I'll just agree to disagree. I hate political arguments to begin with and I have a pounding headache. You win. I'm going to bed...


=-Rigs-=

nin wrote on Jul 2, 2015, 17:55:

Sepharo wrote on Jul 2, 2015, 16:51:
Vote for, "Fuck the two party system"

FINALLY, we agree! :)

Well... it won't "count".

Sepharo wrote on Jul 2, 2015, 16:51:
Vote for, "Fuck the two party system"

FINALLY, we agree!

You are never going to find a candidate for anything that you completely agree with, if you are waiting for that then living in a democratic country is simply a waste for you. You seem perfectly content being told what to do and who will rule you by others.

Only the losing parties will care if you don't vote. It's not some sort of symbolic "vote for the null option", it is simply not participating. There is no reason to cater to your wants/needs to get your vote if you are already mentally checked out of the system. Thus you further the cycle of "you don't give a shit so why should they" and nothing you want ever gets resolved.

If you don't like the choices, your "third option" should probably be to run yourself, or to find a better candidate to support in some way. "Not voting" doesn't somehow force better candidates onto the ballot, it makes it easier for fringe/crazy candidates to win. This sort of apathy is how we end up with congressional seats that basically couldn't lose an election if they wanted to (among other reasons like gerrymandering).

Rigs wrote on Jul 2, 2015, 16:37:
So, wait, you're telling me that by voting for the candidate I don't like, I'm affecting more change than by not voting at all?! What?! You guys are crazy!

Imagine if those who didn't see a candidate they liked refused to vote at all. All of them. Say only (pulling from thin air here) only 5% vote - for a presidential election. You don't think they're not going to notice? And even if they don't, the media will, and that is the point. The media will harp up and down that our confidence in respectable, electable candidates has disappeared, dried up. It won't effect that election, but bet your ass the two parties will think twice about running the same old song an dance again.

You're not going to affect change by voting for the other guy. What message does that send? They'll just think, like with Obama, that he was popular or had a popular message, not that everyone hated both candidates. Besides, I'm not going to know who will win, so how am I to know who to vote for? If I don't like either one, which one do I choose? It's stupid. Not voting sends a clear message that I don't like the established set of candidates and until such time as someone comes along that I think will actually be a benefit to this country, I will continue to keep my vote silent. Your method is madness and does nothing to help the larger problem!


=-Rigs-=

You can literally write whatever you want on the ballot. Vote for yourself if you want. Stop being a lazy ass and get to the polls.

Vote for, "Fuck the two party system"

So, wait, you're telling me that by voting for the candidate I don't like, I'm affecting more change than by not voting at all?! What?! You guys are crazy!

Imagine if those who didn't see a candidate they liked refused to vote at all. All of them. Say only (pulling from thin air here) only 5% vote - for a presidential election. You don't think they're not going to notice? And even if they don't, the media will, and that is the point. The media will harp up and down that our confidence in respectable, electable candidates has disappeared, dried up. It won't effect that election, but bet your ass the two parties will think twice about running the same old song an dance again.

You're not going to affect change by voting for the other guy. What message does that send? They'll just think, like with Obama, that he was popular or had a popular message, not that everyone hated both candidates. Besides, I'm not going to know who will win, so how am I to know who to vote for? If I don't like either one, which one do I choose? It's stupid. Not voting sends a clear message that I don't like the established set of candidates and until such time as someone comes along that I think will actually be a benefit to this country, I will continue to keep my vote silent. Your method is madness and does nothing to help the larger problem!


=-Rigs-=

Mr. Tact wrote on Jun 30, 2015, 22:51:

harlock wrote on Jun 30, 2015, 17:57:
also, it would have to be digital because violent options are impossible. but if you shut down enough infrastructures and backbones and so forth, it would be much more difficult for them to respond to it... regardless of the military aspect, the idea of wiping debts and account records and so forth etc would be the main goal

Thank you, Tyler Durden. You can return to the basement now.

