Most Americans trust the military and scientists to act in the public’s interest

[LuisDantas]

I find it interesting how few trust the media.

The media is a convenient scapegoat.

It is widely watched, has room for the whole variety of viewpoints and degrees of responsibility for what they say, and yet has no decision power of its own.

We may confortably mistrust and even hate it for as long as we want without actually falling into any obvious contradiction for not doing anything about it.

It is just too convenient for people who fail to notice or to enjoy their responsibility over the political reality.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think they hit a "random sampling glitch" in this one because I'm just not buying those numbers. Or maybe wording glitch, or something, but that just does not reflect the fact America has so many evolution and global warming deniers, were the media is worsening our elections, and for a country filled with people who don't trust the "secular" public education system where angry monkey butt sex is taught and kids told to go ahead and encouraged to sexually experiment with the same sex and even try being the opposite gender, even if that's not your thing, I'm just not believing that of trust/mistrust, and just over 40% having little-to-no trust in religious leaders, and I can list off many churches that I personally know of that factually did schism over leadership (even in states that aren't Indiana).
Definitely one I want to see repeated and closely examined.

Hm, actually what scientist would be great for president? They would have the smarts but would they have the political knowledge and fortitude?

A lot of them, probably not. There's a good number of social outcasts, geeks, nerds, and even metal heads and Aspies in the science community. And when you look at people who are the public "face" of science, like Niel Degrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, and even Richard Dawkins, we've only seen one them display the required "tooth and claw" of politics.
I've not read any studies, but I just don't see there being much of an interest in political leadership among scientists. It does happen, but it doesn't seem to happen often.

 

[Revoltingest]

The military is a major political force in nearly any country. I don't think the USA can claim to be an exception.

I don't think you have it right for most first world countries, eg, Canuckistan, Americastan, Japan, Not-So-Great Britan.

A man after my own heart.

Woo hoo!

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think you have it right for most first world countries, eg, Canuckistan, Americastan, Japan, Not-So-Great Britan.

I am actually surprised. I don't even know how you can think so.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hm, actually what scientist would be great for president? They would have the smarts but would they have the political knowledge and fortitude?

It sure looks like the general level of scientific education of the community makes far more of a difference than the specific people in decision positions.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am actually surprised. I don't even know how you can think so.

Well....
- I live here.
- I've worked in the defense industry.
- I know many military types.
- I watch government's machinations.

That's how.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well....
- I live here.
- I've worked in the defense industry.
- I know many military types.
- I watch government's machinations.

That's how.

How do you feel about Eisenhower's famous warning?

 

[Revoltingest]

How do you feel about Eisenhower's famous warning?

It was vacuous.

Conspiracy theorists love to latch upon what a politician says as proof.
But remember that they'll say anything for political gain.
Remember that a politician once....
- Spent a trillion dollars sending us into Iraq on the pretext of WMDs.
- Told us the ACA would cut our insurance costs.
- Told us that we didn't invade Cambodia.
- Told us that she landed under sniper fire.
So Eisenhower is not my prophet.
One must look at the system & its behavior for oneself, & judge therefrom.

 

[LuisDantas]

We will have to agree to disagree then. Your facts are correct, but I can't agree with your interpretations.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A lot of people here have family members in the military or grandparents that have been in the military. Most people have an idea about what new recruits are taught. People trust the soldiers not to go along with a coup.

People are not generally aware of the military's increasing levels of automation. It is possible that the military could become too automated, and then it would not deserve as much trust. I would have no confidence in a military of drones, and I don't trust the automated drones that we now have.

 

[LuisDantas]

A lot of people here have family members in the military or grandparents that have been in the military. Most people have an idea about what new recruits are taught. People trust the soldiers not to go along with a coup.

People are not generally aware of the military's increasing levels of automation. It is possible that the military could become too automated, and then it would not deserve as much trust. I would have no confidence in a military of drones, and I don't trust the automated drones that we now have.

Never mind the computer automation, I don't think most people who trust the military are well aware of how oppressive military discipline is.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Never mind the computer automation, I don't think most people who trust the military are well aware of how oppressive military discipline is.

Over here people are familiar with how the military is run. Its not a secret. Many military personnel leave the military and return to civilian life. This is very common here, and you will find ex-military people everywhere. It is unusual for someone to stay in the military for very many years. Most choose to leave. We currently do not compel citizens to join the military at this time, so joining is mostly voluntary. Most people who join do it for college tuition. Once they do some time in the military they get money for college.

