he went on to say he was voting for Kerry. *shrug*

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'm not trying to imply that service men and women have it better under a Republican, I'm just stating avery general fact (and I have friends/family to verify that perspective, too ).

Originally Posted by davinxtk

I'm apparently going to have to remind you that I'm not just talking military service, either. If America were to conscript every 18 year old who wasn't in school for even just a single year of service we would have more man-power than we'd know what to do with. We'd have the numbers it would take to control a hotbed like Iraq with our eyes closed, and without a back-door draft. We'd have the numbers to send real aid to places like Rwanda. The Army Corps of Engineers would be massive, not some dinky 35,000-member troupe. And when those who were in school finished -- like Helm said -- we'd have a volume of educated individuals getting real-life experience working for the government before entering the workforce.

I think that'd be great, but I don't think it would make Americand vote the way you think they should. :P

[davinxtk]

Where was that part of my argument?
I said that they'd have more real-world experience and understand the issues that this country and this world should be concerned with better than they do now, not that they'd all be commies.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Right, but the implication was that people were lacking that world perspective now, meaning that the way they vote now is wrong, i.e. for Bush. No?

[davinxtk]

Yes, I do believe that people vote for the wrong reasons these days. That doesn't mean that I think people would or should all vote the same way -- but if you ask me, they should all at least vote, armed with real information.

And yes, if you want to make a specific example of that, you could use George W. Bush. You got me, Kevin, I don't think Americans made the right choice, nor did they make it for the right reasons. Imagine that. My point was more that if people really knew what was going on in the country and the world, both Kerry and Bush would have been laughed off the fucking ballots.

[Helm]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Right, but the implication was that people were lacking that world perspective now, meaning that the way they vote now is wrong, i.e. for Bush. No?

No. Lacking that 'world perspective' is what is wrong, under what Davin says. That's his whole argument. Voting for Bush is not inherently wrong. People vote for Kerry while lacking the 'world perspective' as well. The Bush implication is reaching, and to push it derails this argument. Which is that regardless of what people go on to vote later, at least they would be making an educated choice. The focus is on awareness and knowledge as the foundation of a solid democratic system, not them gradually making one a democrat (or republican).

[kellychaos]

Are we to assume that the choice of nominees are based on some kind of merit system?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Helm

No. Lacking that 'world perspective' is what is wrong, under what Davin says. That's his whole argument. Voting for Bush is not inherently wrong. People vote for Kerry while lacking the 'world perspective' as well.

That's not what he said right before you. :/

The Bush implication is reaching, and to push it derails this argument. Which is that regardless of what people go on to vote later, at least they would be making an educated choice. The focus is on awareness and knowledge as the foundation of a solid democratic system, not them gradually making one a democrat (or republican).

No, talking about some ambiguous concept such as "world perspective" is what derails the argument. What are we talking about specifically? I think the implication is that smarter people making smarter choices would vote for a third party, or someonething along those lines.

I however think (and I'm certainly not being original here, since there is a political science school of thought here) you can argue that voters make very rational decisions, in their turnout, in who they vote for, etc.

People often vote for the guy they find least offensive, mainly because they have no time for government. Some might argue that that's perfectly rational, too.

Originally Posted by davin

And yes, if you want to make a specific example of that, you could use George W. Bush. You got me, Kevin, I don't think Americans made the right choice, nor did they make it for the right reasons. Imagine that. My point was more that if people really knew what was going on in the country and the world, both Kerry and Bush would have been laughed off the fucking ballots.

And were they "armed with real information," what would've happened? Whom might they have chosen?

I don't care if you dislike Bush, Davin. I didn't vote for the man either. I just think that what you perceive to be a more "wordly perspective" is actually just a lot of your own subjective opinion.