If the problem is electing the same people over and over, how is not voting at all solving the problem? Maybe if everyone who thought that way had gotten up and voted for Ross Perot, Ron Paul or Ralph Nader maybe something would have gotten changed. Don't misunderstand, you have it mostly right. There isn't much difference between the Rs and the Ds. But non-participation would seem to be more like a surrender than anything.

There are no easy answers. Term limits? Sounds good, until you realize that writing laws is complex -- and if the legislature is getting over turned all the time it just means the non-elected staffers will end up being the ones writing the laws. New parties? The system is effectively rigged against it.

I would very much like to be able to jump ahead a couple of hundred years and see how it all turns out...

thank you, joe sixpack, you can go back to sleep now

Sepharo wrote on Jun 30, 2015, 23:36:

nin wrote on Jun 30, 2015, 23:27:

mag wrote on Jun 30, 2015, 23:14:

Rigs wrote on Jun 30, 2015, 15:27:
And what do we all do? Sit here and bitch about it. Yet, come election day, we'll gladly check those marks for the same bastards that have been in office most of their life and probably will retire there...

I'm sorry, you can't complain (well, I mean you 'can', but still) if you blindly go in and vote the same mothersfuckers in each and every time and each and every time they do nothing. Who's stupider? The fool or the fool that keeps voting them into office?

I'm 37 and I haven't voted once in my life. Not once. Only because no one has come around that had me thinking they would actually make a damn bit of difference. And I don't foresee anyone in the near half century either! Dark, sad days ahead of us and the only one to blame is ourselves!

=-Rigs-=

By not voting, you are implicitly voting them in yourself. Thanks, buddy!

Gotta respectfully agree. When it finally comes down to two candidates(*), you don't vote for who you want to win, you vote against who you think will do the most damage.

*(ignoring third party candidates, that sadly stand no chance, and only draw % away from either of the majority candidates)

I don't think it was you, but I remember arguing with some other Okie who was into the whole, "It's pointless, my guy won't even come close, why should I bother" argument. Couldn't get them to concede that every vote counts. By not voting you're guaranteeing that it will continue to be pointless, by voting and encouraging other like minded people to vote you increase the chances... And even when you still lose, the surge is hard to ignore and will affect the conversation and the next election, that's how momentum is built.

Edit: Oh derp, I finally put in the right search terms... That was you
I actually know of a surprising amount of people from Oklahoma on the forums I'm on.
And I should clarify that you didn't say you weren't voting, just that you felt your vote "didn't count". But no need to rehash that discussion.

Yeah, that was me. I understand your position, but I can assure you that the conversation is never affected. It's fucking redneck central here, and until they die out, it's not going to change.

Political apathy is what the elite wants.

nin wrote on Jun 30, 2015, 23:27:

mag wrote on Jun 30, 2015, 23:14:

Rigs wrote on Jun 30, 2015, 15:27:
And what do we all do? Sit here and bitch about it. Yet, come election day, we'll gladly check those marks for the same bastards that have been in office most of their life and probably will retire there...

I'm sorry, you can't complain (well, I mean you 'can', but still) if you blindly go in and vote the same mothersfuckers in each and every time and each and every time they do nothing. Who's stupider? The fool or the fool that keeps voting them into office?

I'm 37 and I haven't voted once in my life. Not once. Only because no one has come around that had me thinking they would actually make a damn bit of difference. And I don't foresee anyone in the near half century either! Dark, sad days ahead of us and the only one to blame is ourselves!

=-Rigs-=

By not voting, you are implicitly voting them in yourself. Thanks, buddy!

Gotta respectfully agree. When it finally comes down to two candidates(*), you don't vote for who you want to win, you vote against who you think will do the most damage.

*(ignoring third party candidates, that sadly stand no chance, and only draw % away from either of the majority candidates)

I don't think it was you, but I remember arguing with some other Okie who was into the whole, "It's pointless, my guy won't even come close, why should I bother" argument. Couldn't get them to concede that every vote counts. By not voting you're guaranteeing that it will continue to be pointless, by voting and encouraging other like minded people to vote you increase the chances... And even when you still lose, the surge is hard to ignore and will affect the conversation and the next election, that's how momentum is built.

