undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmindslight5y ago0 comments

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.

0 pointsmindslight5y ago0 comments

0 comments

5 comments · 2 top-level

knaq5y ago· 2 in thread

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.

mindslightOP5y 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.

panzagl5y ago

So you're saying no one would have died from CoVid-19 if Trump weren't in office? Citation needed.

2 more replies

rayiner5y ago· 1 in thread

If there was any political support for changing the approach to the NSA one of the candidates would back it.

mindslightOP5y 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.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse