It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

If what side you picked during election decided who could be drafted

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 03:39 AM
link   
I was wondering how people would vote if they are forced to live with their pick? For instance say you vote for hillary and she starts a war. Only people who voted for hillary if she won pres could be enlisted to fight in her war and the same for trump if he became president. Active military at the time could op out or in if they wish. I wonder how many head of house holds would vote or if they would vote at all knowing that it would be their 16 or 17 year old children forced into conflict once they turned 18?
If a draft was called.

I'm sick of the warhawks in my own country feeding off the fact that its not going to be them or their children fighting in the wars they help start. I think voting would change forever and people would begin to take interest in voting and not just vote for who they think will win or for their own personal interests.

What do you think? Obviously politicians couldn't exempt their own family from this. Is this a bad idea or a good idea? Do you have any ideas on how to stop the endless wars mongering of politicians?



edit on 22-10-2016 by digital01anarchy because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 03:51 AM
link   


What do you think? Obviously politicians couldn't exempt their own family from this. Is this a bad idea or a good idea? Do you have any ideas on how to stop the endless wars mongering of politicians?
a reply to: digital01anarchy

There's strength in numbers. Until the people of the U.S. unite and say enough is enough we will continue to have political leaders who want to wage war. The two presidential candidates wouldn't hesitate to throw us into another world conflict.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: digital01anarchy

Since I'm the shady side of fifty, and I'm not voting for either of them, where does that leave me????



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: digital01anarchy

Since I'm the shady side of fifty, and I'm not voting for either of them, where does that leave me????



Im not sure it was just an idea i had because i think more people are bandwagon pickers then are actually truely interested in politics.

Lets say it puts you in a higher tax bracket ie you would pay more in taxes to off set the cost of the war. I know that wouldnt matter considering the government just takes out loans to fund their wars and expects us all to pay it back. But i figure put your money where you mouth is.Everytime their is a conflict or war everyone not old enough to fight that voted for that president would help pay.

If you decide not to vote thats fine however your vote will automatically be given to the winning political party. Hey you can always go for green or some other party you will not be forced to pick between only two options.
edit on 22-10-2016 by digital01anarchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 05:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeRpeons


What do you think? Obviously politicians couldn't exempt their own family from this. Is this a bad idea or a good idea? Do you have any ideas on how to stop the endless wars mongering of politicians?
a reply to: digital01anarchy

There's strength in numbers. Until the people of the U.S. unite and say enough is enough we will continue to have political leaders who want to wage war. The two presidential candidates wouldn't hesitate to throw us into another world conflict.


Yeah thats the point imagine nobody voting for them ie THE two party system and voting green or libertarian or some other party. I believe it would break up the monopoly on votes for the two party system because people alreafy know the two party system is bs



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Good lord no... I dont want any of the rabid supporters of the DNC or the GOP watching my back on deployment.

I want people there that chose to be there, and believe in the Constitution, and understand their oath to be there.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: digital01anarchy

Since I'm the shady side of fifty, and I'm not voting for either of them, where does that leave me????



Human shield if hillary wins?







posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   
The draft never went away. They always have the option to implement whatever strategy they want or need at any given time. That's how the draft started!

Now, if you would like to lessen the chance of women being called up I would vote for Hillary. She is not going to let the millions of illegals aliens just loaf around. She would grant them citizenship and they would immediately be eligible to be drafted, serve jury duty...you name it. Probably even front load them for retribution for entering illegally. Kinda what she does if you read some of the emails. She kisses you on the cheek and stabs you in the back and front at the same time as one email stated.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 08:01 AM
link   
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
They're starting a big war intentionally so they can bring beck the draft and ship off all the able bodied fighters over seas.

That makes it easier to go door to door disarming the populace. If most of the able are gone, that leaves only the un-able.
An armed revolution can't take place if all of the fighters are out getting killed for a made up cause.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: digital01anarchy

You said "could be enlisted to fight". Wrong terminology.

Enlistment is voluntary. To be DRAFTED-is forced into the military and fighting, unless you can get out in some legal way....and thats not so easy.