Edit: Oh derp, I finally put in the right search terms... That was you
I actually know of a surprising amount of people from Oklahoma on the forums I'm on.
And I should clarify that you didn't say you weren't voting, just that you felt your vote "didn't count". But no need to rehash that discussion.

This comment was edited on Jun 30, 2015, 23:43.

mag wrote on Jun 30, 2015, 23:14:

Rigs wrote on Jun 30, 2015, 15:27:
And what do we all do? Sit here and bitch about it. Yet, come election day, we'll gladly check those marks for the same bastards that have been in office most of their life and probably will retire there...

I'm sorry, you can't complain (well, I mean you 'can', but still) if you blindly go in and vote the same mothersfuckers in each and every time and each and every time they do nothing. Who's stupider? The fool or the fool that keeps voting them into office?

I'm 37 and I haven't voted once in my life. Not once. Only because no one has come around that had me thinking they would actually make a damn bit of difference. And I don't foresee anyone in the near half century either! Dark, sad days ahead of us and the only one to blame is ourselves!

=-Rigs-=

By not voting, you are implicitly voting them in yourself. Thanks, buddy!

Gotta respectfully agree. When it finally comes down to two candidates(*), you don't vote for who you want to win, you vote against who you think will do the most damage.

*(ignoring third party candidates, that sadly stand no chance, and only draw % away from either of the majority candidates)

Rigs wrote on Jun 30, 2015, 15:27:
And what do we all do? Sit here and bitch about it. Yet, come election day, we'll gladly check those marks for the same bastards that have been in office most of their life and probably will retire there...

I'm sorry, you can't complain (well, I mean you 'can', but still) if you blindly go in and vote the same mothersfuckers in each and every time and each and every time they do nothing. Who's stupider? The fool or the fool that keeps voting them into office?

I'm 37 and I haven't voted once in my life. Not once. Only because no one has come around that had me thinking they would actually make a damn bit of difference. And I don't foresee anyone in the near half century either! Dark, sad days ahead of us and the only one to blame is ourselves!

=-Rigs-=

By not voting, you are implicitly voting them in yourself. Thanks, buddy!

harlock wrote on Jun 30, 2015, 17:57:
also, it would have to be digital because violent options are impossible. but if you shut down enough infrastructures and backbones and so forth, it would be much more difficult for them to respond to it... regardless of the military aspect, the idea of wiping debts and account records and so forth etc would be the main goal

Thank you, Tyler Durden. You can return to the basement now.

If the problem is electing the same people over and over, how is not voting at all solving the problem? Maybe if everyone who thought that way had gotten up and voted for Ross Perot, Ron Paul or Ralph Nader maybe something would have gotten changed. Don't misunderstand, you have it mostly right. There isn't much difference between the Rs and the Ds. But non-participation would seem to be more like a surrender than anything.

There are no easy answers. Term limits? Sounds good, until you realize that writing laws is complex -- and if the legislature is getting over turned all the time it just means the non-elected staffers will end up being the ones writing the laws. New parties? The system is effectively rigged against it.

I would very much like to be able to jump ahead a couple of hundred years and see how it all turns out...

This comment was edited on Jun 30, 2015, 23:18.

Do planes really dogfight anymore? I thought they just shot missiles at each other from 200 miles away.

The whole thing seems like last year's war anyway. Going forward who isn't going to use a swarm of drones?

Rigs wrote on Jun 30, 2015, 15:27:
I'm 37 and I haven't voted once in my life. Not once. Only because no one has come around that had me thinking they would actually make a damn bit of difference. And I don't foresee anyone in the near half century either! Dark, sad days ahead of us and the only one to blame is ourselves!

the only chance is another, real, actual revolution against the government - except this time it would inevitably include the corporatocracy as well..

also, it would have to be digital because violent options are impossible. but if you shut down enough infrastructures and backbones and so forth, it would be much more difficult for them to respond to it... regardless of the military aspect, the idea of wiping debts and account records and so forth etc would be the main goal

And what do we all do? Sit here and bitch about it. Yet, come election day, we'll gladly check those marks for the same bastards that have been in office most of their life and probably will retire there...