 

[Valjean]

Seems plausible though.
Individuals who serve their country with low pay & some risk seem noble to most.

You must be talking about the Peace corps or Americorps.
The military is hardly "serving" the country -- at least if you equate 'the country' with the people and not the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex[/QUOTE]

How do you feel about Eisenhower's famous warning?

Prescient.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I might have missed it, but trust them to do what?

 

[Revoltingest]

You must be talking about the Peace corps or Americorps.

That would fit them too, but they aren't the subject of the OP.

The military is hardly "serving" the country -- at least if you equate 'the country' with the people and not the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex

Prescient.[/QUOTE]
While you disagree, I speak of most in the country, who believe soldiers do serve the country.
We do need a defense, after all.
Don't lose sight of that as politicians misuse our military for offensive wars (as Hillary has done).

 

[Valjean]

That would fit them too, but they aren't the subject of the OP.

Prescient.

While you disagree, I speak of most in the country, who believe soldiers do serve the country.
We do need a defense, after all.
Don't lose sight of that as politicians misuse our military for offensive wars (as Hillary has done).

There is no existential threat to the US. Our military is not protecting our shores. What are they defending against?
America's enemies are generated by the same military that purports to defend us from them..

 

[Revoltingest]

There is no existential threat to the US. Our military is not protecting our shores. What are they defending against?

At the moment, they're attacking rather than defending.
But we do need a defense for 2 reasons....
1) To defend against an attack. We don't know who might, but it's possible. It's happened before, & could happen again.
2) A strong defense can inoculate us against attack, ie, it would be very much to the detriment of the attacker.

America's enemies are generated by the same military that purports to defend us from them..

I agree.
That's why I believe in a military solely for defense....not for foreign adventurism.

You need to fix your post.....the quote feature is all goofed up.

 

[Quintessence]

I might have missed it, but trust them to do what?

This question gets at the difficult of interpreting the results of questions like this. While the poll question was framed as being about these groups doing what is in the "best interest" of "the public," what does that really mean? And is that really applicable to all of these groups? Religious groups in particular are often not interested in serving the general public, they are interested in serving their adherents.

 

[Valjean]

At the moment, they're attacking rather than defending.
But we do need a defense for 2 reasons....
1) To defend against an attack. We don't know who might, but it's possible. It's happened before, & could happen again.
2) A strong defense can inoculate us against attack, ie, it would be very much to the detriment of the attacker.

I agree.
That's why I believe in a military solely for defense....not for foreign adventurism.

You need to fix your post.....the quote feature is all goofed up.

D'oh! Fixed.

Oddly enough, I think we're pretty much in agreement, here.
I can see the usefulness of the Coast Guard and National Guard, and if we have to have a military deterrent my first choice would be a Swiss style system. Under (literally) the pretty scenery they're armed to the teeth.

I think the risk of actual invasion here is vanishingly small. It would just be too costly. There's no way the benefits could justify the risks.
Recall the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The sparsely populated, untrained, poorly equipped Afghans managed to oust a superpower, and there is also the US experience in Viet Nam.

The US is fairly bristling with modern weapons, big and small. We're huge. We have moats on both sides. The logistics just wouldn't justify an attack.

Our military, on the whole, is offensive. The "defense" Department should assume its previous title.

 

[Revoltingest]

D'oh! Fixed.

Oddly enough, I think we're pretty much in agreement, here.
I can see the usefulness of the Coast Guard and National Guard, and if we have to have a military deterrent my first choice would be a Swiss style system. Under (literally) the pretty scenery they're armed to the teeth.

I think the risk of actual invasion here is vanishingly small. It would just be too costly. There's no way the benefits could justify the risks.
Recall the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The sparsely populated, untrained, poorly equipped Afghans managed to oust a superpower, and there is also the US experience in Viet Nam.

The US is fairly bristling with modern weapons, big and small. We're huge. We have moats on both sides. The logistics just wouldn't justify an attack.

Our military, on the whole, is offensive. The "defense" Department should assume its previous title.

I see more possibilities.
To bristle with weapons is useful.
And the kind of weapons is important because of evolving enemy capability.
I think we should go further by hardening & distributing our infrastructure.
We're quite vulnerable to taking out our electrical, fuel & communication systems.
And finally, we must stop creating enemies with our blundering violent costly military adventures.
Defense is a complex thing....far bigger than military capability.