No...'dont think many who voted for a candidate would want to go fight by being forced to because of how they voted.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I love my country, and I fear my government.
If they start a conventional WWIII it will be because of TPTB, no matter how it's presented to us--e.g., freedom, blah blah blah. And if that conflict involves the draft, I'lll personally start shuttling people to Canada.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: digital01anarchy

Problem is, most Hillary supporters would just back out, cry a lot, and not take responsibility for their actions.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
The US military will never ask for a draft. It does not want conscripts period. Conscription is now a tool of nations who can not afford a professional military. And frankly nobody can predict what President or policy could lead to war. Wars have been caused by taking and aggressive stand and some of the biggest wars have been caused by taking and more defensive isolationist stance.

So nobody wants a draft, and trying to tie it voting is makes no sense.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

That lesson was learned the hard way. Vietnam.

Generally speaking, one word answers are seldom enough. But that's the only word you'll ever need on the topic of re-instituting the draft. Vietnam.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

That's it. There won't be another draft. It's a deal breaker for support of the endless so called "wars". Start a draft and see how fast the public turns against fighting around the world for corporate interests and overthrowing nations.
edit on 10/22/2016 by roadgravel because: typo



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Only if the people are informed enough to care.

I'm 53, Vietnam is barely a life memory for me. Anyone much younger than me knows little to nothing about it, and the political aspects surrounding it.

I'm better informed than the average American voter, yet I sometimes find myself beginning to be swayed...and have to consciously force myself to ignore the "information" being thrown at me.

I grew up reading and thinking, when I wasn't outside getting into trouble. All too many of todays voters were brought up in front of the TV. How are kids being brought up today? Much the same way--gaming and the internet, and TV.

Re-instituting the draft would be greeted with, in many circles, apathy. Or glee, depending upon the reasoning put forward. For some it would be a chance to "kill some raghead sumbitches!!" or words to that effect. Others, possibly a way to bet out of a bad life. Almost none would be worried about corporations or anything of the sort. Those that did? They'd be shouted down.

I could be wrong, and I hope I am. But I look at who is going to be our next President? ...and I'm not sanguine about our immediate future as a country...oh, it'll survive, in name maybe...but how recognizable will it be??



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   


Re-instituting the draft would be greeted with, in many circles, apathy. Or glee, depending upon the reasoning put forward. For some it would be a chance to "kill some raghead sumbitches!!" or words to that effect.


The same applied to Vietnam. In the end, most realized what a waste it actually was.

Starting drafting people who don't believe in the wars and see how long the apathy lasts.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeRpeons


What do you think? Obviously politicians couldn't exempt their own family from this. Is this a bad idea or a good idea? Do you have any ideas on how to stop the endless wars mongering of politicians?
a reply to: digital01anarchy

There's strength in numbers. Until the people of the U.S. unite and say enough is enough we will continue to have political leaders who want to wage war. The two presidential candidates wouldn't hesitate to throw us into another world conflict.

But this perspective is overlooking the fact that many Americans want those wars & interventions. Aside from the obvious warmongers who want to bomb any country they disagree with, we can't forget that the major companies affiliated with the MIC are publicly owned. This means that many Americans have investments in those companies' stocks and/or bonds. Plus, our defense industry and defense related govt agencies employ a lot of Americans. All of these people have an economic incentive to continue those wars.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   


This means that many Americans have investments in those companies' stocks and/or bonds. Plus, our defense industry and defense related govt agencies employ a lot of Americans. All of these people have an economic incentive to continue those wars.


It that same old the "rich get richer off wars and the poor die and lose in the long run".



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel



Re-instituting the draft would be greeted with, in many circles, apathy. Or glee, depending upon the reasoning put forward. For some it would be a chance to "kill some raghead sumbitches!!" or words to that effect.


The same applied to Vietnam. In the end, most realized what a waste it actually was.

Starting drafting people who don't believe in the wars and see how long the apathy lasts.

I get what you're trying to say but I disagree with this idea. Punishing the people who aren't a part of the problem is no way to solve a problem. It's forcing the people who don't believe in a war to either kill/die for that war or go to jail for refusing to show up after being drafted. That would solve nothing and would simply take us back to the problems we had with the previous draft.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join