![Anon follows the money [927x6648 - 1.17MB]](https://pic8.co/sh/P2Pt9X.png){kind=link}
His understanding of the financial system is pretty rudimentary and a lot of his assumptions based on his rudimentary understanding are incorrect.
He also seems to be just assuming that the draft is going to result in more conservatives being made into soldiers than liberals. He would be hard pressed to support that argument with actual facts and historical information. There were over 10 million draftees in ww2 and only 45 thousand claimed to be concientous objectors. At that time most of them were pacifists for religious reasons. There's no reason to assume they would vote for democrats the rest of their lives after surviving the war.
It may not have been intentional: draft boards selected strong, hardworking men.
Pansies and effeminate men were held out.
A correlation of even a few percent could account for a lot.
They just assigned them differently. Short guys got put on submarines. Skinny guys got put on planes and ships. If their number was up they still got sent to war
It seems less like the war eliminated men with conservative beliefs, and more like the period of peace and prosperity that followed made people more amenable to an expanded welfare state. Also, the biggest components of that welfare state are popular among Republicans and Democrats. There was/is definitely a factor of baby boomers being a huge voting block that protects Social Security and Medicare from cuts. But the main thing that's been driving their insolvency is not expansion of benefits; it's the longer lifespans -- of course going hand in hand with increased real medical costs as a share of GDP.
Be specific. What assumptions are wrong? What are examples of his rudimentary understanding?
I agree he would be hard pressed to show the political affiliation of draftees because I guarantee that information is not available and he was assuming.
I'm not going to do that. It takes too long to teach people who don't understand how the system works and when I've tried it in the past they usually end up not believing it anyway because they don't know enough about it.
I'm comfortable just suggesting that you take that part with a grain of salt and leaving it at that. Feel free to take yourself down that rabbit hole if you like.
In other words, you can't explain why, and are just well poisoning.
I'm not opposed to doing my own research, but would really appreciate any carrots you could provide to set it off in the right direction.
His understanding of the financial system is pretty rudimentary and a lot of his assumptions based on his rudimentary understanding are incorrect.
Yet you do not correct them.
(post is archived)