Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lagslayer]

Drunken, what country are you from? I can't help but noticing that you talk about 'their' military, 'their' budget etc etc.

*checks profile*

New Zealand?

[Frumple]

It seems that no one actually cares if it is 3,000,000,000,000 or 300,000,000,000,000 that is spent, or whether the wall of cash is 2 meters or 2 centimeters tall. People who support the military spending policies of the US support it without thinking about the amount of money being spent, and people who oppose them oppose them regardless of the cost. This is the most insane thing of all to me.

That would be insane to you because it is mostly strawman. Almost no one involved in the discussion, especially on the ground, is uncaring about the costs involved, regardless of whether they're for or against. Even many of the most staunchly pro-military spending advocates are concerned about effective use of the resources involved, and the vast bloody majority of those in the US against military spending are against the scale, not the existence.

That the spending is often wildly inefficient and the actions causing considerably amount of undesirable effects is one of absolute largest issues involved in the discussion. Hell, it's one of the relatively few that actually has at times made bipartisan (in regards to pro- and anti- camps) connection -- it's something both sides of the debate occasionally agree on (if not what action should be taken because of it, obviously). Most folks I'm aware of definitely want the money to be used better (regardless of how much is used) and the actions taken be more effective and less uselessly destructive. Those that don't are generally either extreme outliers or indulging in particularly emphatic rhetoric at the moment, without it being an actual representation of belief.

[Sergarr]

Drunken, what country are you from? I can't help but noticing that you talk about 'their' military, 'their' budget etc etc.

*checks profile*

New Zealand?

Is this the country of electric sheep?

[Leafsnail]

Wait are people really arguing against the private ballot?  If you can't privately make your choice of who to vote for democracy is a complete joke.  Your employer would basically get to decide how you vote.

[Criptfeind]

You have a two party system where both parties support the current level of military spending. Voting systems are about as relevant in this conversation as personal grooming tips.

I mean it's not like like you literally just said why the voting system is important to this conversation in the sentence where you are trying to say why the voting system is not important to this conversation or anything.

The reason people aren't arguing about this is because there's probably no one here that actually disagrees that the US military budget has been grossly blown up into this massively outrageous thing. I mean, really, congrats. You noticed something that everyone's known for our whole lives. Something we've known culturally for longer then I've been alive. You're not saying anything new, you're just adding a layer of arrogant contempt on top. (Along with a few attempts at totally missing the general American thought process. I mean really "well I am sorry to break it to you but your military is socialist"? Get over yourself.) No one wants to engage with that level of rudeness.

People have tried to tell you how it came to this point. People have told you why it's less ridiculous then it seems (although still ridiculous.). What more do you want?

[Loud Whispers]

Well it seems the thread about militaries has been taken over by democracy.

[Helgoland]

Politics is just the continuation of war by other means, after alll.

[Loud Whispers]

Politics is just the continuation of war by other means, after alll.

"Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed." - Mao Debomb

[LordBucket]

LordBucket: The voter fraud claims you mention are fabricated F.U.D. efforts perpetrated by politicians as an excuse for illegal mass disenfranchisement.

It's very convenient for you that you're able to believe that. I'm too closely involved with politics to have the luxury of denial.

Wait are people really arguing against the private ballot?  If you can't privately make your choice of who to vote for democracy is a complete joke.  Your employer would basically get to decide how you vote.

You mean just like how your employer decides your religion, your sexual preferences, your age, nationality, marital status and everything else legally protected by employment discrimination laws. Oh wait, and political affiliiation. Yes, apparently that's already in there.

[palsch]

While there are obvious reasons you might not want your own votes to be public knowledge, there is also a very good reason not to want anyone else's votes to be verifiable either. Bribery.

A secret ballot means there is no foolproof matter of selling your vote (well, maybe a few with postal ballots...) simply because you can lie about who you voted for and they can't prove it either way. It makes outright buying votes a mugs game, paying people dishonest enough to try to sell their votes in the first place and just hoping they are going to keep their word.

Or, if you are more conspiracy minded, someone could send out small payments or similar to everyone who voted a certain way to taint an election result (or honestly try to incentivise people voting that way in the future).

Amusingly, wikipedia notes that, in the UK;

The secret ballot was eventually extended generally in the Ballot Act 1872, substantially reducing the cost of campaigning

There is also a note that, theoretically, British ballot papers could be tied back to a voter in the case of fraud, but that this has never once been used since its introduction in 1872.

[smjjames]

Well, I'm sure theres some way to view the votes while at the same time keeping each voters choice anonymous.

[palsch]

Well, I'm sure theres some way to view the votes while at the same time keeping each voters choice anonymous.

End-to-end auditable voting, which is compatible with private ballots. IMO many such systems either discard simplicity or a reliable paper trail (leaving them more open to other problems) but something like Prêt à Voter (based on cryptography and a reliable system creating the ballots) or ThreeBallot (low usability, but cute and no cryptography/trust involved) show the principle nicely.

[Drunken]

Interesting, it appears this is a hotly debated topic in the US. You will have to forgive me, as someone noticed I am not from there and have heard little to nothing of this debate from what I have seen of the US media. Thank you for correcting me, I am an outsider asking for clarification.

As for calling the military socialist being an insult, could you please explain what you meant by that? Yes I was trying to be a little inflammatory but it actually does fit the definition roughly. In addition to it being vaguely but not completely true, I do not see why it is an insult, I was merely pointing out that the military is publicly owned which is the case in every country. I admit that the US has privatised much more of its military than most countries so I guess you could say the US has the least socialist military in the world. Still a bit though...

LordBucket: It is not denial, if you have facts and data that I am not aware of I urge you to share them. Oh wait, I just went back and re-read your post and you werent actually claiming individual in-person voter fraud. You were claiming systematic fraud in the counting and tallying process. I withdraw my comments about fraud not being a thing but not about private ballots being important. You should look into the cryptographic system someone mentioned that really allows transparency without identifying individuals publicly.

With regard to election systems being relevant to military spending - yes, but changing minor things about how votes are counted is not going to make a huge difference in the US. The system there is pretty far gone. I also don't see any way to implement sweeping system wide changes within the system. I guess if I was going to subscribe to reformism with respect to US politics I would go with the campaign finance issue.

[smjjames]

Changing the lobby stuff would also work, but good luck trying to get them to change that.

While there have been some progress on the more local level in places, I don't see the politicians having the political will to reform the system.

Of course, theres the rampant gerrymandering as well.

[Leafsnail]

You mean just like how your employer decides your religion, your sexual preferences, your age, nationality, marital status and everything else legally protected by employment discrimination laws. Oh wait, and political affiliiation. Yes, apparently that's already in there.

Yes employment discrimination based on those things still frequently happens in spite of the laws against it, good point.

Even if you think this particular case will be different there are all sorts of other people who could easily apply pressure to make you vote a particular way (guardians?  landlords?  debtors?).