I'm sorry, you can't complain (well, I mean you 'can', but still) if you blindly go in and vote the same mothersfuckers in each and every time and each and every time they do nothing. Who's stupider? The fool or the fool that keeps voting them into office?

I'm 37 and I haven't voted once in my life. Not once. Only because no one has come around that had me thinking they would actually make a damn bit of difference. And I don't foresee anyone in the near half century either! Dark, sad days ahead of us and the only one to blame is ourselves!


=-Rigs-=

It's the Bradley Fighting vehicle all over again. Watch "The Pentagon Wars" if you're unfamiliar. It's an excellent HBO movie about the creation of that thing. It's on amazon instant video too!

So it's another trillion dollars the US taxpayers have been fleeced for by the MIIC when the same results could be achieved with drones and missiles for 1/100th the cost. But that would make sense and the boys in the MIIC wouldn't be too happy with that.

descender wrote on Jun 30, 2015, 10:20:
The ability of the F-35 to "dogfight" is really irrelevant, it simply isn't designed to do it. Of course it failed to keep up with an F-16, a plane that was designed to dogfight a MiG.

The last official "confirmed" dogfight that I can find happened in 1991, most aerial combat now happens "beyond visual range" at distances of over 80 miles. This is the new war, face to face combat is going the way of the dinosaur.

That is not to excuse it from the clusterfuck of funding and technical problems it has had of course... It would literally have been cheaper to write every person who has worked on it a $1million check than to design this plane we really don't even need anymore. Good luck getting the breadbasket of this country (US) to stop building military hardware though lol... they'd all be out of work.

That's all good and fine until you are given an order to obtain a visual IFF before engaging. Or until Russian and Chinese stealth tech prevents BVR attacks. Etc.

- The brand new F-35 lost to a 40 year old design saddled with two external fuel tanks.
- The F-35 helmet is so bulky, the pilot couldn't turn his head to see if the F-16 was behind him.

The F-35 has so many design flaws being designed to do too many different roles. There should have been 3 different planes for 3 different roles: a stealthy air force fighter/bomber, a stealthy naval fighter/bomber, and a vtol/vstol fighter for the marines. Not even sure that last one is necessary. So many tradeoffs are required for vtol that it severely hampers the performance of the aircraft. The F-22 was expensive and a boondoggle as well, but at least it does what it's supposed to and very well too.

The ability of the F-35 to "dogfight" is really irrelevant, it simply isn't designed to do it. Of course it failed to keep up with an F-16, a plane that was designed to dogfight a MiG

This. Dogfighting is obsolete. It's possible a fighter will get into a dogfight but it will be an anomaly. The strategy of air power currently is to fly an enormous radar system into the air, AWACS, and then that is the only thing shooting easily visible radar. It's hundreds of miles from the front lines. The fighters go in passive, the AWACS sends them to the enemies and they pop radar on a split second before they fire. There is almost no warning and it's brutally effective.

That is why they want fighters that can't be picked up on radar. If the enemy is lucky they might spot our fighters a little earlier if they're using active radar. (it's like using a flashlight at night) They can sure as hell see our AWACS they just can't hit it and they know there are fighters between them and the AWACS.

The AWACS with a dozen F15's has been completely dominant in air engagements up to now. Add the F22 and their hope is that those fighters will be almost impossible to spot even for air defenses on the ground and the enemy will simply see their planes start exploding in the sky and bombers like the F117 and B2 mean they can also make things start exploding on the ground with very little danger from air defenses.

In order for dogfighting to start mattering again there would have to be some new technology invented that spotted aircraft reliably and neutralized the "stealth" features. Even then missiles would take out most targets long before dogfighting was possible and it'd probably be cheaper all round to just use dozens and dozens of drones. You can send drones on suicide missions as well. Sort of like a cruise missile but it can just sit up there and wait.